Back in the old Soviet Union, official groups both large and small always had at least one "political officer" in them, to guarantee that whatever the group did was in step with current Party ideology. The Bush White House, taking its cue from this Soviet-era practice, decided that this was a good idea, earlier this year (after the Democratic takeover of Congress in last year's elections).

From a New York Times article published this past January:

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

But now Bloomberg reports that Democrats in Congress are using the power of the purse to shut this practice down. From the Bloomberg article:

It is a single sentence, on page 147 of the annual appropriations bill funding the White House, listed under the title "Additional General Provisions."

The 18-word clause eliminates the money to pay for political appointees in each federal agency whose jobs are to approve any new regulations. By cutting the money for the positions, Congress would effectively repeal President George W. Bush's 11-month old initiative.

Democrats, writing the budget for the first time since Bush took office, are using their power over the purse to thwart Bush's campaign to loosen federal regulations. Lawmakers have added fine print to must-pass appropriations bills that sets new policy goals and increases funding for regulators such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Finally, evidence of Democrats actually using the power of the budget to shut down a bad idea from Bush. While there are many other things they could be doing to limit Bush's ability to remake the government to his own liking (zeroing funds for "abstinence-only" sex education springs to mind), it's at least a step in the right direction.

It remains unclear (so far) who to thank for this action, though. The Bloomberg article quotes three Democrats in favor of the move -- Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, and a more obscure House member from North Carolina, Brad Miller -- but it does not attribute the effort to any one of them.

So, as of this writing, I don't know who to thank. I'll try to look into this further.

-- Chris Weigant