A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Damage to Our Nation: Foxes Guarding the Hen House

One of the functions of Government (perhaps ultimately the ONLY function of Government) is to protect its citizenry. Most, if not all, of the functions of Government boil down to that. With some functions, this is obvious (police forces, FBI, CIA, armed forces, fire departments), with others it may be a little less so.


  • Governmental regulation and standardization of education is at least intended to protect citizens against the perils of an uneducated population, and to give individual citizens access to the same benefits which might otherwise be afforded only to the rich. This is necessary to prevent an entrenched class system, in which being born into a rich family is a better determinant of future prosperity than intelligence or hard work.
  • Food and Drug oversight is intended to protect the populace from being sold harmful and damaging food products, non-effective drugs when others might be more effective and drugs with permanent and major side effects. Say what you will about the FDA, we’ve come a long way from the days when any joker could bottle any liquid and hawk their snake oil on a street corner, while those duped into buying it found themselves injured by it, or getting worse because it didn’t live up to the promised benefits. Claims by some that the free market economy would force safe drugs are clearly debunked by the modern “food supplement” industry, selling a wide variety of herbs, amino acids and chemical compounds which rarely pass scientific muster when put to a real test, and which have on more than one occasion turned out to be directly harmful to the user. We need the protection of an FDA-like group, because it is human nature to want hope, and so human nature to be easily deceived by false promises.
  • Welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and other social programs are intended to protect society from poverty. That they are poorly run, prone to abuse, and not particularly effective doesn’t change the fact that the intent is to protect society.

And so with protection of its citizens the top function of government, oversight of those who might be in a position to harm citizens through irresponsible behavior is key. It’s what the FDA is all about. It’s what the Judicial system is all about.

And it’s what the SEC and the EPA are all about. Fundamentally, it’s about putting in a layer of protection, forcing companies to clean up their own messes. You don’t put a teenager in charge of policing that he keeps his own room clean. You don’t put a toddler in charge of making sure she doesn’t eat too many cookies. You don’t put a fox in charge of safeguarding the hens. And yet the current Administration has time and again put those against whom Government is supposed to be safeguarding us (or at least their representatives) in charge of those very safeguards.

The latest example is Chris Cox’s nomination to the SEC. Cox played a major role in passing legislation which limited investors’ rights to sue companies for securities fraud. This legislation protected companies like Enron from lawsuits by those who were defrauded. In 1995, Cox’s efforts helped lead to the passage of “the Private Securities Legislation Reform Act” which provided extensive protections to executives, accountants and lawyers who made misleading statements about their companies. According to one “talking points” website, the securities and accounting industries form a majority of the political contributions made to Cox. So President Bush has seen fit to nominate this person to lead the governmental agency whose primary mandate is to prevent securities fraud and oversee the securities and accounting industries.

Would that this were the only case of putting the inmates in charge of the asylum, but no, this is but the tip of this particular iceberg.

Philip Cooney worked as an attorney for the American Petroleum Institute. For those who left their score cards at home, these are people who would be hit hard by proof of global warming, because their products are believed to be a major cause of it. Big Oil has been as slow to acknowledge any potential harm to the environment by their product as Big Tobacco was to acknowledge that theirs caused cancer and might be mildly addictive. Mr. Cooney was an outspoken critic of global warming theory, and yet President Bush named him Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, in which position Cooney (a lawyer by trade and not a scientist) altered numerous scientific reports to downplay or eliminate any proof of global warming. All this time, President Bush’s mantra seems to be “the jury is still out on global warming”, but as long as he had Mr. Cooney running interference for him, that jury was never going to return to the courtroom. And further evidence that Mr. Cooney was doing the work of those whom his charge should have been overseeing, when these allegations came to light and Mr. Cooney was forced to leave his position at the White House, he was immediately given a cushy job with Exxon Mobil.

For 20 years or so, Mark Rey worked with various timber industry groups as a lobbyist. He became the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, under which title he heads the U.S. Forest Service.

Stephen Griles was Deputy Director of Surface Mining under Ronald Reagan during which time he greatly reduced strip mining regulation and pushed to overturn restrictions on Pacific Coast offshore drilling. He then went on to form his own lobbying company, with a list of clients largely derived from the mining industry. And so in 2001, he was nominated and then confirmed as second in command at the Department of the Interior, the governmental agency in charge of overseeing and regulating use of public lands.

Jeffrey Holmstead, a former utility corporation lobbyist now runs the EPA’s air division.

Linda Fisher, Holmstead's co-worker at his lobbying firm (who represented Monsanto, a pesticide maker), was given a series of jobs in the EPA including "Deputy Administrator of the EPA", "Assistant Administrator - Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances", "Assistant Administrator - Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation" and "Chief of Staff to the EPA Administrator". After leaving, she got a job with DuPont.

Thomas Sansonetti, a former lobbyist for the coal industry is now assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.

The list goes on.

Time and again, this President has put people who are supposed to be overseen in positions of power within the departments which are supposed to oversee them, thus asking the prisoners to watch the gate of the prison, lest any of them escape.

This is not the way a government protects its people. This is the way a government helps its friends to skirt rules intended to protect its people, and just one of the ways in which I think President Bush is damaging to our country.

Copyright (c) June 16, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

9 Comments:

Blogger Liam said...

Ralph (and anyone else who may be reading these essays),

You have an opportunity here. I've been talking with Janet, and she wants to know how many of the tactics I'm going to be describing have been practiced by other Administrations. The fact is, since I don't do this for a living, nor get paid for it, my research time is limited, and so the honest truth is that while I think I know the answer, I don't know for sure.

I believe the result of the essay will be that this Administration has used these tactics more than previous ones, and has used a wider array of them... but I might be wrong. It could be that I'm just paying more attention to world events since 9/11 woke us all up, and in fact none of this is new, even by degree.

If you know the answers, feel free to chime them in. I'm certainly no big fan of politics in general, and I think ENOUGH bad stuff happens by virtually ALL politicians that we don't tend to notice the difference in degree between one and another. To me, that's why there hasn't been more of an outcry.

But as I said, I am always and honestly interested in new information (at least when it's verifiable or from a reliable source), so fire away!

Liam.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:58:00 AM

 
Blogger Unknown said...

What I would love to see is if this is a trend. I know that elected officials tend to reward those who paid for their campaigns... the reward generally being jobs, jobs related to the field of interest of the payee. This is common enough to get its own set of laws and it's own watchdog group. So... the pratice of it isn't limited to this administration...

The way in which the jobs were sorted is alarming, though. I have issue with watchdog groups like the EPA, and the FDA but, since I've never come up with a better solution that doesn't involve many innocent deaths, they are a unlikable necessity. Having a zelot at the helm seems to be the absolute worst idea... If he is against what that group is for, then he makes the group impotent.

I am comforted by the fact of many laws in place which haven't been revolked. Many which should... lots of the environmental laws are based on hysteria and fear and not fact (though I am not willing to trade my scientists for attorneys). Many of the protections (like gun protections) have gone too far, far enough to limit our rights to bear arms (which is constitutionally guaranteed).

So, I agree with you that the pratice is a bit dodgey, even downright conterproductive. I disagree that it will cause REAL harm. The checks and balances are in place. The laws cannot be revolked by the head of the EPA or any other force without the cooperation of the Congress.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:15:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

No, the law can't be revoked, but there is case after case of laws which are selectively (or not at all) enforced.

That, to me, is the insideous nature of these appointments (whether they're precedented or not), they quietly undo the laws. Which of course answers my rhetorical question of why we continue to pay for an EPA if we're going to so completely imasculate it, the outcry and publicity around actually CHANGING the laws (to say nothing of the power required to do it) is much greater.

How much simpler, then, to simply put someone in place who will not opt to levy punishments for failure to comply? There are no mandatory minimum sentencing laws, so the watchdog group is not breaking any laws by failing to provide adequate punishment. The plus side, of course, is that the companies ARE still breaking the law, and so a change in the political weather at the watchdog group does still leave them accountable.

But if you have a friend who's the bouncer at the door to a club you aren't old enough to be allowed into, you're a lot more likely to try to get in, and a lot more likely to succeed, and FAR less likely to be punished for trying if you DON'T succeed.

Liam.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:01:00 AM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

Liam,
I will have to get back to this when I have more time. Janet impresses me more and more however. You two should do a point-counterpoint.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:18:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

I'm not sure how useful that would be, because Janet actually agrees with me (and I with her) about 95% of the time. She's interested in keeping me focused on what I have to say, and in making sure I don't lose my good arguments in a swirl of partisan sounding ones.

But I don't think there's enough of a difference of opinion to do a point-counterpoint thing, because that usually involves people taking opposing sides of the issue, while Janet and I tend to be on the same side, but perhaps with different views of how to get where we need to be.

My impression, anyway.

Liam.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:45:00 AM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

Liam,
Her position above did sound different from yours although I was reading fast. More to the point, I think she is more focused than you - or perhaps less emotional.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:24:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Heh. It's odd that you would say that, only because we're expecting and right now Janet is starting her second tri-mester. For those who do not have children, this is not the least emotional time in a woman's life.

I do not say this as a slam at my wife, I understand the sacrifices her body is making in order to create our offspring, and that this torrent of emotions is a result of some of the hormones that she is having to endure that I will never have to.

But still, I can't decide whether it's funny or says something extremely bad about me that she comes across, at 12 weeks pregnant, less emotional than I do.

Liam.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:11:00 PM

 
Blogger Ralph said...

I don't think it is either funny or saying something bad about you. Politics is probably low down on the list of issues to get emotional over during pregnancy. You may find that your priorities change during the summer now that your children have arrived. Even the evil Bush may seem less important.

Friday, June 17, 2005 12:13:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

In case anyone missed it, another such case came out late last week. A Department of the Interior report on the effects of opening up public lands to grazing was modified to remove text supporting the actual conclusion of the report, which was that this grazing would have "a significant adverse affect" on wildlife, replacing it with a conclusion that it would be "beneficial to animals".

The original study was performed using scientific methods. The modifications were done by some guy at the DOI with a red marking pen.

Truth, apparently, means little in Washington. If the science doesn't fit your position, change the science. We've all heard the stories of governments attempting to legislate the value of pi (to make it easier for our poor governmental officials to understand the math).

The plain and simple truth is that facts determined through scientific method need to be disproven through the scientific method. Opting to ignore the evidence that is contrary to your pre-determined position is bad enough, re-writing the evidence and then pointing to it as proof of the opposite of what the evidence actually proves is dishonest.

But... no more than we've come to expect.

Liam.

Monday, June 20, 2005 9:16:00 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Career Education