Bloodless Coup

I Don't Mind the Politics, I Mind the Lying.

It's a given that any administration has the right to use the executive branch in ways that benefit that party's supporters. That's the political "spoils system" bequeathed to us by Jackson something like 200 years ago. It's not necessarily pretty, but it works, and it makes sense: if you can win the Presidency, then you can govern according to your ideology.

My problem is when the people in the executive branch aren't honest about what they are doing. This administration seems to be the worst. We know they are Republican; we accept that. Why can't they just 'fess up to being Republican?

Take the headline to this Washington Post story: "Bush's EPA is Pursuing Fewer Polluters." This isn't a surprise, I wouldn't think, to may people who pay attention to this. Bush is a Republican, and (it turns out), a fairly right-wing one. The pro-business wing of the party doesn't like the EPA, since it interferes with their ability to make profits (you may not like this, but it is logical). I don't like it, but I accept it: Bush got elected, he can choose to strangle the EPA to the limits of his executive authority. If we (the voters) disapprove, we can vote him out (we failed), or Congress can force the executive to act.

So, then, the opening paragraph of the story isn't really anything surprising (and didn't get my blood boiling):

The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third, according to Justice Department and EPA data.

This, as noted, is par for the course. No story here. The problem comes when Bush just ignores the law:

The slower pace of enforcement mirrors a decline in resources for pursuing environmental wrongdoing. The EPA now employs 172 investigators in its Criminal Investigation Division, below the minimum of 200 agents required by the 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act, signed by President George H.W. Bush.

The actual number of investigators available at any time is even smaller, agents said, because they sometimes are diverted to other duties, such as service on EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson's eight-person security detail.

Several points: (1) This is illegal. Bush is mandated to have 200 inspectors, and has 172. That is a violation of law, and someone should be jailed, or at least forced to resign. Bush doesn't have to make the inspectors do anything, or can executively restrict what they inspect, but he has to have 200. The brazen illegalities of this administration are stunning. (2) Why is it that we have only 200 inspectors to ensure the environmental compliance of every single business, building, and piece of land in this country? That's an average of four per state (with none left over for the non-states). Some of those states are large. This is a silly amount of people to enforce the laws. (3) Why does the head of the EPA need an eight-person security detail? How many people does it take to protect the head of an executive branch administrative unit that (just about) no one has ever heard about, and no one cares about? (4) Who is the head of the EPA being protected from, the left-wing nuts or the right-wing nuts?

I digress; the main point is that Bush is violating the law by having fewer than the mandated number of inspectors.

You would think that the EPA, when confronted with this evidence, would note that they are responding to the wants of the American People, who elected them, by giving America as much environmental inspections as they need. The Republicans run the country, would say the EPA spokesperson, and a decrease of environmental inspections is appropriate at a time of international terrorism, a war in Iraq, and a surging Federal budget. From a right-wing perspective, that would be a reasonable defense of decreased inspections. I don't like it, but it's logical. That, of course, isn't what we get:

Administration officials said they are not ignoring the environment but are focusing on major cases that secure more convictions against bigger players.

"We have been on an unprecedented run of success in the enforcement arena," said Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance. "These are major cases we are pursuing."

Nakayama said that, in the past three fiscal years, the EPA has cut between 890 million and 1.1 billion pounds of air pollution through enforcement, making them "three of the four highest years in the agency's history. . . . You're seeing, I think, a historic period in terms of getting pollution out of the air."

He added that he hopes to boost the number of criminal investigators and said that, over the past five years, the agency has won convictions against 95 percent of the people indicted for environmental crimes.

I'll discuss the multitude of outright lies and obfuscations in a moment, but notice the (Republican) EPA's general response: There is no decline in enforcement. Rather than just 'fess up to doing what everyone expects Republicans to do (enforce less), they are going to deny that they are enforcing the environmental laws any less rigorously than previous EPAs. The denial of reality necessary to make that work is stunning.

On to the obfuscations. First, note the assumption that a smaller number of prosecutions of larger "players" is somehow more enforcement than more prosecutions of players across the spectrum. This is asserted without evidence. Note, also, that this isn't a prosecution of larger polluters, but of larger players. I have no idea what "players" are in polluting circles, but just the fact that more "players" are being prosecuted doesn't (logically) lead to less overall pollution (or, logically, to greater enforcement).

Second, note the complete non-sequiter when the numbers of pollution reduced is thrown around: "We've cut about a billion pounds of air pollution from the air through enforcement" (I'm paraphrasing). This may be true (or may not; I believe nothing anyone in this administration says), but is irrelevant to how many people they have caught for breaking the law. The law (Clean Air Act, I assume) specifies how industry is supposed to govern their air, and which (and how much) of the chemicals they are supposed to take out. The law governs how many pounds of pollutants would be taken out (if everyone followed the law); given that the US economy is growing ever larger, I would think it logical to believe that ever more pounds of pollutants are being removed every year. This has nothing to do with enforcement of the law. The could be (and are, according to the story) enforcing less, but since there are more factories and more potential pollution, the amount taken out will continue to grow even while enforcement actions allow greater and greater amounts of pollution into the air. Thus, the EPA spokesidiot is using a bunch of irrelevant numbers to try to convince you that they are enforcing more, when in fact they are enforcing less. He hasn't lied, he's just depending on the stupidity of Americans to not notice that he isn't answering the question.

(Oh, and point Two-And-A-Half: the EPA is supposed to deal with the air, water, land, and anything else that might get polluted. I'm delighted they've gotten about a billion pounds of pollution out of the air; how's the water? The land? How about all the other things that can be polluted?)

Third, a conviction rate of 95% means nothing. The issue is how many polluters (technically, I guess, "potential polluters" is more accurate) they are prosecuting. Sure, it's nice if they have a good conviction rate, but the key issue is how many they are prosecuting for actually polluting, not how many they convict of polluting. Or, if you prefer the explanation another way, if they only prosecute 20 cases, and win 19, they have a 95% conviction rate. So what? How many did they prosecute? That's the key. Notice that the EPA spokesmoron (who previously noted that, compared to previous years, the EPA is doing great - the "pounds of pollution from the air" argument) doesn't make any reference to previous years conviction rates. How did Clinton do? How did George HW Bush do? Personally, I'd rather have a 90% conviction rate on 500 prosecutions than a 95% conviction rate on a hundred prosecutions. I have no idea whether Bush's EPA would look good with a genuine comparison to previous administrations, but does anyone want to make any guesses as to whether they've been better at catching polluters?

Let's check back in with the story and see if the lies have ceased:

Administration officials acknowledge taking a new approach to environmental enforcement by seeking more settlements and plea bargains that require pollution reductions through new equipment purchases or participation in EPA compliance programs.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department secured $13 billion in such corrective measures from polluters in 2005-06, up from about $4 billion in the final two years of the Clinton administration.

Nope. They lying seems to continue. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but this seems like a load of horseshit to me. Bush's "new approach" seems to involve finding polluters and then (rather than prosecuting them), using the threat of judicial prosecution to get the polluter to install equipment necessary to avoid polluting. In other words, the polluters break the law, and if they are caught, they have to install the equipment they would have had to install if they were going to avoid polluting in the first place (and then, they pay no penalty for the actual polluting). The logic of this escapes me. If I were a business, the logical thing to do is to avoid paying to install the pollution-control devices: if I'm not caught, I save money; if I'm caught, all that happens is that I pay to install stuff the law requires. What's my incentive (other than having some morals) to installing the pollution-control device before I'm caught? This is stupid.

The article next notes that prosecutions, penalties, and jail-time by Federal (Justice Department) cases are at an all-time high (as is the number of lawyers assigned to that part of the Justice department). Good news, right? Well, no:

But environmental prosecutions by U.S. attorneys' offices have sharply dropped as prosecutors facing new pressures on issues such as terrorism and immigration take away resources for environmental prosecutions and try to divert cases to the main Justice Department, EPA agents said.

In other words, environmental prosecutions can come from Justice (in DC) or from each of the US Attorneys around the country. While prosecutions in DC are up, prosecutions by local US Attorneys are down. (Insert your own frowny-face emoticon here.)

Of course, the US Attorneys can only bring cases when investigators (you remember, the EPA has 172 164 (eight are protecting the head of the EPA) out of 200 authorized of them) bring them evidence of a crime. I wonder how the investigators are doing at that?

Prosecutors counter that the EPA has fewer agents and is bringing them fewer cases. "We're not turning away environmental crimes in order to prosecute other crimes. They are just not being presented in the first case," said Don DeGabrielle, the U.S. attorney in Houston.

EPA memos show that investigators also have encountered new obstacles to their long-standing practice of directly referring cases to federal or state prosecutors. A new policy distributed May 25 requires agents to seek prior approval from the head of their division and establishes new paperwork procedures. This has slowed agents' ability to make referrals, congressional investigators said.

Nakayama said he was not "personally familiar" with the new policy and would look into it.

Gee; what a shock. The EPA investigators aren't bringing evidence of crimes to the local US Attorneys because someone in DC has thrown up bureaucratic obstacles. What's the emoticon for angry? Oh, and the EPA spokesretard somehow hasn't heard of this policy. What's the emoticon for drawing and quartering?

Look, as I said before, since the Republican's are running the show, none of this surprises me. I'm annoyed that Bush's EPA is breaking the law (172 agents instead of 200; lots of security for an EPA head no one wants to shoot), but the other stuff (declining prosecutions, declining fines, fewer convictions, etc.) is not news.

What continues to piss me off is how this Administration, when confronted with actual facts, can continue to insist that everything is all right, and in fact everything is better than ever. Black is white. Shit is gold. Iraq is improving. The economy has never been better. The surge is working. al-Qaeda is on the run. Harriet Myers is the most qualified individual ever to be nominated. Alito is the most moderate justice ever to serve.

They are simply lying. And they know they are lying. And they pay no price.

Posted by baltar at September 30, 2007 11:35 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Corruption | Hacktastic! | Media | Politics | Shine the Light on It