Given the 2002 event, if safety was visibly and comprehensively suffering and wasn’t addressed, the consequences of said alleged “negligence” would have been felt before January 2006. As it was, results improved continuously during the intervening three years, giving one the impression that whatever problems existed were being addressed. The idea, given the statistical improvements, that “Bush knew full well that mine safety was suffering - and now we know he didn’t do anything about it” isn’t credible in the least. The more credible idea is that MSHA (and the coal companies) responded to the concerns raised in the 2002 tragedy and improved safety during each of the next three years. I see the Word doc referred to at Sirota’s post as partisan blather. Don’t talk to me about funding and manpower (which per mine didn’t suffer), talk to me about effectiveness.

The consistency of onsite inspection hours and the reduced fatalities until this week speak for themselves.

I’m also making a mental note to check in the fall to see where the total fatality numbers are. I’d say it’s still 50-50 that 2006 will have a lower total than 2005, largely because of human nature.

That isn’t to say they aren’t or weren’t problem children (mines) that maybe should have had more attention, but that’s not the nature of the 2002 charge, which was that problems were pervasive because MSHA wasn’t “fully funded” ( a convenient and apparently undefined term).

So I’m not buying what Sirota’s selling.

Working for Change-Sirota