Reply #3: This should only be a surprise to those [View All]

who actually believed the hard sell on this approach was really based on public policy (the idea that thinning the forests would lead to less fire risk). Note how hard they pushed on this "public policy" after the San Diego fires.

We knew it was all about opening more logging opportunities to industry. So of course, the admin would be persuaded (bought) to based on industry costs (and their bottom line dollars) rather than any real public policy point (and, if I recall the premise of the public policy was somewhat controversial in the first place.)

My question - the story implies but doesn't clearly explain that this leaves communities in the Sierras at higher risk of forest fire than before. Only allusion to how is that with the cut in 15% of funds that other programs might be cut. Anyone have more info on this issue? It could be the type of story (put together with the fake public policy rationales for our approach to the madcow issue and others) that can be put together to wake up some of our brethren who don't pay close attention to the news to demonstrate how far this administration and current version of the GOP always puts the needs of business at first, and while giving initial voice time to public policy rationales (to sell their programs) they seem to perpetually end up putting the public at great(er) risk in the interest of big industries.