Given the Bush administration’s record of ignoring scientific findings that don’t match its ideological views, the public should be skeptical of President Bush’s directive last week ordering that political appointees run the regulatory policy offices at federal agencies. The White House said the executive order is "a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable," and some business groups hoped that it would reduce the burden of federal regulation — which can be excessive at times. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told the New York Times that "the executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- mrbill on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
47 Comments
President Obama will enjoy the expanded powers too . . .
Well said Capn…The Republicans may just curse the day they let George W. Bush run over them with all this ego tripping power grabbing.
According to the paper this morning, consumer groups, labor, environmentalist and Henry Waxman are against this. The US Chamber of Commerce is for it.I think I’d rather go with the Chamber.
fleet, as suggested above, the Chamber might eventually end up with more than they want.
This, to my opinion, is an attempt to consolidate as much power as possible in the executive, a principle with which I have difficulty. Concentration of power in one branch of government, the party in power notwithstanding, is not a good thing, IMHO.
When advocating expanded executive powers ponder this: PRESIDENT HILLARY!
I don’t understand why this is being done at all, and why now?
What does this action purpose to rectify?
??
“President Obama will enjoy the expanded powers too . . .”
bwaaahaahaahhaaahaaahaaa…
Obama Winfrey. Oprah’s little puppet.
President?
bwaahaaahaaaaahahaaaahaaa
make that “propose”
You may scoff at Oprah Winfrey but she does have a huge audience. In fact, I believe her audience is larger than Rush’s and is largely made up of women. If political change is to be made, look to the women to make the change.
gster,
It’s been speculated that this will give Bush some of the “power” he may have lost at mid-term elections. In the past the laws passed by Congress leave room for interpretation and that has been accomplished by civil servants and scientific experts who also write the regulations instead of political appointees.
How BIG can this administration grow our government??
If Bush keeps this up, the GOP may not see winning the White House for quite a few years. Is this really what the GOP needs right now? It just looks and sounds suspicious.
“How BIG can this administration grow our government??”
Sounds like the need to make an extension of the White House for the infamous “Back Room”, where these deals are cooked up!
Scary!
bush is a crook and so are all repukes
The link in header also says that the WH wants “Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.”
She’s connected to big-oil, and strongly anti-environmental and anti-consumer. Some info in Wa Post and MediaTranparency links at bottom of http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Susan_E._Dudley
This looks to me to be more of a “feel good, warm and fuzzy” action than one having much substance. If, as purportedly is its intent, it would rein in the career bureaucratic mindset to subjectively interpret objective legislation when creating regulations, in order to selfishly expand their own self-importance, power (and annual budget), I would applaud it. Anyone who has dealt with the EPA and OSHA over many years knows the frustration of dealing with five different administrators, all of whom interpret the same regulation differently. Certainly, from what I understand from people who deal frequently with FDA, it’s no better over there. I haven’t seen anywhere whether this Order includes, or exempts, the IRS. So there could be an upside, but I doubt it.
Having said that, if Henry “The Weasel” Waxman is against it, then I’m more than willing to give it a chance. Restating the obvious, I fear it is “much ado about nothing”. Once again (sigh(.
rm, I hope it doesn’t include the IRS; if it does, it is bad for my practice, IMHO. :-)
I think the fundamental defect in right-wing thinking (usually) is to either not comprehend, or deliberately ignore, the concept of consistent principles, which always apply, no matter who the referent is. Perhaps its delberate, i.e., the rules only apply to “them.” I don’t know.
Not that this type of “thinking” is limited to conservatives, mind you. Surely not! They just seem to be its most enthusiastic practitioners.
Forget Obama or Hillary. For everything Bush has done, substitute “Bill Clinton.” Imagine Slick Willy amassing such powers and taking such actions. And he WAS president–for two terms–so it’s not much of a hypothetical.
Everything still look reety-alright NOW?
LOL !!!
BTW–FWIW, rm, I wasn’t talking about you. . .
Consider also that the WH wants Susan E. Dudley to be administer.
‘I Am OMB and I Write the Rules’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101155.html “Some enviros are already pining for the days of John Graham, whose nomination they bitterly opposed. Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch called Dudley “a true anti-regulatory zealot” who “makes John Graham look like Ralph Nader.” “
…ignores “consistent principle”…prefers the freedom of a chaotic mind…:-)…
Cosmos: I just glanced at an bio-article on Dudley who claims to be a “free-market environmentalist”, serving environmental ends via “market-based incentives”. I’m skeptical as hell of someone who, it appears, has spent their entire career in economic academia talking about issues in the real world. Economic theory is not provable science, and when the only “tools” you need to get from Point “A” to Point “B” are whatever assumptions you want to build into your model, you’re “a long way from the oil patch, girlfiend”.
Rage: And, no offense intended, I was laughing with Vaughn ! :)
Upon rereading the IP above, I have come to the conclusion that the directive will not have any affect upon the IRS. Health and safety issues, plus science, are not involved with that agency. That takes a load off my mind!
Vaughn: Beware of Ben. I think he’s been reading “Richard II” again! He killed me off last night, and I think he’s got you in his sights !
The government doesn’t really HAVE impartial experts anymore.
We’re moving closer to Orwell’s novel every day.
Think about how this works, you see, the guy in charge of family planning that BUSH appointed- doesn’t believe in birth control. He gets to now decide what policy to set for the use of birth control.
You have got to be kidding!
…Just use the Code Pink method…Pull out now!…
How am I kidding rm? It’s the truth.
Here’s more of the Bush unbiased govt. at work, pressuring scientist to the oil industry’s point of view:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/pl_nm/bush_warming_dc_4
Sorry about that, PMom, I didn’t mean to imply you were lying, just wondering who that person is?
“November 17, 2006
Birth Control Opponent Appointed to Chief of Federal Family Planning DepartmentAnti-choice, anti-birth control advocate Eric Keroack was appointed chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by President Bush yesterday. Dr. Keroack will be in charge of overseeing the distribution of Title X funding, which amounts to $283 million in grants per year, that is “designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons,” according to HHS, the Washington Post reports. Dr. Keroack himself is opposed to contraceptives; the group of “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) of which Keoack is the medical director states on its website that the “crass commercialization and distribution” of contraception is “demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness,” “—–
That is pretty scary political_mom
Sounds like putting the fox in charge of the hen house to me. Scary is an understatement. I’ve never seen one of those anti- zealots that can separate their personal feelings from their professional responsibilities, e.g., Phillkline.
Well now you see why this is such a REALLY bad idea.
He (Dr. K) must have been one hell of a campaign contributor. If not, the only question I can even think of is “What the f**k were they thinking?” This sounds like a Karl Rove-inspired selection.
“even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree.”
And there’s the myth.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IMPARTIAL EXPERT!!!
Everyone, NO EXCEPTIONS, has an agenda. Some wear it on their sleeve; some may not even be aware of it. But we all carry our biases, and they influence what we say, do, think, how we see the world. Including those so-called “impartial experts.”
Well said. It’s somewhat like the old adage (and this is going to get me in trouble, no doubt), “We’re all whores, we just have different prices”.
Just as I have said many times: There is no such thing as an unbiased survey or poll.
Hell, no. It’s all in “how you ask the question”, in order to get the answers you want. As a late friend of mine used to always say, “figures never lie, liars figger”.
“Just as I have said many times: There is no such thing as an unbiased survey or poll.”
And what makes you an expert on this is…
Years of experience, Davis.
Read this easy to understand monograph, and afterward we can talk:
<a href=”http://libcat.wichita.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=18&ti=1,18&Search%5FArg=survey%20questions&Search%5FCode=TKEY%5E&CNT=30&PID=nDoD_X_H_<oIlHOHmLoDlDoDq<<http://libcat.wichita.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=18&ti=1,18&Search%5FArg=survey%20questions&Search%5FCode=TKEY%5E&CNT=30&PID=nDoD_X_H_
You’ll forgive if I am skeptical Nutz…
Suit yourself, Davis. I spent many years in market research.
Davis: I’ve gotten lost here somewhere, I suppose. Just what exactly is your point? We all know that GNutz is a bubble or two off of plumb, but he’s making a hell of a lot more sense than you are … and that’s pretty frightening.
Funny quote of the day:
“government’s own impartial experts”
Ah, the Administration of diminishing expectations: “Who Knew”?http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/pl_nm/usa_iraq_fallon_dc_1
Who can doubt any longer that our national energy policy was written by the oil industry? It’s time the new congress looked into the matter that the courts dodged.