Cross posted from Blue's on Third

This isn't technically a New Jersey story, but in a way it is. The environment doesn't recognize state borders, no matter how insistent we are on drawing them. As such, environmental problems in one state can indicate similar problems for a region. Plus, as a University of Delaware student, I live in New Castle County, DE, one of the regions slated to be most affected the Bush administration's horrendously irresponsible zeal for environmental deregulation.

The Delaware News Journal reports today that the EPA has quadrupled the amount of toxic pollutants U.S. plants are allowed to release:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention perform indispensable services for our country. CDC is tasked with a difficult mission--monitoring diseases and pandemics, coordinating government health responses to emergency outbreaks, and overseeing the national response to potential bioterrorism.

Last Sunday, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published a story exposing alarmingly low levels of morale among scientists employed at the CDC. It appears as though career scientists at CDC are the next victims of the Bush administration's war on science. The administration's team at the agency is apparently pursuing a "new strategy" that focuses on a more "broad" (read: hokey) approach to health issues rather than on building "deep silos of expertise on individual diseases," as the CDC has done for decades. Needless to say, the decision to de-emphasize science and politicize operations has caused trouble among career CDC employees:

Here at the Menendez Campaign, the interns have been hard at work over the past month and a half helping to make sure all aspects of the campaign run smoothly. It's been a blast so far-- from announcement week to primary night to two debates, and the day-to-day operations in between. We're working our tails off to make sure New Jersey sends Senator Bob Menendez back to Washington so he can continue standing up for New Jersey and fighting the Bush Administration's dangerous and misguided policies.

A couple of us interns were out getting some lunch today, wondering how we could use the Internet to better promote Senator Menendez's progressive vision for New Jersey, and, in an absolutely "duh" moment for any college student who hasn't been living in a cave for the past two years, we decided to use that ubiquitous social networking site for college students across the nation-- Facebook.

So today, we're pleased to announce that the interns have launched a global Facebook group, entitled "Senator Bob Menendez: Standing Up for New Jersey", which you can visit here . The goal of the site is to keep college student activists and progressives up to date with all the latest campaign news, events and discussion. It's an unofficial site, not run by the campaign, but by some of the interns. TJ Helmstetter created the group which, in only its first few hours of existence, already boasts over 100 members from all across the country.

So if you're a college student or recent alum who thinks we need a strong voice to stand up to the Bush agenda in Washington and to stand up for progress and America's future, please join our facebook group to find out what you can do to help.

On May 13th , I wrote about the most recent round of irresponsible tax cuts signed into law by President Bush. Despite President Bush's talk about the Average Joe's benefits under these cuts, America's financial elites are the real winners. For example, while the average taxpayer's tax savings (about $30) won't even be enough to pay for a full tank of gas at skyrocketing prices, those at the top of the financial food chain who make $1,000,000 or more a year will receive on average $42,000--enough to buy a gas-guzzling luxury SUV. Average Joe indeed.

As 2006 shapes up as an increasingly poisonous electoral atmosphere for Republicans, this measure aims to shore up support from a key element of the Republican base--CEOs, board members, and the country's financial elite. We've seen this before in round after round (Al Gore warned us of it in the presidential debates of 2000); the average taxpayer receives small benefits, while the true boon goes to the extremely wealthy. However flawed the "Average Joe Tax Cut" myth is, there's another absurd mythology perpetrated by the financial elite to delude America into thinking these kinds of cuts are sound fiscal policy--the notion that tax cuts "pay for themselves." As it turns out, they don't

Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer featured this editorial. It's a sharp rebuke to the irresponsible fiscal policy of President Bush. Here are some of the highlights; let the financial elitist myth debunking commence:

Wow. A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday pegs Bush approval/disapproval in New York state at a whopping 22-75. It is the second lowest rating in the firm's history, only slightly lower than Bob Toricelli's was after he resigned from the Senate due to an ethics scandal. Notably, Bush is at 19-77 with Independents and barely maintains any edge at all with Republicans, who like him 50-46. Democrats (big surprise) favor bush at a mere 8-90.

Link is here.

President Bush and the GOP, plagued by abysmal approval ratings, massive corruption and mismanagement, and an almost total lack of vision, are truly struggling, six months out from the crucial 2006 midterm elections.  The Republican Party, realizing that they're facing a losing war on many political fronts, have turned to that "golden child" of GOP issues--the tax cut.

The Republican Party believes that by cutting taxes before the election, they'll gain approval enough with voters to cruise to re-election, a tactic they've used before.  The GOPers typically spin these cuts as primarily benefiting Joe Public--that honest, hard-working, middle-class American who just needs a break to help make ends meet.  But exactly how much of the tax cut will the average, hard-working taxpayer take home?

About $30.

(Hat tip to Mark Kilmer at Redstate)

KDKA posts an interview with Pennsylvania Republican Gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann here.

I have been following the PA Gov race only tangentially until now; I had assumed that Rendell would more or less coast to re-election. While I imagined the not-always-popular Rendell might face some bumps on the road, I never doubted his re-election. After watching this interview, I'm not so sure.

Lynn Swann shows all the signs of a Bush-like everyman appeal. He comes off as a plain-spoken, common-sense candidate. He's highly polished, and while I haven't thoroughly investigated the content of his campaign, I'm worried his style might appeal to the crossover and split ticket voters for whom PA is famous. Furthermore, while I vehemently disagree with his issue stands on gay marriage and abortion, he frames these issues skillfully (especially gay marriage) as to appeal to common-sense, mainstream voters. All this makes me a bit worried, given Rendell's bumpy re-election road so far. What do you think? Am I being paranoid, or might this be a legitimate worry?