Home › Blogs › Redcardlibrarian's blog

Blog Watch - Conservator

September 12, 2006 - 3:15am — Redcardlibrarian

Not really this week in Library Blog Land, but close enough for government work.

What started out as simply wrong, over on Jack's Conservator Blog, has now become a lie. In his Wednesday, October 30th, blog, Jack states: "Indeed, the EPA's self-description as an "independent agency" I would take as an indication that the White House is not in a position to issue the agency "orders," even if it were so inclined."

I pointed out that he had misread the meaning of the word "independent" and I showed him that the President does indeed issue "directives" to the head of the EPA. To date he has shown no interest in maintaining the same level of factual veracity that he expects from others.

Comments

September 12, 2006 - 5:31pm — Chuck

the power of the purse

The President also submits the budget to Congress, a budget which includes the EPA. Given that the same party is in control of COngress and the Executive branch, the President can dicate the fate and operations of any federal agency by cutting off the money.OTOH, Jack is a pretty level-headed guy and though conservative, not a wing-nut. I like his blog though his politics differ from my own. Take it easy on the guy. I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.

  • Email this comment
September 12, 2006 - 8:48pm — pchuck

Status of the EPA

According to the U.S. Government Manual, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in the executive branch as an independent agency pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.), effective December 2, 1970. So, he is correct on his first claim. This is one of those unusual things under the federal government's three branches of government, that being the role of these indpendent agencies and many say that these agencies are operating as a quasi-fourth branch of government (this is administrative law).

As to the other claim, I don't know or care to spend the time to investigate. Somebody else can do that.

  • Email this comment
September 12, 2006 - 10:28pm — pchuck

Re:the power of the purse

Given that the same party is in control of COngress and the Executive branch, the President can dicate the fate and operations of any federal agency by cutting off the money.

He may be able to dictate their fate; however, Congress has the ultimate power over money. It is commonly refered to as the Spending Clause and it is found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

As an aside, I don't agree with Jack's characterization of this situation.

  • Email this comment
September 14, 2006 - 2:31am — Redcardlibrarian

Re:the power of the purse

Well, not really. I pointed it out to him, with citations, and several times was told to go bother, or pester, someone else. No misunderstand. LOL, I was very clear. He knows that it is wrong, and he told me that there was nothing to correct.

  • Email this comment
September 14, 2006 - 2:34am — Redcardlibrarian

Re:Status of the EPA

I think they meant independent in the sense that it is not under the jurisdiction of a larger department, such as the Department of Justice, etc... The head of the EPA answers to the President, and as the one link I provided shows, the President gives directives to the head of the EPA. Presumably Congress could earmark funds to be spent in a specific fashion. However, the President still has latitutde to direct (or order) the head of the EPA to spend the money on programs important to the White House.

  • Email this comment
Syndicate content