Obama Poised To Reverse Bush Policy

Washington Post: Stem Cell Research, Auto Emission Rules, Reproductive Rights Among Targets of President-Elect's Team

(Washington Post)  Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget.

The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush re-imposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some - such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards - that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.

"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."

[trojanny]

Notice how king of the bad guys, EXXON-MOBIL sponsoring this, and now trying to look squeaky clean, as the rest of the nation goes broke from their greed? Make no mistake about it: they''re cunning, and RICH !

[msimamaji]

G''Obama go. Eliminating all of Bush''s stupid restrictions is a great victory for science, the environment, and commons sense.

Also, Obama must fire all of Bush''s political appointees. These ignorant illiterates and religious fanatics actually edited the findings of scientists. How can we run an effective government with these stupid insults to humanity still getting tax payer salaries.

So Obama has taken a great first step. Another great step would be to abolish the fillibuster permanently. The Senate must abide by the rule of the people - NOT by a handful of bigots and religious fanatics, prostitutes to special interests and lobbyists.

Let''s establish a democracy in practice, not in name

[babooph]

Even those deceived by the 1st Bush election should have seen in the 1st 2 years that he needed to be removed asap !!Waiting 8 years to get that idiot out & reverse his whaco mess is way too late !!

[smoothstone5]

Just to let people know,not all Christians are Republicans.I''am a Christian who voted for Obama.I''am praying for him daily.May God protect him and give wisdom to get us out of this mess.

[misha128-2009]

Posted by Mccain08NC at 12:04 PM

McCain still has considerable potential to be an important leader even during the Obama Presidency.

Posted by misha128.

I AM SURE OBAMA ... wants McCain to be giving him ...

Posted by Colt8881 at 02:54 PM

Assistance with legislation and the Republicans in Congress. It has already been indicated.

[spinner49]

In arguing about the dem''s reluctance to impeach Bush, maybe it should be mentioned that Bush has the best insurance policy around to prevent it. His name was *** Cheney. If Bush was is bad, Cheney is ten times worse. The last thing the democrats want to see is that guy in the White House.

[kansas1946]

Just undoing some of Bush''s ridiculous restrictions in the matters of science and health would be a signifigant accomplisment by itself.

[noloyalisti]

Send McSame and his awful Bush policies back to one of his 13 homes. How this guy could even be elected as a Senator is beyond me. He has experience yes, it is just that it is all bad experience.

Bush did not one good thing in 8 years. But Obama has bigger fish to fry than that moron. He needs to go full on to break media monopoly, get the oil companies out of the white house and close down the medical insurance industry. Just as a start.

[colt8881]

Posted by Mccain08NC at 12:04 PM

McCain still has considerable potential to be an important leader even during the Obama Presidency.

Posted by misha128.

I AM SURE OBAMA so wants McCain to be giving him advise. McCain is a Joke = Captain McDiapers to the Rescue !

[colt8881]

Well Last Tuesday night was a very tramatic experience for one of my co-workers.

One of my co-workers who is a Die-Hard Ultra Conservative Re-born Christian Republican was so tramatized that Obama Won last Tuesday night, his diapers exploded and HAZ-MAT had to rescue him and he is still in the Hosipital in Serious but Guarded Condition.

[hitoyou1]

It sure don''t take much to get some people to cry.

[hitoyou1]

DJ_IL, Does it feel good up there?

[misha128-2009]

Posted by Mccain08NC at 12:04 PM

McCain still has considerable potential to be an important leader even during the Obama Presidency.

[hitoyou1]

Is he going to undo the tax cut that was given to the banks. It is costing the TAX payer around 120 Billion a year. He wont. He wont do much of any thing. He lied to get in the white house and he well lie till we get the dumb dumb out of the white house.

[misha128-2009]

The same 100 Senators we have today that required 67 votes to remove a sitting president from office -- it hasn''''''''t changes since Hawaii became the 50th state. If you care how many were Republicans or Democrats look it up yourself you can probably find the answer at senate.gov.

Posted by misha128
------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------

I asked how many republicans were there to make the republican majority when they voted to impeach cigar bill. Becasue you used the excuse there wasn''''t enough dems to get a 2/3 vote for impeachment of bush but the republicans got 2/3''''s vote in the 90''''s to impeach Clinton.

I am assuming we had 67 republicans right.

Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:49 AM : Nov 10, 2008

Impeachment is the bringing of charges by vote in the House of Representatives. The Trial with the possible / probable consequence of removal from office is conducted by the Senate with house members acting as prosecutors where 67 votes by Senators are required in support of the Articles of Impeachment. I believe we have been communicating using different understandings of the process.

[lilly1232]

here we are with our system almost destroyed, and we are still defending the Bush administration. What do you want? Eight more years of this, until our country is controlled by another nation like many of our Oldest Businesses are now?

[hatesthecolt]

If someoen the right had done this you libs would be crying foul and saying they were guilty and hiding something. Just like you did with Sarah and troopergate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Mccain08NC

No, I wouldn''t. Not as long as the jurisdictional determination was correct (as was the JONES case I cited in my post that was filed by a Democrat). As I said, I have NO DOUBT if there had been a shred of truth to the allegation, the case would have been filed by someone with Standing; it''s easily remediable. It wasn''t; therefore the likelihood is high, there''s nothing there which makes Berg a whack job.

You have no basis for casting a broad aspersion that "ALL" "libs" are only in favor of adverse procedural findings only when it benefits them, or even "MOST" unless you are some kind of mind reader.

[misha128-2009]

If Dems do nothing as you state, why the great fear about the next four years? Could it be that if the Republicans are seen as obstructionists the plight of the party could actually get worse yet?
Posted by misha128

See that is where you need to read all my post today! I have no fear of the next four years I wish the best for president Obama I truly hope he brings about good change.

It is you libs who live your life believing a president can change it. I beleive I dictate my life if I work hard I will succede, I don''''t need obama handouts and just assume he would keep them and pay down our dept.


Posted by Mccain08NC at 11:42 AM : Nov 10, 2008

As you simultaneously list dire consequences and a hope you are not proven right. That is not support -- that is a back handed compliment at best and a statement of fear or concern, if you prefer, of the future.

[oscarez]

Mccain08NC - We get it. You don''t like Obama, you lost so move on.

[ral95]

Mccain08NC - I hear you - and I understand what you are saying. I don''t have a problem with anyone geting a frivilous (sp) case dismissed (I do it quite a bit when a claim is made against my employer). I have a problem with someone telling me how I would act in a given situation. The only difference in your palin example and the Obama example is one involved the judical process while one was legislative (i think). I''m not aware of a court filing in the palin thing - but i may be wrong. Anyway - I guess this beast has already been beat to death. You can have the last word. I''ll jump back in the conversation (as you put it) when I see there is something interesting going on - have fun!