Forwarded by Jane Clark from the Energy Listserve.
Subject: Krugman vs the krooks again
A Vision of Power
April 27, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There's a deep mystery surrounding Dick Cheney's energy task force, but it's
not about what happened back in 2001. Clearly, energy industry executives
dictated the content of a report that served their interests.
The real mystery is why the Bush administration has engaged in a three-year
fight - which reaches the Supreme Court today - to hide the details of a
story whose broad outline we already know.
One possibility is that there is some kind of incriminating evidence in the
task force's records. Another is that the administration fears that full
disclosure will highlight its chummy relationship with the energy industry.
But there's a third possibility: that the administration is really taking a
stand on principle. And that's what scares me.
Could there be a smoking gun in the records? Well, maybe Mr. Cheney was
already divvying up Iraq's oil fields in 2001, but I'd be surprised to find
anything that clear-cut. It's more likely that the administration fears that
releasing the task force's records would alert the public to the obvious.
Those of us who have been following such things know that the Bush
administration is so deeply enmeshed in the energy industry that it's hard
to know where one ends and the other begins. Campaign contributions are part
of it, but it's also personal: George Bush and Dick Cheney are only two of
the many members of the administration who grew rich by relying on the
kindness of energy companies. Indeed, the day after the executive director
of Mr. Cheney's task force left the government, he went into business as an
energy industry lobbyist.
In return, the Bush administration has given energy companies a lot to
celebrate. One policy decision alone, effectively scrapping "new source
review" in regulating power plant pollution, is worth billions of dollars to
industry donors.
But if we know all this, why does the release of the task force's records
matter? The answer, I think, is that
there's a big difference between compelling circumstantial evidence and a
more or less official confirmation.
Consider, as a parallel, the case of the nonexistent W.M.D. It was pretty
clear by last summer that Saddam didn't have the weapons that were the
ostensible reason for war. But it wasn't until January, when David Kay
admitted that there was nothing there, that the absence of W.M.D. got
traction with the broad public.
The main public justification for the Cheney task force was the 2000-2001
electricity crisis in California. For at
least two years, we've known that this crisis was largely the result of
market manipulation by energy companies - and surmised that some of those
same companies were advising Mr. Cheney on energy policy. But the public
will pay a lot more attention if it turns out there is documentation that
any energy executives were telling Mr. Cheney how to solve power shortages
even as their traders were busily creating those shortages.
Still, Mr. Cheney's determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more
than an effort to avoid bad
publicity. It's also a matter of principle, based on the administration's
deep belief that it has the right to act
as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it's doing.
As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal
arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task
force are "strikingly similar" to those it makes for its right to detain,
without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms.
Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward "a vision of
presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen."
That same vision is apparent in many other actions. Just to mention one: we
learn from Bob Woodward that the administration diverted funds earmarked for
Afghanistan to preparations for an invasion of Iraq without asking or even
notifying Congress.
What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the
United States a sort of elected
dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do
whatever he likes, and isn't obliged to
consult or inform either Congress or the public.
Not long ago I would have thought it inconceivable that the Supreme Court
would endorse that doctrine. But I would also have thought it inconceivable
that a president would propound such a vision in the first place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?ex=1084085060&ei=1&en=
565496d6af72e505
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
