• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Karl Rove's Water Policy

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Another brainstorm from the short-sighted jerk who is really running the country - and will obviously do anything for a vote.

A vote for Bush is a vote for Rove.

NY Times editorial.

Karl Rove's Water Policy

It's hardly news that Karl Rove, President Bush's political strategist, keeps a hawklike eye on domestic policies emerging from the executive branch, the better to make sure that everything meshes with his boss's political interests and those of the Republican Party. Yet rarely have Mr. Rove's efforts to bend policy to politics been more transparent than his intervention in a seemingly remote dispute involving water rights in Oregon's Klamath River basin. As detailed in a Wall Street Journal report last week, Mr. Rove has worked almost obsessively behind the scenes to ensure that the outcome satisfies the party's agricultural base at the expense of conservationists and Indian tribes.

At issue is a long-simmering dispute over water flows in the Klamath River, which runs through southern Oregon and Northern California. Even in good years these flows can barely satisfy rival claims. Farmers want water for irrigation, while conservationists and Indian tribes want it for endangered fish species, including downriver salmon. The farmers have prevailed at almost every step of the way. In March 2002, the administration staged an elaborate ceremony in Klamath Falls to release irrigation water that had been held back to help the fish. In May, it unveiled a 10-year plan widely seen as pro-farmer. The fish have done less well. Last year, 33,000 salmon died in the lower Klamath, in one of the country's biggest fish kills. A subsequent report by the state of California blamed federal policies. Two weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that the 10-year plan itself contained flawed science.

The farmers clearly owe a considerable debt to Mr. Rove. He has journeyed to Oregon twice in the past 19 months to solicit their views, and early last year he showed up at a Fish and Wildlife Service retreat to make clear that agricultural interests came first. The Interior Department insists that Mr. Rove did not order any particular "outcome," though it would have been hard to miss the message.

The distressing thing here is that the administration is spending so much time on politics that it is ignoring obvious win-win solutions that could benefit all stakeholders. One idea is to have the federal government buy land from willing sellers, thus reducing agricultural demand for water and freeing up reliable supplies for everyone. That could provide a more lasting gift to the region than Mr. Rove's shortsighted politics can possibly confer.

 

fell8

Senior member
Nov 12, 2001
533
0
0
You,'re being silly. Living things don't need water that doesn't sell for $2 a bottle. You tree-hugging, leftist, commie, pinko, knee-jerk liberals are what is wrong with this country. You are screwing up the economy, undermining freedom, and destroying the eco-system with your restrictive laws! Why don't you learn the language and go home!
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: fell8
You,'re being silly. Living things don't need water that doesn't sell for $2 a bottle. You tree-hugging, leftist, commie, pinko, knee-jerk liberals are what is wrong with this country. You are screwing up the economy, undermining freedom, and destroying the eco-system with your restrictive laws! Why don't you learn the language and go home!
You're right. Here's my $2.00

Now I'm gonna' go home.

I hope there's some water left.

You know, a thought just occured to me. If water was controlled by one entity it would be worth much more than oil.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Sorry. There is a lot more to this story than the pathetic little blurb you posted. suckerFish suck and I am with the farmers.

a bit of the other side....

.......In April, 2001, a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a frivolous and flawed biological opinion put forth on behalf of the Endangered Species Act stating that the sucker fish in Klamath Lake required protection. In response to this, the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton, appointed by President George W. Bush, made the decision to address the Judge's decision by cutting off ALL irrigation water to 90% of the farmers in the Klamath Basin, a number representing 1400 farming families in two states.
The farmers have deeded rights to the irrigation water which attach to the irrigated land as an "appurtenance". In plain English, the farmers who own land in the Klamath Basin irrigated by Klamath Lake, own the irrigation water rights. Klamath Lake was built in the early 1900's specifically for irrigation and the project was supposed to revert to the farmers ownership when the construction costs were paid for. The costs were paid off, but the government never ceded over the project. Many of these families are veterans who were asked to homestead the land and farm it. They have deeds signed by Presidents of the United States.

They organized and petitioned their government, they held a rally in May where 20,000 people asked for the decision to be reversed. All to no effect, no water flowed in May or June. The families became desparate. In late June, a single individual opened one headgate. The Bureau of Reclamation immediately closed it. A July 4th rally protesting that resulted in the gate being opened again. The government sent two US Marshals to insure the gates stayed closed. Later that week, a vote in the U.S. Senate to reverse conditions was defeated. With no relief imminent, with financial ruin at the door and with their rights being trampled by the government that should have protected them ... a few couragous farmers acted. What follows are eyewitness and particpant accounts of the actions of these farmers and their supporters.



 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: 308nato
Sorry. There is a lot more to this story than the pathetic little blurb you posted. suckerFish suck and I am with the farmers.

a bit of the other side....">http://www.jeffhead.com/klamath/[/S</a>

.......In April, 2001, a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a frivolous and flawed biological opinion put forth on behalf of the Endangered Species Act stating that the sucker fish in Klamath Lake required protection. In response to this, the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton, appointed by President George W. Bush, made the decision to address the Judge's decision by cutting off ALL irrigation water to 90% of the farmers in the Klamath Basin, a number representing 1400 farming families in two states.
The farmers have deeded rights to the irrigation water which attach to the irrigated land as an "appurtenance". In plain English, the farmers who own land in the Klamath Basin irrigated by Klamath Lake, own the irrigation water rights. Klamath Lake was built in the early 1900's specifically for irrigation and the project was supposed to revert to the farmers ownership when the construction costs were paid for. The costs were paid off, but the government never ceded over the project. Many of these families are veterans who were asked to homestead the land and farm it. They have deeds signed by Presidents of the United States.

They organized and petitioned their government, they held a rally in May where 20,000 people asked for the decision to be reversed. All to no effect, no water flowed in May or June. The families became desparate. In late June, a single individual opened one headgate. The Bureau of Reclamation immediately closed it. A July 4th rally protesting that resulted in the gate being opened again. The government sent two US Marshals to insure the gates stayed closed. Later that week, a vote in the U.S. Senate to reverse conditions was defeated. With no relief imminent, with financial ruin at the door and with their rights being trampled by the government that should have protected them ... a few couragous farmers acted. What follows are eyewitness and particpant accounts of the actions of these farmers and their supporters.
Actually there is even more to it. Klamath lake was completely full and the goverment was refusing to let water out to protect some fish in the lake. Since this lake has dam, it was being held to artificially high levels.

Also the record fish kill you speak of, also comes from a record samon run. Think those two numbers might be related in some manner? Also there was also a report that a meth lab that was dumped in the river might have contributed to the fish kill.

It really sucks when only one side of the story gets told.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 308nato
Sorry. There is a lot more to this story than the pathetic little blurb you posted. suckerFish suck and I am with the farmers.

a bit of the other side....&#34;>http://www.jeffhead.com/klamath/[/S</a>]http://]http://www.jeffhead.com/klamath/[/S]&#34;>http://www.jeffhead.com/klamath/[/S</a>">http://</a>

.......In April, 2001, a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a frivolous and flawed biological opinion put forth on behalf of the Endangered Species Act stating that the sucker fish in Klamath Lake required protection. In response to this, the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton, appointed by President George W. Bush, made the decision to address the Judge's decision by cutting off ALL irrigation water to 90% of the farmers in the Klamath Basin, a number representing 1400 farming families in two states.
The farmers have deeded rights to the irrigation water which attach to the irrigated land as an "appurtenance". In plain English, the farmers who own land in the Klamath Basin irrigated by Klamath Lake, own the irrigation water rights. Klamath Lake was built in the early 1900's specifically for irrigation and the project was supposed to revert to the farmers ownership when the construction costs were paid for. The costs were paid off, but the government never ceded over the project. Many of these families are veterans who were asked to homestead the land and farm it. They have deeds signed by Presidents of the United States.

They organized and petitioned their government, they held a rally in May where 20,000 people asked for the decision to be reversed. All to no effect, no water flowed in May or June. The families became desparate. In late June, a single individual opened one headgate. The Bureau of Reclamation immediately closed it. A July 4th rally protesting that resulted in the gate being opened again. The government sent two US Marshals to insure the gates stayed closed. Later that week, a vote in the U.S. Senate to reverse conditions was defeated. With no relief imminent, with financial ruin at the door and with their rights being trampled by the government that should have protected them ... a few couragous farmers acted. What follows are eyewitness and particpant accounts of the actions of these farmers and their supporters.
Actually there is even more to it. Klamath lake was completely full and the goverment was refusing to let water out to protect some fish in the lake. Since this lake has dam, it was being held to artificially high levels.

Also the record fish kill you speak of, also comes from a record samon run. Think those two numbers might be related in some manner? Also there was also a report that a meth lab that was dumped in the river might have contributed to the fish kill.

It really sucks when only one side of the story gets told.

You guys are not allowed to interrupt a rant with the facts or any part of a story that doesn't lend itself to criticism of the Bush admininstration. Shame on you.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Republicans love money more than life, so we are all going to die. There's only 90% of the big fish left in the sea. We have eaten the rest. Bush is a huge disaster. All those beautiful children born into misery will pay for you and me.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans love money more than life, so we are all going to die. There's only 90% of the big fish left in the sea. We have eaten the rest. Bush is a huge disaster. All those beautiful children born into misery will pay for you and me.
As far as samon goes, about 80% of the samon harvested in the US is farm raised. Your right overfishing could be a problem, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans love money more than life, so we are all going to die. There's only 90% of the big fish left in the sea. We have eaten the rest. Bush is a huge disaster. All those beautiful children born into misery will pay for you and me.
As far as samon goes, about 80% of the samon harvested in the US is farm raised. Your right overfishing could be a problem, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
I was thinking about the children, not the thread. Sorry
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans love money more than life, so we are all going to die. There's only 90% of the big fish left in the sea. We have eaten the rest. Bush is a huge disaster. All those beautiful children born into misery will pay for you and me.
As far as samon goes, about 80% of the samon harvested in the US is farm raised. Your right overfishing could be a problem, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
I was thinking about the children, not the thread. Sorry
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.
Government can provide services cheaper than can be had via market forces. Example, auto inspection in New Jersey. We were told privatization would save money and time. Now we're paying millions more to Parson's for auto inspection and you can't get anything remotely resembling service at any Motor Vehicle agency (they were privatized too).

And the people of California were not going through growing pains of the energy industry. They were robbed by Enron plain and simple. Market manipulation. We run the risk of energy companies, or any other industry for that matter, robbing us whenever they are the supplier of essential services.

Government is ultimately answerable to the people. No elections in industry. No impeachment. No accountability.
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
california should have stayed regulated if they didn't want to build power plants. by becoming an importer they subjected themselves to being held hostage. it's their fault, nimby, therefore they paid the true cost. Look at LA, they didn't have high prices because they had their own power.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.
Government can provide services cheaper than can be had via market forces. Example, auto inspection in New Jersey. We were told privatization would save money and time. Now we're paying millions more to Parson's for auto inspection and you can't get anything remotely resembling service at any Motor Vehicle agency (they were privatized too).

And the people of California were not going through growing pains of the energy industry. They were robbed by Enron plain and simple. Market manipulation. We run the risk of energy companies, or any other industry for that matter, robbing us whenever they are the supplier of essential services.

Government is ultimately answerable to the people. No elections in industry. No impeachment. No accountability.
ummm, people hold companies accountable via their pocketbooks and shareholder meetings. Don't like the service, take your business somewhere else.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Markets are concerned only with short term goals equating to next quarters profits, politicians about what will reelect them next time. The result is that our system will die and probably us with it.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.
Government can provide services cheaper than can be had via market forces. Example, auto inspection in New Jersey. We were told privatization would save money and time. Now we're paying millions more to Parson's for auto inspection and you can't get anything remotely resembling service at any Motor Vehicle agency (they were privatized too).

And the people of California were not going through growing pains of the energy industry. They were robbed by Enron plain and simple. Market manipulation. We run the risk of energy companies, or any other industry for that matter, robbing us whenever they are the supplier of essential services.

Government is ultimately answerable to the people. No elections in industry. No impeachment. No accountability.
ummm, people hold companies accountable via their pocketbooks and shareholder meetings. Don't like the service, take your business somewhere else.
Companies who take over after deregulation of essential services don't give a damn about where you take your business. Where are you going to buy your energy? In my state it's the local power company or the dark. Get your car inspected? Parson's or no inspection sticker. Water? Auto insurance? You name it. If it's an essential service private companies will rob you blind or you can live in the dark, thirsty.

Your trust of private industry is astounding. Your mistrust of government is as well.

If you mistrust government so much why do you trust the Bush administration?


 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.
Government can provide services cheaper than can be had via market forces. Example, auto inspection in New Jersey. We were told privatization would save money and time. Now we're paying millions more to Parson's for auto inspection and you can't get anything remotely resembling service at any Motor Vehicle agency (they were privatized too).

And the people of California were not going through growing pains of the energy industry. They were robbed by Enron plain and simple. Market manipulation. We run the risk of energy companies, or any other industry for that matter, robbing us whenever they are the supplier of essential services.

Government is ultimately answerable to the people. No elections in industry. No impeachment. No accountability.
ummm, people hold companies accountable via their pocketbooks and shareholder meetings. Don't like the service, take your business somewhere else.
Companies who take over after deregulation of essential services don't give a damn about where you take your business. Where are you going to buy your energy? In my state it's the local power company or the dark. Get your car inspected? Parson's or no inspection sticker. Water? Auto insurance? You name it. If it's an essential service private companies will rob you blind or you can live in the dark, thirsty.

Your trust of private industry is astounding. Your mistrust of government is as well.

If you mistrust government so much why do you trust the Bush administration?

Because they promote privatization and are cleaning up the mess left by clinton.
 

fell8

Senior member
Nov 12, 2001
533
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
didn't read the article. But, as for water policy, we need to privatize the whole water system. Put it in private hands. Not only will that reduce prices, but it'll bring in market forces that can better allocate water. This should increase efficiency for everyone. Right now, farmers get about 80% of water in this country, most of which is wasted away. Privatization will clean up the mess.
Like it did with energy?
the energy market seems to be doing alright, don't you think? Unless your reference is with Enron, I think the state should sell all assets, including the powerplants. Keep in mind that deregulation only began about 7 years ago. Eventually there will be amendment to the rules and consolidation will come into effect.
You'd have a tough time telling the people of California energy deregulation is doing alright.

I'd rather see the government run essential services than private industry. Private industry uses essential services as a weapon. And the profits they make from government deregulation of industry are used to fill the pockets of the politicians they need to deregulate it. More corruption. Less control. Market fixing. Higher prices for consumers.
the gov't doesn't belong in business. The government should not provide services that can be had cheaper via market forces. The people of california were going through the growing pains of the energy industry. It'll mature soon enough. Every hiccup shouldn't be an excuse to roll back the clock.
Government can provide services cheaper than can be had via market forces. Example, auto inspection in New Jersey. We were told privatization would save money and time. Now we're paying millions more to Parson's for auto inspection and you can't get anything remotely resembling service at any Motor Vehicle agency (they were privatized too).

And the people of California were not going through growing pains of the energy industry. They were robbed by Enron plain and simple. Market manipulation. We run the risk of energy companies, or any other industry for that matter, robbing us whenever they are the supplier of essential services.

Government is ultimately answerable to the people. No elections in industry. No impeachment. No accountability.
ummm, people hold companies accountable via their pocketbooks and shareholder meetings. Don't like the service, take your business somewhere else.
Companies who take over after deregulation of essential services don't give a damn about where you take your business. Where are you going to buy your energy? In my state it's the local power company or the dark. Get your car inspected? Parson's or no inspection sticker. Water? Auto insurance? You name it. If it's an essential service private companies will rob you blind or you can live in the dark, thirsty.

Your trust of private industry is astounding. Your mistrust of government is as well.

If you mistrust government so much why do you trust the Bush administration?

Because they promote privatization and are cleaning up the mess left by clinton.
Look how narrow this gets in the middle!:Q
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY