Lummis shows bad faith the day before meeting with Secretary Salazar and Governor Mead-
Salazar should have cancelled the meeting in response to Lummis’ actions. Democrats need to to understand they are dealing with opponents with ethics and values worse than Somali pirates.
Story: Salazar blasts . . ., but
Wyoming, feds near wolf deal. By Jeremy Pelzer. Casper Star-Tribune capital bureau. The fact the Salazar is doing this anyway is one indication why the Republicans think they can use their debt limit hostage taking to achieve their objectives of defunding student loans, medicare, social security, while coddling the super rich.
Comments
6 responses to “Salazar blasts Wyoming U.S. Rep. Lummis’ no-sue rider on wolf deal”
It seems cruel to insult Somali pirates that way.
I don’t think Salazar really cares that much.
Smells like CYA after the fact to me…Salazar can not be that dumb and blind to what is going on with the anti wolf and anti ESA extremists….Does he think this is going to help his “street cred” with the environmental crowd? Really?
More like a hand slap, actually. Cowboy Ken’s “workable” solution means that USFW will finally wash their hands of wolves in the West. Its more akin to the “final solution” that WY has been bashing over USFW’s head for years. Honestly, is WY really going to protect wolves anywhere in the State? Without a protected status, even in the Park, the State’s enforcement will be a blind-eye to any wrong-doing. Next they will complain that they don’t have enough money to properly monitor the 10 or whatever packs left under the state’s control. I’m really thankful that my daughter got to see wolves in Yellowstone before they are extirpated once again. Maybe she can explain why you won’t see wolves in the west anymore to my granddaughter, someday.
This deal is what Wyoming wanted all along..wolves in a zoo called Yellowstone…outside, you are no better than a squirrel and can be shot on sight. All of the other “reasonable options” was just crap.
biff,
I mostly agree, except your statement about the Republicans which is too simple.
More broadly, the Social Security trust fund has been running a surplus and funding much more government spending than retirements, etc. ever since it was created in the late 1930s. It is still (or would be) running surplus except that Obama and various Republicans and Democrats cut payments into the fund in half for a year to try and get some stimulus to those whose wages are so low that they don’t pay much income tax. At any rate, to call Social Security the problem and suggest cutting its benefits is outrageously wrong and it goes back on promises that began 80 years ago. When people plan their retirement beginning in their 20s, 30s, 40s, or whenever, they count on Social Security as part of it. There will be hell to pay if these benefits are cut, and probably if the retirement age is raised.