– Story highlights affecting Washingtonians:
* “Trump admin. repeals train safety regulation, triggering new oil spill fears” Sept. 25.
Sen. Maj. Leader McConnell’s wife heads DOT; RR industry applauds her dept., cozy hmmm?
Gov. Inslee called this a “reckless disregard for the life and property” near tracks.
* “President Trump is ‘not happy’ with Fed’s decision to raise interest rates” Oct. 3.
Trump has done nothing to address his debt explosion, while interest payments rise.
The U.S. national debt exceeded more than $21 trillion on March 15, 2018.
U.S. debt is now greater than the economic output of the entire country.
* “Experts say Trump’s EPA moving to loosen radiation limits” Oct. 3.
Trump’s EPA turns to scientific outliers; argue a bit of radiation damage is good for you.
– “Trump administration repeals train safety regulation, triggering new oil spill fears”
Click here for Gov. Inslee’s Statement to the Trump Administration.
[Editor’s Note: The Sec. of Transportation is Elaine Chao, wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who’s Dept. ruling in this case has immensely pleased the railroad industry.]
“The Trump administration has repealed a safety regulation governing trains that carry large quantities of oil, sparking new fears among Washington state officials and environmental activists that devastating oil spills could be more likely.
“The Department of Transportation announced last week that trains carrying flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol would no longer be required to install electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems, an Obama-era rule instituted to decrease the chance of train derailments.
“Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, blasted the decision as a “reckless disregard for the life and property of all who live or work along the rail tracks” that transport oil.
“‘I fear the day we witness a destructive or deadly derailment that could have been prevented with readily available technology,’ he said in a news release.
“But the railroad industry was pleased by the administration’s change,” by Kellen Browning, McClatchy Newspapers.
– “President Trump is ‘not happy’ with Fed’s decision to raise interest rates”
[Editor’s note: The President says he’d “rather pay down debt,” yet our country’s debt has exploded more under Trump in his approx. 1 3/4 years in office than any other President. And the interest on the debt is also exploding!]
“‘Unfortunately they just raised interest rates a little bit Wednesday [Oct. 3] because we are doing so well. I’m not happy about that,’ President Trump said at a press conference in New York Wednesday. ‘I’d rather pay down debt or do other things, create more jobs.'”
– “Don’t be fooled: Working Americans are worse off under Trump”
“Despite robust economic numbers during the Trump presidency, the American public has seemed curiously unmoved by such good news as the lowest U.S. unemployment level in nearly half a century. Its enthusiasm might have been dampened by this underappreciated economic reality: The typical working American’s earnings, when properly measured, have declined during the Trump administration,” by Robert J. Shapiro, Washington Post.
– “Experts say Trump’s EPA moving to loosen radiation limits”
“The EPA is pursuing rule changes that experts say would weaken the way radiation exposure is regulated, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.
“The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.
“The Trump administration already has targeted a range of other regulations on toxins and pollutants, including coal power plant emissions and car exhaust, that it sees as costly and burdensome for businesses. Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue the government’s current model that there is no safe level of radiation — the so-called linear no-threshold model — forces unnecessary spending for handling exposure in accidents, at nuclear plants, in medical centers and at other sites,” by Ellen Knickmeyer, Associated Press.