What's going on with the Executive Departments

[GreyhoundFan]

"Federal student aid chief quits, warning of management issues under DeVos"

Spoiler

The Education Department’s top student financial aid officer, a holdover from the Obama administration, quit the position Tuesday night and sent an email to his staff warning about brewing management problems he perceived within the agency.

James Runcie was appointed chief operating officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid in 2011 and reappointed in 2015, a five-year term that was slated to end in 2020. He had planned to retire by the end of the year, according to people who know him, but clashes with the new Trump administration forced his hand.

The department announced Runcie’s resignation Wednesday. Runcie did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Department spokeswoman Liz Hill said Runcie refused Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s request that he testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday about the department’s handling of improper financial aid payments.

“Congress requested Mr. Runcie to testify and Mr. Runcie refused to appear. The Secretary directed Mr. Runcie to comply with the request of Congress and to answer questions regarding oversight within FSA and repeated issues concerning improper payments,” Hill said, in an email. “He chose to resign rather than face Congress.”

An email Runcie sent to his staff Tuesday night, obtained by The Washington Post, shows some of his thinking about the situation. In the email, Runcie said he declined to testify because Jay Hurt, the chief financial officer at FSA, is the expert and the point man at the agency on the subject. Runcie said that “the department has spent considerable time and resources to ensure the Jay is well prepared for the testimony” and he had not “heard a single compelling reason” from DeVos’s staff as to why he needed to attend the hearing.

“In less dire circumstances, I would consider testifying as I have done on five previous occasions. However … I am incredibly concerned about significant constraints being placed on our ability to allocate and prioritize resources, make decisions and deliver on the organization’s mission,” Runcie wrote.

He continued: “We have dozens of pages of decisions that have been typically made within Federal Student Aid that are now required to be elevated to the Department level. Once at the Department level, the decision making framework and process is not clear to anyone at FSA and the cycle time continues to increase risk for our work streams and stakeholders.”

Runcie said in the letter that the student aid office is contending with pressing projects. Among them: weighing a student-loan-servicing contract bid, shoring up cybersecurity, building out the expansion of the Pell Grant program, tending to loan forgiveness for defrauded borrowers and getting the tax-data-retreival tool in the financial aid application back online. He said his team has asked DeVos to hire staff for additional help but has yet to receive a response.

Instead, Runcie said, the Trump administration has been preoccupied with transferring all or a portion of the functions of FSA to the Treasury Department. Runcie said there have been discussions about creating cross-agency teams, holding numerous meetings and retreats to determine feasibility.

“This is just another example of a project that may provide some value but will certainly divert critical resources and increase operational risk in an increasingly challenging environment,” Runcie said of the Treasury collaboration.

He went on to thank his team but said he has been “encumbered from exercising my authorities to properly lead” and could no longer “in good conscience continue to be accountable as the chief operating officer given the risk associated with the current environment at the department.”

Senior officials within FSA, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said Runcie’s departure left many in the financial aid office befuddled and, in some cases, in tears. One 25-year veteran of the department said Runcie had the respect of leaders in the office because of his dedication to a difficult job, but Runcie refused to be “thrown to the wolves” at the hearing.

The official said the administration has shown a lack of respect for civil servants at the department, even though DeVos publicly praised their work when she first took office. The secretary also has said she is keeping an eye out for employees sympathetic to the Obama administration who might try to “subvert” the mission of the department.

“Any person with knowledge of Federal Student Aid’s operations understands that FSA has faced a litany of unsolved problems going back years,” Hill, the spokeswoman, said. “The Secretary looks forward to finding a highly qualified candidate to effectively lead FSA and maintain the public’s trust in this agency so important to students.”

Matthew Sessa, the deputy chief operating officer of FSA, will assume Runcie’s duties until further notice.

“It is deeply troubling to see that Department of Education civil servants do not feel they can adequately do their jobs in the current environment under Secretary DeVos and feel the need to resign in protest,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “This kind of chaos, mismanagement, and undue political interference is not a surprise, but it is still deeply disappointing.”

Under Runcie, the student aid office, which provides more than $150 billion in federal grants, loans and work-study funds to college students, has been the subject of more criticism than praise.

Runcie oversaw what many consider a successful transition from bank-based federal student lending to a system in which the government is the only direct provider of federal students loans. That transition eventually turned the student aid office into one of the nation’s largest lenders as its portfolio of loans grew from $750 billion at the end of 2010 to $1.2 trillion.

It also led to headaches for the office.

As the portfolio mushroomed, some policy experts said the student aid office lacked the expertise to analyze student loan data and spot trouble in the portfolio. They worried that the office was incapable of identifying risks and catching borrowers before they fell through the cracks. And as student loan defaults climbed and reports of poor loan servicing surfaced, advocacy groups and lawmakers became increasingly critical of Runcie’s leadership.

“Secretary DeVos has an important opportunity to instill new leadership and a new direction within the agency,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement. “This committee has repeatedly raised concerns about mismanagement within the Office of Federal Student Aid. Mr. Runcie has stood at the center of this mismanagement for years, and our concerns have largely fallen on deaf ears.”

Audits by federal watchdogs have called into question the effectiveness and competency of the student aid office because of its management of third-party companies charged with handling student loan payments or collecting on past due accounts.

A 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office criticized FSA’s instructions and guidance to loan servicing companies, which results in “inconsistent and inefficient services to borrowers.” Servicing companies complained of receiving no instructions for applying excess payments to a borrower’s account or how to handle reporting adverse credit history to credit bureaus, for instance. The GAO said the student aid office failed to consistently share information with all of its contractors.

People who have worked with Runcie say he tried to reform the problems in the loan-servicing system through the new contract solicitation.

“He and FSA and the department were well on the way to taking care of a lot of the issues,” said Ted Mitchell, who was under secretary of education under President Barack Obama. “I think those issues were largely structural, having to do with standing up overnight an incredibly complicated financial services organization.”

 

Another good person gone, thanks to one of Agent Orange's sycophants.

[fraurosena]

13 hours ago, JMarie said:

Be prepared to scream!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/ben-carson-poverty-state-of-mind/index.html

 

What a fucking fuckity fucker!

I vote we take everything from him then and set him out in the streets... give him a taste of his own ideas. Let's see how long he lasts.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

More from the black hole that is Betsy DeVos: "Five startling things Betsy DeVos just told Congress"

Spoiler

Does this sound familiar? Betsy DeVos went to Capitol Hill to testify before U.S. lawmakers. She didn’t answer a lot of direct questions and engaged in some contentious debates with some members.

That happened in January when she went before the Senate education committee for her confirmation hearing, during which she said schools needed guns to protect against grizzly bears. This time, though, the education secretary didn’t talk about guns, but she did say that states should have the right to decide whether private schools that accept publicly funded voucher students should be allowed to discriminate against students for whatever reason they want.

DeVos testified before the House subcommittee on labor, health and human services, education and related agencies about the Trump administration’s 2018 budget proposal, which cuts $10.6 billion — or more than 13 percent — from education programs and re-invests $1.4 billion of the savings into promoting school choice.

Both DeVos and President Trump have said expanding alternatives to traditional public schools are their top priority, and during tough questioning from some committee members, DeVos doubled down on that as well as on giving states and local communities flexibility to do what they want with their education programs. It is worth noting, however, that she said recently that people who don’t agree with expanding school choice are “flat Earthers,” people who refuse to face the facts.

Most of the contentious conversation was between DeVos and Democratic members, but even the Republican chairman of the subcommittee, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, took gentle issue with her about cuts in a favored program of his, and another Republican questioned her about her claim that she was following congressional intent.

...

Here are five rather startling things she said — or wouldn’t say:

1. States should have the flexibility to decide whether private schools that accept students with publicly funded vouchers can discriminate any students for any reason

Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-Mass.) said that one private school in Indiana that is a voucher school says it may deny admission to students who are LGBT or who come from a family where there is “homosexual or bisexual activity.” She asked DeVos whether she would tell the state of Indiana that it could not discriminate in that way if it were to accept federal funding through a new school choice program. Clark further asked what DeVos would say if a voucher school were not accepting African American students and the state “said it was okay.”

To Clark’s question about whether she would step in, DeVos responded: “Well again, the Office of Civil Rights and our Title IX protections are broadly applicable across the board, but when it comes to parents making choices on behalf of their students …”

Clark interrupted and said, “This isn’t about parents making choices, this is about the use of federal dollars. Is there any situation? Would you say to Indiana, that school cannot discriminate against LGBT students if you want to receive federal dollars? Or would you say the state has the flexibility?”

DeVos said: “I believe states should continue to have flexibility in putting together programs …”

Clark interrupted, saying: “So if I understand your testimony — I want to make sure I get this right. There is no situation of discrimination or exclusion that if a state approved it for its voucher program that you would step in and say that’s not how we are going to use our federal dollars?”

DeVos said she didn’t want to answer a hypothetical question. Clark said it wasn’t hypothetical, and asked if she saw any circumstance that the federal government would tell a state that it could not allow a private voucher school to discriminate against students.

At that point time expired, but DeVos was allowed to respond.

DeVos: “I go back to the bottom line — is we believe parents are the best equipped to make choices for their children’s schooling and education decisions, and too many children are trapped in schools that don’t work for them. We have to do something different. We have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach. And that is the focus. And states and local communities are best equipped to make these decisions.”

Clark: “I am shocked that you cannot come up with one example of discrimination that you would stand up for students.”

The chairman of the subcommittee said she wasn’t required to answer. She didn’t and the discussion moved on.

2. States should have the flexibility to decide whether students with disabilities who are using publicly funded vouchers to pay for private-school tuition should still be protected under the IDEA federal law

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, discussed the federal Individual With Disabilities in Education Act, which provides federal protections for students with disabilities.

Lowey noted that in voucher and voucher-like programs in which public money is used to pay for private school tuition and educational expenses, families are often required to sign away their IDEA protections, including due process when a school fails to meet a child’s needs. Lowey asked DeVos if she thought that was fair.

DeVos responded that it should be up to the states to decide how to run their own programs, and then she referred to a tax credit program in Florida, where tens of thousands of students with disabilities attend private school with public money. Florida is one of those states that requires voucher recipients to give up their IDEA rights.

“Each state deals with this issue in their own manner,” she said.

...

3. High-poverty school districts get more funding than low-poverty schools

The reason the federal government has a funding program that is meant to bolster high-poverty schools — called Title I — is because state and local school funding in the United States mainly favors wealthier areas. Title I, however, does not equalize the playing field, and the Trump administration’s budget is proposing using $1 billion in Title I funds for a school choice “portability” program, meaning there would be less money for traditional public schools. Congress rejected such a program during conversations in 2015 about the federal K-12 law Every Student Succeeds Act, which replaced No Child Left Behind.

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) noted that the proposed education budget’s Title I plan would reduce funding to high-poverty schools, according to numerous experts, and she asked DeVos whether she believes that high-poverty school districts should get “more funding resources” than schools with lower levels of poverty.

DeVos said, “Yes, I think the reality is that they do receive higher levels of funding.”

Later, Roybal-Allard asked her more specifically about federal funds: “Just to be clear … you do agree that high-poverty schools should receive more federal resources than lower levels of poverty schools? Was that your testimony?”

Devos responded: “Yes, I think that this is the case.”

Roybal-Allard said, “They don’t,” and continued to press DeVos.

In her first answer, the secretary said she believed high-poverty school districts do get more funding than wealthier districts, which is not true. In the second response, she said she believes high-poverty school districts get more federal funding than wealthier districts.  That is not always true.

4. The administration is not shifting money for public schools in the budget in order to fund school choice experiments

It is. If there are cuts to public schools, and there is new money going to school choice, that can’t mean anything else.

 

5. DeVos wouldn’t say whether private and religious schools that accept students paying with public funds should be held accredited or held accountable in the same way that traditional public schools are

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) discussed a private school that took public dollars even though it said students could learn how to read by simply putting a hand on a book. He asked her if she was “going to have accountability standards” in any new school choice program.

Her response: States should decide “what kind of flexibility they are going to allow.”

As noted earlier, Democrats gave her the toughest questions, but some Republicans didn’t give her a total pass. Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) asked her about proposed cuts to a college preparation program called TRIO, of which he said he is a “big fan.” Cole said it has produced 5 million college graduates and he has seen the impact in his district. He then asked her about the administration’s proposed cuts.

She said that the parts the administration seeks to eliminate are “outside of the original intent of the TRIO programs.”

Later, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) asked her: “If we fund those programs would they then be within congressional intent?”

She responded: “If that’s how you define it, I guess they would be.”

... <a transcript of her opening statement -- read it on an empty stomach>

I don't have children, but if I did, I'd be even more angry about this numbskull being in charge of educational policy.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Don’t call it ‘climate change’: How the government is rebranding in the age of Trump"

Spoiler

“Climate change” is out. “Resilience” is in. “Victims of domestic violence” are now “victims of crime.” Foreign aid for refu­gee rights has become aid to protect “national security.” “Clean energy investment” has been transformed into just plain “energy” investment.

The federal government is undergoing a rebranding under President Trump — although not all at his direction.

As Trump sets new priorities for Washington sharply at odds with what the town has seen for the past eight years, some officials working on hot-button issues such as the environment, nutrition and foreign aid are changing the names of offices and programs that might draw skepticism from the conservative Republican leaders he has installed atop agencies.

While entire departments are changing their missions under Trump, many of these rebranding efforts reflect a desire to blend in or escape notice, not a change in what officials do day-to-day — at least not yet, according to 19 current and former employees across the government, and nonprofit officials who receive federal funding.

“I do think it exemplifies a general sense of looking at our programs, looking at the way we characterize our activities, and trying to rebrand or repaint them in ways that hopefully make them less of a target,” said one Energy Department employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe the changes inside the government.

The changes in messaging come as Trump and his Cabinet leaders are setting new priorities — and that will increasingly change the operations of most agencies as time goes on and the administration gets lower-level political appointees into top posts.

The Environmental Protection Agency has shifted from enacting climate change regulations to reversing them, while the Energy Department has moved from boosting prospects for renewable energy to promoting President Trump’s fossil fuel-focused agenda. The Trump State Department is aiming to cut spending on diplomacy and foreign aid, and the Agriculture Department has backed away from Obama-era rules to ensure healthy school lunches.

“I think you’re seeing a combination of people trying to stay below the radar so they don’t get whacked, and also trying to morph so they can accommodate what the new administration’s point of view is going to be,” said Adam Cohen, who served as deputy undersecretary for science and energy at the Energy Department from October 2015 until this month.

Some of the most striking examples of rebranding come from agencies dealing with energy and the environment, where references to “climate change” and “clean energy” have sometimes disappeared.

In late April, the “Energy Investor Center” replaced the Department of Energy’s “Clean Energy Investment Center,” which was founded in early 2016 to help the private sector better learn how to put money into renewable technologies.

Language about the focus on the “clean and alternative” energy market vanished from the program’s website.

The old Web link, which included the word “clean,” redirects to one that doesn’t, according to an analysis by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which tracks government website changes affecting the environment.

Energy spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler said these changes were not ordered by the Trump administration but were made by career staff to “better reflect the broader focus of the project, which includes all traditional and nontraditional energy sources.”

“It’s our own career staff, they’re in their ‘Keep their head down, maybe they won’t cut our budget’ mode,” said an Energy Department staffer who also spoke anonymously because the employee was not authorized to speak publicly.

...

At two other federal agencies — the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration — programs have shifted to talking about “resilience” rather than “climate change.”

The EPA’s “Climate Ready Water Utilities” site was renamed “Creating Resilient Water Utilities” — even before the inauguration, the timing of which suggests it was unlikely that Trump appointees were involved in the change.

At the Federal Highway Administration, a website focused on the environmental impacts of cars and other forms of transportation replaced a page addressing “climate change” with one about “sustainability” sometime in January.

Another page, on climate change “adaptation,” morphed into one titled “resilience,” and the overall program, formerly known as the Sustainable Transport and Climate Change group, was renamed the Sustainable Transportation and Resilience group.

The rebrandings extend beyond the energy and environment sphere.

A key Obama-era initiative at the Agriculture Department called “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” which brought together seven farm-to-table nutrition programs, was moved from the agency’s main website to an obscure one within the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, where it appears under the blander “Local & Regional Food Sector.” Instead of highlighting farmers markets, organic agriculture and a “Farm to School” program, the site features “Opportunities for Farmers and Ranchers” and guidance on“Aggregating, Processing and Distributing.”

Development programs, facing potentially drastic funding cuts to international aid, have reframed their missions to de-emphasize Obama-era priorities such as women’s health and climate change and instead play up regional stability and religious freedom in areas where Christians are persecuted.

“Civil servants running data-driven initiatives are trying to figure out how to reframe their work to appeal to a White House that has so far taken an ideologically driven ‘Ready, fire, aim’ approach to understanding many of our federal programs,” said Daniel S. Holt, founder of the Washington-based consulting firm Anchorage Partners and USAID’s director of public engagement from 2015 to 2017.

“Staff shouldn’t feel their jobs are threatened by those who haven’t looked into the efficacy of the programs they’re going after,” Holt said. “These are civil servants who have sworn an oath to faithfully do their jobs in service of our country.”

The rebranding has been made easier by a vacuum in political leadership at most agencies, where five months after Trump was sworn in, Cabinet secretaries have few if any of their senior leaders in place. Many of these changes have gone unnoticed as civil servants await policy direction from appointees who have not been confirmed by the Senate or even nominated.

The retooling poses risks. The more overt the changes, the more they leave digital fingerprints that are easily noted in an era in which outside groups and journalists are scrutinizing government sites and data sets for any sign of changes. Reframing can’t escape the Internet archive.

Nongovernmental organizations reliant on federal funds are getting the message, too. One federally funded international aid organization that works in more than 50 countries now highlights its development work as a counterweight to violent extremism and a vital tool to shore up the national security interests of the United States. By stabilizing institutions in volatile parts of the world, the organization is saying to its partners and stakeholders, it is lessening the chance of a mass migration of refugees to the United States — a policy that is in line with the Trump administration’s America-first priorities.

“The work is the same, but it’s a question of talking a little bit more about one thing versus another,” said an official with the group, who spoke on the condition that it not be identified.

Other services that survive on federal funding say they are trying to determine the significance of budget cuts if they do not rebrand.

Domestic violence programs that receive money from the Justice Department and Health and Human Services have traditionally attracted bipartisan support. But bracing for cuts, some advocates say they are shifting their talking points. Futures Without Violence, a nonprofit group that receives federal funding to fight domestic and other forms of violence, is emphasizing its role helping victims of crime instead of violence to better align with the administration’s affinity for law enforcement.

“There were victims on January 18 and there were the same victims on January 20” when Trump was inaugurated, said Kiersten Stewart, the group’s director of public policy. “Might we highlight certain voices? Of course.”

Career employees are used to changing directions with new administrations. But Michael Termini, chief of staff at the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection group, is still concerned about how government employees are responding to the current environment.

“It’s not somebody telling me, ‘Don’t post that,’ ” he said, “but I’m afraid that if I do, they’re going to pounce.”

“We call that, in the whistleblowing world, a chilling effect.”

Some career employees are simply keeping their heads down. “Managers are actually not moving forward with new material for fear of actually being noticed,” said one EPA employee who was not cleared to speak in public and asked for anonymity.

There are cases that look like outright censorship. The EPA took down its entire climate change website, an informational resource dating back to the Clinton administration, even though climate scientists say it is accurate and career staff resisted the move.

And there are changes that are almost imperceptible. At the U.S. Forest Service, the banner atop the website of its Office of Sustainability and Climate Change dropped a single word — “change” — sometime after Feb. 1, according to the Internet Archive. It now says “Sustainability and Climate” instead of “Sustainability and Climate Change.”

But the rebranding is pervasive. Even an agency as focused on climate change as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is shifting its messaging.

One marine scientist who works with state and local governments and other groups said that he and his colleagues are playing down climate as a factor in the protection of ocean habitats because they quickly realized that “it’s a hot potato.”

“We’re being encouraged to look at things holistically,” said the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. He described the change in approach as “self-driven because we’re trying to lay low.”

“We’re trying not to be explicit about climate change anymore,” the scientist said.

How will we ever recover from the fiasco that is the Agent Orange administration?

[fraurosena]

A short lesson in fearmongering, brought to you exclusively by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and The Hill:

DHS chief: If you knew what I knew about terror, you’d ‘never leave the house’

Quote

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Friday said the terror threat is worse than most realize, saying some people would "never leave the house" if they knew the truth.

“I was telling [Fox host] Steve [Doocy] on the way in here, if he knew what I knew about terrorism, he’d never leave the house in the morning,” Kelly said on “Fox & Friends.”

He noted there were four major terror attacks in the last week — in England, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia — "by generally the same groups."

“It’s everywhere. It’s constant. It’s nonstop. The good news for us in America is we have amazing people protecting us every day. But it can happen here almost anytime.”

Masked gunmen opened fire on a group of Coptic Christians driving to a monastery in southern Egypt on Friday, killing 26 and injuring 25 more.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi reportedly called an emergency meeting after the attack in Minya Province.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria claimed responsibility for a Monday bombing after an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, that killed 22 and injured more than 100.

 

[47of74]

Yep, they're not even trying anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/27/politics/rex-tillerson-ramadan-reception/index.html

Quote

In an apparent break with a nearly two-decades long bipartisan tradition, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declined to host an event commemorating the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, according to two administration officials familiar with the decision.

The officials said Tillerson rejected a request by the State Department's Office of Religion and Global Affairs to host a reception marking the Eid al-Fitr, the end of the holy month of Ramadan, which begins Saturday in many countries.

The White House and State Department commemorate other religious traditions, including a Jewish Passover Seder, as well as Christmas and Easter holidays. But the Ramadan event, usually attended by members of Congress, diplomats from Muslim countries, Muslim community leaders and top US officials has become a symbol of US efforts to engage with the Muslim world.

"We are still exploring possible options for observance of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the month of Ramadan," a State Department spokesman said. "US ambassadors are encouraged to celebrate Ramadan through a variety of activities, which are held annually at missions around the world."

I suppose if the reich wing Christians want to events this douche cannon would only be too happy to host them.

[fraurosena]

10 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Yep, they're not even trying anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/27/politics/rex-tillerson-ramadan-reception/index.html

I suppose if the reich wing Christians want to events this douche cannon would only be too happy to host them.

Well duh. The only good Muslim is a rich Muslim; preferably one you can make a $110 billion dollar arms deal with.

[fraurosena]

This Licence to Kill Bill is atrocious, apalling and alarming. 

The "License to Kill" Bill Is As Terrifying As It Sounds

Quote

Earlier this year, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said the Trump administration will be fighting regulations at every turn through "the deconstruction of the administrative state." The Regulatory Accountability Act, dubbed the "License to Kill bill" by some environmental groups, may kick off that trend by making reining in the industry much more difficult. The act passed the House in January, and the Senate is now working on its own version. Public health experts and environmental scientists worry that if passed, the legislation would have dire consequences for the health and safety of average Americans. [...]

But environmental groups worry that the bill favors large corporations over individuals, for instance by making it harder to enact laws protecting consumers from dangerous substances. [...]

And if the Regulatory Accountability Act becomes law, the chances of the EPA banning [dangerous substances] would be significantly more difficult, according to Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. Denison says the RAA would require the EPA to prove that its decision to ban it is the most "cost effective" option and that the benefits able to be quantified from banning it would outweigh the costs of doing so. The bill would also allow anyone to question the agency's decision, moving the rule to a hearing and requiring testimonies before an administrative law judge. "This is going to impose so many additional requirements on an agency to regulate anything," Denison said. "It's a recipe for grinding regulatory activity to a halt merely by making it that much more difficult to do."

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) introduced the Senate version of the Regulatory Accountability Act, along with Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). The Environmental Working Group determined that 35 percent of the donors to Heitkamp's campaign also supported or lobbied in favor of the act. These donors have ties to or work for corporations such as BP, Exxon, Home Depot, and Walmart—industry giants that might love to be rid of burdensome, expensive regulations.

Fourteen national environmental groups are urging the Senate to vote against the bill. Scott Faber, vice president of policy at the Environmental Working Group, said if the Regulatory Accountability Act passes, its effects would be felt long after the President has left office. "Trump is temporary but the 'License to Kill bill' is forever," Faber said. "If Congress permanently throws sand into the gears of our regulatory process that creates consumer protections, it will be a generation or more until we can undo the damage."

Is there anything worse than a Republican who has utter disdain for the health and wellbeing of the American people?
Sadly, yes, there is: a Democrat who has utter for disdain the health and wellbeing of the American people.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump administration plans to minimize civil rights efforts in agencies"

Spoiler

The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.

As outlined in Labor’s fiscal 2018 plan, the move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting.

The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.

The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program, which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities. The program, in part, offers money and technical help to residents who are confronted with local hazards such as leaking oil tanks or emissions from chemical plants.

Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work.

And the administration has reversed several steps taken under President Barack Obama to address LGBT concerns. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has revoked the guidance to implement a rule ensuring that transgender people can stay at sex-segregated shelters of their choice, and the Department of Health and Human Services has removed a question about sexual orientation from two surveys of elderly Americans about services offered or funded by the government.

The efforts to reduce the federal profile on civil rights reflects the consensus view within the Trump administration that Obama officials exceeded their authority in policing discrimination on the state and local level, sometimes pressuring targets of government scrutiny to adopt policies that were not warranted.

Administration officials made clear in the initial weeks of Trump’s presidency that they would break with the civil rights policies of his predecessor. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of agreements to reform police departments, signaling his skepticism of efforts to curb civil rights abuses by law enforcement officers. His Justice Department, meantime, stopped challenging a controversial Texas voter identification law and joined with the Education Department in withdrawing federal guidance allowing transgender students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity.

While these decisions have been roundly criticized by liberal activists, administration officials said that civil rights remain a priority for the Trump White House.

“The Trump administration has an unwavering commitment to the civil rights of all Americans,” White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said in an emailed statement.

But Vanita Gupta, who was the head of Justice’s civil rights division from October 2014 to January 2017, said that the administration’s actions have already begun to adversely affect Americans across the country.

“They can call it a course correction, but there’s little question that it’s a rollback of civil rights across the board,” said Gupta, who is now president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Labor’s budget proposal says that folding its compliance office into the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “will reduce operational redundancies, promote efficiencies, improve services to citizens, and strengthen civil rights enforcement.”

Historically, the two entities have played very different roles. Unlike the EEOC, which investigates complaints it receives, the compliance office audits contractors in a more systematic fashion and verifies that they “take affirmative action” to promote equal opportunity among their employees.

Patricia A. Shiu, who led the compliance office from 2009 to 2016, said the audits are crucial because most workers don’t know they have grounds to file a complaint. “Most people do not know why they don’t get hired. Most people do not know why they do not get paid the same as somebody else,” she said.

Under Obama, officials in the compliance office often conducted full-scale audits of companies, examining their practices in multiple locations, rather than carrying out shorter, more limited reviews as previous administrations had done.

Some companies have questioned the more aggressive approach, noting the office has consistently found since 2004 that 98 percent of federal contractors comply with the law.

But the compliance office also scored some major recent legal victories, including a $1.7 million settlement with Palantir Technologies over allegations that the data-mining company’s hiring practices discriminated against Asians. In a case involving Gordon Food Service, which serves the Agriculture Department, the Pentagon and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the office found the company had “systematically eliminated qualified women from the hiring process.” The firm agreed to pay $1.85 million in wages to 926 women who had applied for jobs and hire 37 of them. Gordon Food was also forced to no longer require women to take a strength test.

In Education Department budget documents, the administration acknowledges that proposed funding levels would hamper the work of that department’s civil rights office. The budget would reduce staffing by more than 40 employees.

“To address steady increases in the number of complaints received and decreased staffing levels, OCR must make difficult choices,” the budget documents say. “OCR’s enforcement staff will be limited in conducting onsite investigations and monitoring, and OCR’s ability to achieve greater coordination and communication regarding core activities will be greatly diminished.”

Some critics of the civil rights office said school districts often felt they were presumed guilty in the eyes of the federal government.

“There was sort of this sense that . . . if there was a complaint filed, there must have been done something wrong,” said Thomas J. Gentzel, executive director of the National School Boards Association. “But there’s usually two sides to a story.”

Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill said that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Candice E. Jackson, who has been named as the acting head of the civil rights office, are committed to protecting all students from discrimination.

“Each civil rights complaint received by OCR is given due care and attention, with OCR serving as a fair and impartial investigative office,” Hill said.

Jackson’s nomination has added to the anxiety of civil rights activists. Jackson, a lawyer from Vancouver, Wash. and author of a book about women who had accused President Bill Clinton of sexual assault, has written that programs aimed at fostering a diverse student body dismiss “the very real prices paid by individual people who end up injured by affirmative action.”

Similar concerns have been raised about Trump’s likely selection of Eric S. Dreiband to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division. A former Bush administration official and veteran conservative Washington lawyer, Dreiband has represented several companies that were sued for discrimination. (Dreiband is representing the Washington Post in an age and race discrimination case in federal court in the District.)

Yeah, in this administration, if you are not a white male, you have few rights.

[fraurosena]

43 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Yeah, in this administration, if you are not a white male, you have few rights.

Here's another atrocious example of that:

Trump administration draft rule rolls back birth-control coverage for religious employers

Quote

The Trump administration has drafted a rule that would allow religious employers to stop covering birth control in employer health plans.

The free-contraceptive mandate was one of the most controversial components of the Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. Supporters argue that it is a basic issue of women's rights and suggest that the increased availability of safe contraceptives contributed to a decline in teen births and abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics and many other medical groups also have argued that there are numerous scientifically recognized benefits of birth control use beyond preventing pregnancy.

But the measure has been a target of dozens of lawsuits by organizations that argue it goes against their religious beliefs. One such group, the 178-year-old Little Sisters of the Poor, took their fight to the Supreme Court, but the high court ultimately kicked the decision back to the lower courts.

President Trump this month invited the Little Sisters of the Poor to join him as he signed an executive order to “address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.” The draft rule, reported by the New York Times, appears to be the result of that order.

On Tuesday, Democrats in Congress vowed to fight such a change. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the plan “sickening” and said it would deny millions of women “access to basic, preventive health care.”

“The draft rule announced today attempts to tear away women’s control over their own private health decisions and put that control in the hands of employers and politicians,” she said in a statement.

Pelosi said the draft rule is part of a larger “campaign against women” and referred to another Trump executive order that blocks $8.8 billion of U.S. aid to groups abroad that counsel or provide referrals about abortion.

I am utterly appalled that this is possible in a so-called civilized nation. 

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? 

[candygirl200413]

As a Christian, Church influencing government has pissed me off since I learned about it in elementary school. It's one of those scream in the pillow type things. I also remember how I met so many young women at school who were like wow Obamacare doesn''t suck we have birth control for free. Many voted for ornage fuckface and now I just want to laugh at them.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The vulgar realism of Rex Tillerson’s State Department"

Spoiler

Unfortunately, my prediction from last week has come true, and the European leg of President Trump’s first overseas trip did not go well at all:

Germany’s foreign minister launched a scathing criticism of Donald Trump on Monday, claiming the US President’s actions have “weakened” the West and accusing the US government of standing “against the interests of the European Union.”

Just 24 hours after German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Europe could no longer completely rely on traditional allies such as the US and Britain, the country’s top diplomat, Sigmar Gabriel, went a step further.

“Anyone who accelerates climate change by weakening environmental protection, who sells more weapons in conflict zones and who does not want to politically resolve religious conflicts is putting peace in Europe at risk,” Gabriel said.

In previous months, Trump’s rhetorical and policy screw-ups were customarily followed by his foreign policy Cabinet cleaning up the mess that was made. In this case, however, it’s been nearly 48 hours since Angela Merkel vocalized her distrust of the Trump administration, and nary a word has been heard from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Instead, the columns explaining why this is really bad just keep proliferating.

What’s truly impressive about this silence is the apparent lack of comprehension by Trump’s foreign policy team about why Merkel would have fired these shots. As I warned back in February, Trump’s ignorant rhetoric and brash demeanor virtually guarantee that elected leaders in large advanced industrialized democracies will benefit from resisting Trump. The Economist offers a similar explanation for Merkel’s comments over the weekend:

Mrs. Merkel’s … most important audience was the wider German electorate, which goes to the polls on September 24th. The poll surge enjoyed by Martin Schulz, her social democratic rival, is collapsing. But it goosed the CDU/CSU and the chancellor is taking no chances. Among Mr. Schulz’s more resonant talking points are Germany’s internationalist, European vocation — he defines himself as the anti-Trump — and his opposition to Mrs. Merkel’s insistence that German defense spending eventually hit the NATO target of 2% of GDP. Her words today buttressed both flanks. They emphasized that Mrs. Merkel is keenly European but that the country cannot afford to depend indefinitely on the military shield of wayward Anglo-Saxon allies. They reframed and helped disarm two of her opponent’s most potent arguments before the election campaign has even started.

One would think that America’s chief diplomat might be aware of these subtleties, but I’m beginning to wonder if that is true. It seems apparent that Tillerson devotes little attention to anything happening in other countries. Recall Tillerson’s decision to skip the annual human rights report. Or consider Tillerson’s remarks earlier this month to the State Department, in which he took pains to distinguish American foreign policy from American values. To be fair to Tillerson, those remarks stressed that the distinction between interests and values happened only “in some circumstances.” Outside the Syria missile strikes, however, American values do not appear to be visible at all in the last four months.

Finally, there’s the latest from Reuters:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declined a request to host an event to mark Islam’s holy month of Ramadan, two U.S. officials said, apparently breaking with a bipartisan tradition in place with few exceptions for nearly 20 years.

Since 1999, Republican and Democratic secretaries of state have nearly always hosted either an iftar dinner to break the day’s fast during Ramadan or a reception marking the Eid al-Fitr holiday at the end of the month, at the State Department.

Tillerson turned down a request from the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs to host an Eid al-Fitr reception as part of Ramadan celebrations, said two U.S. officials who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

One can detect a disturbing pattern to these actions — non-actions, really. The striking thing about Rex Tillerson’s State Department to date is the degree to which it seems to care only about other governments, as opposed to other societies.

There’s a very vulgar brand of realism that would be consistent with such an approach. This kind of crude realpolitik argues that states are only important actors in world politics. Therefore, a state’s diplomatic resources and attention should focus on interactions with foreign governments. Focusing on sub-state actors or societies could be interpreted as intrusions of sovereignty. And as Trump said in Saudi Arabia, “We are not here to lecture. … We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be or how to worship.”

The problems with this kind of worldview are so manifest that even realists would be leery of such a narrow vision. One obvious problem, however, is that all governments need to think about their domestic troubles first. If Trump is going to articulate an “America First” strategy, then other countries will reciprocate in kind. Indeed, this benefits the leaders of those countries, particularly if Trump provides the easy out with his bullying behavior.

...

The other big problem with this form of vulgar realism is that it ignores the last few years of history. Middle Eastern states have fallen apart, and democracies have been repeatedly surprised by election outcomes. Completely neglecting the domestic politics and civil societies in other countries is a surefire way for the State Department to get ambushed by surprising social movements.

Look, I realize that Tillerson is trying, in his own way, to act as America’s chief diplomat. The thing is, it seems increasingly clear that he possesses a stunted vision of American foreign policy.

Given that Trump is the president, it is possible that even the most talented diplomat alive would be flailing as secretary of state. It is possible that, even if James Baker took the job again, the department’s influence over foreign policy would still be waning.

At this point, however, it’s an experiment worth running.

It is breathtaking how badly the Executive Departments are being run.

[JMarie]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 5:48 PM, fraurosena said:

Here's another atrocious example of that:

Trump administration draft rule rolls back birth-control coverage for religious employers

I am utterly appalled that this is possible in a so-called civilized nation. 

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? 

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/signe/20170513_Daily_Signe_Cartoon_05_13_17.html

Isn't it sweet that they're thinking of their mothers??

[sawasdee]

@JMarie While every developing nation is trying to educate their populace on the benefits of contraception, and how it can, by limiting family size, maximize the opportunities for their existing children - the US wishes to limit access to contraception, and limit state aid for not just medical care for those subsequently born, but even food! (Proposal to cut food stamps.).

I am in a state of shock that a so-called first world nation is so out of step with the worldwide belief that easy and free access to contraception is a necessity to improve the lot of the poorest.

I am originally from the UK, and had access to free contraception in the early seventies. And it's still the same.

The US is allowing a completely incompetent and uninformed leader to make laws at the behest of a minority extreme religious cult.

History will not treat them kindly.

That's if history gets to be written by objective scholars.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is scary: "Scott Pruitt, outspoken and forceful, moves to the center of power within the Trump administration"

Spoiler

Less than four months ago, Scott Pruitt arrived in Washington with few connections to President Trump’s inner circle and took the helm of an agency where many employees were openly hostile to him.

But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has emerged as one of the most influential policy architects in the president’s Cabinet, a skilled and sometimes brash lawyer who is methodically taking apart a slew of regulations and agreements affecting a range of issues, from manufacturing operations to landfills.

Many of these actions remain works in progress: The United States’ exit from the Paris climate accord, which Trump announced Thursday, will take years, and EPA officials have just begun to rewrite many of the rules he has vowed to scrap. But their sweep — the most concrete manifestation of what the president vowed to do on the campaign trail — has come to define much of the White House’s domestic agenda.

Jeremy Symons, associate vice president of climate political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, said that while Pruitt would appear “to be too far removed from the center of power,” he has already had an outsize impact.

“People underestimate him,” Symons said.

In the wake of Trump’s Rose Garden speech on Thursday — when Pruitt stood beside him at the podium, before delivering his own remarks — fewer people will make that mistake. Pruitt played a decisive role in convincing the president that it made sense to abandon the U.S. commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 international agreement. In doing so, the 49-year-old former Oklahoma attorney general effectively prevailed over Trump’s secretary of state, his National Economic Council director and even his own daughter and son-in-law.

Pruitt insisted Friday that the issue of climate change never came up as he talked with the president about withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

“All the discussions that we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue: Is Paris good or not for this country?” he told reporters, refusing to say whether Trump remains skeptical of global warming.

Several factors help to explain Pruitt’s rapid rise within Trump’s orbit. The administrator’s own agenda — to reverse federal policies that curb domestic fossil-fuel exploration — meshes neatly with some of Trump’s central campaign pledges. Pruitt is better positioned to make headway than other Cabinet members, because so many of President Barack Obama’s climate policies were advanced through executive actions rather than legislation.

And over time, according to an industry lawyer familiar with the deliberations, the Oklahoma politician has learned that he can achieve more by forceful assertions. At the outset of the administration, the lawyer explained, Pruitt sought to soften the budget ax and get more political appointees on board by acting conciliatory toward other senior administration officials. He quickly realized that was an ineffective tactic.

“The White House culture is much more, you go in hitting and attack,” said the attorney, who asked for anonymity to speak frankly.

John Walke, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s clean air project, has been on the opposing side of Pruitt in federal court. The administrator is pursuing a similar strategy to what he did in Oklahoma when suing EPA on 14 different fronts, Walke said. Rather than asking the court to send the rule in question back to the agency to be rewritten, Pruitt always pushed to nullify it altogether.

“Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a foreman of a wrecking crew, rather than an architect,” he said. “It is easy to initiate that hostile agenda with a skeleton staff, press releases and instructions to Justice Department attorneys to file motions in court. That’s the easy part. The hard part is navigating the multiyear legal process to actually reverse legal protections, withstand the political outcry and to have those reversals upheld in court.”

Since February, EPA has announced some two dozen major regulatory actions on climate, water pollution, pesticide use and other areas. Trump’s executive orders calling for the elimination of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and of a rule protecting small and intermittent waterways rank as the highest-profile moves.

“Administrator Pruitt is implementing President Trump’s executive orders to protect the environment, save manufacturing jobs and promote American energy independence,” spokeswoman Liz Bowman said.

The EPA is revisiting tighter fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks as well as standards that would cut emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from existing municipal solid waste landfills. It has paused its first-ever methane emission limits from new and heavily modified oil and gas wells, delayed when power plants must use up-to-date technology to reduce mercury and other toxins from water, and stopped a ban on a commonly used pesticide, chlorpyrifos, just before it was set to be finalized. The agency is also seeking to delay oral arguments in two cases challenging EPA’s 2012 standard for air toxins from power plants as well as its 2015 smog rule.

Scott Segal, who co-chairs Bracewell LLP’s federal government relations practice and worked with Pruitt in recent years to reverse several Obama-era EPA rules, said the administrator combines “the care and wordsmithing of a trial lawyer” with a willingness to be outspoken in policy fights.

“He’s not afraid to express his point of view,” Segal said. “He’s a pretty bold guy.”

Pruitt has done extensive outreach to state and local officials, according to the EPA, including calls or meetings with 27 governors, six agriculture commissioners, at least three farm bureaus and 14 mayors. Next week he travels to Italy to meet with other G-7 environmental ministers.

At the same time, the EPA’s budget could take a massive budget cut later this year. Trump has proposed cutting it by more than 31 percent — largely over Pruitt’s objections — and employees received an email Thursday informing them of upcoming buyouts.

Drew Edmondson, who preceded Pruitt as Oklahoma’s attorney general, noted in an interview that Pruitt scaled back two of the very programs Edmondson had built up in the AG’s office: an environmental protection unit and an environmental crimes task force

“While I’m disappointed in what he’s doing [in Washington], I’m certainly not surprised,” said Edmondson, who is now running for governor in Oklahoma. “Pruitt’s positions are very similar to what the president enunciated during the campaign.”

At the EPA, the flurry of activity reflects what Pruitt has described as a “back to basics” philosophy in which the agency will focus on priorities such as cleaning up Superfund sites rather than curbing carbon emissions. He has questioned the extent to which human activity is driving climate change.

Without question, Pruitt has a narrower view of EPA’s role than both his Democratic and Republican predecessors. During Pruitt’s confirmation process, Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, asked him in a written question whether there was a single EPA rule that he supported.

“I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA regulations,” Pruitt replied.

Stephen Brown, vice president for federal relations at the oil refiner Tesoro, said Thursday that Pruitt is working to bring EPA policies in line with the legal limits he and other conservatives believe the Obama administration openly flouted. Still, Brown added, the administrator recognizes the greater challenges that come with making regulations rather than striking them down.

“There are more minefields as a result of being on the inside than being on the outside,” Brown said. “And he’s smart enough to get that.”

Traditionally, serving as EPA administrator hasn’t ranked as a launchpad for higher office. The post didn’t even make it to Cabinet-level rank until George H.W. Bush bestowed it on his EPA head, William K. Reilly, in 1989, and Congress has consistently balked at making the agency a Cabinet department.

But Keith Gaddie, a University of Oklahoma political science professor who has written about environmental regulation, noted that Pruitt came into the attorney general’s office “with very little litigating experience” but pursued an ambitious litigation strategy. All the way, he proved himself to be “a really, really good politician.”

Standing at the center of power on Thursday, with the president steps away, Pruitt hailed the U.S. decision to pull out of a global climate pact as “a historic restoration of American economic independence.”

“With this action,” Pruitt told Trump, “you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.”

Day by day, people like Puritt are ruining our world.

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is scary: "Scott Pruitt, outspoken and forceful, moves to the center of power within the Trump administration"

  Hide contents

Less than four months ago, Scott Pruitt arrived in Washington with few connections to President Trump’s inner circle and took the helm of an agency where many employees were openly hostile to him.

But the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has emerged as one of the most influential policy architects in the president’s Cabinet, a skilled and sometimes brash lawyer who is methodically taking apart a slew of regulations and agreements affecting a range of issues, from manufacturing operations to landfills.

Many of these actions remain works in progress: The United States’ exit from the Paris climate accord, which Trump announced Thursday, will take years, and EPA officials have just begun to rewrite many of the rules he has vowed to scrap. But their sweep — the most concrete manifestation of what the president vowed to do on the campaign trail — has come to define much of the White House’s domestic agenda.

Jeremy Symons, associate vice president of climate political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, said that while Pruitt would appear “to be too far removed from the center of power,” he has already had an outsize impact.

“People underestimate him,” Symons said.

In the wake of Trump’s Rose Garden speech on Thursday — when Pruitt stood beside him at the podium, before delivering his own remarks — fewer people will make that mistake. Pruitt played a decisive role in convincing the president that it made sense to abandon the U.S. commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 international agreement. In doing so, the 49-year-old former Oklahoma attorney general effectively prevailed over Trump’s secretary of state, his National Economic Council director and even his own daughter and son-in-law.

Pruitt insisted Friday that the issue of climate change never came up as he talked with the president about withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

“All the discussions that we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue: Is Paris good or not for this country?” he told reporters, refusing to say whether Trump remains skeptical of global warming.

Several factors help to explain Pruitt’s rapid rise within Trump’s orbit. The administrator’s own agenda — to reverse federal policies that curb domestic fossil-fuel exploration — meshes neatly with some of Trump’s central campaign pledges. Pruitt is better positioned to make headway than other Cabinet members, because so many of President Barack Obama’s climate policies were advanced through executive actions rather than legislation.

And over time, according to an industry lawyer familiar with the deliberations, the Oklahoma politician has learned that he can achieve more by forceful assertions. At the outset of the administration, the lawyer explained, Pruitt sought to soften the budget ax and get more political appointees on board by acting conciliatory toward other senior administration officials. He quickly realized that was an ineffective tactic.

“The White House culture is much more, you go in hitting and attack,” said the attorney, who asked for anonymity to speak frankly.

John Walke, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s clean air project, has been on the opposing side of Pruitt in federal court. The administrator is pursuing a similar strategy to what he did in Oklahoma when suing EPA on 14 different fronts, Walke said. Rather than asking the court to send the rule in question back to the agency to be rewritten, Pruitt always pushed to nullify it altogether.

“Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a foreman of a wrecking crew, rather than an architect,” he said. “It is easy to initiate that hostile agenda with a skeleton staff, press releases and instructions to Justice Department attorneys to file motions in court. That’s the easy part. The hard part is navigating the multiyear legal process to actually reverse legal protections, withstand the political outcry and to have those reversals upheld in court.”

Since February, EPA has announced some two dozen major regulatory actions on climate, water pollution, pesticide use and other areas. Trump’s executive orders calling for the elimination of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and of a rule protecting small and intermittent waterways rank as the highest-profile moves.

“Administrator Pruitt is implementing President Trump’s executive orders to protect the environment, save manufacturing jobs and promote American energy independence,” spokeswoman Liz Bowman said.

The EPA is revisiting tighter fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks as well as standards that would cut emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from existing municipal solid waste landfills. It has paused its first-ever methane emission limits from new and heavily modified oil and gas wells, delayed when power plants must use up-to-date technology to reduce mercury and other toxins from water, and stopped a ban on a commonly used pesticide, chlorpyrifos, just before it was set to be finalized. The agency is also seeking to delay oral arguments in two cases challenging EPA’s 2012 standard for air toxins from power plants as well as its 2015 smog rule.

Scott Segal, who co-chairs Bracewell LLP’s federal government relations practice and worked with Pruitt in recent years to reverse several Obama-era EPA rules, said the administrator combines “the care and wordsmithing of a trial lawyer” with a willingness to be outspoken in policy fights.

“He’s not afraid to express his point of view,” Segal said. “He’s a pretty bold guy.”

Pruitt has done extensive outreach to state and local officials, according to the EPA, including calls or meetings with 27 governors, six agriculture commissioners, at least three farm bureaus and 14 mayors. Next week he travels to Italy to meet with other G-7 environmental ministers.

At the same time, the EPA’s budget could take a massive budget cut later this year. Trump has proposed cutting it by more than 31 percent — largely over Pruitt’s objections — and employees received an email Thursday informing them of upcoming buyouts.

Drew Edmondson, who preceded Pruitt as Oklahoma’s attorney general, noted in an interview that Pruitt scaled back two of the very programs Edmondson had built up in the AG’s office: an environmental protection unit and an environmental crimes task force

“While I’m disappointed in what he’s doing [in Washington], I’m certainly not surprised,” said Edmondson, who is now running for governor in Oklahoma. “Pruitt’s positions are very similar to what the president enunciated during the campaign.”

At the EPA, the flurry of activity reflects what Pruitt has described as a “back to basics” philosophy in which the agency will focus on priorities such as cleaning up Superfund sites rather than curbing carbon emissions. He has questioned the extent to which human activity is driving climate change.

Without question, Pruitt has a narrower view of EPA’s role than both his Democratic and Republican predecessors. During Pruitt’s confirmation process, Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, asked him in a written question whether there was a single EPA rule that he supported.

“I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA regulations,” Pruitt replied.

Stephen Brown, vice president for federal relations at the oil refiner Tesoro, said Thursday that Pruitt is working to bring EPA policies in line with the legal limits he and other conservatives believe the Obama administration openly flouted. Still, Brown added, the administrator recognizes the greater challenges that come with making regulations rather than striking them down.

“There are more minefields as a result of being on the inside than being on the outside,” Brown said. “And he’s smart enough to get that.”

Traditionally, serving as EPA administrator hasn’t ranked as a launchpad for higher office. The post didn’t even make it to Cabinet-level rank until George H.W. Bush bestowed it on his EPA head, William K. Reilly, in 1989, and Congress has consistently balked at making the agency a Cabinet department.

But Keith Gaddie, a University of Oklahoma political science professor who has written about environmental regulation, noted that Pruitt came into the attorney general’s office “with very little litigating experience” but pursued an ambitious litigation strategy. All the way, he proved himself to be “a really, really good politician.”

Standing at the center of power on Thursday, with the president steps away, Pruitt hailed the U.S. decision to pull out of a global climate pact as “a historic restoration of American economic independence.”

“With this action,” Pruitt told Trump, “you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.”

Day by day, people like Puritt are ruining our world.

I just don't get it. What is their end goal? Why are they so hell bent on distroying the world? What are they gaining by doing this?

Bah! Why do I even ask this? I know the answer. Money.

The idiots want the single cookie now, instead of waiting for two cookies tomorrow... 

[fraurosena]

Well, this is what you get when you can buy  a posiiton as a secretary of an executive department.

 

[fraurosena]

I came across this tweet and just had to share.

 

[sawasdee]

With regards to the Paris Accord, what both tRump and Pruitt seem to fail to understand is that all committments were VOLUNTARY! They could have changed the US committments without withdrawing - all they had to do was rewrite the US agreements.

By withdrawing completely, they have abdicated any role for the US in perhaps the most important challenge facing the world today - as every country except Syria - caught up in civil war - and  Nicaragua - who thought the Accord didn't go far enough - agree.

How to marginalise the US in one easy lesson. The US was the leader in bringing the Paris Accord together. The US has sacrificed 'soft' power for a temporary ego boost to the US 'president'.

[47of74]

Lots of people in New Zealand told Rex he was number one during his visit

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93382262/birdflipping-welcome-for-us-secretary-of-state-rex-tillerson-in-new-zealand

Quote

The weather was awful and the mood of the locals wasn't much better when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived in Wellington.

US media travelling with Tillerson were surprised by the number of people flipping the bird at Tillerson as his motorcade sped through town.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Well, it seems that, to work in this administration, you can't be truthful: "Pruitt’s claim that ‘almost 50,000 jobs’ have been gained in coal"

Spoiler

“Since the fourth quarter of last year until most recently, we’ve added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs.”
— Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” June 4, 2017

“We’ve had over 50,000 jobs since last quarter — coal jobs, mining jobs — created in this country. We had almost 7,000 mining and coal jobs created in the month of May alone.”
— Pruitt, interview on ABC’s “This Week,” June 4

“Since the fourth quarter of 2016, Chris, we’ve had almost 50,000 jobs created in the mining and coal sector alone. In fact, in the month of May, almost 7,000 jobs.”
— Pruitt, interview on Fox News Sunday, June 4

Pruitt had a shiny new talking point to roll out on the Sunday morning shows as he defended President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord on climate change. He clearly wanted to emphasize Trump’s interest in saving the beleaguered coal industry, which has lost market share (and tens of thousands of jobs) to the increasing popularity of natural gas. In fact, he used this statistic to rebut as “dead wrong” an interviewer’s question about whether Trump was making a “false promise” to the coal industry.

But according to an EPA spokeswoman, Pruitt bungled the line on one show and did not accurately express it on other shows. (He kept saying “since the fourth quarter,” which sounds like the end of the year, when she said he meant to say since October.) But even if he had gotten it right, it still would have been deeply misleading.

The Facts

On “Meet the Press,” Pruitt flatly stated that almost 50,000 jobs have been added in the coal sector. Many readers asked about this claim, noting that there are only about 50,000 jobs in coal. Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on coal jobs. As you can see, it has been in a tight range for months, with a slight gain. In the last four months of the Obama administration, September to January, there was a gain of 1,400 jobs. In the first four months of the Trump administration, there has been a gain of 1,000 jobs.

...

On the other programs, Pruitt more carefully referred to “mining and coal” or “coal jobs, mining jobs.” You can see how he tries to slip in the word “mining.” That’s a sign that this is a carefully crafted spin. He emphasizes coal while trying to be technically correct by slipping in a reference to mining.

Here’s the BLS data on mining jobs.

...

If you go back to October, you end up with a gain of 47,000 jobs. That’s Pruitt’s “nearly 50,000.” (From April to May, there was a gain of 6,600 jobs — that’s Pruitt’s 7,000.)

Of course, Trump only became president on Jan. 20, so it’s more appropriate to look at what has happened since January. That’s a gain of nearly 33,000.

But the biggest problem with Pruitt’s statistic is that most of the gain in “mining” jobs has nothing to do with coal. Most of the new jobs were in a subcategory called “support activities for mining,” which accounted for more than 40,000 of the new jobs since October and more than 30,000 of the jobs since January. Here’s that BLS data:

...

But BLS data shows about 75 percent of the jobs in the “support for mining” subcategory are in oil and gas operations.

The plunge in oil prices that started in 2014 wiped out nearly 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas support sector by October, but a recent stabilization in oil prices has helped bring some of those jobs back. It has little to do with administration policy — and nothing to do with coal mining.

So, rather than the gain of 47,000 jobs touted by Pruitt, the reality is that 1,000 coal jobs have been added since Trump became president. For the month of May, the gain was 400 jobs, not 7,000.

We should note that coal industry officials believe the BLS figures for coal mining are too narrow because they do not include support personnel under “coal mining.” The industry would argue that the number should be about 62 percent higher — 81,000 rather than 50,000, as of the end of 2016. (An Energy Department report suggests the figure, including professional support jobs, is closer to 74,000.) That suggests coal mining support jobs represent about 11 percent of the “support for mining” total jobs. So perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 of the gain in support jobs could be attributed to coal, although the evidence suggests most of the growth is in the oil and gas sector.

Even adding in another 4,000 jobs, Pruitt is only one-tenth of the way to the 50,000 jobs he touted on television — and which ended up in news stories.

The Pinocchio Test

We don’t try to play gotcha, and it’s clear that Pruitt completely flubbed his talking point on one TV program. But he still uttered misleading spin on other news programs, trying to take advantage of the BLS job labels to  suggest that there has been a huge gain in coal/mining jobs, in part by reaching back months before Trump came to the White House. The data is not made up out of whole cloth, but the claim is so tortured that it screams.

Administration officials such as Pruitt need to learn they increasingly have little credibility when they try to manipulate government statistics in service of a dubious talking point. Pruitt earns four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

 

More of the coal obsession.

[GreyhoundFan]

Can you imagine this happening in any other administration? "State Department distances itself from Trump, creating an alternate U.S. foreign policy"

Spoiler

Listening to Tuesday’s first ever State Department briefing by new spokeswoman Heather Nauert, one might get the impression that the United States is conducting traditional, balanced and even somewhat nuanced foreign policy on the world stage. The problem is, of course, that President Trump’s own statements on foreign policy destroy that image and there’s no effort by either side to address the resulting  contradictions.

Nauert, a former Fox News host, waited five weeks before taking to the lectern to meet the State Department press corps, which is filled with seasoned diplomatic reporters steeped in the nuances of international issues. She was well prepared, firm but not combative and began by praising the diplomatic corps and the media for doing their jobs in service to the United States and the ideals America represents.

The press corps, in turn, treated her with respect without pulling punches, a clear effort to set the relationship on the right foot and give her time to adjust to the new spotlight. But as the briefing wore on, the sheer disconnect between what Nauert was explaining as State Department policy and what the White House and Trump have said was striking.

The first example was when Nauert was asked why the State Department issued a statement Monday praising the work of Babatunde Osotimehin, the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), who died this week. The White House’s proposed budget would zero out U.S. funding for UNFPA.

“We sent out that announcement because he passed away … We wanted to express our condolences to his family,” Nauert said. “I’m not going to characterize whether [UNFPA] does good work or does not do good work.”

How can the State Department praise Osotimehin for being a “tireless advocate for the health of women and girls, pressing for stronger, more affordable and accessible maternal health and reproductive health care services for millions of women in the developing world,” while the White House advocates pulling support for that very mission? Nauert had no real answer.

“Some of the priorities of this president remain our national security and protecting Americans first,” she said.

The pattern became more evident when reporters tried several times to understand how the State Department viewed Trump’s tweet storm against U.S. ally Qatar. Trump said that the crisis between Qatar and its Persian Gulf neighbors was evidence that his meetings with Arab states last month in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were “paying off,” and he called out Qatar for financing terrorism.

Those tweets seemed to directly contradict Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s call on all parties to work together to resolve their differences and his offer to help mediate the crisis. Interestingly, Nauert’s prepared answers from her briefing book expressed support for Qatar, not for Trump’s tweets.

“We recognize that Qatar has made some great efforts to stop financing of terror groups … more work needs to be done,” she said. “Our relationship with Qatar is strong.”

Nauert also revealed that the United Arab Emirates only informed the U.S. government of the decision by four Gulf allies to sever ties with Qatar “immediately prior” to the decision being announced, which detracts from Trump’s assertion that this is good news for U.S. leadership in the region.

Nauert attempted to square that circle by saying that the meetings in Riyadh produced progress in cooperation among regional actors in the fight against terrorism. One reporter bluntly pointed out that a major rift with Qatar only two weeks after Trump’s visit is actually evidence that the trip had the exact opposite effect.

Nauert went off book to argue that this was simply a temporary bump in the road.

“The meeting was about cooperation … that still holds,” Nauert tried to explain. “This is a rift right now that is taking place. The secretary and other countries have offered to get involved to mend this rift.”

As she continued to read from her briefing book, Nauert criticized Chinese human rights abuses, called on Russia to join international pressure on North Korea and defended the rights of diplomats abroad to use their own social media to express positions using their own judgment. It became clear by the end of the briefing that the State Department was in a way conducting its own foreign policy, which may or may not line up with what the commander in chief believes or says.

Multiple times Nauert fell back on a prepared line, quoting Tillerson saying that the State Department would just not weigh in on what Trump is saying about U.S. foreign policy.

“The president has his own unique ways of communicating with the American people and that has served him pretty well,” she quoted Tillerson as saying.

Trump’s tweets may in fact serve him well, but when the president creates diplomatic crises on a regular basis for no apparent reason, that doesn’t serve the country well. Nor does it allow for the U.S. government to have any coherent message that American citizens, foreign countries or even his own staffers can understand.

If Tuesday’s briefing is any indication, the State Department’s plan is to push forward with its own policies and pretend they don’t contradict Trump. It’s an untenable strategy that will only serve to further confuse, and thereby harm, U.S. foreign policy.

 

[CTRLZero]

22 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Trump’s tweets may in fact serve him well, but when the president creates diplomatic crises on a regular basis for no apparent reason, that doesn’t serve the country well. Nor does it allow for the U.S. government to have any coherent message that American citizens, foreign countries or even his own staffers can understand.

If Tuesday’s briefing is any indication, the State Department’s plan is to push forward with its own policies and pretend they don’t contradict Trump. It’s an untenable strategy that will only serve to further confuse, and thereby harm, U.S. foreign policy.

^^Quoting Washington Post article^^

It would be nearly impossible to explain what the hell the President is doing, but Nauert seems be doing a better job than, say, Sean Spicer.  It really does remind me of that scene in Wayne's World where the sponsor [i.e., Trump] is speaking and additional commentary is being provided by Wayne [i.e., Nauert].  "Sphincter says what..."

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I, for one, would not shed a tear if Sessions gets flattened by the scandals: "The Cloud Over Jeff Sessions’ Head Just Got Darker"

Spoiler

Inside the jam-packed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, Jim Comey’s blunt words set off audible squalls of shock: “The president chose to defame me.” Wow, murmured the press. “Those were lies, plain and simple.” Uhnnn, gasped the tiny group of civilians seated in the back of the room.

Comey’s words, and those of the 17 senators questioning him, gushed out for three and a half hours Thursday morning. There were discussions of an awkward White House dinner, Russian cyber-mischief, and Thomas Becket. Yet the most significant moments were about words that couldn’t be said publicly, and things that weren’t done—and both turned the heat of the investigation directly onto Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Sessions has been tangled up in this mess since nearly its beginning. While serving as a prominent Trump campaign surrogate, Sessions met twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak—meetings he failed to disclose on a security clearance form when Trump nominated Sessions to become A.G., later explaining it as a benign oversight. Still, that failure eventually forced Sessions to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s investigation of possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. (Just how recused Sessions really is came into question in May, however, when he wrote a letter recommending Comey’s firing.)

Even so, Sessions had cannily managed to stay on the periphery of the scandal—until yesterday. Comey was quizzed by California Senator Kamala Harris, who is becoming the breakout Democratic star of the intelligence committee’s hearings. Harris wanted to know more about the conversation in which Comey pleaded with Sessions to keep Trump from interfering with the F.B.I. ”You write [in Comey’s prepared statement] that he did not reply,” Harris said, in the deceptively casual tone that made her a highly-successful prosecutor in San Francisco. “What did he do, if anything? Did he just look at you? Was there a pause for a moment?”

“His body language gave me the sense, like, ‘What am I going to do?’” Comey said, adding a slight shrug in imitation of Sesssion’s non-reaction reaction. “He didn’t say anything.”

That was bad enough—that Sessions left Comey twisting in the bureaucratic wind, a unprotected target of Trump’s continuing wheedling. But Comey, responding to a question from Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, also teased a potentially damning new revelation: “We were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make [Session’s] continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.” Several hours later, NBC broke the news that Comey told the intelligence committee members, in a private session, that Sessions may have had a third undisclosed meeting with Kislyak.

Reporters had been chasing leads about a possible third Sessions-Kislyak meeting for weeks; Comey’s description of it seems not to have been definitive. Nevertheless, he has finally made Sessions a central figure in the drama.

As he should have been all along. It’s difficult, for instance, to picture Rod Rosenstein, who had been on the job as deputy attorney general two weeks, concocting a memo justifying Comey’s firing without Sessions’ guidance. And while Trump can (almost) plausibly plead ignorance when it comes to the time-honored separation between the White House and the Department of Justice, Sessions certainly can’t: he was a federal prosecutor for 12 years, Alabama’s attorney general for two, and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. (And the truth is stupidity has only partly driven Trump actions—it’s also that he thinks the F.B.I. should be his personal "lock her up" police force.) Yet Sessions allowed Trump to shoo him out of the Oval Office so the president could press Comey one-on-one to drop the investigation of fired national security advisor Mike Flynn. “Sessions is the godfather of the Trump ideology,” a Senate insider says. “I think he and Trump are covering up for a reason, and it’s a reason worse than the coverup itself.”

Precisely. Maybe there is no single smoking Kalashnikov. Yet throughout this strange affair the president and the attorney general have behaved as if they have something serious to hide. “The Comey testimony confirmed a lot of things that had been reported in the media, and that investigators knew,” a Senate intelligence committee source says. “But it also raised a lot more questions.”

Many of which will now be aimed at Sessions. The House and Senate intelligence committees will soon invite Sessions to testify. Robert Mueller, the special counsel now overseeing the D.O.J.’s investigation, will probably interrogate the attorney general first, though.

“Mueller will want to know, Why didn’t Sessions do more when Comey warned him about Trump’s inappropriate behavior?” says Matthew Miller, who was D.O.J. spokesman for attorney general Eric Holder. “Why did Sessions sign off on Comey’s firing despite knowing about the warning that Trump was trying to meddle with Comey? And Mueller can’t ignore looking at whether Sessions intentionally concealed his meetings with Kislyak.”

As Comey walked out of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing room, he did not look relieved—he looked exhausted, pale, almost waxen. But he had succeeded in shifting one burden: When Comey was F.B.I. director, Trump had insisted he make the Russia “cloud” go away. Instead, the darkness is now hovering ominously over the head of Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

 

[fraurosena]

Two approaches to climate change:

1) Scott Pruitt Bails on the G7 Climate Talks Just Hours After His Arrival

Here's how it starts, and I quote:

The world would be laughing at us, if it weren’t for the fact that climate change is a global problem. EPA head Scott Pruitt traveled to Italy to represent the US in the Group of Seven climate talks yesterday. Hours later he decided this wasn’t for him, and he let an assistant finish up his business today. One representative called the US participation a “footnote on climate action.”

2) The Dutch Have Solutions to Rising Seas. The World Is Watching.

This article is looooong, but gives a rather good insight into how we Dutch view climate change and water management. 

 

(Huh, since the update the 'quote' and 'hide' icons are missing - @Destiny maybe Luna hooked them with her claws and has hidden them somewhere?)