Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (5048)	3/27/2002 2:48:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Benefits like having US energy policy defined as they want it. I think Bush wanted it to be pretty much the same way the energy companies wanted it anyway. If there was no meetings at all I don't think the energy policy would have been very different. I think Bush supports these policies because he thinks they are for the good of the country. You can argue that they are not for the good of the country but not every bad idea or policy is corrupt. If politicians creating policies that reflect the views of some people or groups and not others is corrupt then 99% of all politics is corrupt. Do you work for a large oil or energy company, Tim? No. I don't work for an energy company, and I have not worked for an energy company in the past. You seem extremely eager to apologise for them and I don't understand why. Why do you refuse to comprehend an incredibly simple point? I'm not really defending the energy companies, even though I don't really see how they did anything wrong in meeting with Cheney. I am rather defending the current administration. I did vote Bush and Cheney but I probably would make the same defense if Gore won and did the same thing, and you or someone else was attacking the Gore administration for this. I can see how talking to one side of an issue can lead to bad policies, but it isn't intrinsically corrupt, and also it isn't unusual. I can also see how its fair to complain about the Bush's administrations obsession with secrecy and executive privilege. I can see how it can be used to hide corruption and how it can cause other problems. I think that even if Cheney was correct when he says the law does not require him to disclose the list of people he met with, that he should have released the information anyway just as a matter of good politics if for no other reason. If it makes you feel happy feel free to attack me for suposedly taking my questions - "beyond the point of stupidity and into blank obstinacy" but that doesn't address the issues I have raised. Simply put meeting with only one side on an issue does not amount to corruption. Tim

To: thames_sider who wrote (5048)	3/27/2002 9:53:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

Presidential Order Followed Draft by Lobbyists By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 27, 2002; 4:15 PM President Bush last year issued a presidential order on energy policy that closely followed a proposed draft given to the administration two months earlier by oil lobbyists, according to documents released by the Energy Department under a court order. An official from the American Petroleum Institute last March 20 sent an e-mail to Joseph Kelliher, then a Department of Energy policy adviser proposing language for a presidential directive governing energy regulations. API called it "a suggested executive order to ensure that energy implications are considered and acted on in rulemakings and other executive actions." The API recommended an order requiring agencies to consider whether environmental or regulatory actions would cause "inordinate complications in energy production and supply." Bush, on May 18, issued Executive Order 13211, directed agencies to prepare a "Statement of Energy Effects" relating to "any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use." The API recommendation defines the order to apply to "any substantive action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a rule, regulation or policy, including, but not limited to, notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed rulemaking, and guidance documents." The Bush order says it applies to "any action by an agency. . . .that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking." The similarity was identified today by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental group that forced Monday night's disclosure of 11,000 pages of Energy Department documents under a court order. NRDC said the order's wording was far more expansive than is customary. "The oil companies seem to be putting words in our president's mouth," Sharon Buccino, an NRDC lawyer, said at a press conference. The NRDC also pointed to a March 23 e-mail from Southern Co., which it identified as the country's second largest polluter, to Kelliher. An attached document said national energy policy should include "Reform of EPA's New Source Review Program," regulations limiting emissions from expanded power plants. Southern complained that the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the statute, part of the Clean Air Act, "discourages any repair or replacement project that might make an electric utility generating unit more available to operate" for longer hours. Bush's national energy policy called on the EPA to review the regulations and interpretations of the Clean Air Act. The EPA recently completed that review with a decision to make the regulations more favorable to industry. A spokeswoman for the administration was examining NRDC's charges. The environmental group also filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Washington today seeking to hold the Energy Department in contempt of court for providing incomplete information under last month's court order. © 2002 The Washington Post Company