News (Media Awareness Project) - US KS: Column: Elections Do Make a Difference |
Title: | US KS: Column: Elections Do Make a Difference |
Published On: | 2002-01-04 |
Source: | Wichita Eagle (KS) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-25 00:44:35 |
ELECTIONS DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
It was a classic stealth maneuver -- and it worked. Two days after
Christmas, with President Bush at his Texas ranch and most of official
Washington on vacation, the White House announced the rejection of
regulations that would have barred companies which repeatedly violate
environmental and workplace standards from receiving government contracts.
This was no trivial matter. A congressional report had found that in one
recent year, the federal government had awarded $38 billion in contracts to
at least 261 corporations operating unsafe or unhealthy work sites. The
regulations Bush killed were designed to stop that.
This is a classic example of the difference between the parties. These
particular rules were issued at the very end of the Clinton administration,
after being published in draft form 18 months earlier. Former Vice
President Al Gore had publicly promised organized labor he would see that
they were finished before he left that office.
Business opposed them, and Bush suspended them barely two months after he
moved in, finally killing them last week. The move was a companion to the
earlier 2001 action by the House and Senate, both then controlled by the
Republicans, in setting aside Clinton administration regulations on
ergonomics, designed to protect workers from repetitive-motion injuries.
When the ergonomics rules were killed, the administration promised that
new, "more reasonable" regulations would be forthcoming. A phone call to
the Labor Department last week elicited the information that no new
regulations have been issued; no one could say when they will be.
That is the game: Kill the rules you don't like quickly and quietly, then
take your sweet time writing new ones.
Here's another example of why it makes a difference who is deciding how the
massive power of the executive branch is wielded. Oct. 25, 30 Drug
Enforcement Administration agents raided the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource
Center and shut down its operations. The center had opened five years
earlier, after California voters approved a medical- marijuana initiative.
It served patients with doctors' prescriptions to use marijuana to
alleviate the pain and nausea associated with AIDS, cancer and other diseases.
The raid was perfectly legal; the Supreme Court has affirmed that federal
anti-drug laws, which cover marijuana, pre-empt more permissive state laws
or initiatives. But no one has stepped forward to explain how busting up a
center operating with the full approval of the Los Angeles County sheriff
and local officials became a law- enforcement priority for the federal
government barely six weeks after the terrorist attacks on this country.
Two months after the raid, no one has yet been charged with any crime by
the U.S. attorney's office. But the center remains inoperative, its former
patients forced to seek relief in the black market.
The White House complains constantly about Congress' irresponsibility --
sometimes with good reason. But often it is Congress that sets the
executive branch right. As I noted at the time, the Bush budget of last
April included a batch of fiscally cosmetic but phony law- enforcement
cuts, including a wipeout of the $60 million grant to the Boys & Girls
Clubs of America for programs in public-housing projects and high-crime
areas, strongly endorsed by local police. Congress restored almost all
those cuts and raised the clubhouse appropriation to $70 million.
Last year, Bush urged Congress to pass a bankruptcy bill that would make it
easier for credit-card and auto-loan companies to squeeze repayments out of
people. Bills similar to one Clinton had vetoed passed both the House and
Senate, but have been stuck in conference -- in part because even the
lobbyists were embarrassed to be pushing them when so many small businesses
and individuals have been hammered by the recession and the aftershocks of
Sept. 11.
Believe me, if Bush had been able to rewrite bankruptcy rules with a stroke
of his pen, as he did with the contracting regulations, it would have
happened by now.
Elections do make a difference.
It was a classic stealth maneuver -- and it worked. Two days after
Christmas, with President Bush at his Texas ranch and most of official
Washington on vacation, the White House announced the rejection of
regulations that would have barred companies which repeatedly violate
environmental and workplace standards from receiving government contracts.
This was no trivial matter. A congressional report had found that in one
recent year, the federal government had awarded $38 billion in contracts to
at least 261 corporations operating unsafe or unhealthy work sites. The
regulations Bush killed were designed to stop that.
This is a classic example of the difference between the parties. These
particular rules were issued at the very end of the Clinton administration,
after being published in draft form 18 months earlier. Former Vice
President Al Gore had publicly promised organized labor he would see that
they were finished before he left that office.
Business opposed them, and Bush suspended them barely two months after he
moved in, finally killing them last week. The move was a companion to the
earlier 2001 action by the House and Senate, both then controlled by the
Republicans, in setting aside Clinton administration regulations on
ergonomics, designed to protect workers from repetitive-motion injuries.
When the ergonomics rules were killed, the administration promised that
new, "more reasonable" regulations would be forthcoming. A phone call to
the Labor Department last week elicited the information that no new
regulations have been issued; no one could say when they will be.
That is the game: Kill the rules you don't like quickly and quietly, then
take your sweet time writing new ones.
Here's another example of why it makes a difference who is deciding how the
massive power of the executive branch is wielded. Oct. 25, 30 Drug
Enforcement Administration agents raided the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource
Center and shut down its operations. The center had opened five years
earlier, after California voters approved a medical- marijuana initiative.
It served patients with doctors' prescriptions to use marijuana to
alleviate the pain and nausea associated with AIDS, cancer and other diseases.
The raid was perfectly legal; the Supreme Court has affirmed that federal
anti-drug laws, which cover marijuana, pre-empt more permissive state laws
or initiatives. But no one has stepped forward to explain how busting up a
center operating with the full approval of the Los Angeles County sheriff
and local officials became a law- enforcement priority for the federal
government barely six weeks after the terrorist attacks on this country.
Two months after the raid, no one has yet been charged with any crime by
the U.S. attorney's office. But the center remains inoperative, its former
patients forced to seek relief in the black market.
The White House complains constantly about Congress' irresponsibility --
sometimes with good reason. But often it is Congress that sets the
executive branch right. As I noted at the time, the Bush budget of last
April included a batch of fiscally cosmetic but phony law- enforcement
cuts, including a wipeout of the $60 million grant to the Boys & Girls
Clubs of America for programs in public-housing projects and high-crime
areas, strongly endorsed by local police. Congress restored almost all
those cuts and raised the clubhouse appropriation to $70 million.
Last year, Bush urged Congress to pass a bankruptcy bill that would make it
easier for credit-card and auto-loan companies to squeeze repayments out of
people. Bills similar to one Clinton had vetoed passed both the House and
Senate, but have been stuck in conference -- in part because even the
lobbyists were embarrassed to be pushing them when so many small businesses
and individuals have been hammered by the recession and the aftershocks of
Sept. 11.
Believe me, if Bush had been able to rewrite bankruptcy rules with a stroke
of his pen, as he did with the contracting regulations, it would have
happened by now.
Elections do make a difference.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...