This page was last updated on August 26, 2004.

As of August 14, 2004, this letter had not been published on the Times web site.  Since I was unable to cut-and-paste the letter, I apologize up front for any transcription errors.

Ms. Lavender claims the White House is up for sale.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“So, ‘Bush has cleaned up our White House and made being a president a respectable position again,’ according to letter writer Michael J. Wallace letter (‘America the gullible,’ Thursday).  One wonders what planet Mr. Wallace has been living on.

“I have been registered voter for 50 years and I have to say that the Bush administration is the most corrupt I have ever seen.  This administration is absolutely for sale.  If you want to discover why the administration advocates a given policy, follow the money trail.

“‘Safe Forests?’  The bill opens the national forests to clear cutting of old growth trees in remote areas.  It has nothing to do with preventing forest fires near where people live.  It has everything to do with rewarding timber interests for their huge contributions to the Republican Party.”

[RWC] If the bill has nothing to do with preventing forest fires near population centers, President Bush sure fooled a lot of people.  The bill passed 80-14 in the U.S. Senate, 286-140 in the House, and was supported by both Democrat and Republican governors of western states.  Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was a big supporter.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the forestry industry contributed $35.4 million to candidates from 1990 through 2004, 79% going to Republicans.  If you consider that “huge,” the labor union industry contributed over $493 million during the same period, 93% going to Democrats.¹

“‘Clear Skies?’  Another scam.  The act allows air polluters to pollute even more – a reward for their enormous contributions to – guess who?”

 [RWC] How is the Clear Skies Act a scam?  Its goal is to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂), oxides of nitrogen (NO_X), and mercury by 70% by 2018.  Criticism of the bill tends to come from environmentalists whose real goal is to eliminate coal-fired power plants.  Bill opponents and Bush-bashers like to claim the bill’s market-driven approach will allow more pollution, not less.  This is false.  The same market-driven approach was used successfully to phase out leaded gasoline.  Have you tried to buy leaded gasoline lately?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the electric utility industry contributed $89.6 million to candidates from 1990 through 2004, 63% going to Republicans.¹

“The regulatory agencies are riddled with former lobbyists from the industries they are supposed to regulate.  Their real job is to undermine safety, environmental, health and other measures which they are pledged to enforce.”

 [RWC] Like it or not, most of the people with expertise to oversee agencies are those people who worked in the industries.  If you believe someone from Greenpeace should lead these agencies, you’re mistaken.

If Ms. Lavender can prove her allegations that government agencies are deliberately ignoring the law, she should provide that proof.

“We could fill an entire newspaper with the sleaze and lies by which this administration operates, so let’s hear no more about Bush cleaning up the White House.”

 [RWC] We could fill an entire newspaper with partisan allegations, but not with any proof.  Perhaps in her next letter Ms. Lavender could actually present opinion she can support with verifiable facts.

1. OpenSecrets.org; Center for Responsive Politics.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.