The above titled piece is one of the more recent screeds against William Perry Pendley's appointment to the BLM. In this case the authors represent three different state wildlife federations.
The piece contains the usual environmental bromides of preservation versus development, but the primary cudgel aimed at Pendley is his previous support for the disposal of certain federal lands
The heart of their argument against Pendley is the following:
Our question is, why would we even consider letting someone run the BLM, or any government agency, when his “personal opinions” are at odds with the law?
Applying that particular criteria would have meant most of Obama's appointees to the Dept. of Interior shouldn't have been appointed.
Think how ridiculous that concept is. You must agree with every federal law on the books or you can't run an agency. The status quo would remain forever. You mustn't propose amendments to current law. Things could never be improved.
The authors say this should apply to "any government agency". OK, let's take the IRS Commissioner. No one should be appointed to that position whose "personal opinions" run counter to any of the provisions of the huge tax code? I'm not sure that person could be found.
Besides, Section 203 of FLPMA authorizes the sale of federal lands that meet certain criteria. And most importantly, Pendley says, “You know, I’m a Marine, and I understand the chain of command and following orders. The president has made it very clear that we do not believe in the wholesale transfer of federal lands. That’s the president’s position, that’s the secretary’s position, and now that I’m deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, that’s my position.”
His opponents must really find a better argument, and folks whose personal opinions could help improve the federal establishment should be welcomed, not ostracized.
No comments:
Post a Comment