Bush signs landmark executive order increasing presidential power over federal agencies

RAW STORY
Published: Monday January 29, 2007


President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy, the NEW YORK TIMES will report on TUESDAY page ones, RAW STORY has learned. Excerpts:

#
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, 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.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_signs_landmark_e...increasing_0129.html
Original Post
Bush power from New York times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30rules.ht...094&partner=homepage
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
The political appointee rule has been on the books for 50 years. Behind the times.

INTERVENTOR,

This political appointee oversight of the regulatory process is IDENTICAL to the Stalinist and KGB Political officer in practically every agency of the Soviet Government from top to bottom. There were "political" officers on every Soviet Warship, Every factory, every store, every government agency, every school, every prison, every police station, every fire department, every department of every newspaper and every hospital, clinic, and farm. Bush knows how to GET CONTROL...and he is GETTING CONTROL.
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:

THE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE 16TH AMENDMENT. REPEATEDLY.



Was the 16th Amendment properly ratified? Watch the documentary. (You'll see people beat it, legally.) If you can prove it, you could be eligible for $100 Grand or so.


I only pointed out that the ratification was proper enough to get past the Supreme Court. I have been arguing this particular urban myth for well over eight years. I AM CERTAIN of the statement that the 16th amendment passes scruitiny.

NOW, the arguement agaist the insane concept that you can have government WITHOUT having taxation. AND THE EVEN MORE INSANE belief that a graduated income tax is evil, and should be replaced with some other kind of tax. IF THE INCOME TAX IS ELIMINATED, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE ALL REGRESSIVE, WILL PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON MIDDLE CLASS WORKERS, AND WILL ENRICH ONLY THE PEOPLE NOW PAYING TAXES ON OBSCENELY LARGE INCOMES.
Stop removing your proboscis to spite the face, without it you can't stick your nose into my business.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:

THE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE 16TH AMENDMENT. REPEATEDLY.



Was the 16th Amendment properly ratified? Watch the documentary. (You'll see people beat it, legally.) If you can prove it, you could be eligible for $100 Grand or so.


I only pointed out that the ratification was proper enough to get past the Supreme Court. I have been arguing this particular urban myth for well over eight years. I AM CERTAIN of the statement that the 16th amendment passes scruitiny.

NOW, the arguement agaist the insane concept that you can have government WITHOUT having taxation. AND THE EVEN MORE INSANE belief that a graduated income tax is evil, and should be replaced with some other kind of tax. IF THE INCOME TAX IS ELIMINATED, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE ALL REGRESSIVE, WILL PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON MIDDLE CLASS WORKERS, AND WILL ENRICH ONLY THE PEOPLE NOW PAYING TAXES ON OBSCENELY LARGE INCOMES.
Stop removing your proboscis to spite the face, without it you can't stick your nose into my business.


Your concerns are addressed in the video. Watch it, watch what happens when the IRS is challenged. The Supreme Court decision on the 16th Amendment is that it gives no "new" power of taxation. So the SC rules that it isn't valid and the lower courts should be in line with the SC. If you watch the video, we'll have something to wax on. Gotta go, work calls. Regards, miamizsun
The person of President is one-third of the US government -- the executive branch. All the cabinet and executive branch departments are extensions of the Presidential office. Most are manned by civil service personnel, who may or may not agree with the President. But, they wren't elected, he was. To ensure the President's agenda is carried out, he has a number of political appointments (about 900) from Cabinet level down he is, allowed by law to appoint. Some with the approval of the Senate, some not.

I am quite aware of the use of political officers in old Soviet Union, and the president's appointees aren't the same. No one elected the Politburo or the appartchik.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
UMMM..AAHHHA HMMMM, I'm one of those people who think there is something fishy with both the 200 and the 2004 election, AND ALL THESE NEW POLITICAL OFFICERS MAKE ME WONDER IF THE RESULTS IN 2008 WILL BE LEGITIMATE.


Do you ever worry about the people who were hired or appointed by Clinton and are still running around D.C.? There are plenty of his holdovers in the Justice and State Dept. Where do you think all the classified leaks come from?
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
UMMM..AAHHHA HMMMM, I'm one of those people who think there is something fishy with both the 200 and the 2004 election, AND ALL THESE NEW POLITICAL OFFICERS MAKE ME WONDER IF THE RESULTS IN 2008 WILL BE LEGITIMATE.


Do you ever worry about the people who were hired or appointed by Clinton and are still running around D.C.? There are plenty of his holdovers in the Justice and State Dept. Where do you think all the classified leaks come from?
YOU apparently don't know the difference between appointed and HIRED. Clinton appointees were unemployed or had resignations on Bush's desk WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE.
At the Moment, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs was HIRED during the Bush 41 term. HE IS CIVIL SERVICE. Political appointees are not. GW BUSH HAS JUST EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES BY A VERY LARGE NUMBER. IT IS A WORRY.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
UMMM..AAHHHA HMMMM, I'm one of those people who think there is something fishy with both the 200 and the 2004 election, AND ALL THESE NEW POLITICAL OFFICERS MAKE ME WONDER IF THE RESULTS IN 2008 WILL BE LEGITIMATE.


Do you ever worry about the people who were hired or appointed by Clinton and are still running around D.C.? There are plenty of his holdovers in the Justice and State Dept. Where do you think all the classified leaks come from?
YOU apparently don't know the difference between appointed and HIRED. Clinton appointees were unemployed or had resignations on Bush's desk WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE.
At the Moment, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs was HIRED during the Bush 41 term. HE IS CIVIL SERVICE. Political appointees are not. GW BUSH HAS JUST EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES BY A VERY LARGE NUMBER. IT IS A WORRY.

I work for the gov't so I do know the difference in the two. I do believe you will find that not all appointees from the Clinton admin resigned, as you say, because Pres Bush never pushed for it. He made a point of saying, early on in his first term, that he was not going to "clean house" of all past appointees and hires.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
UMMM..AAHHHA HMMMM, I'm one of those people who think there is something fishy with both the 200 and the 2004 election, AND ALL THESE NEW POLITICAL OFFICERS MAKE ME WONDER IF THE RESULTS IN 2008 WILL BE LEGITIMATE.


Do you ever worry about the people who were hired or appointed by Clinton and are still running around D.C.? There are plenty of his holdovers in the Justice and State Dept. Where do you think all the classified leaks come from?
YOU apparently don't know the difference between appointed and HIRED. Clinton appointees were unemployed or had resignations on Bush's desk WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE.
At the Moment, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs was HIRED during the Bush 41 term. HE IS CIVIL SERVICE. Political appointees are not. GW BUSH HAS JUST EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES BY A VERY LARGE NUMBER. IT IS A WORRY.

I work for the gov't so I do know the difference in the two. I do believe you will find that not all appointees from the Clinton admin resigned, as you say, because Pres Bush never pushed for it. He made a point of saying, early on in his first term, that he was not going to "clean house" of all past appointees and hires.
OK, you are a hired employee, if you have been in government employ for more than 6 years, you are also a "Clinton holdover."
You must have noticed the departure of a VERY LARGE NUMBER OF FEDERAL ATTORNEYS. They are being replaced with "loyalists." You may have notice the Retirement of a couple of Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Defense Department. The issue raised is that he is putting a POLITICAL APPOINTEE IN EVERY DEPARTMENT TO OVERSEE THE EMPLOYEES. It's within his rights...but it is also a means of FORCING people like yourself to tow the line. YOU and I both know full well, that a dischage reason is always available.
And, he may not have "cleaned house," but I will go out on a limb and say, Clinton Loyalists who were in patronage positions are GONE.
Any political appointee positions that fill these positions have to taken out of hide. Only about 990 positions are allowed by law. Clinton replaced all the federal attorneys when he became president. As to members of Chiefs of Staff -- their time was up and new flag officers are taking their places. By the way, the Chiefs of Staff are military advisors to the President, they have no command authority outside their small staffs. Used to be different in WWII.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×