Home > National, State > “My Man Mitch” – “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney”

“My Man Mitch” – “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney”

September 28th, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

Lawrence Wilkerson looks at Shirley Anne Warshaw’s new book The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney. This is a comprehensive rendering of the Cheney’s evisceration of the country’s regulatory system, where my Governor, Mitch Daniel’s appears in a supporting role and referred to as “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney.”  This portrait gives the moniker “My Man Mitch” a whole new meaning.

via [ The Washington Note ]

Whether oil, gas, forestry, mining, fisheries, national parks, clean air, pharmaceuticals, food, endangered species – you name it – Cheney was the kingpin in the dismantling of relevant oversight and regulation.

Cheney managed this principally by putting into the regulatory or oversight positions within the executive branch of our government, people who either hailed from long service in the industry or field they were overseeing or regulating, or who had lobbied for that industry or field for long years, or a combination of the two.

Not content to have CEQ, EPA, the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Interior at his beck and call, Cheney went after the real seat of executive power – the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The OMB was the ultimate reviewer of all proposed regulatory changes. Its director, Mitch Daniels, as Warshaw points out, was referred to as “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney.” Daniels, coming from the huge pharmaceutical company Eli Lily, knew big business. Sean O’Keefe, another Cheney man, was OMB’s deputy. And with John Graham and, later, Susan Dudley in the key regulatory positions at OMB, Cheney had a winning hand. Graham at Harvard and Dudley at George Mason University had both made names in risk management analysis concerning industrial pollution and corporate malfeasance that were shamefully full of holes but extremely pro-business.

In the case of Dudley, the analyses were underwritten by such sponsors as ExxonMobil and BP Amoco. From their positions in OMB’s office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Graham and Dudley gave Cheney the ultimate power to oversee and check if necessary almost everyone in the bureaucracy concerned with regulation-writing.

The Washington Note

A Local Impact
National policies are not abstractions when your community sits on the worlds greatest fresh water resource managed by several international treaties and is the home to three of the largest, wealthiest, and to a measurable degree dirtiest multinational industries; BP, ArcelorMittal, and US Steel. This is how policies have location with real effects. The legacy of Cheney’s energy task force and environmental policies continue today unopposed, and this has a real negative effect for East Chicago.

East Chicago is the site of BP’s Canadian Crude project. The BP project is GROUND ZERO for concentrating highly negative environmental impacts in a poor minority community while directing benefits elsewhere.

Recently BP convened the “Good Government Initiative,” essentially cutting-off political opposition to there project while simultaneously walking behind the public process to extract a tax abatement from East Chicago without a single public hearing. BP also effectively pushed through a flawed NPDES permit without a single political eyebrow raised, editorial written, or an environmental group objecting in Indiana. Instead of calling foul regional leaders, including the regional news paper – NWI Times, rallied behind BP against out-of-state opposition, by citing the bad environmental stewardship of others.

Categories: National, State
  1. December 20th, 2015 at 21:28 | #1

    pardon the anonymous post, but i didn’t have the time or deisre to set up an account.with all due respect, but when are americans, liberal and conservative alike, going to stand up and not accept the argument that “america is safer now that saddam hussein is out of power” as an acceptable justification for the iraq war?do not misunderstand me, its not my intention to get into a debate as to whether or not the iraq war was justified, that is a horse of another color.the problem with this justification, besides the fact that its an arguable and optimistic interpretation of the events in iraq, and outside of the kerry quote you rarely hear people carrying a rifle say it, is that it is simply a disingenuous and lazy argument. The reason is that its a disingenuous and lazy argument is that the central issue of the iraq war is not america’s safety, its the cost for that safety.Wouldn’t america be safer if we got rid of all the handguns in the country? Wouldn’t we be safer if we drove 10mph on I95? wouldn’t america be safer if we got rid of all the airplanes?wouldn’t we be safer as a country if we outlawed alcoholic beverages? what if we invaded china, south korea, syria, or for that matter, germany?of course we would. the reason we don’t do those things is because the perceived “cost” is greater than the perceived safety benefit. the same is true here — the fundamental issue of iraq is not whether america is safer, its whether or not the incremental safety of the iraq war justifies the loss of american lives, the loss of innocent iraqi civilians, the decreased ability to respond militarily in other parts of the world, the billions of dollars our children will have to pay, the injury to our nation’s image, and the short term rise in terrorism that this conflict may cause. Simply saying that america is safer is akin to merely wrapping yourself in the flag and disavowing yourself of any legitimate questions about your judgement or the ramifications of your actions. The office of potus isn’t about making decisions, its about making the right ones, and all of us, regardless of political affiliation, need to make our c-i-c answer those questions

  1. No trackbacks yet.