Who's Your Daddy?

All administrations make political appointments to executive agencies, generally at the highest level. These appointees often bring more political than technocratic knowledge with them, and they can have a serious impact on agency operations.

It doesn't take very much imagination to understand the implications of political interference with an agency that relies on its scientific credibility in advising on the design, implementation and enforcement of laws that affect everyone. The Bush-appointed Administrator of the EPA has been called to testify on his "interference" with EPA scientists, which the Union of Concerned Scientists has condemned:

On numerous issues—ranging from mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate change—political appointees have edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the science behind dozens of EPA regulations.

Take this excerpt from an article covering the testimony of EPA Administrator Johnson before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the committee chairman, said depositions provided by senior EPA staff members suggest that Johnson had been overruled or heavily influenced by the White House on recent EPA decisions on the smog standard, its rejected of a waiver for California on global warming regulations, and the EPA ongoing deliberations on whether to regulate carbon dioxide.

''You have essentially become a figurehead,'' Waxman told Johnson. ''... In each case, you backed down.''

He said in each of the EPA cases ''the pattern is the same. The president apparently insisted in his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA scientific and legal experts,'' said Waxman. ''You reversed yourself after having candid conversations with the White House.''

And those of you who want to watch Rep. Waxman trying to get an answer on "guidance" or "steering" out of Johnson (and yelling at Rep Issa (R) for trying to stop the questions) should check out this video:

Bottom Line: Political interference with the EPA is undermining its current operations and weakening its future credibility. If the Bush administration manages to discredit the EPA now, who is going to trust the EPA in the future?

Today at Aguanomics:  Right Way Wrong Way (Egypt et al. are making the food crisis worse) and Photogenic Losers and Fat Cats (a few suffer while incompetent irrigation officials stand by)

Comments

[Bob Murphy]

This is exactly why I can't understand why so many cynical economists are lining up for a massive cap-and-trade or carbon tax as a solution to climate change. Suppose they put politics aside and set up the system just as the experts recommend. The next really big recession that hits will see waivers galore.

[Joshua Corning]

These appointees often bring more political than technocratic knowledge with them

In a democracy of all places?!?!

The Horror!!!

[joshua corning]

I like how the executive branch stopping the EPA from expanding into regulating carbon dioxide without any legislation giving it the authority to do so is somehow considered a bad thing.

Hey Zetland do you have any extra Nazi party buttons...I think it would be funny to have one for irony's sake.

[gormk]

Joshua C.

That last remark is (at best) an idiot's comment.

As far as EPA having legal jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide, you are wrong.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency.

I can accept that you are anti-government (intervention) by principle. But, GIVEN that a government agency such as EPA exists, why would you implicitly endorse corruption and its undermining?

These hearings were about the systematic manipulation and behind-the-scenes effort to undermine the agency's environmental protection mission. I don’t see how anyone could find this defensible, even an anti-government extremist like you.

[David Zetland]

Joshua, besides gormk's obviously correct comment :), I should clarify that "more political than technocratic knowledge" referred to the practice of appointees offering/changing/enforcing regulations with political, not technocratic, intentions. For example, allowing "republican" pollution but not "democratic" pollution.

FYI: I like freedom first, democracy second and fascism last.

[David Zetland]

Correction: I should have said "in addition to gormk's" instead of "besides..."

[joshua corning]

FYI: I like freedom first, democracy second and fascism last.

Wow.

After Kos called himself a libertarian a year or two ago i guess everyone has jumped in on it.

To bad it is only a name change rather then an actual political position change.

[joshua corning]

As far as EPA having legal jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide, you are wrong.

5 people deciding for everyone is democratic?

I guess the fact that you are comfortable clearly states what your opinion of democracy is.

But, GIVEN that a government agency such as EPA exists, why would you implicitly endorse corruption and its undermining?

The EPA is clearly under the control of the executive branch. If you do not like how a particular rep chooses what come out of his office then vote different. The idea that there is a fourth branch of unelected technocrats with powers and authority that supersedes the constitutional powers of the president is not only absurd but to endorse such a view is clearly anti-democratic.

As to my last statement the Nazi party of Germany was clearly anti-democratic. I do not see a problem with comparing apples with apples simply because one apple gassed gypsys and the other hasn't.

[David Zetland]

Joshua,

re: my beliefs. Reconsider what you are saying. What you then say will make it clear who you are.

You may also want to read my first post today. Pause and think about it.