Media Blames Bush for Mining Accident
NY Times Editorial Blames Bush for Coal Mine Tragedy; Fatality Records Refute Claim
First, state the obvious -- The 12 deaths are an unspeakable tragedy, the families of the victims should be in everyone's prayers, and any employer negligence that is found deserves swift and harsh punishment.
The blindly partisan blame-gaming without regard to the facts in this morning's New York Times editorial is irresponsible. Here's the worst paragraph (bold is mine):
Political figures from both parties have long defended and profited from ties to the coal industry. Whether or not that was a factor in the Sago mine's history, the Bush administration's cramming of important posts in the Department of the Interior with biased operatives from the coal, oil and gas industry is not reassuring about general safety in the mines. Steven Griles, a mining lobbyist before being appointed deputy secretary of the interior, devoted four years to rolling back mine regulations and then went back to lobbying for the industry.
How about the truth? Here is relevant data The Times could have easily accessed from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration Coal Mine Fatalities page (chart can be found here):
Sourced Raw Data by year -- 2005 - 22; 2004 - 28; 2003 - 29; 2002 - 27; 2001 - 42; 2000 - 38; 1999 - 34; 1998 - 29; 1997 - 30; 1996 - 38; 1995 - 47.
Contrary to what The Times would have you believe, the trend has been favorable ("reassuring," if you will) for many years, especially the past four, where there has been a near-50% drop in fatalities. In fact, these results support the contention that staffing Interior with people who actually know their industry has led to greater safety. And where was The Times when coal mine fatalities increased over 40% during the last three years of the previous administration's arguable responsiblity (1999, 2000, and 2001, given that a new administration's first budget and full implementation of its priorities typically does not occur until October of its first year in office)?
The New York Times' opportunistic criticisms before the wakes have even taken place are way, way out of bounds.
