The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Oversight Exercised

1.24.07 @ 12:01AM

VIGOROUSLY NONPARTISAN
Re: The Washington Prowler's Democrats in a Hurry:

The American Spectator's Washington Prowler wrongly identified its prey when it reached for POGO in its January 22 column "Democrats in a Hurry."

Since being founded 25 years ago the Project On Government Oversight has been vigorously non-partisan. Our prior investigations into the federal government have exposed systemic problems that have spanned multiple Administrations including overspending and other abuses that would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars. (An outcome that should warm the cockles of conservative hearts.) Several targets of our investigations -- from both sides of the aisle--have been so stung by our reports that they have attempted to retaliate against us in several ways, including holding us in contempt of Congress and subpoenaing our telephone records.

The list of errors in this article is embarrassingly long and reveals a need for tighter fact-checking. As part of our continued dedication to contracting oversight, POGO is investigating Iraq War reconstruction activities, not the Bush Administration's conduct of the Iraq War as you claimed. The article's remaining factual errors focus on our Congressional Oversight Training Series, launched before the 2006 mid-term elections.

The most egregious error is the claim that members of the media outlets you named were invited to attend the oversight training sessions. Two members of the media have attended the sessions, Mr. Grimaldi as a facilitator and a National Journal reporter who wrote about the series but adhered to our requirement to keep the session's content off-the-record.

We are stringent about our requirement that each session is facilitated by at least one Republican and one Democrat and are proud to say that we have bipartisan co-chairs from both Houses of Congress: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). In addition our advisors include Ginni Thomas of the Heritage Foundation and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has joined our House co-chairs in sending letters to all House members encouraging them to attend the sessions.

POGO's training sessions are routinely attended by staff from both chambers and both sides of the aisle and we regret that your article may convince some Republicans that the sessions are not designed with them in mind.

Finally, your description of Sens. Grassley, McCain, and Snowe as "cooperators" with Democrats smacks of an ignorance of Congress's function. The tone makes it seem as though Democrats and Republicans are not supposed to work together. Let us remind you that when the government buys a fighter jet that will be used to protect this country it should not be a Republican or Democratic jet -- it had better be a working jet. When energy companies shortchange the government on royalties, states with Republican and Democratic districts suffer.

Perhaps The American Spectator should review the definition of Congressional Oversight.
-- Jennifer Porter Gore
Communications Director
Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Washington, D.C.

ADJUSTING THE HEAT
Re: William Tucker's The Global Warming Two-Step:

Having reviewed the climatological/geophysical evidence on global warming after previously writing about the subject, William Tucker now decides that both sides in the debate have a point. Unfortunately, he goes on to announce a conclusion that cannot be based on the science of global warming, but must be based on economics: "It's worth doing something about." Whether it's worth doing something about depends of the costs and benefits of doing something about global warming. So now Mr. Tucker has repeated himself: he is making a recommendation without reviewing the relevant analysis or evidence. What will be the cost of "doing something" and what will be the resulting reduction of global warming is not something upon which he offers any evidence.

For example, numerous analysts have suggested, and proponents admitted, that the costly Kyoto Treaty would have no measurable impact on global warming; it clearly fails the cost/benefit test. Others have argued that global warming of the modest amount suggested in some climatological research will be a net economic benefit to humanity, and therefore incurring any costs to reduce this global warming would fail the cost/benefit test.

This is not to suggest that increasing our use of nuclear power is a bad idea. Indeed, regardless of the impact of nuclear power on global warming (possibly insignificant) it would in many circumstances be a profitable substitute for other forms of power generation and would be adopted in the absence of scare mongering and destructive regulation by environmental neo-luddites.

Still, Mr. Tucker has not made his case. Now that he has read the literature on the science of global warming, it's time he read the literature on the costs and benefits of "doing something" in general and using more nuclear power in particular.
-- David Sisk

I admire Mr. Tucker's valor in trying to find a compromise on global warming. But if the two scientists he admires are correct, and humans cause about one-third of current global warming, that means we're responsible for roughly a third of a degree of warming over the past 50 years. So if we got rid of all carbon emissions, we could reduce the world's average temperature by a third of a degree? Does that make sense? Also, what about when the next mini-ice age reappears? Wouldn't the extra third of a degree of warmth be nice?
-- Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Television, Economics, Business, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Energy