12 ms·
On Monday, news broke that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now barred from communicating with the public. That means no press releases, blogs, mess
by finid 10y ago
On Monday, news broke that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now barred from communicating with the public. That means no press releases, blogs, messages, or social media postings.
And early this morning, Buzzfeed revealed that The US Department of Agriculture has banned scientists and other employees in its Agricultural Research Service division from sharing the results of its taxpayer-funded research with the broader public.
Well, no surprise here, because they told us what they would do if elected. And this is just a continuation of what happened towards the end of the last Bush admin when govt scientists were required to clear any publicly-directed communication with political appointees.
- Xeoncross 10y agoWho is "they told us what they would do if elected"? The department heads?
- finid 10y agoWell, assuming you just step out from a space ship, Trump himself has stated that he doesn't believe in climate change, that it's a Chinese hoax or something of that nature. We have a very good search engine called The Google. If you bother to use it, you'll find other crazy stuff that Trump, Rick Perry and others in his administration said during the campaign.
- rayiner 10y agoThe Constitution commits the executive branch to the control of an elected official: the President. Direct communications with the public undermines the notion that agencies are simply bodies that exist to assist the President, and reinforces the notion that they are an unelected fourth branch of government with their own continuity and agendas. To use an analogy: Samsung should be forthright to the public about exploding Note 7's. But that doesn't mean that Samsung's engineering department should be issuing its own press releases.
- elastic_church 10y agoI'm not exactly opposed to the idea of a more focused executive branch. The federal government has largely assumed many roles simply by finding itself as a logical resourceful intermediary.
- msrpotus 10y agoWould you be arguing that if Hillary Clinton had won and ordered the FBI to stop communicating with the public? Somehow I doubt it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 10y agoThe Constitution doesn't change depending on who is in power. I happen to agree with the folks that think the administrative state is basically unconstitutional: https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n2/delegation.pdf https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n2/delegation.pdf. But I'd also love for Congress to pass laws outright banning coal use, gasoline cars, and dumping pollutants into waterways.
- yarou 10y ago> But I'd also love for Congress to pass laws outright banning coal use, gasoline cars, and dumping pollutants into waterways. The Constitution hasn't been respected in decades. There is an entrenched deep state in the US, controlled by powerful corporate and industrial interests that are accountable to no one.
- baddox 10y agoI can't answer for that person, but I certainly would.
- cmurf 10y agoSure, but when the executive branch is also waging a disinformation campaign on undisputable facts, where merely saying things makes them true, is going to have consequences.