"Sticks and stones may break my bones,

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Do you need reasons for not voting for Dumbya? If so, here are a thousand:

http://www.thousandreasons.org/listB.html

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1220.asp

White House discounts human life in cost-benefit analysis

December 18, 2002: The White House Office of Management and Budget has sparked a scientific and ethical debate with its position that, when it comes to evaluating proposed federal regulations, some human lives warrant less protection than others. While it is standard practice for the government to run cost-benefit analyses before implementing regulations, selectively lowering the value of human life can lead to extremely biased and unfair results. Under OMB's approach, the lives of senior citizens (70 years or older) are worth much less than younger people. Twice this year, the OMB told the Environmental Protection Agency to apply the discounted value of 63 percent for elderly Americans when it was assessing whether to impose new air pollution restrictions on the polluting industries.

Critics have blasted the Bush administration for discounting human lives in an apparent attempt to relieve industry from the cost of complying with requirements intended to safeguard public health. Moreover, the cut-rate standard being applied by OMB is based on faulty science that is out-of-date and doesn't even apply to U.S. regulations. The 63 percent value is based on a 20-year old scientific survey in Britain, in which citizens were asked how much they would pay for a safer bus system. More recent studies have concluded that there is little difference between the value that the elderly and younger people place on saving their life.

"Inevitably, cheapening the value of life leads to an unacceptable loss of life," said Wesley Warren, NRDC's senior economics fellow. "Helping industries avoid cleaning up their pollution is what's motivating the White House, when protecting the lives of the old and young should be their first priority."

____________________________________________________________________

How much is your life worth to you?

REGULATION - THE COLD CALCULUS OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: In the LA Times today Lisa Heinzerling and Frank Ackerman, the authors of the book "Priceless," lay waste to the idea that cost-benefit analysis is an appropriate way to make every regulatory decision. Heinzerling and Ackerman write "n cost-benefit land...everything is a matter of cold dollars and cents." What does that mean? Anytime we look at an issue under cost-benefit analysis, like Mad Cow disease, a "human life saved is worth some fixed price, and if the cost of keeping the beef supply safe exceeds that price, we don't pay it." John Graham, the Bush administration's regulatory "czar" has "installed an aggressive system to root out regulations that don't pass his version of a cost-benefit test - derailing or undermining rules on everything from hog farms to power plants." The Bush Administration routinely values the benefit of saving a human life at $3.7 million. The key question: if John Graham decides saving someone's life cost more than $3.7 million dollars, should we let them die?

__________________________________________________________________

ECONOMY - THE ONION MAKES US LAUGH: Our funny friends at the Onion are at it again. In a satiric article titled, "Bush to Cut Deficit From Federal Budget," they figure out how Bush can get rid of his deficit albatross - just cross it out with a marker. They write: "'I was staring at the figure for the deficit, and I decided that it simply could not stand," Bush said. "It was too high. Something had to be done.'...The president then turned to Section 14-D of the official budget document, where the federal government's total expenditures, the GNP, and the difference between the two were listed. Using a black Sharpie, the president crossed out the third figure, eliminating it entirely. Bush then held up the newly marked-up page and said, 'My fellow Americans, I have solved the federal budget crisis.'"

The Onion, 25 FEBRUARY 2004, VOLUME 40 ISSUE 08

[DKW 86 7,440]

I am so bothered by this....

I was thinking just the other day why didnt the Clinton-Gore Administration take action on the arsenic in our water while they were in power. After the report came out they had 6 years to do something and didnt. Wonder how many children died because of it...

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Again, the two party system is to blame. They do as they are told.