Look, guys, this is just national energy policy - nothing important.
Now if this was something major, like national health insurance, it would be of fundamental importance for every detail to be divulged.
Again we see the simplistic dichotomy, energy companies and environmentalists, conveniently ignoring that there are many experts on energy policy and resource extraction who are funded by neither group, and who might have something important to add to the issue.
Maybe i’m just being optimistic, but i would have thought that the “right thing to do” would be to formulate energy policy in a way that takes account of the needs not only of energy companies, but of the population as a whole. There have been threads on this message board, and there is plenty of information out there, that criticizes the actual content of the Administration’s energy policy. That this thread concentrates on the process of formulating policy does not make it irrelevant. Those who debate on current energy policy are concerned both about actual practice, and about process. The two are not as separate as you like to pretend.
As i said in an earlier post, we should expect the energy companies to be consulted on this issue. But a little openness and a willingness to consider the advice of those who take a broader view of the situation rather than a simple financial one would raise the Administration’s credibility. It would be just as bad if administrations (Democrat or Republican) formulated medical policy based only on consultation with HMOs, or tort policy based only on consultation with insurance companies, etc., etc. Whatever you want to call it–interest group politics, special interests, countervailing powers, whatever–the fact is that modern American society is made up of diverse groups, interests and coalitions, and the government (whether the executive or the legislative branch) should not just formulate policy based on the opinion of the group with the most direct financial interest in the outcome.
Your argument that process doesn’t matter, only the policy does, is ridiculous. The reductio ad absurdum of such a position is that bribery and extortion are acceptable parts of the policy process, as long as the end-result is a good one. Then again, maybe that is your position?
So, you accuse the opponents of the energy policy process of making simplistic arguments, and then you come up with this? Can epithets such as “whining liberals” and “sore losers” be far behind?
Bribery and extortion are illegal. Making decisions the ‘wrong’ way is not. If anybody on Bush’s staff has been bribed, they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Has anyone, at any time, suggested seriously that people have been bribed?
What does the GAO expect to achieve by suing for these documents? Will Bush no longer be allowed to make energy policy? Will Bush be forced to change his policy?
Of course not, what they want to do is discredit the policy, a policy that is publicly announced and can be discredited on its merits directly. There is also the suggestion that the policy is being ‘sold’ to industry, and that the administration needs to prove otherwise. They are demanding documents to prove their case, because they have no evidence to begin with.
I’ll agree with mhendo that while it’s important for [energy]industry leaders to be involved in the decision making process, so should the academics. The industry people have the practical experience and knowledge that people who live solely in the academic world sometimes lack. The people in the academic world (probably) lack the deceptive reason to give certain advice merely because it would make them more money. I’m not sure how I would feel about Sierra club neccesarily being involved, but perhaps a moderate eviromental group (If you chose the right academics, you should get both sides of the story).
I’m not sure how I feel about the GAO wanting all information used to form the policy. I’ll have to think about that.
I will say that I don’t know much about either the energy policy or it’s affect on the US as a nation and the world as a whole. I’d like someone maybe to weigh in on that, someone that has some knowledge of energy, power, etc. Someone likeAnthracite?
Here’s what bothers me about this.
We’ll never know until they’re all dead and a Democrat is President, but as far as I can tell no environmental group has admitted to being consulted (and I would think that someone pro-environment who was consulted would want to curry a favor from these guys by admitting it) during the formulation of the policy. That, I think, is where the real problem is.
I don’t think we should let the particulars of this issue polarize us: if you’re crafting policy which is supposed to be in the best interests of the nation, and you’re consulting people with a vested interest in only one side of the issue without consulting other points of view, the chances of crafting a policy which actually serves the best interests of the nation are very low.
Seriously, I think that’s a basic premise which most of us would agree upon if we leave out the specific issue take it from a general point of view. I think I’m being reasonable here.
I’ll save rant for the next post.
Ahhh, nostalgia! When the most we had to worry about was the Admin playing footsie under the table with Bidness. Now we appear to be ruled by a cabal of dime-store Bismarcks, playing Risk on a global scale, and for keeps.
We don’t really need to know. We already know, we knew before they even met. We know that they believe that whats good for Bidness is good for America. There’s even some truth in that, so long as it is kept open to gimlet eyed inspection by skeptical and suspicious inquiry.
These men were not conducting private business, they were participating in national poicy. Hence, every word, every gesture, is a public matter and a public concern. Subject to examination and review by we, the people. Their secrecy reeks of skullduggery, and demands a brisk dose of sunshine, sunshine that pours in and prevents nasty forms of fungi developing in dark, moist places.
Mr. Cheney, you work for us. You report to us. Any questions?
And now for the rant:
Coal, oil, and uranium are essentially nonrenewable resources, of which the United States has a finite supply. Why do I think these bastards are paying off their buddies? Because if they really wanted to protect the best interests of the United States, we would keep that finite supply as a strategic reserve while consuming as much energy as possible from our sometime enemies and asshole foreign nations–places like Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
We should be keeping our production at a reasonable minimum so that we can rely on it to ramp up and counterbalance any monkeybusiness the asshole nations think they can play with us. At the same time we should be sinking a lot of research and development into planning for the day when oil extraction becomes too expensive for it to be a practicable fuel source.
Just like we’ve been doing all these years, to some extent. Migrating to domestic sources while not giving a fuck about conservation or alternative fuels is destined to do only one thing: make a quick buck for domestic energy producers while eventually leaving us to face those same asshole nations with a real monopoly on energy.
Those bastards aren’t just selling out to the energy industry–they’re selling off my nation’s fucking national security.
C’mon elucidator and Sofa King, listen to cheesesteak.
As long as we fail to produce evidence of illegal activity such as birbery or extortion, this situation has absolutely no implications for the way that government works, or should work, in the United States. No branch of government has any obligation whatsoever to take into account any opinion, no matter how well-informed or expert, except the one that supports it own political predilections. Fuck the people–they voted us in to do whatever we want.
No doubt cheesesteak would also have no problem if the teaching of evolution were removed from public schools, and the only people consulted on the issue were Christian fundamentalists. After all, who said anyone has to talk to the scientists or the educators? If you want that, it just shows that you’re out to get the Republicans.
Well, mhendo, since I think your tounge may be entirely still within your cheek, I cite Skeletor himself, Slade Gorton.
In 1995, Gorton allegedly allowed an “astroturf” environmental group (as opposed to grass-roots, get it?) called NESARC to draw up legislation “reforming” the Endangered Species Act, which Gorton then introduced. Another (real) environmental organization filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Gorton for soliciting a partisan organization to draft legislation affecting national policy without consulting other sources.
I can’t find the quote now, but Gorton reputedly blew the question off before the press by saying something very much like, “I already knew what the environmentalists were going to say.”
And the Senate Ethics Committee… let Gorton slide.
Uh… what was I saying again?
C’mon mhendo, I’m trying to be reasonable here. The OP, and many others implied that national policy is being sold. Implying that there are illegal and unethical shenanigans should at least require a shred of evidence in that direction. What we have instead is the administration listening to one side over the other. That is NOT criminal, and it is NOT ‘selling’ policy.
We KNOW already that they favor the oil/energy companies. Do you really think that some meetings with environmentalists or academics is going to make a difference? Really now, am I to believe that the anti-Bush crowd here thinks they’d CHANGE policy away from the companies because of some meetings?
What matters, what counts, is the policy they set forth. If that policy is flawed, you slam them for it, if it works, you applaud them for it. Given a choice between GOOD policy gotten the wrong way and BAD policy gotten the right way, which would you choose?
Please note that I’m not saying their policy is good or bad, just making a point.
Well, yes, of course we don’t really know that public policy is being sold. Thats rather the whole point. We have the right to a complete “sunshine” policy when it comes to decisions being made on our behalf. Its our country, our oil, our future. Its that simple.
I don’t know what substance I can add to a Pit thread like this.
I have discussed these topics before in other threads, in GD and in the Pit (I think). No one’s mind is changed, and there’s no point in bringing up facts in the Pit anyhow.
I would like to know if there’s going to be some discussion of this alleged “rollback” of the CAA and its Amendments, which has been cited in here. That’s a pretty brazen cite to throw out, especially since it is misleading at best, and a deliberate and bald-faced lie at worst. But I assume all the details of that issue are already known, or the cite wouldn’t have been used, so I see nothing to add here.
Gary Kumquat : Agreed. Every time I see “Bushistas”, “Shrub”, “Monkey Boy”, “Clintonista”, “Billary”, “Blowjob Boy”, “Criminal in Chief”, “Bush Stole the Election”, “Wooden Wuss”, etc., I essentially write that post off as not worth reading any further. And yes, I have used some of those terms in the past myself, when I was being a dumbfuck jerkish bitch. Mea culpa.
Egotist te absolvo. Go, and sin no more.
I have to admit I didn’t read every post, so apologies if this has already been answered:
-
Is it normal for these types of gov’t documents to be classified in some way so they aren’t available to members of the Legislature or to the citizens?
-
How would the Freedom of Information Act play out here, or is that the basis of the law suit from them GAO?
-
Has Cheney given any actual reason for not disclosing the documents? Hard to imaginge that there could be any actual National Security issues involved.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Dick Cheney still getting $1 million/year from Haliburton? And wouldn’t this constitute a blatant conflict of interest?
Did you read the article:
The money goes to him regardless of business (or lack thereof) to Haliburton.
That hardly eliminates the conflict of interest now does it?
He also has lots of stock options. Granted the profits go to charity while he’s in office, but what about afterwards? He doesn’t want them to be worth less/nothing when he’s a private citizen again and has a chance to cash them in/keep the profits.
It’s still clearly in his best interest to see that Halliburton gets lots of business.
For what it’s worth you may have it, but let me add the standard disqualifications - I’m no expert, and not even particularly up to date on the latest parts of US energy policy.
But I work in the E&P industry, and my business involves talking to many operators and service companies operating either around the US or worldwide. There is a definite perception of Bush and Cheney as being oil industry men. Many of their moves have certainly been viewed as very good news for the oil idnustry, and associated service industries. There’s even been a degree of surprise at how blatant some of their maintained connections to various companies - Halliburton being the most obvious - has been. It’s all well and good saying Cheney’s 1 million a year cannot be decreased, but that says little for how much he can receive in the future for services rendered.
I’d have thought it good common sense for an administration with such obviously strong ties to the oil industry to show publicly a responsiveness to input from people with different viewpoints. For example addressing points from organisations such as those Brutus names would help to show that they are balanced, and working for all concerned parties. From what I’ve seen that balance of input has been lacking. Even worse than that, dealings such as those the OP indicate - where closed session advice is given, records are withheld, etc - definitely does raise questions about the influence of certain companies on the administration.
Purely an opinion.
The point is this, many of these companies and individuals have given millions upon millions of dollars to Bush and the Republican party. These same people are then invited to a closed door policy session which so important to Bush it starts ten days after he gets to office. No academics, no environmental groups (not even the moderate/conservative Nature Conservancy), no members of the public are invited or allowed. Cheney meets behind closed doors with these people who have paid him and George a massive amount of money and will be asked to do so repeatedly in the future. And as the Cites have shown, the resulting meetings led to contraversial proposed policies were all adopted by Cheney, often word for word from what the industry submitted.
When asked for the details, Cheney and others in the Bush Administration go to extraordinary lengths to hide what happened in those meetings.
Lots of money + massive proposed policy changes benefiting those with the money + massive secrecy on a unprecendented scale = :dubious:
For people with nothing to hide, they sure are working hard to hide something.