Strib Editorial: GW's Budget

From the Anti-Strib vault:

Today's" editorial in the Star Tribune asks not if the priorities in Bush's budget are good, but if we can believe that it will cut the deficit. Fair enough. I'm not brilliant at math and really need to put pencil and paper in front of me (with a calculator) to comprehend some of the economy talk folks engange in. That's not what I'm going to mention. I'll leave that to Sequel and Tracy and the other big-brains. (In other words, have at it boys.)
Let's look at one of the later statements in the editorial:

Meanwhile, to pay for yet another new round of tax cuts, the president would chip away at programs most Americans find highly valuable, such as nutrition assistance to the elderly, rural land conservation, community policing and academic counseling for disadvantaged high school students.

What effect will chipping away on federal programs have? Surely we cannot believe that merely chipping away at a program that helps feed our aging parents and grandparents will eliminate that program let alone leave them starving. None of these programs will disappear... God knows a certain slice of the population won't let THAT happen. In fact, these programs will all increase.
These programs ought to see real cuts, as opposed to the reductions in spending increases they will see. Our own individual charity ought to play more of a role in feeding the edlerly. We ought to urge more groups to help fund rural land conservation efforts. Don't let the government do it all... and let's not have the government urge companies to do this work either. That's something that we can do. Ask Target to float some more money to a specific area that you say can't get funded with charity or without government money. Ask Cargill, ask any of them. Keep asking.
And keep giving. (Although, it would be much easier if we had more individual tax cuts!)

Strib Editorial: Market vs. Environment

The Star Tribune's Sunday editorial entitled "Market Forces Alone Don't Aid Environment" might as well have been called "Government Should Force to Aid Environment".

I'll grant the author credit for being brief. However, the piece was so brief that we skeptics come up with plenty of questions... chief among them, "What makes you think we market folks don't want to aid the environment?"

The green weenies (not necessarily the author) often portray anyone to the right of the chick who lived in the tree for more than a year as the scourge of Mother Earth (who would hurt their own mother!) as well as down right mean.

Many of us hunt, fish, keep a garden, raise crops, or have relatives that do. At least half of my family covers that ground. (Unfortunately, it seems like a few of the others are Earth muffins, if you know what I mean.) My late grandfather took care of a state park. I mow my lawn and buy my wife flowers.

In any case, the editorial mentions that the US ranks low in terms of clean air, clean water, greenhouse gas emitions, forestry, etc. Just out of curiosity, who ranks above us and why? Who ranks below us and why?

• Are per capita figures worked into these ratings?
• What is the general political wind in these countries?
• What kind of presence do organizations like Greenpeace have in those countries?
• What kind of eco-terrorism is commited against those countires?
• What kind of eco-terrorists come from those countires, if any?
• What do those countires produce?
• Are their economies growing, sustaining, or shrinking?

Just curious.