The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?

At Wednesday’s town hall in Atkinson, Ill., a local farmer who said he grows corn and soybeans expressed his concerns to President Barack Obama about “more rules and regulations” — including those concerning dust, noise and water runoff — that he heard would negatively affect his business.

The president, on day three of his Midwest bus tour, replied: “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.”

When the room broke into soft laughter, the president added, “No — and I’m serious about that.”

Saying that “folks in Washington” like to get “all ginned up” about things that aren’t necessarily happening (“Look what’s comin’ down the pipe!”), Obama’s advice was simple: “Contact USDA.”...

So the run around at the USDA was unfortunate, but the article artificially made it a bigger deal than it was by refusing to follow the directions given twice. Call the EPA because they handle the noise, dust and runoff regulations.

Admittedly one would hope that the USDA would have more information on it.

4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.

4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.

On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place.

9:42 a.m.: Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up — did you Google this or anything?”

10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for.

“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”

She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.

Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question. This was their response, via email:

“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”

For Republican supporters, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Obama thus far reminds me a lot of GWB.

Except Obama is darker and doesn't clear brush in Texas.......and can speechify a bit better.

I voted for Obama and did not get the change I was hoping for. TBH, I didn't really expect it. I'm jaded that way........

For Republican supporters, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Obama thus far reminds me a lot of GWB.

GBW wouldn't have pushed the healthcare changes or tax increases though. The only similarity I see is the way executive authority is executed, and you won't see much change there no matter who gets elected.

He should have told an aid to check and get back with the farmer, otherwise he's just pandering.

Taskiss wrote:

He should have told an aid to check and get back with the farmer, otherwise he's just pandering.

3. Making this story about Obama is just stupid. Of course he doesn't know the regulatory minutiae off the top of his head.

2. On the other hand, this guy is basically saying, "I want to pollute other people's air and water and create a bunch of noise that will bother my neighbors, and it's annoying that I have to do a little research first. If those other people don't want me to dump cow **** and pesticides in their water, it's up to them to figure out how to prevent it and then explain it all to me." /headshake Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Author:	Müs [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:32 am ]
Post subject:	So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm ... 3919e.html Quote: At Wednesday’s town hall in Atkinson, Ill., a local farmer who said he grows corn and soybeans expressed his concerns to President Barack Obama about “more rules and regulations” — including those concerning dust, noise and water runoff — that he heard would negatively affect his business. The president, on day three of his Midwest bus tour, replied: “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.” When the room broke into soft laughter, the president added, “No — and I’m serious about that.” Saying that “folks in Washington” like to get “all ginned up” about things that aren’t necessarily happening (“Look what’s comin’ down the pipe!”), Obama’s advice was simple: “Contact USDA.”... There's more at the article. But TL;DR version? He's clueless.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:39 am ]
Post subject:
To quote Veronica Mars "The buck stops... there."

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
Müs wrote: He's clueless. Absolutely. But, on the other hand, it's hardly reasonable to expect for him to know the specific regs proposed for this area by the USDA. He needs to be aware of what's going on from a broad sense, but not the specifics of what the farmer is talking about. Contacting USDA is an appropriate action, despite the flippant response.

Author:	Aizle [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:22 am ]
Post subject:
So the run around at the USDA was unfortunate, but the article artificially made it a bigger deal than it was by refusing to follow the directions given twice. Call the EPA because they handle the noise, dust and runoff regulations. Admittedly one would hope that the USDA would have more information on it.

Author:	TheRiov [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:37 am ]
Post subject:
I wouldn't expect the chief executive to know the ins and outs of farming regulations.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6951	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Taskiss [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:52 am ]
Post subject:
He should have told an aid to check and get back with the farmer, otherwise he's just pandering.

Author:	Rynar [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:
He shouldn't be conducting fluff photo-op town halls about policy unless he's willing to speak about policy.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Aizle wrote: So the run around at the USDA was unfortunate, but the article artificially made it a bigger deal than it was by refusing to follow the directions given twice. Call the EPA because they handle the noise, dust and runoff regulations. Admittedly one would hope that the USDA would have more information on it. Quote: 4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA. The reporter did follow the directions, from the President, from the USDA, and from the USDA's local office - not to mention all the places she was forwarded to throughout the day. It was only the next day, just prior to confirming that the USDA does not in fact (contrary to the President's assertion) deal with the issue, did someone from the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service mention that "the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations." This after hours on the line and numerous transfers and call backs. After all that, I find stating that she "refused to follow directions twice" disingenuous as well as outright untrue.

Author:	Aizle [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Bullshit Vindi. He was told on day one of his calls that he should contact the EPA. Then on day 2 instead of contacting them, he contacts another local branch of the USDA instead of actually calling the EPA. Then tries a THIRD UDSA location, again counter to the now 2 times he's been told to call the EPA. At no time listed in the article does he actually follow the instructions, just goes around calling more USDA sites saying wow our government is **** up, look at me!!!!! In short, the journalist is making a mountain of of a mole hill by being a retard.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Hmmm, I can play that too. Bullshit Aizle. Where is she told to call the EPA (Day One)? It wouldn't be where she's told that her name and number were forwarded to the agriculture adviser at IEPA, would it? That's not being told to call them. That's being told that they'll call you. I guess the greatest disgust I have with this whole deal is that there is a "Day One" of the phone hell. No to mention about a dozen agencies and departments. You don't see anything wrong with that? I guess folks must feel that since the President couldn't figure out who to call, why should a citizen be able to figure it out? The president's "simple advice" was dead wrong. What happened when she followed the President's advice to "Call USDA"? Yeah, she was being a retard and making a mountain out of a molehill because she called or was transferred to/called by/called about a dozen agencies and departments before there's even a mention of the agency you say she refused to call because she's "being a retard". Only after she contacted the media relations department explaining that she was a reporter did she get this: “Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.” Not an answer to her question, just a statement that the President was wrong to send her there. Great. She's being retarded, not the incredible bureaucracy, not the President who pretended it was so simple by giving the wrong advice, nope, the person looking for answer from the people who supposedly work for her. Hope that Kool Aid continues to refresh.

Author:	Midgen [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:
The buck only stops with Obama when he's predicting hope and change. When he's actually held accountable for it.. not so much...

Author:	Aizle [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
Quote: 4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA. So here is the first time where they are told that it's the EPA, not the USDA who handles these kinds of things. Yes, they are told he's forwarding the info to the IEPA, so yes I would expect them to call them back. I agree that it's unfortunate that they got bounced around a bit, and similarly unfortunate that Obama was incorrect that it was the USDA that handled things for the noise/dust issue. However, I disagree that the amount of pain on the phone they experienced is any different than what you'd find from a private company of similar size. Large organizations have buracracy, period. It's the only way they can function. Quote: On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place. 9:42 a.m.: Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up — did you Google this or anything?” So here we are, roughly 2 business hours after they were told the IEPA handles the issues yet again calling a branch of the agency that they've been informed DOESN'T handle the problem. Up until now, I'm sympathetic to the reporter. Yup, it's a pain working with the government. But as of this call on Thursday, they are now trying to build up this story to make it a bigger problem than it is. Quote: 10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for. “What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.” She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations. Here is the second time where they are told the EPA is who they need to talk with. All within about 3-4 business hours of each other. Quote: Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question. This was their response, via email: “Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.” This is just the icing on the cake, and really speaks in my mind to what the reporter was really trying to do. Make a sensationalized story about how inefficient and ** up the government is. Again, at this point they have been told twice that the EPA is who they need to talk with, but have neither appeared to wait a reasonable amount of time (it's still the next day as far as I can tell) or call the EPA directly. Instead, they decide to call the USDA yet again. Now all that said, I agree that it's unfortunate that Obama pointed them in that direction first. Hopefully his advisors will correct him that it's the EPA who handles that so in the future he'll be able to provide better info directly. That said, the level of willful sensationalism that's shown in this article is stupid. The real unfortunate part in my mind, is that the real message that Obama was trying to impart, that there is a ton of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" rumor going around, because people don't actually pay attention to facts got lost in this article at least. A much more useful news story would have been tracking down what those changes are and validating if indeed they aren't as concerning as stated. But that would actually take someone writing an intelligent article instead of this sensationalist piece of **.

Author:	Sam [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:17 am ]
Post subject:
The buck stops at the doe!

Author:	Hannibal [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 am ]
Post subject:
Aizle, the sky is falling is the static employed for the first two years of this administration to push their agendas. Have to pass obamacare or else... have to take over GM and void the stockholders rights or else... Have to act on Libya without approval or else... All with little to no transparency and a majority of the time downright obfuscation of what's going on. And those are just the big examples.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sam [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
For Republican supporters, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Obama thus far reminds me a lot of GWB. Except Obama is darker and doesn't clear brush in Texas.......and can speechify a bit better. I voted for Obama and did not get the change I was hoping for. TBH, I didn't really expect it. I'm jaded that way........

Author:	Taskiss [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
Sam wrote: For Republican supporters, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Obama thus far reminds me a lot of GWB. Except Obama is darker and doesn't clear brush in Texas.......and can speechify a bit better. I voted for Obama and did not get the change I was hoping for. TBH, I didn't really expect it. I'm jaded that way........ GBW wouldn't have pushed the healthcare changes or tax increases though. The only similarity I see is the way executive authority is executed, and you won't see much change there no matter who gets elected.

Author:	Midgen [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Unfortunately it's impossible to know how someone will deal with power once they realize how much they wield. At least we've learned our lesson with this guy, and hopefully we won't make the same mistake again. Sadly, I don't really think any of the clowns currently making fools of them selves under the umbrella of the GOP are significantly better/different . The possible exception is Ron Paul, who might not abuse his power (in the way GWB and Obama have), but he stands a snowballs chance in hell of even making the ballot....

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
That's not because the people don't want him, if straw polls and crowd reactions are any indication.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:	So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
Sam wrote: For Republican supporters, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Obama thus far reminds me a lot of GWB. Except Obama is darker and doesn't clear brush in Texas.......and can speechify a bit better. I voted for Obama and did not get the change I was hoping for. TBH, I didn't really expect it. I'm jaded that way........ Not all republicans supporters are 100% Bush supporter. I won't bore everyone with my personal love hate relationship with Bush again. As usual my beef is with the double standard. Obama supporter bending over backwards and forwards for their man when he does, as you said, appear to walk in the footsteps of The Evil One.

Author:	darksiege [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Bush was a **** retard. So what does that say about the person who is following in his footsteps? Why did Bush II get called on being a moron and retarded but this guy did not?

Author:	Serienya [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: So Where Exactly DOES the Buck Stop?
Taskiss wrote: GBW wouldn't have pushed the healthcare changes or tax increases though. The only similarity I see is the way executive authority is executed, and you won't see much change there no matter who gets elected. No, but other things were pushed through during GWB's administration (Medicare Part D, Patriot Act, etc.). I'd say that this is a problem of both parties these days and less of one administration and one politician.

Author:	RangerDave [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Taskiss wrote: He should have told an aid to check and get back with the farmer, otherwise he's just pandering. Actually, I have the opposite view - I think it would be pandering to have an aide check, because he would only be doing that as a result of the publicity of election coverage. Anyway, on the overall story, my thoughts are: 1. On the one hand, it's absolutely true that regulatory compliance is a giant PITA, and the agencies that create the regulations need to do a much better job of communicating with and explaining things to the public. 2. On the other hand, this guy is basically saying, "I want to pollute other people's air and water and create a bunch of noise that will bother my neighbors, and it's annoying that I have to do a little research first. If those other people don't want me to dump cow **** and pesticides in their water, it's up to them to figure out how to prevent it and then explain it all to me." /headshake Talk about a sense of entitlement. 3. Making this story about Obama is just stupid. Of course he doesn't know the regulatory minutiae off the top of his head.

Author:	Midgen [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote: Taskiss wrote: He should have told an aid to check and get back with the farmer, otherwise he's just pandering. 3. Making this story about Obama is just stupid. Of course he doesn't know the regulatory minutiae off the top of his head. Obama made this a story about Obama by not doing exactly what Taskiss suggested he do...

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote: 2. On the other hand, this guy is basically saying, "I want to pollute other people's air and water and create a bunch of noise that will bother my neighbors, and it's annoying that I have to do a little research first. If those other people don't want me to dump cow **** and pesticides in their water, it's up to them to figure out how to prevent it and then explain it all to me." /headshake Talk about a sense of entitlement. How exactly is he saying he wants to do that? These things were already against regulations. This farmer is complaining about rumored additional regulations. What he's saying is "It's already illegal to dump cow **** and pesticides in the water, but all of a sudden, for no apparent reason you want to put more restrictions on top of that." There's no sense of entitlement on the farmer's part, except maybe a sense of entitelement to get his questions answered in one easy phone call. It never ceases to amaze me how whenever someone opposes additional standards or tighter standards, especially those that reflect nothing more than a particular political desire to regulate, that somehow that means anyone opposing it is asking to be completely unregulated! It reminds me of the spectacle of certain civil servants in this country and others (Canada comes to mind; maybe Talya can corroberate this) complaining that food is being taken from their childrens' mouths'because they are getting a smaller pay raise than they were initially promised.