Slashdot Mirror

How large our social spending really is is cleverly hidden. Much of it is sliced off the top of incoming tax dollars, what's left becomes the dollars that are 'budgeted', the providing a misleading indication of how much money is going where.

Really, gosh, you'd think that 'secret' 'off-the-top' skim by the godless homosexual judge-loving liberals would have been the first thing the [strike]Chosen Race[/strike] the Bush Administration would have shitcanned.

Let's see the goddamn proof. Let's have reputable statistics from a government budget demonstrating your Fox News tinfoil hat liberal-conspiracy theory.

As for proof: Try this from C-Span. Or this from the Senates own website. Or this from the OMB (Scroll down to table 2-2, the expenses marked 'mandatory' are those 'off-budget' items to which I refer.)

Google on mandatory spending or off-budget and feast on the links.

I'm tired of neofacist right-wing troll bullshit on blogs, on slashdot, on television, and in all the newspapers, of all places. Gimme some proof, or go back to the sewer.

But understanding that requires actually understanding the meaning of the word fascist.

about the state HILLARY CLINTON is in charge of

When did New Yorkers vote United StatesSenator Clinton into the governors office? I think State Governor Pataki would be surprised to see Senator Clinton sitting at his desk.

And then there's Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold: Only senator to grow a pair and vote against the patriot act.

Yes she did

And now the politicians and their appointed lackeys think blogs need to be regulated and controlled?

There's no need to lump "the politicians" together on this issue. Some politicians are pressuring the FEC, arguing against regulation of blogs.

Just for a laugh, you should visit Ted Stevens' Senate homepage and enjoy the seizure-like movement of his flag gif. Truly lovely web-design. This is best on my Open Source browser, FireFox, but in IE it's just as ugly, if not as fast.

That brings out an intresting question.Who establishes committees/subcommittees? The best I could find is this http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common /briefing/Committees.htm/. Is there any one here who knows? That should be the first step in answering your question..

Before anyone flames me for not knowing "my" constitution, note that I am Canadian

Russ Feingold

Hey, I didn't vote for the idiot.

I'm guessing by the tone of your post that you don't care for Bush (or the Republicans). The real question is (since all he is doing is signing the bill congress sent him), did you vote for any of the 18 Democratic senators that voted FOR the bill:

Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY)

from: the Senate's roll call listing

How about the 50 Democratic representatives that also voted for passage of the bill:

Baird Bean Berry Boren Boucher Boyd Case Chandler Cooper Costa Costello Cramer Cuellar Davis (AL) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) Edwards Emanuel Ford Gonzalez Gordon Harman Higgins Hinojosa Holden Kanjorski Kind Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lipinski Marshall Matheson Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Moore (KS) Moran (VA) Murtha Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rahall Reyes Ruppersberger Scott (GA) Smith (WA) Snyder Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Wu

from: the House's roll call listing

Or did you conveniently forget that there is more to the government than just the President?

No, I am not Brian Berger and I never claimed to be. There is a planned de-orbiting mission and I OPPOSE that unless the new hardware that has already been build is included in a new Hubble mission. If we waste this then why wasn't the money originally put to save? This is absolutely assinine by all accords. Especially when we spend millions a day supporting the war. Like most write-ups for /. they seem to consist of a couple or so paragraphs with links to the original article. Obviously, for a while now, the current plan is to ditch Hubble in the Pacific regardless of anyones opinion. This a POLITICAL opinion. I wish to incite a PUBLIC opinion for saving the Hubble and will do so where I can. This seems to be a very good forum to further that end regardless whether you agree or disagree with my point of view (or my posting). I desire to either have Hubble saved or the current hardware that is ready for it included in a *new* Hubble. I feel either of these options NEEDS to be made available for the world and not just the US as the worlds scientific community gets a lot of benefit from this telescope that has made history and is a passion of the people the world over. There has been so much scientific knowledge gathered by Hubble it would be ashamed to waste it until it dies of it's own accord. We need to either save Hubble or send another JUST like it with NEWER instruments back to orbit. Some of the hardware is already built!! Don't throw it away (what a waste of $$$$$$$). DO SOMETHING WITH IT!! Please. I have gone to Senator Mikulski's web site. and sent her an email explaining to her how I feel about this subject and I'm not even a constituant!! How many more of you readers/posters are willing to support this cause? Even if she is not in your district WRITE HER and tell her how you feel. The more ammo she has the better this might wind up in favor of a Hubble, whether it be 1 or 2.

Sicko.

...write your senator.

Senator Leahy is engaged in a legislative battle against online scammers, and he needs your support. If you would like to help, click on this link. To ensure that you are a registered voter, you will be asked to verify your name, address, and social security number. You may then make a donation online, right from your checking account!

Senator Censorship comes from the only state which fronts on two oceans and one sea. I've lived on three coasts while staying in the same state.

Full list of commerce committee members

This lists the rest of the committee members, so if you want to write to someone in your own state as well, you may be in luck.

Do something about it. If every Slashdot member calls the Senator, believe me, they will get the message.

His webpage is here: http://stevens.senate.gov/ and his phone number is (202) 224-3004.

Do it now. Kill this crap in the bud. You only earn the right to rant and rave if you pick up the phone, send an email, or write a letter. If not, then keep quiet (no more whining to Slashdot), since that's what they want you to do.

I remember listening to some sort of interview with the head of the FCC (Powell), months ago. He remarked that kids didn't know the difference between a pay channel and a broadcast channel. So he felt the FCC should be regulating any sort of medium that kids might listen/view, no matter where it came from.

Don't like it? Get involved - Write to the US Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Stevens.

And the Co-Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye. It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.

I remember listening to some sort of interview with the head of the FCC (Powell), months ago. He remarked that kids didn't know the difference between a pay channel and a broadcast channel. So he felt the FCC should be regulating any sort of medium that kids might listen/view, no matter where it came from.

Don't like it? Get involved - Write to the US Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Stevens.

And the Co-Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye. It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.

Or even better... Utah.

I know you were being sarcastic, but while I was googling Orin Hatch, I came across this. It's Hatch applauding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for appealing U.S. v. Extreme Associates. Sorry to go off-topic, but why is the justice department wasting money on fighting pornography, and why are people voting these idiots back into office? Anyone that tries to make computer laws without understanding how a computer works has no right to do so. Likewise, any congressmen that doesn't understand the bill of rights has no right to make laws.

Sen Leahy wrote http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200502/022205.html to the Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in the wake of ChoicePoint. From what I've read there will be hearings, but not sure when. I hope it leads to the start of strict laws on consumer data protection. I have doubts.

So here you go:
Senators of the 109th Congress (info you could have found with google in .039 seconds)

I need to get off my ass and write some letters or something. Perhaps just to give myself the right to bitch when things stay the same. Damn. There's that cynicism again.

Actually, President Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998. However, under the US Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate -- no such vote has ever been scheduled, because there's not enough Senate support for the treaty.

In 2001, President Bush "withdrew" the US signature on the Kyoto treaty -- I have no idea if such a withdrawal is legitimate, not that it matters much.

The President of the Senate is actually Vice President Dick Chaney. Robert Travaglini is currently the President of the Mass State Senate.

This, folks, is the part where we all write our respective senators and let them know that this will not stand. You can find your senators here. There should be a link next to each senator's name where you can either email them or send a message through a web-based form. I've just completed my message to my senators, and I'll post it below if anyone wants to reference it for ideas (or use it yourself... I'll leave the variable parts blank ;)

[Mr./Ms.] [Senator's Surname],

Recently I became aware of a highly objectionable and appalingly unconstitutional bill that has just been passed through the House of Representatives: HR 418, also known as the Real ID Act of 2005. The problems with this bill are numerous, but I will focus on just two that I found particularly troubling.

First, the bill overall is an attempt to force the individual states to submit to the federal government's will or risk losing federal highway funding. The federal government receives the money used for the highway funding from its citizens through taxes, of course. These taxes are paid willingly under the assumption that the money will be used for the stated purpose (in this case, highway funding). Ethically, then, it follows that there should be no situation in which the federal government should be allowed to withhold that money from the states. This, however, is of a bit lesser concern than my next point.

In section 102, the bill states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." This, in my opinion, is allowing the Secretary FAR too much power. The argument can (and will, I'm sure) be made that there is a restriction placed on this with the last phrase "to ensure expeditious construtction of the barriers and roads under this section," but this seems like a flimsy bit of filler to make this bit of totalitarian legislation seem palatable.

The bill goes on to say "Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'." This could quite possibly be the worst part of the entire bill, as everything else up to this point could be dealt with in court if it ever were to be challenged. This part changes everything, however, stating that if someone disagrees with the Secretary bypassing any and all laws he feels like bypassing, no one can challenge it in the court.

To illustrate the deficiencies in this bill, I quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. "If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."

I implore you to vote against this bill, and to do everything in your power to ensure that this does not become a law.

Thank you,
[Your name]

Cross references of all this data via identity is RFID's most frightening "promise." All the arguments had in recent years about privacy are exponentially more critical; already, we are awash in more publically available data about ourselves than we can individually manage. We need tools as individuals being tracked, to manage access to data which identifies us.

Is anyone in the U.S. Congress close enough to technical to understand, to defend individuals from exploitation? Who there can swim in the deep end RFID is pulling us out into? Most /.ers are probably too young to run for office.

BG

Wait a minute. Where are all the libertairian kooks declaring the the free market is the perfect solution to every problem??

I know. They are in a silenced awe at the stem cell kooks who have convinced everyone that stem cells are the solution to every problem.

To date, stem cells seem to be cold fusion with better marketing.

From tsunami to Kyoto not impacting the environment at all to dropping emissions, to overblown disaster movies, scientists resigning various environmental organizations, and other speeches. People are even connecting the environment to the tsunamis, which have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with Earthquakes that are going to happen anyway. Lets get some perspective here.

The Democrats helped approve 204 of Bush's nominations last year. They blocked 10. Bush appointed the worst, Thomas Pickering, temporarily using a recess appointment. The Republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees over eight years. The Republicans have no moral high ground to stand on here though they sure act like they do.

Here and Here are a pretty good reference on the threat by the Republican's to change the rules on filibustering judicial nominees, or Here.

This is Senate Rule XXII.

Senator Hatch, right wing extremist that he is and former chair of the Judiciary is the one whose been pushing the "Nuclear Option" which is for the Senate to change this rule so judicial nominees can't be filibustered, or actually so that a filibuster could be ended with a cloture vote requiring a simple majority instead of the current 60%.

According to one reference there is a window at the start of the year where this rule can be voted out with a straight majority vote. For a party to do it they need to control the White House (Check), and have a majority in the Senate(Check). The VP, Dick Cheney, can "rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations.". Then he gets a majority vote and the rule is history. I'm not sure that the Republican's couldn't use various other tacks to strike it down at any time with a majority vote and let the courts work it out though.

Rule XXII on cloture was enacted in 1917. As nearly as I can tell prior to its enactment any senator could fillibuster the Senate single handedly. It created a rule that 2/3rds initially and now 60% of the Senate can block a fillibuster by voting cloture. I'm not sure but I don't think the Senate has, ever in its history, allowed a simple majority to vote cloture. It would destroy the very fabric of the Senate as a moderator on extremism and unchecked majority.

Senator Frist, the Republican Majority leader, has asfar as I can tell declined to change the rule to date but he us still both waffling and threatening. I assume some Republicans are realizing that if they make this change it will appear like they are attempting a power grab and are demuring.

If you hear on the news that the Repulicans have overturned Senate Rule XXII on cloture be aware that this means the Republicans have rendered the Democrats completely powerless, have essentially siezed power and you are for all intents and purposes in a one party state as long as one party has control of the White House and has simple majorities in the House and Senate. I think it would be unprecedented in American history.

Click here to get to the homepages of both of your senators, and urge them to continue funding HST. Similarly, click here to contact your representative in the House. Make sure in your writeup to include your name and address. It is good to send them an email or use the contact webform box, but even better to send an actual letter via USPS.

I can't stress this enough. Congressmen usually listen to their constituents, but typically most of their feedback comes from well-funded lobby groups that can afford to contact them on every relevent piece of legislation. If enough of us can demonstrate to them how important Hubble is to the scientific research and legacy of the US, we can actually make a positive impact.

Here is a page with some extra information about writing your Congressmen. Please do this (right now even). The 10 minutes you spend contacting them can be repaid tenfold if your message influences their decision!

They'll give up based on what the Supreme Court says.

No, they won't.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/ kp20040410.shtml
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1 .html
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan. binladen/ (note date)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,314700,00.html (also note date)
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ kerry-iraq.html
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htm l
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD03Aa02.h tml on on the "worldwide support we have squandered"

I sure would like to read a report on the subject that is more factual and less politically motivated though.

I'm not sure why so many people "spy satellites" are just for taking visible spectrum pictures. You can, in fact, tell whether someone's living in a cave through an infrared signature (providing they're keeping warm somehow). More importantly, you can use satellites to eavesdrop on phone and radio conversations, as well as locate people who are generating any sort of EM radiation.

Also, you can do more active things, like change cruise missile's programming in-flight or control a drone aircraft.

We need to be able to do this stuff to fight the kind of war we're in. In fact we would have nailed Osama by now if some loose-lipped idiot hadn't bragged about tapping his satellite phone to a reporter.

Video games makers figured out long ago that it was not worth all the elaborate anti-piracy mechanisms- they just factored in expected piracy by individuals into the price of their goods. Obviously, they're still gonna go after the egregious cases...

At any rate, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to copyright.

Lieberman is a conservative, so you can't really say that the PTC appeals across the board

I think you're wrong. He's listed as a Democratic senator on the United States Senate website.

The Bush Administration is no fan of civil rights or privacy. Given abominations like the "Patriot" act, it's hard not to jump to conclusions when they float trial balloons like this.

I guess all but one of the Democrat senators voted for PATRIOT Act because they are fan of civil rights or privacy? I'm not a fan of Bush but blaming all of the problems on just one person/group is foolished, IMHO.

Senator Lieberman is up for re-election in 2006, and he wants to make sure he's way ahead of any Moral Values his opponent will throw at him.

Senator Frist? is Senator Psot involved, too?
Bill Frist US Senator from Tennessee (Republican)

I think Psot is a member of the Duma, not the Senate...

Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the "high" from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub erototoxins -- mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer's own brain.

How does this 'brain sabotage' occur? Brain scientists tell us that "in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created - we literally 'grow new brain' with each visual experience."

[...] Any highly excitatory stimuli (whether sexually explicit sex education or X-Rated films) say neurologists, "which lasts half a second within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural changes one sees in [brain] damage...[and] can...leave a trace that will last for years."

Pornography psychopharmacologically imprints young brains - thereby invalidating notions of informed consent. [...]

A basic science research team employing a cautiously protective methodology should study erototoxins and the brain/body.

This is mumbo-jumbo as far as I can tell. Note how quickly Dr. Reisman -- her Ph.D. is in Communications, and she has no education in medicine -- goes from coining a brand new word to describe something she cannot prove exists ("what I dub erototoxins") to using that word as if the substance is real ("study erototoxins"). Along the way she uses partial quotes out of context, and prepends her views on pornography to a quote that matter-of-factly describes an obvious fact about the brain.

And if you missed it -- yes -- she is railing against "sexually explicit sex education." She is saying that sex ed causes brain damage.

This is the same woman who thinks the Catholic Church should sue because priests molested children.

I agree with you spending is out of fucking control in washington. On top of that, Bush has shown he doesn't give a crap about the debt - he passed a tax cut despite the enormous deficit. Personally, I think the government should be required to pay back any money it spends within a reasonable time frame (ie: 10 years). This will let us spread out financing so it doesn't hurt our wallets so much. People will start to question whether or not they really need all this security bullshit in airports, trains, FBI agents at every corner if they see their taxes go up to 60%. Is hand checking every passengers baggage on a tour bus really beneficial for the costs involved? By allowing the government to use its charge card, a lot of the spending goes unnoticed by the public. Our future is going to have to deal with this debt, or we are going to have to sell Alaska or something.... too bad... I like Alaska :).

Here's an interesting point I once thought of that puts the debt into perspective. If you won the lottery ($300 mil), and donated all of it to the national debt, you wouldn't even make a dent. Thats just one day's deficit.

I somewhat agree with the privitization of social security. I do not know how Bush plans to go about it, but if I were in congress (I may just run someday), I think you should be required to take 10% (or 5% or whatever) of your paycheck and put it towards savings. The money would come out of your paycheck as a tax, and be deposited via direct deposit into a savings account of your choice. The bank would know this was a mandatory savings, and would not allow you to withdraw the money for use. When you reach retirement (or contract a fatal disease), the money will become available to you in incriments. This will help make sure you do not rely on society to feed you or heat your home. Asking society to do so puts an unfair strain all of us -"feel bad or pay up." No, be responsible with your own money.

As far as investing goes I have mixed emotions... if they invest and lose all their money then they will become a drain on society anyways, but on the other side its their money and if they manage it well they can be even more successful. I would probably go for a split plan, allowing them to put some money in stock and some in stable securities. Allowing the government to pick and chose the companies is an awful idea because if they pick poor choices, the only one accountable is them - good luck getting your money back. As the parent said, you also may not agree with their business practices. These choices should be left up to the person paying the money.

I suggest you vote the congressmen who voted for this bill out of office. Go figure, all 51 republicans voted yes.

Quite. The vote on the USA PATRIOT Act was 98-1 (the lone dissenter was Feinstein, D-CA), and the DMCA passed unanimously (99 senators voted for it).

Since the Senate has shown such excellent judgement on these other issues, we can no doubt trust that their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was equally well-reasoned and based entirely on rational scientific investigation.

Does anyone seriously believe that Senators read (or even look at) most of the bills and treaties on which they vote?

Quite. The vote on the USA PATRIOT Act was 98-1 (the lone dissenter was Feinstein, D-CA), and the DMCA passed unanimously (99 senators voted for it).

Since the Senate has shown such excellent judgement on these other issues, we can no doubt trust that their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was equally well-reasoned and based entirely on rational scientific investigation.

Does anyone seriously believe that Senators read (or even look at) most of the bills and treaties on which they vote?

While it must be agreed that democracy and freedom are noble goals, it is unclear whether the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq had anything to do with spreading democracy and freedom.

I have to disagree with your assertion that this was an unlawful invasion. In 1991, Iraq signed a document with the USA ending a war. Saddam then thumbed his nose at said document. How many times does the UN need to tell Saddam to behave before there are consequences? Well, the USA decided Saddam had been told enough, so the USA, the initiator of the document (The United Nations is not a signatory to said document) decided since Saddam didn't want to play by the document, they wouldn't either and they resumed hostilities. What law was broken? I would like to say that I feel W completely messed up the political end of the resumption of hostilities, but legally, I don't believe there is an issue.

because of the deliberate lies we were fed by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and their lapdog Blair.

Don't forget Clinton, Berger, Pelosi, Gore, the other Clinton,and Kerry as well. Prior to the invasion, the list of people thinking Iraq didn't have WMDs was pretty darn short, please show me someone who knew at the time....no one was lying, they were merely fooled by Saddam Hussein (who was in turn fooled by his weapons experts telling him he did have such weapons...in my opinion).

I'm just glad we now have a non-partisan evil that everyone can get upset about at.
Don't just complain, though, write your senators. Here is the letter I sent mine, perhaps it will work for you.

Dear <your senator's name>,

I cannot argue the owners of a copyright do not
have the right to protect intellectual property.
However, I believe, that bill HR2391 is going too
far, and I urge to not support this egregious
attempt at eroding the rights of your
constituents. Please fight to leave the
enforcement of copyright laws in civil courts
where they belong.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter,
<your name>

http://www.senate.gov/

Here is a link to a contact for senator John Warner. Copy the above paragraph and send it his way! http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

According to an article on Wired, the Senate may soon pass a bill labelled HR2391, a bill which lumps many other compyright bills.

In less than three years, the Senate has confirmed 160 judges nominated by President George W. Bush. Three controversial nominees have been blocked, just 1.8 percent of President Bush's nominees. During six years of control of the Senate under the Clinton Administration, Republicans confirmed 248 judges nominated by President Clinton. However, 63 nominees were blocked - 20.3 percent of President Clinton's nominees. (source)

On behalf of the United States, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on Monday at the United Nations ... The next step for the treaty in the United States is submission to the Senate, following completion of further interagency review of the treaty.

Have a look at this list of treaties submitted to the Senate - I can't see many that Bush would bother turning up to to sign, do you?

Processes that are cost-effective at reducing energy consumption are, in fact, implemented by industries of their own accord. It would be stupid not to. The issue is that a lot of the processes for reducing pollution reduce the efficiency of the production process (or, at least, don't improve efficiency).

Take, for instance, the catalytic converter in your car - the catalytic converter reduces fuel efficiency and performance somewhat by creating backpressure in the exhaust manifold. Obviously, the emissions benefit is a large net positive, but given the choice, a lot of people would run their cars without a catalytic converter because (a) they wouldn't have to buy the converter and (b) their fuel efficiency and performance would be better. Laws require you to have a properly installed catalytic converter on your car.

Now, the issue that is of concern to our government (not just Bush, but also the Senate, which preemptively refused to ratify Kyoto in 1997, with a resolution sponsored by Democrat Robert Byrd that passed 95-0, including a yes vote from Senator John Kerry) is similar to what would happen to cars if catalytic converters were prohibitively expensive to operate. People wouldn't buy cars, and what's more, people would likely move to a country where they were allowed to run a car without a catalytic converter.

The same is true here - if environmental regulations make operating an industry too expensive in the U.S., then companies will (a) close down plants in the U.S., and (b) likely move those plants overseas to the countries who are already producing the most pollution per dollar GDP but who are exempt from the regulations of Kyoto (such as China).