rules and regulations
Feb. 3rd, 2007 09:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kespernorth"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.
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."
(from the New York Times)
In a time when scientists at NOAA and other government agencies are being told that they must not discuss climate change, I cannot help but be concerned about the notion of a "regulated policy office". It sounds very big-government... though more than anything it makes me think of the Soviat zampolit, "political officer".
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.
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."
(from the New York Times)
In a time when scientists at NOAA and other government agencies are being told that they must not discuss climate change, I cannot help but be concerned about the notion of a "regulated policy office". It sounds very big-government... though more than anything it makes me think of the Soviat zampolit, "political officer".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-04 06:55 am (UTC)Bullshit
Date: 2007-02-04 02:40 pm (UTC)However, it's not a Soviet government - the key feature of the Soviet goverment is not the political appointee in charge of a department, otherwise the French would be Soviets. Every single ministry in France has political appointees to an extent we would find unfathomable here.
However, in France, as in America, these appointees are put in place by elected leaders with fixed terms.
The key feature of the Soviets is dictatorship.
This policy in no way subverts the will of the voters.
In fact, a good argument can be made that this actually increases the power of the voters and the accountability of government. You and I both know that scientists in the government have views greatly at variance with the views of the voters, and are these scientists are trying to influence public policy to conform to their views.
It just so happens I agree with these scientists, and I have been trained as a scientist myself.
However, my love of science is insubstatial compared to my love of democracy - and the actions of these scientists *are* a subversion of democracy. Put bluntly, these scientists are public servants, appointed and paid to serve the voter and the taxpayer. When they choose to use their office to advance their own agenda instead of those of the voter and taxpayer, no matter how noble I find the agenda I must condmen it.
There will come a time when I will disagree greatly with the government. If I do not fight to ensure that the government is firmly under the control of the voters now, someday I may lose the chance to fight at all.
Which is why it may be a good thing to have our elected leaders put political appointees over our scientists, even if I despise our elected leaders and admire our scientists. Democracy is far more important than science. The Soviets you mentioned? They often did great science, and all it did was make the gulags more efficient.
Testing
Date: 2007-02-04 07:26 pm (UTC)ping.
Date: 2007-02-04 07:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-09 09:03 am (UTC)-Gods that Exactly what I thought the instant I read it.
Ironically I Have a Copy of Hunt For Red October that I still haven't finished in all these long years. Perhaps it's time to dig it back out and re-read all those things that slipped by me the first time.
Hug's,.....................~M~