Dean Backtracks On ReRegulation

Last night Matthews asked Dean a straightfoward question about whether he supports ReRegulation.
Dean said- No, he wants "Accountability".

During November, Dean made mention that he supports ReRegulation:

"In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small
group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his
"reregulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business
that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "reregulating" the
telecommunications industry, too."

There is a difference between ReRegulation (passing new legislation) and Accountability (enforcing existing standards).

So it appears when pressed for specifics in regards to ReRegulation Dean has backtracked in his support.

Prove me wrong, but he said it on Hardball. I'm sorry you don't like facts.

He gave 'yes, no, and maybe' answers to both issues. I'll wait for the transcript before further commenting.

media companies.

I was taking notes. Dean specifically said he wouldn't break them up ala FDR Trustbusting.

considering some of his biggest donors are high-level executives at (AOL) Time Warner. I seriously doubt he'd do anything to roll back the damage done by the 1996 Telecom Act and break up the monopolies.

Break up what and how?

j/k :evilgrin:

:eyes:

Make up your mind.

or are you just trying to turn it into one?
:eyes:

At least he nourishes that image....

And that certainly DOES seem to be a Yes or No answer.

Dean said NO.

and by god, we need reregulation of corporations since Bush came into office and RELAXED every single loophole that lets them get away with murder, if not more than that!

How is he planning on reregulating media, energy, or anything else? Does he have something beyond empty rhetoric, a plan perhaps?

and Dean said No, Accountability.

Two different things:

ReRegulation means passing new laws.
Accountality means enforcing current laws.

Maybe Dean doesn't know the difference.
Maybe Dean just said "ReRegulation to strike a chord with a certain segment of the Left.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like Dean did last night.

Clark has NOT supported any further DeRegulation.

And he has called for Media Regulations to be rolled back to pre Reagan limits.

He has also said he would go further than Clinton's Environmental Regulations.

Implement regulatory reforms that are pro-market and pro-consumer. Too often, the Bush Administration has used regulatory reform to bail out corporations rather than promote true competition. As a result, regulations are standing in the way of efficiency improvements in many industries that would benefit consumers and businesses. Wes Clark would implement regulatory reforms that use market-based incentives while protecting the environment and consumers against abuses.

just lip service avoiding the reality. Typical politician's doubletalk.

actually help enforce rules against corporations. Yeah right. </sarcasm>

and IBM? That's some moral high ground you're standing on :eyes:

Plus, the big donations from AOL/Time Warner, a very typically GOP donor (they give money to both Bush and Dean, which means they are buying lax enforcement of any existing regulation, let alone further relaxation).

I'd like to ask Dean, who else is he bending over for, and whose got the Crisco?

"like Vermont Yankee, which is owned by Entenergy/Koch Industries. The Koch Brothers,owners of Koch Industries are the two ultra-conservatives who backed the Bush Adminisration in 2000, while backing Dean in Vermont. The Koch Brothers also founded the Cato Institute, a rather right wing organization which frequently gave Dean B grades as governor, while giving F grades to Republicans like Voinovich." Nicholas-J. a fellow Du'er.

I try not to Bash Dean though I support Clark. I like Dean, he's my second choice. Usually you do well at defending Dean, though you do come off as highly partisan you keep it within the lines. That post however was pretty lame, and used highly tortured logic. How many Americans would you estimate have worked for large corporations? By your logic we should assume by association then that each one of them would be complicit in a conspiracy to help those large corporations evade U.S. laws? That is actually a pretty insulting view of a whole lot of people. Kind of a McCarthy like "guilt by association" stretch of logic. Not a very good way to reach out to unaffiliated voters.

Edited by the way to correct a typo in the header.

for Homeland Security. I just don't trust any company that does that or the people that work there and know that's what the company does.

It's with Clark. You don't care at all about Axciom. You are just interested in using anything you can, whether you understand it or not to hammer Clark. I'd love to see you in one of the Patriot Act threads that don't involve a candidate.

since my mother works in Homeland Security and she's seen gross abuse there of the Patriot Act. That's why I don't like Axicom.

And I can respect that kind of concern. It is tricky ground. I believe the threat of terrorism is very real. I also think the threat to our Civil Liberties is very real. I fly for business a lot. If too many people get too frightened of flying the economy goes into a recession and a lot of people are thrown out of work. I support some kinds of screening and oppose others. I might support screening that picked up people who are in the United States on an expired Visa from a country for which intelligencs shows attempts to infiltrate have disproportionately originated, for example. I wouldn't support screening that picked up people for having an Arab name on the other hand.

Anyway the post I responded to was much more sweeping in its negative content than just the specific implied concern, that's why I responded.

:eyes:

You are putting your own spin on it. Dean proposes to reregulate, Tweety wasn't giving him an opportunity to respond in any detail. Clark, along with Lieberman, opposes any reregulation and expects accountability, as if corporations would volunteer in good faith.

Yes-No-Maybe on every hotbutton issue.

Voluntary compliance is the Republican buzz word. When Clark, and Dean for that matter, use accountability they link it specifically and directly to enforcement of laws. There are arguments to be made for the need for new laws, but you don't have to twist words to make a point. At least I hope you don't.

The regs and laws have been become so convoluted and rife with loopholes and escape hatches as to make them worthless. Existing laws have become so watered-down they are rendered useless as nothing more than a figleaf to cover up grandscale looting. The two specific examples Clark used were the energy and telecommunications monopolies; Energy which has become has criminal as the savings and loans debacle, Cheney gets away with hiding the rampant corruption and no one even discusses what they got away with in the California deregulation schme---so much for benefitting the consumer. And telecommunications--do I really need to go into detail about the problem here? So, what does Clark propose other than more platitudes?

And of course I notice them more often when they are against ones I support, though I have defended one or two other candidates from that sort of thing. I think you do that sometimes, and I get annoyed. Here is some language from one of Clark's position papers that directly addresses the issue of "voluntary compliance" for example, which is contrary to the way you portrayed Clark: "The Bush Administration has instructed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ease penalties on employers who expose their workers to hazards on the job. Bush has also attempted to cut funding for OSHA, which employs fewer inspectors now than it did in 1980. These reckless policies put all workers at risk. I support stiff penalties for employers who violate the law, and increased funding for OSHA and its companion research agency. And I'll replace the Bush Administration's weak, voluntary ergonomics standards with real, enforceable rules that protect the health of American workers."

The current post from you doesn't fall into that "annoying" category though. One thing I have been learning to do more and more, from participating in these threads, is save useful things I find posted. Of course I did not save Clark's initial full statement on the issue of "Reregulation" unfortunately, the one I posted myself lol. I think Clark specifically cited those two industries by name as examples of areas that needed to be revisited regarding the adaquacy of existing regulations. However his framing sentance I believe was broader and recognized that consumer needs have changed and needed to be adaquately protected in the post Clinton era.

Here is part of Clark's position paper on his Economic Vision:

"Unleashing the power and ingenuity of America's entrepreneurial spirit: President Bush has coddled industry instead of harnessing the power of markets to spur growth, create jobs, protect the environment, and defend the homeland. I would correct his irresponsible policies by:

Opening foreign markets to U.S. exports. I would order a 120-day review of all existing trade agreements - not to protect U.S. markets, but to make sure that our trade partners are living up to their end of the bargain.

Promoting pro-consumer and pro-environment regulatory structures. I would implement regulatory reforms that promote market incentives while protecting the environment and consumers against market abuses.

Encouraging investor confidence. I would undertake a sustained effort to undertake reforms that will restore the trust that makes our markets the best place in the world to trade and invest.
Reforming the tax system. We must make the tax system simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth. This is not only fair for America's workers, but smart for the economy."

The third point speaks to your question. Yes it is vague, but it does directly addresse the need to protect consumers against market abuses through promoting pro-consumer regulatory structures. Clark keeps filling in the blanks, and he is not looking the way you keep describing him. Dean makes rhetorical statements blasting the Bush administration for letting corporations rob consumers etc, good stuff , agreed, but the details are left blank also.

is that the President sets policy for his administration. Then he appoints people to implement that policy. Thus, if the President wants a "card checkoff" to be sufficient for a union to gain representation (as Dean alluded to) he appoints a Secretary of Labor and officials to the NLRB that will support that position. The people waorking in those departments will do whatever they are told to do, by and large, so the problem really begins at the top.

If Clark appoints a new SEC chairman (like Elliot Spitzer) and directs him to clean up the market, things will move in that direction. If he appoints one of his pals to the Joint Chiefs (actually, I don't know if he has all that many "pals" in the service, but you get my meaning) and says I don't want anymore billion dollar aircraft carriers, no more Star Wars research and no more pocket nukes, then things change.

If he replaces Powell at the FCC with someone from DU then we'll probably see a whole different slant on things when it comes to Murdoch, et al (boy, I'd love to see FAUX cut out of his control).

SO first you elect a president, then he appoints his people and then they get down to fighting with the lobbyists and special interests. They know they won't win every fight, but if the underlying policy is pro-consumer, then the direction of the government will take a 180 degree turn from Bushonomics.

Or do you think Kerry or Dean or Gephardt will do any different?

Did you watch Hardball and listen to Dean give his yes-no-maybe answer to regulation?

AA, CFR, NAFTA, DP, Cuban sanctions, I/P, Iraq, civil liberties, energy de-regulation, and now Re-regulation.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

Quite a list of achievements there, Dean. If he "evolves" anymore, he'll belong to a new species, homo evolvus!

:-)

If you haven't noticed, everything has been privatized to hell in that last decade. You can't enforce existing standards that don't exist anymore. Hence reregulation.


Boy, you're really reaching.

reregulation.

Got a link to his grand plan for re-regulation? I couldn't find one on his website under issues...

The distribution of the income tax burden has changed dramatically. In 1973, corporations paid 40% of federal income tax revenues. Last year, the corporate contribution was down to 16.8%. Experts estimate that corporate tax avoidance schemes are costing the US taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. Senator John McCain claims that even a modest effort to eliminate unnecessary special interest tax preferences and loopholes would raise nearly $50 billion a year in increased federal revenues.

The current tax code is overloaded with special interest favoritism and stacked against working Americans. Unfair tax subsidies, shelters and loopholes abound. Corporations use foreign tax havens solely to avoid paying US income taxes. Tax cheats escape detection and prosecution. Abusive tax shelters are commonplace.

Governor Dean will make fundamental reform of the tax system one of his first priorities. He will crack down on tax shelter promoters and their clients He will pursue actions to impose hefty fines and bar further practice before government agencies by lawyers and accountants who certify abusive tax shelters. President Bush’s own tax commissioner testified that the IRS lacked sufficient resources to collect $30 billion in known unpaid taxes. The Governor will provide the Internal Revenue Service with the budget it needs to do its job.

The Dean economic program will strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families. Closing corporate tax loopholes will help shift some of the burden off the shoulders of individuals. Ending unfair tax preferences will raise additional revenue to reduce the deficit and help set the federal budget on the road to balance.

Corporate Accountability

Ineffective corporate laws and unethical corporate practices have corrupted the flow of accurate financial information that our markets depend on to run efficiently and effectively, impairing investor confidence and depressing market values. Inadequate corporate governance has resulted in scandalous compensation schemes for top executives and plain outright fraud.

As President, Governor Dean will take steps to improve the effectiveness of corporate governance through legislation and Securities and Exchange Commission regulation. He will move to assure the independence of boards of directors, and improve their accountability to shareholders.

As part of his commitment to fairness, the Governor strongly supports equal pay for equal work and women’s rights in the work place. One of the first things President Bush did was to disband the Equal Pay Initiative program of the Clinton-Gore administration. Governor Dean will restore the program and aggressively pursue companies that practice sex discrimination in their pay policies.

As President, Governor Dean will take steps to improve the effectiveness of corporate governance through legislation and Securities and Exchange Commission regulation. He will move to assure the independence of boards of directors, and improve their accountability to shareholders.

He stole that one right out the Clark playbook - 1st Debate. What laws or legislation does he propose? All I see here are non-specific platitudes.

c'mon, so all you can do is say, "waaa, waaa, he stole it from my candidate!"

Whoever wins the nomination, I sincerely hope he'll use some of what the other candidates have proposed because they're damn good proposals.

Intellectual Property laws not withstanding...

If something is a good idea and will work... why do something different just cause someone else said it first.
(see my signature line)

Are we favoring use of offshore limited partnerships to conceal debt of publically traded companies?

Do we favor having utility companies, like Ohio's First Energy, paying out more money to Bush/Cheney '04 than to basic line maintainence?

Do we favor yielding up millions of federal acres in Wyoming to a handful of companies so they can cheaply pump out coal shale methane?

Maybe you're right. We should just ask them in a nicer tone to quit putting short term corporate profits in front of public interest.

:grr:

.

Dean's got the general idea about what we need to do with the telecommunications industry.

.

I've studied Kripke, Donnellan, Searle, Davidson, Quine, Austin, Lewis, Frege, etc. in depth. Gee, let me think............. :crazy:

he does come through with some reregulation. Current standards aren't enough.

Make your own decision: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

*emphasis is mine

(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.
What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. I don’t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.
DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.
MATTHEWS: How-how far would you go in terms of public policy?
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: This is not-what you describe is not laissez-faire.
It’s not capitalism.
DEAN: It is capitalism.
MATTHEWS: How would you-what would you call it?
DEAN: I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity.
But the essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands
” it always baffles me-is, you got to have some rules. Imagine a hockey game with no rules.

(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Would you-would you
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Nobody benefits. Nobody benefits. So you have got to have reasonable rules. And the rules have to protect everybody in the game.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

Sounds like new regs to me.