If you guessed “energy company lobbyists,” give yourself a gold star.
Note that this sort of nonsense doesn’t even count as “corruption” anymore.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com View all posts by Mark Kleiman
It’s simply expected. Liberals like us wearily shrug our shoulders. Conservatives think it’s a good thing that the (minions of the) Galtian superheroes are designing policy.
The wingnut line is that the Obama administration has pursued terrible energy policy by sucking up to “greeny moonbats” and such (because, you know, a couple of really old coal plants had to close down and also, too: Keystone).
Drill baby, drill!
Since I understand the pull of the NEA, AFSCME, etc. in the Democratic Party, I have a bit of a hard time getting upset about this.
As near as I can figure, the Energy sector is one of the lonebright spots in America’s torpid economy.
Maybe we should have given Rick Perry more of a chance. His hair is pretty.
Unfortunately for this teacher, the Democratic party listens to very little of what NEA members say, even though they’ll reliably vote Democratic. If only the Energy lobby was as ignored.
Wow. I suck at HTML.
Here’s the link that was supposed to be attached to the word “bright” in the above post.
The responsibilities of a candidate are different than the responsibilities of an elected official. Nowadays a party platform is simply one more advertising document, to be taken with a VERY large grain of salt.
If he gets elected, what he does then becomes policy. Bush Junior had the energy lobbyists writing energy policy for the administration. That was worth getting up in arms over.
Given the history of the GOP with respect to actually doing what they say in their platforms, a salt mine would be more apt than even a very large grain of salt.
On the other hand, if Mittens and Antoinette are allowed to take up residence at 1600 I fully anticipate that energy policy will be written by Exxon, BP, Shell and the coal companies. (snark) Clean coal fo’ evah! (/snark)
I think that one way to distinguish cases here is to think about corruption as doing something you think is wrong, or saying something you know to be false, in return for money. Since the GOP either believes the energy-company hogwash or doesn’t care, it’s something other than corruption.
I guess that would be one way. But I guess I’m old-fashioned. In the old days “conflict of interest” always counted as corruption. I guess Scalia overturned that one with his hunting trips. Besides, I’m sure there’s money flowing here somewhere. The “Pay to Play” is a virtue in GOP-land.
Note that this sort of nonsense doesn’t even count as “corruption†anymore.
That’s a nice line.
Sort of like Romney getting paid +$100,000 a year as CEO of Bain while not being in any way morally responsible for its actions.
You see he was just collecting the dough from the actions not dictating the actions himself…
And there’s a difference there, that if, if you don’t know how to think morally.
Which leads me to a question I’ve been tumbling around lately: Have Americans lost the ability to both think critically and morally?
“[Dr. Liz] Fowler headed up a team of 20-some Senate Finance Committee staffers who helped draft the bill in the Senate. She was Baucus’ top health care aide from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurer.
She was vice president of public policy at WellPoint, helping develop public-policy positions for the company. In 2008, she rejoined Baucus to work on health reform legislation.”
She is currently in the Obama administration working on the implementation of the PP&ACA. Dr. Fowler is a relatively young woman. Once this task is accomplished (or not), care to guess where she’ll next find employment? (Hint: what do you call a slowly spinning portal?)