All hail Emperor George The First
While you were sleeping (Bush took over the Government)
United States President stealthily took over the Federal Government last week through a new executive order last week that takes away all autonomy from Agencies, according to public interest organizations.
The order amends a series of previous executive orders that culminated in Executive Order No. 12,866, which the White House has used to give itself the power to review regulations before they can be officially published in the Federal Register.
The new order applies the review power not just to regulations but also to what it calls “significant guidance documents.”
“This order is just the latest in a series of unacceptable power grabs by the Bush administration,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “President Bush is asserting the right to change the law by executive fiat.”
“By requiring White House approval of important guidance, the White House will insert its political agenda and pro-business bias into every level of agency policy, so that our federal government will handcuff itself instead of the companies that violate the law and put the public in danger,” Robert Shull, Public Citizen’s deputy director for auto safety and regulatory policy, warned.
Check out the order itself. How did Pink Floyd put it; one more brick in the wall?
Are those hoof beats I hear coming from the direction of Boston?
Why it’s Paul Revere. What is he saying?
The Bush’s are coming… The Bush’s are coming…
I’m not certain which is worse:
1. Neocons so convinced of Bush’s godhead that they will continue to turn away from traditional conservative propositions of honesty and legality — in order to pursue his assorted crusades. Or —
2. Congenitally ignorant Americans who haven’t a clue about what’s happening — or what to do about it.
fortunately, the US Constitution has an automatic sic semper tyrannis provision which will kick in January of 2009. Hopefully, between now and then, the Democratic Congress will reverse substantial portions of the Executive Branch power grab.
Duh, this is what the excutive branch is supposed to do.
#1 – No it’s Herr Bush’s law enforcement troops.
One month ago I didn’t think it likely Bush would be impeached. That however is changing. At 28% popularity, there isn’t even too many Republicans full heartedly supporting Bush.
Depending on what happens in the Libby trial, it is also possible Cheney could be impeached as well.
Wouldn’t the very idea of President Pelosi just nauseate the neo-cons?
as a Canadian,i read this stuff & i watch your country slowly loose all it’s freedoms ,1 freedom @ a time,,reminds me of the boiling frog analogy..not to say our country is any better, but, it’s easier to see when you are objective & not subjective,,just an observation,,seems to me that things down there are getting worse rather than better..if that trend continues then @ some point it will be to late to get back your freedoms…kinda like a democratic dictatorship..or am i wrong?
“Wouldn’t the very idea of President Pelosi just nauseate the neo-cons?”
It would assuredly nauseate Hillary.
Hail Bush!!! I mean hitler. Dammit I always confuse to two.
The* …. Dammit
The only way the Democrats are going to impeach Bush is if they all get spine implants.
I just don’t believe Bush *can* be impeached. His administration has usurped so much power that they will be able to slither out of any attempt to bring them to justice. Fire all the prosecutors, hide more and more things under the cloak of national security, add a signing statement to any new law that essentially eliminates it, who knows what else.
13 – To that list, don’t forget the gerrymandering the Repugs did down in Texas. I’m sure the same thing was done with a bit more finesse elsewhere too. A very strong majority in 2006 was only barely able to unseat the corruption party’s hold on the legislative branch.
And wasn’t there a decision by our partisan Supremes not long ago that invalidated caps on campaign contributions on the theory that buying congress is a form of free speech?
Maybe someone more versed in Constitutional law can clarify or correct my impression. But do bear in mind the Supremes apparently now consider it necessary to resort to PR. Would that be their tactic if an alarming number of people hadn’t lost confidence even in the Supreme Court as the last, best U.S. guard against tyranny?
Like #8, I find it much less upsetting to watch U.S. freedom circle the drain from a vantage across a national border. That’s not why I retired to Mexico (not entirely, anyway) but this slow boiling of the frog is certainly is easier to watch from a psychological distance.
This is no different then what Bill Clinton did when he was in power. As president he pushed through many Executive orders that had no chance of passing a hostile congress – Issuing executive orders to get your way when you can’t do it through legislation.
Of course all the environmentalists hailed Clinton’s Executive orders even when ordinary people had to live with restrictions on individual land ownership that bordered nearby public lands. The liberal media didn’t stand up and denounce Imperial presidential orders then. Presidential rule making authority was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now. And in the end we the public are the losers.
As an executive order it’s only going to be around until a future administration chooses to rescind the order or a future congress chooses to write a law specifically to change the rules.
So remember kiddies what goes around comes around and you guys need to wake up and think hard about what a President Hilary Rodham Clinton will do once she gets her hot little hands on the levers of power. It won’t be pretty.
Not sure why this is a problem.
The President is elected, the officials in question are not.
#15 This is no different then what Bill Clinton did when he was in power. As president he pushed through many Executive orders that had no chance of passing a hostile congress – Issuing executive orders to get your way when you can’t do it through legislation.
Would you please list these? The phrase ‘many Executive orders ‘ is meaningless without citing what they are.
Traaxx has the right of it; these agencies are part of the Excutive Branch. That means Bush is their boss. There is nothing wrong with the President reviewing any draft regulation prior to its proposal. Furthermore, “guidance documents” are powerful and dangerous tools wielded by unelected bureaucrats. The 10th Circuit Court reprimanded Clinton’s EPA for using guidance documents to circumvent the rule-making process, thereby, denying the public a chance to comment on what was, in effect, a new rule.
There must be other people behind this. I cant believe Bush has this much ambition or intelligence to pull off any of this crap, let alone mastermind it. I’d just like to know who is pulling his strings.
19 – That would be the spider in the hidey hole, a liar named Dick Cheney, who is still being paid by Halliburton, AFAIK. But of course that’s not a conflict of interest for the spider in charge of our determined-in-secret energy policies. “Justice” Scalia, who hunts tame, trusting pheasants with Cheney while cases involving the energy industry are pending before the court, says it’s perfectly fine.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could divert some of the sole-source Halliburton billions into genuine R&D for batteries, fuel cells, super-caps, and anything else that might have promise?
Right, like that’ll happen.
#19,,,,dad & his buddies,,,follow the $,,,or not…the ignorance of the average person is what keeps the politician alive..’
Can Americans today see the similarities between Hitler’s Germany and Bush’s America? Of course, the Germans said that they couldn’t have known the evil that the Third Reich was capable of. It is perhaps unfair to say that every American who isn’t doing everything possible now to stop the insanity is personally morally responsible for the death of every Iraqi. However, there is an immoral crime of the highest order being committed in America, and somebody is morally responsible. History teaches us lessons if we care to learn them.
People still blame the Germans for allowing Hitler to do the evil that he did, and in particular for pretending not to see the Holocaust as it occurred around them.
Germans at the time thought and what Americans now think:
* I didn’t vote for him
* most people don’t support him
* I engaged in some forms of protest
* although the forms of protest I engaged in were mocked and derided by the government and by those in the media, I did everything I could do and I sure felt good about myself as I protested
* if it weren’t for the fact that the government would arrest and possibly kill me, I would have done more
* I didn’t see anything directly, so I wasn’t sure of how bad it actually was
* people in positions of high authority convinced me that whatever they were doing was for the best
* I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn’t do evil things
* these people were going to destroy our country, so what we had to do was just self-defense
* why do you blame us when we’re the victims?
* there are many people in my country who support our government with a radical fervor, many of them my neighbors and relatives, and I want to get along with them or I fear their reaction should I dare to express dissent
* anyone who expresses the least amount of dissent faces the general hatred of the public
* anyone who expresses the least amount of dissent may lose his or her job or livelihood
* anything I might have done wouldn’t have made any difference
* the people who are doing the work of the government are ‘our troops’, and must be supported in whatever they have to do on our behalf
* the alleged victims of my government aren’t fully human, and their lives aren’t worth even the slightest inconvenience or risk to our lives
* the alleged victims of my government have a false and evil religion, and my true religion gives me the right to eliminate them
* after the sufferings we’ve faced, no one can dare tell us what to do
* what my country is doing is actually for the improvement of the lives of what busybodies describe as its ‘victims’
* my country right or wrong (no, sorry, that is someone else – the Germans weren’t that stupid)
* our leaders are particularly blessed and wise, with a direct line to God, and would never do the wrong thing.
Good Post. So what do we do now? If they dont impeach, what is the answer? I know what I think….just wondering..
#22, Ze, Bull crap. All levels of government regulate land use. Lands that border Federal Lands out west are no different or special enough enough to be exempt from regulation.
Your first link,
.. Interior Secretary Gale Norton stated that the Bush administration would not push to overturn any of President Clinton’s national monument designations.
…
According to U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, Clinton acted properly when he created six new national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906, which allows presidents to act without congressional approval to safeguard objects of historic and scientific interest.
Your second link,
President Clinton announced in his Feb. 4, 1997 State of the Union Address that he would “…designate 10 American Heritage Rivers, to help communities alongside them revitalize their waterfronts and clean up pollution in the rivers, proving once again that we can grow the economy as we protect the environment.”
…
The public comment period was to end June 20, 1997 but due to public concern regarding the effects of the American Heritage River designation on private property rights and water rights and possible increased Federal regulation, the House Resources Committee requested that the public comment period be extended 90 days to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a result the CEQ reissued the initiative in the June 20, 1997 Federal Register with a revised schedule and extended public comment period to August 20, 1997.
I’m not even going to bother doing your work by checking out your last link. Your first two links are bogus and in the National Interest.
As to your point,”In layman’s terms that means the Federal agencies must examine the economic impact of regulations in order to justify the Fed’s rule making authority and if such rules cannot be an economic benefit then they aren’t allowed to make new rules.
So if the rules benefit something not expressed in MONEY terms, such as health or public safety then they may not make any regulations, EVEN IF AUTHORIZED OR MANDATED BY CONGRESS !!! For your information the EPA is mandated to make regulations and is currently under a court order to do so. Your definition would put them in Contempt of Court.
sigh
#26 As usual you’ve missed the point Fusion. Clinton decided that his political legacy should override any interest of the locals who have to live with his policies. It’s an easy and “safe” way to lock away public lands especially when most of the Western states lands are held by the Federal government. Clinton decided that he wanted to establish an environmental legacy and used Executive power to short circuit the legislative process because at the time Republicans controlled both houses. My point is that Clinton took the issue out of the hands of the people – hardly a democratic decision that would be a compromise for the interested parties. At least with the state and local agencies regulating land use they’d be more responsive to the needs of the local populace. Clinton made sure the Feds didn’t have to take in local concerns by issuing his EO’s.
When it comes to comparing Bush’s use of the EO, the Feds have to prove that there is an overriding need for legislation. He’s not usurping power since the agencies in question are under his jurisdiction. All he’s doing is telling them that they have to make a really good case when it comes to writing new rules. Bush’s EO doesn’t direct the Federal agencies to do away with old rules. It doesn’t make new rules. It states that new rules need to be determined on a cost basis when public safety is not an issue. So if Bush’s EO is aimed at limiting new rulemaking authority by federal agencies, then just explain to me how it’s a “Power Grab” by Bush as the original thread claims??
By definition, every act of the Bush Administration is a “Power Grab”, given the Supreme Court usurped the democratic authority of voters in 2000!
Since Bushes Supreme Court anointment to the presidency, he has taken it upon himself to expand his powers beyond that of any president before him.
Unlike George Washington, if George Bush had been our first president, it is no doubt he would have stayed in office, more as King then president.
#28, No, you don’t understand. You were challenged and came up short. Clinton made those lands safe for all Americans. That is something I, and most Americans, appreciate. His orders were all for the good of the United States, not a small segment. Contrast that to Bushes executive orders that have for the most part been to enrich his power at the expense of Americans.
Why should cost be a factor when making a government regulation? Are you telling us that it is acceptable for coal fired power plants to ignore clean up orders because it will cost them money? Are you telling us that regulations on truck drivers should not be enforced because the industry will have to pay more? Are you saying that auto safety recalls should not happen because they are expensive?
Get an effen life and quit trying to apologize for a scum bucket like Bush.
#30 Yes, I answered the question. I was asked what EO’s Clinton passed. I cited them. Clinton’s EO took the issues regarding public lands and took them out of the hands of Congress and the local governments and dispensed with the democratic process. It’s all good and well when it involves issues that aren’t part of your state or your livelyhood. But I can assure you that the people who actually have to live with that decision are going to think quite differently about it.
Now Bush is issuing an EO that you don’t like. I’m not happy about this because all it does is concentrate more power to the executive branch of the government. On the other hand it could be a very good thing because the Federal Bureacracy is such a large, diverse and powerful organization it’s VERY hard to get a handle on controlling it. Nixon found out how hard it was to get things done when he saw a ramshackle shed near the Washington Mounument and wanted to get rid of it when he was President in the 70’s. He couldn’t get it removed. (Don’t ask me for a citation because I can’t for the life of me remember what book I read that in Political Science 200 at my university back in the 80’s) Carter reformed the Civil Service during his administration and that was probably the greatest legacy of his term in office – most of the other things he did were a disaster. Now Bush has handed his successors a new tool in shaping the Federal Bureacracy. It could well be the most influential change in the Presidency that he’s made. I’m sure Bill Clinton is probably kicking himself and wishing he’d have thought of it this EO Directive 2 years into his administration after the GOP took over.
“Why should cost be a factor when making a government regulation? “
Well your question assumes that making Government regulations and ignoring the cost to the public is a GOOD thing. Not everyone agrees with that assumption:
“Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations”
NYT article published today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30rules.html?ex=1327813200&en=cfa88d4738fced9a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Are you telling us that regulations on truck drivers should not be enforced because the industry will have to pay more?”
Not every truck driver works for some large faceless corporation. A lot of truck drivers are independant owner operators who are barely scraping by as fuel prices have soared. Maybe you ought to ask them if they should be driven out of business or bought out by large corporate interests because government regs take no notice of how much it will impact their bottom lines?
“Are you saying that auto safety recalls should not happen because they are expensive?”
Well if you have bothered to read the EO, issues of Health and safety are not to be assessed on a cost basis.
“(A) Lead to an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html
—-
As far as “Get an effen life” dude. You’re a fine pot telling me to get a life when all you ever do is bitch and moan about Bush on DU. Maybe you need something more fullfilling in your life – like Basket weaving?