Obama's first failed appointment

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would encourage you to read the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.

As I said, its not enough for me..but far more than any recent Republican Congress.

Thats a fact.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Time will tell. But why be disappointed 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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

Cite.

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

Cite.

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.

Cite.

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

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:

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...nformationAct/

FOIA requests are the responsibility of each deparment's inspector general, here are a few examples:

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

I could link to every cabinet department but the above should make the point

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.

The IGs for Cabinet-level departments and many of the largest federal agencies are appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. The law specifically requires that they be chosen:

without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/repor...spectors_Gener

More of Bush's IGs were political than having legal or auditing experience....a reverse of the Clinton IGs

Over 60% of the IGs appointed by President Bush had prior political experience, such as service in a Republican White House or on a Republican congressional staff, while fewer than 20% had prior audit experience. In contrast, over 60% of the IGs appointed by President Clinton had prior audit experience, while fewer than 25% had prior political experience.

more details: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=726

Nothing wrong with skpeticism unless it borders on a loss of objectivity.

[Undertoad]

Well done Redux, and thanks.

[TheMercenary]

Thank you.

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

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.