So where is the transparency in Pelosi's behind the door construct of the most recent economic social savior program. She failed that completely. She should be brought up on charges for failure to abide by the Act.

I believe Pelosi and the Republican majority leader negotiated how the bill would proceed in the House, including the consideration of a number of amendments (from among the more than 200 proposed) from both sides of the aisle.

And the Appropriations process was as open as ever....I guesss you missed it on cspan.

I agree some of the social programs and earmarks are questionable, but IMO, some should remain...extension of payments to states for unemployment benefits, medicaid, etc..to assist the thousands every week who are losing their jobs.

Guess you missed the headlines as well.

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair

01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143&s=rcmc

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi implied that Republicans shouldn't expect to wield too much influence over the stimulus package. "Yes, we wrote the bill," she said. "Yes, we won the election." On This Week Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos that Republicans have had the opportunity to be included in crafting the stimulus bill. "Well, we will take some [of their ideas]," said Pelosi. "We will judge them by their ability to create jobs, to -- to help turn the economy around, to stabilize the economy, and to see how much they cost."

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...stimulus-bill/

No Earmarks?

U.S. News and World Report reports the stimulus package "has triggered a lobbying spree as potential recipients extol the advantages of specific projects, whether it be a new Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, a refurbished Interstate 70 to zip motorists across Missouri, or improved port and rail facilities in the San Francisco Bay area." One "key voice in what may wind up being a coast-to-coast rebuilding binge is Democratic Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee."

Meanwhile, The Hill reports Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday "vowed that there will be no earmarks in the upcoming economic stimulus bill that Congress and the incoming Obama administration are negotiating." On CNN's Late Edition, Pelosi said, "I can pledge to you that no earmark or any of that, any description you want to make of it will be in the bill that passes the House."

Roll Call reports, "They may not be called earmarks, but lawmakers are looking to write legislative formulas into the package to ensure that their districts share in the wealth and won't simply be at the mercy of Washington's bureaucracy or the nation's governors." House Majority Whip James Clyburn "is leading the effort, personally lobbying Obama, top Obama adviser David Axelrod and committee chairmen on the issue last week."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politic...tin_090112.htm

google the Hastert rule and then we can talk about fairness.

If Pelosi had kept the Haster rule in place, Bush would never have gotten Iraq war funding after 2007...since the bills that were deliberated and enacted never had a "majority of the majority" support.

I know a little bit about House rules and the way that the recent changes have been mischaracterized.

But i'm off to party now...be happy to discuss it later.

No problem. I have enjoyed our respectful exchange. But remember, I am not defending what happened in the past, only what we have been promised in "Change, yes we can!" and the responsibility that Pelosi and Reid will have to accept for the last 2 years and the next 2 while they control congress. The thought that there is transpancy is false. The thought that there is a bipartisan approach is false. The thought that change has come to Washington is false. Peace.

I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.

I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.

Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.

I still suspect you are not going to get your hands on much more than you did in the past. The same people that redact the documents released to the public still work in the same offices. The people who get to say what is released to the public have not left because Bush left. I think that if you think you are going to have greater access to government documents, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Good post. Yes, most of us are reasonable enough people to not expect anything to meet our needs within the first 2 weeks, after 8 years of spiralling downward...it's a long way to the surface.

In fact, there will be different people responsible for FOIA requests.

Geneally, it will be the inspectors general of the department/agency and these will be Obama appointments.

FYI, Bush has the most "political" IGs in recent history, with the least autonomy, contrary to the stated role of IGs to be relatively independent to ensure greater accountability.

Who knows for certain if the new FOIA guidelines will provide greater transparency.

Time will tell. But why be disappoiinted before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.

Excellent point - I'm trying to be, but..... thanks for the reminder.

Cite.

Cite.

Cite.

My point exactly. I am skeptical.

Time will tell. But why be disappoiinted before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.[/quote]

In response to your requests for cites:

Obama's Presidential Memorandum indicating a complete reversal of the Bush policy re: FOIA:
FOIA requests are the responsibility of each deparment's inspector general, here are a few examples:
Inspectors General are a presidential appointment and confrimed by the Senate. IGs in fact report to both the cabinet level secretary AND the relevant Congressional Committee chairs. The positions, unlike any other in an execuctive branch agency, are supposed to be autonomous.
More of Bush's IGs were political than having legal or auditing experience....a reverse of the Clinton IGs
Nothing wrong with skpeticism unless it borders on a loss of objectivity.

Well done Redux, and thanks.

Thank you.

Now show me where Obama has replaced the IG's?

There are more than 7,000 positions that Obama has to fill. If you are really interested, they are listed in the Plum Book

I dont think any president has filled all 7,000 within the first two weeks in office. I believe I said in one recent post that I dont expect Obama to work miracles.

But I suspect (with no inside knowledge) that the IGs will be among the first sub-cabinet level positions filled because of their importance to the integrity of the executive branch. I would suggest that March is a reasonable time frame considering that they are subject to Senate confirmation.

Thanks, you can't show me.

You're absolutely right.

And if you want to make the case that there is no change because Obama did not make 7,000+ appointments in two weeks, I wont argue with you.

Ok, where are they and how do they differ from what any president did before him? Certainly you don't think that anyone other than his cronnies didn't do that work? Seriously now.

If this is the level of discussion I've come back too, I'll pass.

I think I laid out the facts (with citations) pretty well.

I would just urge you one more time to read the report on Bush's IGs (majpority political)vs Clinton's IGs (majority professionals with legal/audit/investigation experience) If I could find the data, I suspect Bush Sr and Reagan's, like most previous presidents looked much more like Clinton's than Bush's.

The reality my friend is that nothing has Changed.

I suspect that will be the buzzword over the next four years for the 20-30% of the population who may now feel marginalized by Obama's election and are unwilling to even wait beyond two weeks before making such a sweeping declaration.

Hey, thats fine with me! :)

I'll be happy to continue to cite my posts for others, but dont expect it for responses such as your last few. It would be a waste of my time.

I think that it is way too early to determine anything conclusive about anything this administration is doing/has done. However, there have been some interesting developments so far.

The power struggle between the Pelosi/Reid congress & the Obama Administration.

The "stimulus bill" that may or may not really be all that stimulating.

The appointments with serious tax issues. Daschle was very demonstrative in helping get Obama elected. Obama owes him politically.

The transparency/change in the way this administration operates.

There are more, both good and ??? - lets see what happens.

welcome back - good info - good debate.

Tom Daschle, slammed for not paying taxes, withdraws nomination


Excellent. Too bad Geitner got though. I think he should do the right thing and step down also.
If this is a new way to run Washington, then let it be so.

If you like seeing the administration falter in its first days in office, I suppose you would think it's excellent.

I don't necessarily think that it's a sign the administration is faltering, myself. If scandals come out and there are consequences (nominees are quickly shown the door,) I see that as a positive thing.

In Tom Daschle's case, I think it was an honest mistake. Sarah Palin didn't claim her husband's or children's travel expenses on her taxes, and they are not supposed to be free. She still hasn't fixed that mistake. No one is reaming her for that. (I know, she isn't running for anything now. But some republicans want her to be the leader of the party, and she was running as VP of the United States. So how is it different?)

Tom Daschle came clean about it when he realized the mistake, and he paid more than he had to. He paid the interest. We are missing out on a someone who could really do a lot of good.

I don't know about Geitner. I missed what happened there.

It really is silly and irrelevant. Obama probably owes Daschle some political favors. If so, those debts have been paid.

Meanwhile, Daschle does not have a very good track record as a leader. These tax problems may have saved us from another political hack. Daschle did reconnaissance picture analysis in the Air Force. He was even one of the few given pictures of Saddam's WMDs. Those pictures showed nothing. Daschle should have known that. Instead, Daschle supported George Jr's lies about Saddam's WMDs.

A good leader should have some credibility and honesty. The former Senate Democratic leader even lied about Saddam's WMDs. His withdrawal from consideration is probably a good thing for America. It says little to nothing about Obama. A responsible Tom Daschle would have told the truth back then about George Jr. Daschle’s problems are of his own making. So he is now doing what Dan Quayle did. Yes, similar credibility.

Sorry I meant it was good that the people who were not paying their taxes or whatever were stepping aside. I think its the right thing and a stark change from the past.

I think the timing of Daschle's "realization" was a lot circumspect. It seemed to happen in conjunction with an impending appointment.

He was forced to do the right thing in the end and thats the positive out of the situation. I (looks for lightning) agree with tw here - Daschle was not a good choice for the position. Not if Obama wants to change the "business as usual" mentality of this administration.

The Daschle withdrawal comes at the time of a related first signficant achievement by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

Obama was planning to sign the SCHIP bill tomorrow; the bill that Congress enacted last week (and that Bush vetoed lat year) expanding the program to cover an additional 4+ million uninsured children. Daschle was supposed to be at his side and it was to be touted as the first step to providing quality, affordable health care to cover all children.

I guess we'll see if he postpones the bill signing to perhaps combine it with announcing a new nominee for HHS in which case, I think he will act quickly on a nominee.

Postpone it??? Why? Cuz a tax cheat got caught? Eff that. Forward my man! Obama is gettin shit done. keep it on a roll.
Hell the IRS should audit every congressman/woman and senator, then move right down the line through all the lobbyists and everyone else till all those involved with raising our taxes are damn sure paying theirs.

I'm curious to get Radar's take on this.

No postponement
On the heals of Bush's veto of SCHIP last year, this marks one small step for change, one giant leap for children!

I like the $500,000 cap on executive compensation for companies receiving taxpayer bailouts that Obama will announce today as well.

More change!

SCHIP is a good thing. He should be applauded for that move.

Another Obama third-week success?

This time for the environment as well as the earliest heritage of the country by putting on hold a Bush "fire sale" of oil and gas exploration leases in the waning days of his administration.

In my opinion, these Bush last minute leases (issued with little or no opportunity for public comment or review) should be burned in a public display on the front lawn of the White House to send an even stronger message.

There are places to explore for new oil and gas resources (if necessary - and I dont think it is, with millions of acres already under lease to oil companies) and other areas that should remain untouched.

In close proximity to national parks and sacred landmarks should remain untouched!

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

Or we could do both - one short term and the other long term. Seems like the intelligent solution.

I think I understand the motivation of the act on 2 parts by Bush. On one hand he had to make it look like he was doing something desperate to move us towards energy independence after more than 6 years of pandering to the Oil/Gas companies and on the other hand he was throwing them a bone. Either way it could have been to our benefit. And to Obama's credit at least he sugar coated it by saying that it was only delayed for further environmental review. That approach prevents anyone from saying he is against energy independence, which I don't believe he is. I think it more about his staffers looking for various ways to stick a finger in the eye of Bush. Hey that sounds just like most people.

Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?

Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?

I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.

The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.

Cite.


I would agree, citation needed please.

I would tend to agree, but if you are going to accuse someone of wrong doing please provide evidence. Thanks.

I personally have no problem with it if it gets us off the teet of any country outside our borders. If I had my way we all be going solar, wind, and water to solve our energy dependence.

Cite, cite, cite - the Merc Mantra!!!

Much if it can be explained in legislation the Democrats introduced last year to require existing leases to be explored or face losing them and/or before issuing new leases.

The current lease and potential production numbers are in there (68 million acres already leased and sitting idle.) I used ballpark figures.

Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It

In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

Damn right...Use it or Lose it! (and lose the tax writes offs that come just by holding those leases) and stay away from national parks while other options (existing leases) are available.

The Republicans in the House defeated the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act ...

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes.

...last June, just in time to make "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan. (BTW, the manner in which the Republicans, the minority party, defeated it, was because of Pelosi's loose House rules at the time....something her Republican predecessor would not have allowed with their old rules. She learned her lesson and the new rules this year, while much stricter, are still no where close to the restrictive Republican rules from 01-07.)

I expect the bill, or something like it, will be introduced again later this year as part of a broader Obama energy package that will include some drilling (on existing leases) and a much greater focus on both alternatives AND reducing demand (conserve, baby, conserve!)

Don't get all huffy. As I stated I would rather depend on us rather than "them" for energy resources. You make a number of claims. I just asked you to back them up.

No huff and puff here.

Your responses are already very predictable to me in a matter of two days. :)

I'll let you know when I get bored or huffy.

Ok. Go away when you are tired of defending the indefensable Demoncratic Congress. I will be here when you want to spar.

Respectfully, The Merc.

So we should mine and drill near our public lands and parks? yea, cause what I really want to see when I go to the Grand Canyon is fucking oil wells. Don't be such a tool Merc.

It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.

Blarg. Drill & cap. Keep buying their shit. When they run out, uncap the wells, use the oil, and watch the Saudis try to eat sand.

If they're dumb enough to trade oil for fiat currency, screw 'em.

Then we should be developing alternatives, not doing the same old, same old. Besides ruining some of our most pristine/protected lands (that are for everyone to enjoy btw), it literally takes YEARS to open new drill sites/wells. We wouldn't be seeing any of that oil anytime soon.

If we simply must continue to use a combustion engine (which I would much rather go to electric cars, or cars run on compressed air), we should develop biofuel made from algae. We could develop it a LOT faster, it doesn't require a whole lot of space to do it, it could provide virtually all of our energy needs, and all kinds of different fuels can be made from it. It's clean. Producing it doesn't create all the pollution that comes from drilling. etc. etc. etc.

We have no choice but to do both. This country will still take 25 - 50 years to get off the use of fosil fuels, even it wanted to make a concerted effort to do so.

Better start now.

Never said we shouldn't. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

I hate babies.

They actually taste good with some Glory Zesty Flavored Hot Sauce.

Gives me reflux.

Take an H2 blocker like Prilosec, works wonders. Helps get the boney parts down.

I don't buy it. If we really wanted to do it, we could accomplish it in a relatively short period of time. We just have to decide to really get behind it, and DO it.

Yeah, you people driving those 200,000,000 cars... turn 'em in to the government on Thursday. ;)

The vast majority of cars on the road will be "turned in" much sooner than 25-50 years, without any government intervention.

Not mine. That's why I bought the Adobe.