If you've got something to hide in Washington, the best place to
bury it is in the federal budget. The spending plan that President
Bush submitted to Congress this year contains 2,000 pages that
outline funding to safeguard the environment, protect workers from
injury and death, crack down on securities fraud and ensure the
safety of prescription drugs. But almost unnoticed in the budget,
tucked away in a single paragraph, is a provision that could make
every one of those protections a thing of the past.
The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give
the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the
"Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal
programs every ten years and decide whether they should be
eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the
eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the
Congress took action to continue them."
The administration portrays the commission as a well-intentioned
effort to make sure that federal agencies are actually doing their
job. "We just think it makes sense," says Clay Johnson, deputy
director for management at the Office of Management and Budget,
which crafted the provision. "The goal isn't to get rid of a
program -- it's to make it work better."
In practice, however, the commission would enable the Bush
administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the
end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of
five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and
executives from major corporations currently subject to federal
oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he
dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and
Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange
Commission.
"Ronald Reagan once observed, 'The closest thing to immortality
on this earth is a federal government program,' " says Rep. Kevin
Brady, a Republican from Texas who has been working for the past
nine years to establish a sunset commission. "We need it to clear
out the deadwood."
Without many of those programs, however, American consumers,
workers and investors would be left to the mercy of business. "This
is potentially devastating," says Wesley Warren, who served as a
senior OMB official in the Clinton administration. "In short order,
this could knock out protections that have been built up over a
generation."
Others note that the provision goes beyond anything attempted by
conservatives in the past. "When you look at this," says Marchant
Wentworth, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, "it's
almost like the Reagan administration was a trial run."
The man behind the sunset commission is Clay Johnson, the most
influential member of Bush's inner circle whom you've never heard
of. The two Texans have been close friends since 1961, when they
met as fifteen-year-olds at Andover prep school and later roomed
together for four years at Yale. When Bush was elected governor of
Texas in 1994, he put the buddy he calls "Big Man" -- Johnson is
six feet four -- in charge of all state appointments. Johnson, a
former executive at Neiman Marcus and Frito-Lay, refers to
Americans as "customers" and is partial to Chamber of Commerce
bromides such as "We're in the results business." He is also
partial to giving corporate lobbyists a direct role in gutting
regulatory protections. One of his first acts in Texas was to
remove all three members of the state environmental-protection
commission and replace them with a former Monsanto executive, an
official with the Texas Beef Council and a lawyer for the oil
industry. Overnight, a commission widely respected for its
impartiality became a "revolving door between the industry lobby
and government," says Jim Marston, the senior attorney in Texas for
the nonprofit organization Environmental Defense.
Johnson continued his anti-regulatory efforts in the early days
of the Bush presidency, when he helped place industry champions in
positions throughout the government. As director of OMB, an obscure
but powerful arm of the White House, he has implemented a "Program
Assessment Rating Tool" to evaluate federal programs and cut
funding to those that are "not getting results." In reality,
though, Johnson uses PART to slash government efforts that don't
fit the administration's political agenda. This year's budget
eliminates twenty percent of the programs that were rated most
effective, including efforts to improve the environment and
education, and increases funding for programs that received the
lowest possible rating -- including an attempt to reduce the number
of poor people claiming a low-income tax credit.
The evaluations "are based on the whims of White House budget
bean counters," says Gary Bass, executive director of the
nonpartisan OMB Watch. "These are meaningless numbers that do
nothing but back up preordained political conclusions."
The Sunset Commission would go even further. The panel -- which
will likely be composed of "experts in management issues,"
according to one senior OMB official -- will enable the
administration to terminate entire government programs that protect
citizens against injury and death. Consider what America might look
like if Reagan had wielded such an anti-regulatory ax twenty years
ago. Abolishing the EPA would have increased air pollution, causing
tens of thousands of children to develop chronic respiratory
diseases. Terminating the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration would have eliminated many protections we now take
for granted -- including air bags, child safety seats and automatic
seat belts. And getting rid of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration would have forestalled workplace regulations that
have prevented illnesses among millions of farmworkers.
Even if such regulations remain on the books, eliminating entire
agencies would leave no one to enforce them. "And if there's no cop
on the beat, who's going to follow the law?" says J. Robert Shull,
senior policy analyst at OMB Watch.
The first hint of Bush's plan to create a commission surfaced
only weeks after he won re-election last November. At an economic
conference convened by Treasury Secretary John Snow, one panel
member made the case for inserting a sunset provision into existing
regulations. Such a move would "shift the burden of proof onto the
regulations and require us to demonstrate that they're still
needed," said Susan Dudley, director of regulatory studies at the
Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank based in Washington,
D.C.
It's fitting that the first public mention of Bush's plan came
from Mercatus. The center's "regulatory studies program" was
founded by Wendy Gramm, the wife of former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm
and the woman Reagan called "my favorite economist." As a senior
official at OMB under the Gipper, Gramm fought hard to eliminate
federal regulations. Her most notorious victory came in 1992 when,
as chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, she
pushed through a measure exempting companies that trade in energy
derivatives from regulation, following an intense lobbying campaign
by Enron. Gramm resigned from the commission and accepted a seat on
the Enron board of directors, where she was paid $1.85 million and
received donations from the company to support Mercatus. Enron,
meanwhile, used its exemption from federal oversight to engage in
its infamous accounting fraud that destroyed the company and
bankrupted investors.
But such dangers of eliminating regulations have done nothing to
slow Bush's drive for a sunset commission. Given its political
gains last November, the administration is optimistic about winning
approval in Congress. "The stars and the planets are aligned,"
Johnson recently declared, citing the solid Republican majority in
Congress and the need to curb the soaring federal deficit.
But there may be a stumbling block. The commission not only
threatens the environment and public health -- it would also
violate the constitutional separation of power between Congress and
the executive branch, enabling the president to dismantle programs
created by lawmakers. "Under the administration's proposal,
Congress would relinquish its constitutional power to legislate,"
says Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California who has been the
commission's most vocal opponent. "Power would be consolidated in
the executive branch, and the legislative role would be
emasculated."
Republicans already have a plan to counter such concerns. Under
a bill expected to be introduced soon, the power to appoint the
commission would be given to Congress rather than to the president
-- simply transferring the authority from Bush to his GOP allies on
the Hill. And if the commission is challenged in court, the
administration is likely to drag out the fight until it has firmly
established a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Either way, opponents consider the commission a serious threat.
"The end result," says Waxman, "would be a field day for corporate
lobbyists."
© 2005 Rolling Stone
###