March 2003
Gagging Democracy
The Bush Administration
Doesn't Care What You Think
by Ilsa Flanagan and Jim Slama
Democracy is ailing in America. According to the framers of our constitution, a central tenet of the democratic process is the ability of average citizens to actively engage in political life. The Latin phrase "vox populi" reflects this sentiment and its English translation, "the voice of the people" has been used throughout American history to symbolize the inalienable right of citizens to participate in democracy. Yet recent events in national politics have made it clear that the rich and powerful have set their sites on stifling this voice.
The 2002 Congressional elections and their aftermath are another example of the threat. During this cycle, Republicans outspent Democrats by 42 percent ($650 million to $458 million) and much of the money came from industries with a strong interest in rolling back regulations concerning the environment, public health, labor, and other issues important to most Americans. With such a spending advantage, the Republicans were able to take full control of Congress leaving them with a perceived "mandate" to rule the country (despite only getting 52 percent of the votes cast even with a massive advantage in advertising expenditures). And soon after the elections, the paybacks to donors came fast and furious.
The impact on the environment has been most egregious. "The administration has systematically changed more than 100 regulations that will make it easier to pollute, develop or despoil pristine land, threaten wildlife, jeopardize public health, and cut down national forests. This is a full-scale rollback of the most popular and successful legislative efforts of the past 40 years," says Greg Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "It’s no accident some of the Bush administration’s biggest handouts to corporate interests happened after Election Day." Wetstone recently co-authored a report for NRDC documenting the current assault on the environment.
One look at the list of industries benefiting, and its obvious how the Republicans raised $200 million more than the Democrats for the mid-term election. Mining, oil and gas, agribusiness, real estate, timber, pharmaceuticals, automotive — all of these industries made huge contributions to Republican coffers. The same industries now are beneficiating handsomely by the administrations stealth attack on regulations.
Operating Below the Radar
The proposed revisions have one primary element in common — they are accomplished in a non-democratic fashion. This is because the changes are regulatory rather than legislative. The administration uses insidious legal loopholes to change the way current laws are administered. In essence, since the regulatory approach sidesteps Congressional voting, the administration is operating "below the radar" as it fundamentally transforms these national policies.
On the day before Thanksgiving 2002, the U.S. Forest Service proposed to roll back environmental protections for the nation’s 191 million-acre national forest system. This action poses a threat not only to the environment but also to democracy itself. Under this proposed rule, the administration would, among other things, eliminate mandatory scientific and environmental reviews required when 15-year plans for the national forests are developed. Environmental and watchdog groups see this as accelerating decisions to open public lands to logging and drilling, seemingly to benefit only those using forests for commercial interests. "This proposal fulfills much of the timber industries "wish list" for federal policy changes," says Robert Dewey, of Defenders of Wildlife. "It stifles the voice of those who would prefer to utilize more sustainable forest management practices."
In addition to eliminating environmental reviews, the Forest Service is also limiting the public collaboration requirement that ensures that the public, Indian tribes, and other governments are involved in the forest planning process. Included in the rule is a provision that would restrict public input on a proposed local forest-management plan. According to the proposed rule, individuals wanting to provide input will have to compose "...original, substantive comment." Further, "form letters, check-off lists, pre-printed post cards, or similar duplicative materials will not be accepted as objections. In addition, the Forest Service is also rejecting many e-mail comments under the basis that they are not originating from the sender.
Public input is an integral component of the democratic process. Dissent and dialogue are the hallmarks of democracy — different voices, should be heard on critical issues of government decision-making. Accountability to public opinion gives legitimacy to a civil society. Thus, by limiting public participation to individually composed letters, the rules would undermine the advocacy efforts of public interest groups that rally support on questions about logging, mining, and drilling on national forest land. As most average Americans participate in this process via easy-to-use form letters or e-mail, their voice will effectively be silenced.
Priceless Public Comment
There have been many instances where public comments have made a difference in the rulemaking process. For example, in 1997 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed rules that would have allowed food that was genetically engineered, irradiated, and grown in sewage sludge to have been labeled organic. Outraged consumers, many of whom buy organic food to avoid things like irradiation and genetic engineering, flooded the agency with 275,000 comments — 13 times their previous record. As a result, the USDA heeded the call from consumers and developed a standard that reflected the integrity of organic food.
"The large volume of comments definitely convinced the government to listen to the needs of the consumers, farmers, and organic businesses," says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association. "Many of the comments in the organic rule came from postcards and other sources that would be banned in this forest service proposal. I am concerned that this action may set a precedent for applications to other departments and other issues."
To fight this attack on democracy, a broad coalition of public interest groups have come together to engage the media and demand congressional action "We can’t sit back and watch democracy being destroyed in order to enrich the few," says Friends of the Earth President, Brent Blackwelder. "The public needs to know that the Bush administration’s actions are a horrible slap in the face to all who care about the environment and cherish democracy."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF) recently weighed in on the issue and vowed to make a bi-partisan attempt to repeal it. "The Internet offers exciting new ways for Americans to make their voices heard by their government. Groups ranging from Earthjustice to the AARP, EFF to the ACLU, the NRA to the National Right to Life Coalition utilize online "action centers" to help Americans give their views to lawmakers and agency bureaucrats. This proposed rule will have a devastating impact on those new forms of free speech," says EFF Legal Director, Cindy Cohn.
Ilsa Flanagan is the Associate Director and Jim Slama the President of Sustain.
Resources
The Forest Service will be accepting comments on the proposed rule until March 6, 2003. To comment, visit www.saveourenvironment.org
Information on Campaign Spending
National Resource Defense Council
Corporate Reform, Republican style
In celebration of the recent Senate takeover, House Republicans are now eating free pizza, and lots of it. New House Majority Leader Tom Delay, on the opening day of Congress, led efforts to weaken the so-called gift ban that Republicans had adopted after winning control of the House eight years ago. The loophole in the ban will now allow lobbyists to spend $50 per staff in an office on catered meals or takeout. So in an office with 20 staff, that’s a $1000 catered meal, likely delivered around the time the House is debating their client’s legislation.
Meanwhile those of us charging our own lunches on credit cards could now be monitored for behavior patterns indicating possible terrorist activity. Led by Iran-Contra’s own John Poindexter, the Pentagon’s new Total Information Awareness system will be expanding its domestic intelligence activities to include the monitoring of the general publics’ credit card transactions, hotel reservations or prescription drug receipts. You might want to think twice before filling that Xanax prescription. Besides, if you think this is depressing, just wait till the Supreme Court resignations start rolling in. — Ilsa Flanagan
Destroying the Environment:
The Seven Percent Agenda
The Bush administration’s assault rolls on even as polls show overwhelming support for environmental protection. Indeed a November New York Times/CBS News poll found that 62 percent of the American public believes the federal government "should be doing more to protect our environment" while only seven percent feel that it should be doing less."
The White House is fully aware of just how unpopular its "seven percent" agenda is, and makes every effort to minimize the public’s awareness. The administration routinely schedules its major environmental announcements to make it as difficult as possible for the news media to report on them, usually releasing information late on Friday afternoons. Especially important pronouncements are saved for big holidays when most reporters are unavailable.
For example, the EPA announced its most recent changes in clean air regulations the afternoon before Thanksgiving and on New Year’s Eve. In a further effort to keep the stories out of the news, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman did not make the announcements, nor did she attend the agency’s press conferences. The administration’s penchant for minimizing public scrutiny explains why Whitman also has declined invitations to defend her clean-air actions on Sunday morning television news shows. To mask the real effects of its environmental proposals, the administration often uses misleading code words such as "streamlining" or "reforming" instead of "weakening" and "thinning" when referring to "logging."
Reprinted with Permission from the report: Rewriting the Rules, Year-End Report 2002: The Bush Administration’s Assault on the Environment, by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
![[Send]](http://consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
