Bush to America: Mind Yer Own Business

Every so often, our elected leaders -- or somewhat elected leaders -- get something exactly wrong.

Consider the Bush White House's over-our-dead-bodies refusal to release records on Vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Democrats and Republicans across town have been saying for weeks this is a boner of a move -- from a political vantage. It makes the White House looks guilty, and it continues to draw attention to the Bush-Enron connection. There's no one in the capital -- outside of the White House -- who believes this information won't pop out sooner or later.

It's the principle, the principle, the White House keeps bleating. The Bushies are playing it like a good cop/bad cop routine: "I'd like to release this material, really I would, but my hard-ass partner here, Mr. Principle..."

So what's the "basic fundamental principle," as Cheney calls it? Here it is: the White House should not have to tell the American public with whom it consults, for that would hinder the executive branch's ability to solicit the advice of outside experts.

"I receive advice," George W. Bush said a few days ago, "and, in order for people to give me sound advice, that information ought not to be public. Somebody is not going to walk into the Oval Office thinking that the conversation is going to be public and give me good, sound advice."

The President was being disingenuous. The GAO lawsuit seeking information on the Cheney task force only asks the White House to reveal the identities of the several hundred people who huddled with Cheney's crew as it drew up its energy plan last year. The GAO is not seeking minutes or transcripts of those sessions.

But back to Bush's explanation of the "principle." Why assume that somebody who obtains an audience with the President to discuss a policy matter would be unwilling to supply "good, sound advice" if the public is notified of the session? Put another way, why would Bush or Cheney have to meet secretly with someone -- say, a corporate lobbyist -- in order to receive that person's frank and honest opinions? This sounds more like the ways of the mob than the conduct of government.

Bush and Cheney are suggesting that an executive from Enron (I just picked that name randomly) would not feel free to tell them -- or the staff assistants of an administration task force -- his thoughts about electricity deregulation, if a newspaper were to note this exec had attended a policy chat at the White House.

Does this make any sense? Most lobbyists would kill -- or donate millions -- for a minute of face-time with an aide to the Veep, during which they could plead their case. Would a lobbyist turn down such an opportunity because the White House had to report to Congress that she had been on the premises of 1600 Pennsylvania? Would a trade association official not share his unvarnished views unless he could sneak in and out of the West Wing? Remember, Bush and Co. are not erecting barricades to keep the contents of these conversations confidential; they are battling for the right to say to Congress and the public, who we meet with is our business, not yours.

Cheney's much-cherished "principle" is bogus. Can Bush tell us why people won't openly trot into the Oval Office and talk honestly to the president? What are these would-be president's helpers scared of? One could argue Bush ought to be suspicious of receiving advice from anyone not willing to be seen entering the White House through the front door.

There is a principle at stake. It just happens to be the opposite of what the Bush gang is pitching. Bush and Cheney are forgetting they are public servants. Their deliberations and decisions are public business. They work in a public facility (except, perhaps, when Cheney is in an undisclosed location). The presumption should be that they will reveal as much as possible to the public -- their bosses -- about what they do to earn their paychecks.