(This is a good diary, and I broke it in half so be sure to read the rest of it "below the fold" by clicking on the "There's More" link at the bottom of the post. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new set of smog rules, decreasing the amount of dangerous ozone to be allowed in the air. Forgive me as I quote heavily while fleshing this story out. Per the AP:
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the new limits "the most stringent standards ever," and he said they will require 345 counties _ out of more than 700 that are monitored _ to make air quality improvements because they now have dirtier air than is healthy to breathe. ... The new EPA standard will lower the allowable concentration of ozone in the air to no more than 75 parts per billion, compared with the old standard of 80.
The new rules drew criticism from several angles. Governor Perry chimed in with this:
The EPA's decision to change ozone air quality attainment standards has Texas and other states chasing a moving target at the expense of taxpayers and our economy,
Yet Perry's criticism pales in comparison to the benefits to be gained by the new standards:
The EPA estimated that compliance with a 75 parts-per-billion smog standard would cost $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion a year and "yield health benefits valued between $2 billion and $19 billion."
Some examples of these health benefits include preventing nearly 1,100 premature deaths and 5,600 less hospital or emergency room visits. So while the benefits seem to be great, the new rules also drew criticism from those within the agency. Two of the agency's scientific advisory panels recommended an even more stringent set of smog standards:
The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
The final results of a SurveyUSA Texas presidential tracking poll were released this morning.
Before the editorializing, the big numbers:
If the Democratic primary were held today, would you vote for Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Or some other Democrat?
Clinton - - Obama - - Other
48% 49% 2%
The first interesting tidbit:
6 hours till votes are counted in the Texas Democratic Primary, contest is a Jump Ball, with Obama's momentum now slowed, and possibly stalled...
This comment seems to be based on tightening margins throughout the poll's tracking, but for those of us on the ground in Texas, there is no indication that Obama's momentum has slowed. While record early vote turnout cannot itself measure support for one candidate, it is certainly a sign that there is tremendous interest and backing for both candidates.
Another interesting note:
For Obama to carry the state's popular vote (convention delegates are not awarded as a straight function of the popular vote), Obama needs to run at least 3 points stronger than Clinton among those who vote at the precinct tomorrow.
Given Senator Obama's history with caucuses, this is certainly an achievable margin. However, the importance of Texas to the Clinton campaign has drawn a surge of Hillary volunteers both from Texas, and from around the nation. At the end of the day, however, numbers may not be able to make up for the superior organization that Senator Obama's campaign has displayed in every caucus contest.
Other takeaways from the poll include:
- The survey breaks up the results into four age groups, and Senator Clinton leads in every one, except those between the ages of 18 and 34. However, her only significant lead is with voters over the age of 65, where she has 22 percentage point lead.
- Among those who responded with a party affiliation, Senator Obama leads among those who identify Republican 60% to 36%.
- Senator Obama also has a significant lead among those that identify themselves as independents: 55% to 41%.
- Among those that identified the economy as the top issue in the election, the candidates split the votes: 49%-49%
- Where Iraq and Terrorism were identified as the top issue in the election, voters overwhelmingly preferred Senator Obama.
Iraq - - Terrorism Obama 57% 62%
Clinton 42% 30%
These voters were interviewed Saturday and Sunday, after Senator Clinton had put her new national security ad into play. However, the surveys may be too close to judge the ad's impact, if it has any.
There's more and more to take away from the poll, and I can leave a lot of that to you as you go through the numbers. In case you missed the link above, the full break down can be found here.
UPDATE
I went back to find the previous two SUSA polls, and have noted some interesting trends below the fold.
Voters here, engaged by the foreclosure problem and fearing a recession, are ready to lay eyes on candidates, or at least see their faces on television.
The article focuses on the difficulties presidential candidates face in their attempts to campaign in such a state. While these difficulties can never be exactly mirrored in our state, the obstacles candidates face in California may better prepare them to approach voters in Texas.
From economic issues to trends in health care, immigration, urban infrastructure and education, the state has proved to be a great incubator for prescriptive policy and a test of the political winds.
...
The presidential candidates know the state, flush with delegates, cannot be easily discarded. But the vastness of California, the high cost of advertising here - a statewide television buy can run over $2 million for a week - and the sheer impossibility of traversing its myriad Congressional districts in a day, even with the help of chartered aircraft, have forced the candidates to keep their distance from here.
The policy changes that face California are mirrored in Texas. Economic growths and spurts are not only felt in our urban centers, but also in the majority rural part of the state. We struggle with our rural Southern roots even as we try to forge a path into the 21st century. In only a few other states is the issue of immigration so married to the fabric of a state.
The article provides no prescription to winning California, or handling the diverse array of issues the state's voters will present to the presidential candidates.
But whoever finds a working strategy in California may have the beginnings of an effective strategy here in Texas.
Doing my daily news sweep across the state's papers, I came across this article from the Houston Chronicle.
More than $41 million churned through the Texas political system in 2007, a year in which there were no high-profile races and only a few constitutional amendments on the ballot.
$41 million in a seemingly timid political year. But the really interesting stuff is what follows:
Millions went into political action committees that are bulking up for the 2008 elections. Those PACs include the Texas Association of Realtors, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texans for Economic Development, which is a collection of horse- and dog-track owners who want to legalize slot machines.
The rest of the article goes into detail about the individuals who donated the most money to political causes. But let me use the above quote as a jumping off point into something more substantive.
While millions of dollars will go through PACs such as those mentioned above, who will donate the millions of dollars to elect public servants who are truly dedicated to helping put food on their constituents' tables, or intent on ensuring them proper healthcare, determined to build a renewable energy foundation, and take care of the fundamental, and common sense issues?
One might argue that because issues such as the economy and healthcare are indeed fundamental issues that will come up for debate year after year, they do not need the funding push more specialized interests need to get a piece of the discussion.
Even with the attention devoted economic, healthcare, energy independence, civil liberties, and other recurring political issues, on how many have lawmakers come to workable, and notable, consensus?
While downturns, recessions, and depressions are unavoidable parts of a free-market business cycle, predatory and speculative lending practices are wholly within regulatory reach. While decision-makers work to fend off today's recession, would we be here had they stepped in earlier?
The same goes for healthcare, our dependence on foreign energy sources, and the extent of our civil liberties. On each account the situation has deteriorated to the point where lawmakers are forced to act. But why did we have to be here in the first place?
A counter-argument may claim that these are the thorniest and most difficult issues of our day, and that consensus shouldn't be expected easily or quickly.
I would agree with that. So while we have honest to god issues to contend with, issues that affect every citizen, do we really need to hear so much about lawsuit reform or legalizing slot machines?
But politics is a game of money. You and I can editorialize all we want about these issues, but we can't change much until we reserve our money to politicians that pledge to tackle the most difficult issues of our day, and dismiss the fluff.
And yet for every one of us that is willing to fund legitimate decision making, there will be many more offering dollars for more selfish interests. And how many viable solutions are there for this? Whatever they may be, I certainly hope they redirect that $41 million to much more worthy causes.
