Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How the Bush administration "guides" regulators over cliffs

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein at 8:44 AM on March 2, 2007.


Lindsay Beyerstein: Another layer of apparatchiks assigned to government bureaucracies.

Genevieve Smith has an excellent article in the American Prospect about how the Bush administration is quietly breaking the government. Having lost control of the legislative branch, the White House giving itself more power to over government agencies by installing apparatchiks to oversee regulatory agencies.

Smith writes:

In January, the White House released an executive order updating guidelines for federal regulatory agencies. The new executive order increases the administration's hold on the rulemaking process by requiring a political appointee within each agency to approve all new regulations and White House review of agency guidance documents.

Guidance, in Washington speak, is an informal interpretation or clarification of existing policy -- including suggestions for best practices and technical descriptions -- that tells businesses how the agency plans to enforce the regulation. In tandem with the executive order, the White House's Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to agencies offering new best practices for agency guidance documents. OMB's "Good Guidance Practice Bulletin" would require internal review of significant guidance documents by senior agency officials, as well as notice and comment on guidance documents deemed "economically significant."

Together with the executive order, the bulletin extends the reach of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a little-known but powerful office of the White House, into an area of policy that had in the past been left up to experts within the agency. When the modern administrative structure of the U.S. government was first created under the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946, the stringent requirements for promulgating regulation were not applied to agency guidance. Guidance from agencies was never intended to receive the same bureaucratic scrutiny as regulations because, for one, unlike regulations, guidance documents don't carry the force of law. [Am Prosp.]

These new "regulatory policy officers" will have the final say about whether the recommendations of experts found their way into official advisories about how to implement policy. Worse, the communications between the RPO and the agency would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. So, for example, if the experts at the Mine Safety and Health Administration issue some inconvenient guidance about the implications of an occupational safety law, the RPO will be able to secretly squelch that advice.

Ezra has a very good point:

This isn't bad simply because it opens the process up to political distortion, but because political appointees often lack expertise. I recently sat next to a Department of Energy political appointee whose experience for working on nuclear power was being a member of the Bush/Cheney reelection team. It's easier to reject regulations when you're both ideologically opposed to them in principle and don't actually understand the failures they're remedying.

It's hard to say how much difference this extra layer of political "guidance" will make in the short-term. It's not like our federal agencies are pouring out radical worker- and consumer-friendly advice as it is. The Bush administration has already done its best to fill government agencies with Republican cronies. Back when the Republicans controlled congress, that was easier to do.

Remember how well that worked out for Michael Brown and FEMA? The Republicans have already driven many of the real experts out of agencies like the FDA and the CDC and replaced them with party stalwarts in need of patronage appointments. Bush recently installed a stooge for the mine industry to run the MSHA. The list goes on and on.

The idea that the White House has given itself permanent, secret political influence over regulatory agencies is truly disturbing. I trust that a Democratic administration would put real experts back in the federal bureaucracy. However, I'm not confident that future presidents will voluntarily give up the extra layer of political influence.

[Ezra Klein]

Digg!

Tagged as: msha, oira, politics, republican, bush

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.


McCain's Money History and Why it Matters
McCain has led an aristocratic lifestyle as a consort to a liquor heiress, and it shows.
Post by Digby. August 21, 2008.
Poll-watch: Gallup Finds Wedding-Cake Sized Marriage Gap in Pres Race
Apparently, the married and unmarried have very different concerns.
Post by AlterNet Staff. August 21, 2008.
Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?
Like Iraq, Vietnam was not a noble cause. It's time we stopped letting politicians and the press perpetuate the McCain War Hero myth.
Post by Liliana Segura. August 21, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Political Officers
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 2, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in Cold War days, the Soviets had political officers, who were basically spies and intimidators who made sure the regular officers towed the line and spouted the party line. BushCo has learned well. It is no different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservacommies
Posted by: activecitizen2007 on Mar 2, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't a dimes difference between the modern Conservative movement and Communism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conservacommies Posted by: Plenum
What Better Way to Get Around Congress
Posted by: djnoll on Mar 3, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This layer of executive control is unprecedented in this nation and unfortunately, is as little known. Whether you call this communism or nazism is of little consequence. What its real name is is Dictatorship. Unlike the coups of Latin America or the Far East, this governmental overthrow has been subtle, calculated, and secret. Nothing about this Administration has ever been what it seemed, and for the world and this nation, that is disastrous. Now, even competent bureaucrats will be unable to enforce or enact regulations that do not fit the Bush agenda. They will be stripped of their power and their authority in one swipe of the pen, and that can literally grind any services passed by Congress to a halt. This inefficency will in turn lead to new directives from the Madman on High and result in the complete failure of our governmental processes, like we saw with FEMA and every business venture ever undertaken by Bush.

Unless the American people start waking up, shouting and yelling about our loss of freedoms and democracy as loudly as they are yelling aobut Iraq, we are all going down the road to WWIII together!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Putting criminals in charge of the prison
Posted by: babaloo on Mar 4, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that the Neocon(victs) have started to be charged as criminals, they need to change ALL the rules and prevent any manifestation of rationality from the Executive Branch. Wonder how the ideolog stooge will play out in the Justice Department - Oh, I forgot, they already have a stooge in charge!
Let Congress take the POWER OF THE PURSE to this change - can't add a layer of bureaucracy without more MONEY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most underreported
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Mar 5, 2007 12:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This and the US attorney firings are the most underreported outrages of this unbelievably corrupt, traitorous administration. The MSMs inattention to these stories makes them complicit in these crimes against democracy. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he noted that to stay healthy, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots every generation. Sure isn't healthy now. Only thing left is the free press - and that's us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]