|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
Why Perry Hates Regulators: They’re Bad for (His) BusinessPosted on Aug 25, 2011
By Joe Conason Like so many Republican officials of the tea party persuasion, Rick Perry despises the Environmental Protection Agency—a feeling he has expressed repeatedly in speeches, lawsuits, legislation and even a book titled “Fed Up!” Perhaps that is only natural for the governor of Texas, a “dirty energy” state where the protection of air, water and human health rank well below the defense of oil company profits for most politicians. But Perry has at least one other reason for smacking down those bureaucrats so eagerly. When environmental regulators do their job properly, that can mean serious trouble for Perry’s largest political donors. The outstanding example is Harold Simmons, a Dallas mega-billionaire industrialist who has donated well over a million dollars to Perry’s campaign committees recently. With Perry’s eager assistance—and despite warnings from Texas environmental officials—Simmons has gotten approval to build an enormous radioactive waste dump on top of a crucial underground water supply. “We first had to change the law to where a private company can own a license, and we did that,” Simmons boasted in 2006, after the Texas Legislature and the governor rubber-stamped initial legislation and approvals for the project. “Then we got another law passed that said (the state) can only issue one license. Of course, we were the only ones that applied.” Most Americans have never heard of Simmons, despite his fantastic wealth, because he wisely keeps his head low, generally refusing press interviews and avoiding media coverage. Last year, a local monthly in his hometown published the headline “Dallas’ Evil Genius” over a scathing and fascinating investigative profile that examined not only the peculiar history of litigation between Simmons and his children (who no longer speak to him), but his political machinations, corporate raiding and continuing corporate penchant for pollution. Advertisement Now reporters for The Los Angeles Times have revived, advanced and updated the WCS story with much additional detail, including interviews with the Texas environmental officials who oversaw the approval process for the facility. For a period last summer, that process appeared to have been slowed down to allow serious consideration of the scientific data collected by the commission’s staff. In other words, the regulators were trying to do their job, which meant expensive delays and perhaps an eventual ruling against the nuclear waste site. That would have protected the Oglalla Aquifer and cost Simmons hundreds of millions in lost investment and profit. But then Perry’s appointees on the commission voted by two to one to issue licenses for the WCS site. This year, officials on another Texas commission appointed by Perry—who oversee low-level radioactive waste in the state—voted to allow the WCS site to accept nuclear waste from 34 other states in a highly controversial decision later ratified by the state Legislature and signed by Perry himself. Not long after that, according to The Los Angeles Times’ report, Simmons gave $100,000 to Americans for Rick Perry, an “independent” committee supporting his presidential candidacy. (Back in 2004, Simmons was a major contributor to another “independent” political committee, the notorious Swift Boat Veterans group that distorted Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s war record in a series of TV ads.) According to a spokesman for WCS, the Texas governor’s happy and lucrative relationship with Simmons did nothing to help the company except to turn the billionaire into “an easy target. ... It made the state redouble its efforts to be thorough.” But the Texas officials who opposed the approval on principle have since quit their jobs with the state. As one of them told the L.A. Times reporters, “This is a stunningly horrible public policy to grant a license to this company for that site ... . Something had to happen to overcome the quite blatant shortcoming of that application. ... The only thing I know in Texas that has the potential to do that is money in politics.” As for the Texas official (and Perry appointee) who overruled his own scientists and approved the deal, he left state government, too—to work as a lobbyist for Simmons. He says that no undue influence led to the favorable outcome for his new employer. Texas must be the only place on earth where anyone would believe that. Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. © 2011 Creators.com New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By M Henri Day, August 28, 2011 at 6:48 am Link to this comment
The decline of the US Empire and the deterioration in living conditions for the ordinary residents of that country will continue, no matter whether the next US president be named Barack Hussein Obama or James Richard Perry. The major question is which of the two is most likely to put an end to the short, happy (?) life of H sapiens sapiens on this planet in a thermonuclear grand finale which literally brings the house down….
Henri
Report thisBy Marian Griffith, August 27, 2011 at 5:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@lafayett
Report thisSadly, it is not only possible but even likely.
Truth has not played a big role in presidential elections for a long time now, and information has now become so fragmented and compartimentalised that people only see and hear what confirms what they want to belief is the truth.
The fact that Perry got re-elected as governor even after all evidence of .. questionable ethics .. surfacing is proof enough of that. Those who want to think only bad of Obama and belief that Perry is the best answer to him will simply ignore anything bad they hear about him and tune out any news media or website that has something bad to say about him.
The real battle in the primaries is not to find out who is popular with the voters but who is capable of rallying the most viewers and readers so that the big news corporations feel secure that if they put their weight behind him or her, it will not affect their readership and might increase it.
Once the media get behind a candidate they will simply twist the truth, and the voters will be unable to even learn about what others have to say about the favourite, simply because they do not watch or read any news that might upset their convictions. The fact that candidates can get away with saying entirely different things depending on which group they are talking to at that time, and those not belonging to that group never even notice the discrepancy is testament to how far this compartimentalisation has gone already (and with the onset of social media this is going to get even more extreme as it involves people advertising what they want the truth to be by which groups they declare themselves to belong to)
Which incidentally also is why those election campaigns are becoming prohibitively expensive. It takes a lot of ads and spindoctoring to hide reality behind a facade of what you want your voters to be the truth.
By Lafayette, August 27, 2011 at 12:17 am Link to this comment
After the last Texan governor, who came to LaLaLand on the Potomac promising to “reduce government spending” (and who ended up spending $1.3T over in the Middle-east sandbox), the American people will vote for Lead-head’s clone?
Possible, but improbable.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, August 26, 2011 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment
He’s the MSM’s boy and they will try and shove him down the Americans voters throat on a daily basis for the next 13 months.
The Diebold machines are being rigged as we speak.
Report thisBy garyrose66, August 26, 2011 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
Since Perry is obviously going to be the nominee for Prez, where are all the republican stooges on this site commenting on how slanted and biased this story report is?
Report this