Tim Pawlenty–Mitt’s VP?

If John McCain had picked this man he would still be President and Tim VP! But failing to do so it looks 95% confident that Mitt will pick this man as VP!

So get to know him because he is an able politician and deeply conservative. More so than Mitt.  And Tim is NO Harrold Stassen.

Tim Pawlenty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Pawlenty)

Jump to: navigation, search

Tim Pawlenty
39th Governor of Minnesota
In office January 6, 2003 – January 3, 2011
Lieutenant	Carol Molnau
Preceded by	Jesse Ventura
Succeeded by	Mark Dayton
Majority Leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives
In office January 3, 1999 – January 3, 2003
Governor	Jesse Ventura
Preceded by	Ted Winter
Succeeded by	Erik Paulsen
Member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from District 38B
In office January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2003
Preceded by	Art Seaberg
Succeeded by	Lynn Wardlow
Personal details
Born	Timothy James Pawlenty November 27, 1960 (age 51) Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Mary Anderson
Children	Anna Mara
Alma mater	University of Minnesota
Profession	Lawyer
Religion	Baptist / Evangelical
Signature

Timothy James “Tim” Pawlenty ( /pəˈlɛnti/;^[1] born November 27, 1960) is an American politician who served as the 39th Governor of Minnesota (2003–2011). He was a Republican candidate for President of the United States in the 2012 election from May to August 2011.^[2] He previously served in the Minnesota House of Representatives (1993–2003) where he served two terms as majority leader.

Pawlenty was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota and raised in nearby South St. Paul. He graduated from University of Minnesota with a B.A. in political science and earned a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. His early career included working as a labor law attorney and the vice president of a software company. After settling in the city of Eagan with his wife, Pawlenty was appointed to the city’s Planning Commission and was elected to the Eagan City Council at the age of 28. He won a seat as a state representative in 1992, representing District 38B in suburban Dakota County. He was re-elected four times, and voted majority leader by House Republicans in 1998.

After winning a narrow Republican primary in 2002, Pawlenty won a three-way election for Governor of Minnesota, and he was re-elected in 2006 by a margin of one percent. His campaign platform focused on balancing the budget without raising taxes. During Pawlenty’s governorship, he eliminated his state’s budget deficit using spending cuts and borrowing heavily from earmarked funds. Pawlenty did not raise income taxes during his governorship, but did enact targeted increases in sales tax and user fees. His administration advocated for numerous public works projects, including work on the Northstar Commuter Rail Line, and the construction of Target Field, a Major League Baseball stadium in Minneapolis. He signed a bill mandating 20% ethanol in gasoline by 2013. He cut health care spending to help balance the budget, and signed an executive order rejecting federal funds related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He led worldwide trips for business leaders and trade delegations to explore trade opportunities. In the 2007–2008 term he served as chairman of the National Governors Association.

Pawlenty was rumored as a contender for president as early as 2005, and was closely involved with U.S. Senator John McCain‘s presidential campaign in 2008. Pawlenty began early steps toward a run in late 2009. He formally announced his presidential campaign in May 2011, running on a strongly conservative platform. A day after coming in third place in the August 13, 2011 Ames Straw Poll,^[3] Governor Pawlenty announced that he was withdrawing from the race.^[2] On September 12, 2011, Pawlenty announced his endorsement of former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Contents

• 1 Early life, education, and early career
• 2 Minnesota House of Representatives
• 3 Governorship
  • 3.1 Election, 2002
  • 3.2 Reelection, 2006
  • 3.3 State budget
    • 3.3.1 Minnesota Supreme Court case
  • 3.4 Funding projects
  • 3.5 Education
  • 3.6 Transportation
  • 3.7 Crime
  • 3.8 Ethanol
  • 3.9 Health
  • 3.10 Foreign relations
  • 3.11 Other activities
• 4 McCain presidential campaign, 2008
• 5 Presidential race, 2012
  • 5.1 Early steps
  • 5.2 Book tour and political positions
  • 5.3 Announcement
  • 5.4 Ames Straw Poll and withdrawal
  • 5.5 Endorsement of Mitt Romney
• 6 Personal life
• 7 Public image
  • 7.1 Political views
  • 7.2 Approval ratings
  • 7.3 Electoral history
• 8 Records
• 9 References
• 10 External links

Nuclar Power Safety–Overlooked GAO report!

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Natural Hazard Assessments Could Be More Risk-Informed

GAO-12-465, Apr 26, 2012

• Highlights

View Report (PDF, 54 pages)

Additional Materials:

• Highlights Page (PDF, 1 page)
• Accessible Text

Contact:

Franklin W. Rusco
(202) 512-3841
ruscof@gao.gov
 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

What GAO Found

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and companies licensed to operate nuclear power reactors (or licensees) apply probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to natural hazards at operating U.S. nuclear reactors to a limited extent. When the 104 operating reactors were originally licensed before 1997, NRC required licensees to assess natural hazards using deterministic analysis, which—informed by historical experience, test results, and expert judgment—considers a specific set of potential accidents and how the consequences of those accidents can be prevented and mitigated. Subsequent to most of these initial licenses being issued, NRC, through policy statements and other documents, has endorsed PRA—a systematic method for assessing what can go wrong, its likelihood, and its consequences, resulting in quantitative estimates of risk—as a means to enhance and extend traditional deterministic analysis. In 1991, NRC requested that licensees voluntarily examine their reactors’ vulnerability to natural hazards and suggested PRA as one of several possible methods for licensees to use in their examinations. However, most licensees opted to use other methods. According to NRC officials and nuclear power industry representatives—and reflected in data GAO obtained from five licensees that together operate 25 reactors—few licensees are likely to have developed or updated since the 1990s PRAs that address natural hazards. NRC would have to conduct an analysis to determine whether or not to require licensees to develop PRAs that address natural hazards. According to agency officials, NRC has not conducted such an analysis.

The experts in assessing natural hazards and/or nuclear reactor risks that GAO interviewed offered a range of views on (1) the overall adequacy of NRC processes for assessing the threats that natural hazards pose to operating U.S. nuclear power reactors and (2) what, if any, changes to those processes are warranted. Several experts said they believe NRC processes are generally adequate for assessing the threats that natural hazards pose to operating reactors. However, more than half of the experts GAO interviewed suggested expanding the use of PRA for assessing natural hazards as a complement to traditional deterministic analyses to provide a more robust approach. Those experts cited a number of advantages to doing so, including that PRA can help identify vulnerabilities that might otherwise be overlooked by relying on traditional deterministic analyses alone. Several experts also identified challenges to expanding the use of PRA for assessing natural hazards, including the limited number of experts qualified to develop PRAs and the costs of doing so.

Why GAO Did This Study

On March 11, 2011, an earthquake triggered a tsunami wave that exceeded the seawall at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, leading to the release of radioactive material into the environment. The disaster raised questions about the threats that natural hazards, such as earthquakes and floods, may pose to U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors. NRC licenses and regulates U.S. nuclear power reactors. NRC criteria for licensees to assess natural hazards were developed using an approach that required reactors to be designed according to a set of potential accidents using deterministic analysis. Since the 1990s, NRC has been encouraging the use of PRA as part of a risk-informed, performance-based approach.

GAO was asked to (1) determine the extent to which PRA is applied to natural hazards at operating U.S. reactors and (2) describe expert views on and suggested changes, if any, to NRC processes for assessing natural hazards at such reactors. GAO reviewed documents; analyzed responses from 15 experts in assessing nuclear reactor risks and/or natural hazards; visited five selected nuclear power plants; and interviewed NRC officials and industry and public interest group representatives.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NRC analyze whether licensees of operating reactors should be required to develop PRAs that address natural hazards. NRC agreed with the recommendation and stated it will conduct the analysis in the context of ongoing initiatives.

For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.

Status Legend:

• In Process
• Open
• Closed – implemented
• Closed – not implemented

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To improve safety decision making by the NRC in carrying out its responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the operation of nuclear power plants is consistent with the common defense and security and public health and safety, the NRC Commissioners should direct agency staff to conduct and document any needed analyses to determine whether the agency should require licensees of operating reactors to develop and maintain PRAs that address natural hazards.

Agency Affected: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

So does budget drive national security strategy?

An interesting new report and graphics at this link:
http://csis.org/files/publication/120612US_New_Strategy_FY13_Budget.pdf

Research Aid: FEMA History

NCJ Number:	NCJ 212317
Title:	FEMA’s Place in Policy, Law, and Management: A Hazardous Materials Perspective 1979-2003 (From Homeland Security Law and Policy, P 23-55, 2005, William C. Nicholson, ed. — See NCJ-212315)
Author(s):	William R. Cumming ; Richard T. Sylves
Sale:	Charles C. Thomas 2600 South First Street Springfield, IL 62704 United States
Publisher Url*:	http://www.ccthomas.com/
Publication Date:	2005
Pages:	33
Type:	Legislation/policy analysis
Origin:	United States
Language:	English
Annotation:	This chapter traces the evolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) duties regarding hazardous materials (HAZMATS) emergencies.
Abstract:	This review consists of a policy analysis, jurisdictional overview, and targeted management study of FEMA from its creation in 1979 to its absorption into the new Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003, with a focus on its HAZMATS duties. HAZMATS involve chemicals and radiological materials, so this subject overlaps weapons of mass destruction (WMD). FEMA’s original disaster programs encompassed few HAZMAT duties; however, it assumed more HAZMAT authority as a result of its role in the 1978-1980 Love Canal hazardous substance contamination controversy, the 1981 explosion of hexane gas in Louisville, KY, and later through the Radiological Emergency Preparedness program. The explosion of the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant spurred giving FEMA even more HAZMAT authority, as did the 1984 toxic disaster in Bhopal, India. Over its 24-year history, FEMA has addressed the consequences of major oil spills, various chemical releases and explosions, and the site management and recovery from major acts of terrorism perpetrated inside the United States, along with its duty to respond to an increasing number and variety of natural disasters. FEMA’s work has both humanitarian and technical features, which must be considered in determining the qualifications and job assignments of those employed as managers and line workers in the agency. With few exceptions, FEMA has chosen to emphasize its humanitarian work rather than its technical work. HAZMATS emergencies, however, often involve complex issues of science and engineering, areas of expertise inadequately represented in the FEMA’s ranks. With the advent of the Department of Homeland Security following the terrorist attack of September 11th, FEMA’s HAZMATS legacy will undergo further evolution, given the documented terrorist intent to use HAZMATS weaponry. 29 notes and appended supplementary information and discussion questions
Main Term(s):	Domestic Preparedness
Index Term(s):	Hazardous substances or materials ; Counter-terrorist tactics ; Terrorist tactics ; Federal Emergency Management Agency ; Antiterrorist laws ; Terrorist weapons ; Federal legislation ; US Patriot Act
	To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=233791

The Earth’s Bounty–Fish Stocks!

A recent book that I found of interest is discussed below:

from http://www.amazon.com/The-Most-Important-Fish-Sea/dp/1597261246

“In this brilliant portrait of the oceans’ unlikely hero, H. Bruce Franklin shows how menhaden have shaped America’s national—and natural—history, and why reckless overfishing now threatens their place in both. Since Native Americans began using menhaden as fertilizer, this amazing fish has greased the wheels of U.S. agriculture and industry. By the mid-1870s, menhaden had replaced whales as a principal source of industrial lubricant, with hundreds of ships and dozens of factories along the eastern seaboard working feverishly to produce fish oil. Since the Civil War, menhaden have provided the largest catch of any American fishery. Today, one company—Omega Protein—has a monopoly on the menhaden “reduction industry.” Every year it sweeps billions of fish from the sea, grinds them up, and turns them into animal feed, fertilizer, and oil used in everything from linoleum to health-food supplements.

The massive harvest wouldn’t be such a problem if menhaden were only good for making lipstick and soap. But they are crucial to the diet of bigger fish and they filter the waters of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, playing an essential dual role in marine ecology perhaps unmatched anywhere on the planet. As their numbers have plummeted, fish and birds dependent on them have been decimatedand toxic algae have begun to choke our bays and seas. In Franklin’s vibrant prose, the decline of a once ubiquitous fish becomes an adventure story, an exploration of the U.S. political economy, a groundbreaking history of America’s emerging ecological consciousness, and an inspiring vision of a growing alliance between environmentalists and recreational anglers.”

 

I live 3 miles from the last Menhaden plant on the Chesapeake Bay. This book is NOT a diatribe against commercial fishing. Those believing so have not read it as I have.

What did we know and when did we know it?

Let’s suppose that Mitt Romney takes over as President in 7 months and 20 days. What will be his first actions? If I told you what he has promised, even some for the first day, whether you are a DEM or a Republican you would find it laughable and probably no remote chance of its occurring.

So now let’s imagine what President Obama will do as he enters his second term in 7 months and 20 days?  My understanding is that over 200 draft Executive Orders are piled up and stuck in the White House until after the election. One of interest to me is a revision to E.O. 11988 concerning floodplain management. That order dates from 1977. Another is a comprehensive revision of the Principles and Standards for Water Resource Projects. Those standards date from 1983.

As to the state of Union at that onrushing junction who knows? War in Iran? EU collapse economically? War with China over Taiwan? Revolution in Mexico? Coup in Egypt? Assad stays in power in Syria?  Assad surrenders power?

Perhaps all of the above or none of the above. It is what makes it tough to be a sitting President, arguably the world’s toughest job.

Historically, the best politicians have made the best President. Lincoln, TEDDY Roosevelt, FDR, IKE, REAGAN, Clinton, and take your pick on others. All President’s have failings. Between Andrew Jackson and FDR only one President served two full terms relatively healthy. That being US Grant.  Jackson elected 1828 [won the popular vote in 1824 but lost in the electoral college] and FDR being elected to first of 4 terms in 1932. Died in office in April 1945. Outlived by Hitler.

So the key question in the world right now is will Obama get two terms or have to be satisfied with one? Of course if defeated he could run again! The Constitutional prohibition is against a President elected twice from being elected again.n The  prohibition is in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution ratified February 27, 1982!

If he fails to get a second term I believe President Obama, our first half white President, will not be highly ranked for his efforts. Data largely concealed from the public released over the next century will document more failures by a wide margin than successes. A largely cautious failed Presidency. Hoping I am wrong but don’t think so.

Should Romney be elected, it will be a clear signal that those who have gained wealth in the private sector as asset strippers should now start on the treasury and federal property.  The Republicans are NOT interested in a balanced budget. They view the federal fisc as available to reward their friends [donors]!  This is largely because I read Mitt as another Bush wanting to be President just to say he done it. Again could be wrong.

Neither man will be able to attract talent to his administration and get them confirmed if they stand at all for protection of the commons, the public interest, and the standing of the USA in the world. And war could well be the final contribution of both to US history.

This Memorial Day Weekend–One of the reasons we [US] Speak Mostly English!

And here is the Sir Lawrence Olvier version of Shakespeare’s Henry V Act IV, Scene III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXFnQUU7yg

Radiological Emergency Response

HERE is a link to the published document superseding the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan [FRERP] published in the Federal Register originally in 1986!

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_nuclearradiologicalincidentannex.pdf

I cannot speak to all the agencies that may be signatory to this document but as to FEMA it does not have the funding, staff, or technical expertise to conduct its role under this published MOA.

Whether other federal agencies [OFA] can do so remains to be seen. I also suggest that FEMA is unqualified to perform its designated role under E.O. 12657 published in November 1988.

Since I turn 70 on August 4th of this year perhaps this post reflects almost 25 years of frustration with the current radiological preparedness and response system.

 

Cf: Severe nuclear reactor accidents likely every 10 to 20 years, European study suggests (May 22, 2012) — Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents. Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) — some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. … > full story

Published 2nd Edition of Claire Rubin’s Emergency Management: The American Experience

Claire’s second edition is out with some major reworking including a chapter on the 2011 BP catastrophe by Dr. Jack Harrald.  There is a disclaimer that none of the chapter authors are professional historians. Disclosure: I helped edit both this edition and the first one.

There are some additional disclaimers that might be added although the product is very helpful to me and others just because it fills so many knowledge gaps in the history of EM.

Will EM make it out of this century? Maybe maybe not.

What is of interest in the coverage of this book is the almost total absence of foreign disasters and catastrophes. Perhaps a conclusion could be reached that few have impacted EM in the USA although I would argue some have had impacts. Haiti and Fukishima in total have not had much impact on the USA and this Presidential administration has largely left those events orphan in the US policy field. Whether that was the correct position for the Obama Administration I leave to the future and the judgements of history.

There is almost no discussion of the impact of the military on civilian EM although those who pride themselves as EM are often former military and bring that culture to the subject.

Incorporation into DHS of FEMA has left apparently nothing to conclude in the long run about the impacts of that incorporation except the conclusion it hurt Hurricane Katrina response, although exactly how is largely undocumented. A statutory change effective in 2007, PKEMRA 2006, seems to have quieted FEMA advocates, although whether the “New” FEMA that all talk and write about is up to the level of a catastrophe is still unknown.  There is little discussion of recovery or mitigation in the new edition but gems to exist in the chapters from time to time.

Well in honor of the almost to begin 2012 Hurricane Season do you know how many hurricanes have made landfall in the continental USA since Obama became President?

Australian Research Center

The Aussies have called for papers and reviewers on the following topics that to me look like a splendid effort for a book  to be entitled “The Future of Disaster Management”!

Here is the list:

Suggested Chapter Titles and Sub-themes:
• Understanding resilience and looking at management systems that provide for resilience;

• Circumvention strategies following an incident and their role in critical infrastructure protection so as to provide operational resilience;

• Differentiating the circumvention (immediate response) and long-term recovery zones (periods) of disaster management, and allowing smooth transition from the circumvention mode to the recovery mode;

• Use of simulation for disaster management;

• Public sector involvement in disaster management inclusive of local government inputs and international participation;

• Private sector involvement in disaster management inclusive of providing infrastructure for information flow, materials and sustenance provision, security, transport;

• Frameworks for large-scale disaster management;

• Frameworks for smaller-scale disaster and incident management;

• Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) and similar remote monitoring facilities for disaster management;

• Critical infrastructure protection definition;

• International trends in disaster response and management;

• Dedicated Information Systems for enhancing response and effectiveness of DM activities;

• The role of NGO’s in DM;

• Politics involved in disaster response and management;

• The reality between the all-hazards rhetoric and the government response to single hazard inquiries;

• Best practice in disaster inquiry staff and processes;

• The different response by the public to standard emergencies and large scale-disasters;

• The role of social media in disasters;

• Establishing protocols and information sharing systems with the main-stream media
Format;