News Bush increases his regulatory control over agencies

[edward]

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200701300005

Gimme a break this means political appointees will now have influence over all government agencies. Policy and what the public is told will be dictated by novices instead of scientists and experts in a field.

We had a thread on this same thing happening at NASA where a college drop out was dictating releases of scientific information. This could make agencies like the EPA powerless.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON: Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

... "It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He also is a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate [continued]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/31/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Climate.php

According a CNN report today, one person at the White House over-ruling scientists was former and future Exxon/Mobile lobbyist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here we go.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. scientists felt pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsone&storyID=2007-01-30T210856Z_01_N30346494_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-WARMING.xml&WTmodLoc=SportsNewsHome_R1_newsone-1

 

[Gokul43201]

From the link in Ed's post:

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, "This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable."

See? It's not about greater Executive control; it's about more openness and accountability!

Isn't this possibly in conflict with the Separation of Powers?

 

[BobG]

From the link in Ed's post:
See? It's not about greater Executive control; it's about more openness and accountability!

Isn't this possibly in conflict with the Separation of Powers?

Probably not. While the agencies they're talking about are independent agencies within the federal government, they still fall loosely under the executive branch.

 

[turbo]

Putting political officers in place to ride herd on these departments sounds like a great idea. If the departments are producing work that is contrary to the party-line, they must be made to conform.

 

[verty]

Hmm, I wonder if it'll result in somewhat of a brain-drain in those departments. I don't imagine scientists like their opinions being overriden.

 

[edward]

Probably not. While the agencies they're talking about are independent agencies within the federal government, they still fall loosely under the executive branch.

It looks like the "loosely under the executive branch", has become more of a strangle hold. The administration should try to find some political appointees with some experience in their job appointments. There is little chance that will happen.

 

[BobG]

It looks like the "loosely under the executive branch", has become more of a strangle hold. The administration should try to find some political appointees with some experience in their job appointments. There is little chance that will happen.

At least most independent agencies require Congressional approval of the President's nominee for head of an agency. How all that works out between the head of an agency and the President's regulatory office is a little bit of a mystery to me. If the head of the agency doesn't like the regulations put out by the regulatory officer, does the agency head over rule them?

Probably not, since most appointees get approved, but then what's the purpose of the regulatory officer?

Just to really get people irate , here's the http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/ , which doesn't require any Congressional approval, since it's the President's staff, not an official cabinet position or agency.

Aw, heck, may as well make it obvious what the Faith Based and Community Initiatives office does. Here's some of their regulatory changes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/regulatory-changes.html

 

[edward]

Re Faith Based

As far as I know any group which wishes to have faith based funding, must do so by applying for a grant from one of 170 Federal grant programs which now will have political appointee oversight.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/grants-catalog-index.html