We care about state rights they said...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cuddles, Sep 17, 2019.

  1. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...s-california-water-supply-after-reversal-from
    Trump signs order diverting water to California farmers against state wishes

    President Trump on Wednesday signed an order in California to re-engineer the state’s water plans, completing a campaign promise to funnel water from the north to a thirsty agriculture industry and growing population further south.

    The ceremonial order comes after the Department of the Interior late last year reversed its opinion on scientific findings that for a decade extended endangered species protections to various types of fish — a review that had been spurred by the order from Trump.

    Trump said the changes to the “outdated scientific research and biological opinions” would now help direct “as much water as possible, which will be a magnificent amount, a massive amount of water for the use of California farmers and ranchers.”

    “A major obstacle to providing water for the region's farmers has now been totally eliminated by the federal government,” Trump said Wednesday in Bakersfield, Calif., flanked by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as well as Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who helped shepherd the changes to the state’s water policy.

    Trump's order comes as the state has taken several steps to deal with the water scarcity that has lasted for decades.

    "It would be different if you had a drought," Trump claimed, despite concerns the state may be headed into another drought. "You don't have a drought. You have tremendous amounts of water."

    The state is expected to fight the order.
    “California won’t allow the Trump Administration to destroy and deplete our natural resources,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said in a statement after the speech. “We’re prepared to challenge the Trump Administration’s harmful attack on our state’s critical ecosystems and environment.”

    Critics fear the new plan, which would allow large quantities of water to be diverted from the San Francisco Bay Delta to the Central Valley in order to irrigate farmland, would ultimately harm chinook salmon and the delta smelt, a finger-sized fish that for three decades has stood in the way of the diversion.

    Trump in October 2018 had ordered Interior to reconsider the scientific evidence that helped bar redistribution of the state’s water. In October of last year, Interior released a new biological opinion limiting the longtime protections for the fish.

    During Wednesday's speech, Trump gave repeated kudos to Bernhardt, who has been mired in controversy for his past work for Westlands Water District, one of the groups pushing to expand water access for central California’s ag industry.

    Reporting from The New York Times found that Bernhardt continued to work for Westlands as late as April 2017, the month he was nominated to his previous role as deputy secretary of the department. He filed paperwork to end his status as a federal lobbyist in November 2016.

    Interior said Bernhardt had “engaged in various legal services” to support Westlands — but not lobbying.

    The story spurred a call from Democratic lawmakers to investigate Bernhardt’s lobbying work and in turn a commitment from Interior’s Office of the Inspector General in April of last year to review seven complaints alleging conflicts of interest or potential ethics violations by Bernhardt.

    Interior said its decision to change protections for the fish was not tied to Bernhardt’s past employer.

    “There is absolutely no connection,” Paul Souza, a regional Fish and Wildlife Service official, said when the decision was rolled out, adding that he and the others who worked on the issue were “career professionals.”

    “We have led these efforts with our team over the past year and these are career professional documentation," he added.

    But environmentalists have viewed the latest biological review with skepticism.

    “Like so many other of Bernhardt’s orders, this one ignores the best available science," Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, an environmental watchdog group, said in a statement. "This attempt to harm the largest estuary on the West Coast will get tied up in court for years, and the Trump administration will keep losing until it decides to follow the law.

    “President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt are draining the delta while they fill the swamp," she continued, "and Bernhardt’s clients now have a presidential signature to prove their investment has paid off.”

    Trump took various jabs at California’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, while lavishing praise on the Republican delegation members that were present.

    "After decades of failure and delays in ensuring critical water access for the people of this state, we are determined to finally get your problem solved," Trump said, referring to the state's previous water policy as a "disgrace."

    McCarthy also praised Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to divert more water to farmers in California.

    “Isn't it great to have a president who understands farming is not easy?” he said before the president came on stage. “Isn't it great to have a president who keeps his promises?”
     
    #31     Feb 19, 2020
  2. piezoe

    piezoe

    You're like a mushroom. kept in the dark and fed shit.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
    #32     Feb 20, 2020
    Tony Stark likes this.
  3. A lot of mushrooms are actually fungis though.

    Fun-guy. Get it white boy?
     
    #33     Feb 20, 2020
  4. jem

    jem

    nice post by the way... as it indicts the entire lefty argument about tax cuts.... and whether they paid for themselves. ( i saw you got a like from piezoe.)

    the next time any lefties tell us tax cut don't pay for themselves... I will search out this post.

    here is the same logic applied to tax cuts... based on projections and models...


    "To say than would otherwise be the case is a little bit like guessing or saying, I bet they would have had more revenues and a lower deficit had they not cut taxes. The only thing that is measurable is income tax revenue and if it dropped off significantly or increased after the tax cuts."



     
    #34     Feb 20, 2020
  5. jem

    jem

    I love the its great to have a President who understands farming is not easy quote.

    Bloomberg is going to have issues with that.

     
    #35     Feb 20, 2020

  6. Not sure what you went on about but tax cuts never pay for themselves as history as shown often. Spending always increases under both parties so cutting revenues and increasing expenditures is fucktarded and why politicians cannot make it in the private sector or private sector people suck in government.
     
    #36     Feb 20, 2020
  7. jem

    jem

    you fell for the leftist lies.
    after every big income tax cut, income tax revenues increased.
    if you don't believe me look at the tax collection tables.

    bush, reagan kennedy tax cuts all paid for themselves in that tax revenues hit new highs.
    If you have a problem with spending... have the govt cease borrowing so much money and cap spending.

    If you have a problem with inflation... tell the Federal Reserve to cease creating trillions of dollars on it own.

     
    #37     Feb 20, 2020
    smallfil likes this.
  8. piezoe

    piezoe

    You should write the Romers' and explain that you have solved the problem of how to tell what the effect of a tax cut was on revenue. They apparently wasted a couple years of research trying to figure out how to tell what the effect of a tax cut was on revenue. And you, you little devil, have solved the problem. Write them now:
    Christina and David Romer,
    c/o Dept. of Economics,
    530 Evans Hall #3880
    Berkeley, CA 94720-3880

    They will be very appreciative.
    :D
     
    #38     Feb 20, 2020
  9. NeoTrader

    NeoTrader

    "The proposal to substitute a flat-rate income tax for the present graduated rate structure will strike many a reader as a radical proposal. And so it is in terms of concept. For this very reason, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that it is not radical in terms of revenue yield, redistribution of income, or any other relevant criterion. Our present income tax rates range from 20 per cent to 91 per cent, with the rate reaching 50 per cent on the excess of taxable incomes over $ 18,000 for single taxpayers or $ 36,000 for married taxpayers filing joint returns. Yet a flat rate of 23 1/ 2 per cent on taxable income as presently reported and presently defined, that is, above present exemptions and after all presently allowable deductions, would yield as much revenue as the present highly graduated rate. In fact, such a flat rate, even with no change whatsoever in other features of the law, would yield a higher revenue because a larger amount of taxable income would be reported for three reasons: there would be less incentive than now to adopt legal but costly schemes that reduce the amount of taxable income reported (so-called tax avoidance); there would be less incentive to fail to report income that legally should be reported (tax evasion); the removal of the disincentive effects of the present structure of rates would produce a more efficient use of present resources and a higher income."

    Capitalim and Freedom - Milton Friedman

    This is not @jem 's idea. He certainly is just more informed than you and has read the works of possibly one of the greatest economists of the last century. Were you an actual libertarian as you claim, you would probably know this. But since you're just another leftist (based on almost every policy or measure you defend), you naturally think that higher taxes "are the way to go".

    You may not agree with what is written above, but to try to infer that what @jem wrote is some kind of absurdity is just plain ignorance.
     
    #39     Feb 20, 2020
    jem likes this.

  10. I fell for nothing so stop the holier than thou preaching.

    It is simple math/economics. Massive tax cuts with increases in spending increase the deficit, even if you can isolate revenues and show they increased b some measure. the net effect is still a negative.

    If you have a problem with deficits tell Presidents to stop cutting taxes on the rich and then spending heavily on defense and other pork belly projects. GOP is no more fiscally responsible than the Dems because you can just print money and fake jobs reports.
     
    #40     Feb 20, 2020