22 posts tagged “obama”
It is no secret that our lawmakers don’t read many of the bills that they sign. It really angers me that they do so on major issues, but doing it at all should upset all Americans. The public’s lack of engagement with the political process is a major concern of mine going forward, but I feel with the focus on health care lately, we should take advantage of the publics interest now. The public needs to be made aware that our elected officials sign bills into law that affect their lives frequently, oftentimes without reading them.
Do you remember the outrage over employee bonuses from the stimulus package? Well, that was in there.
The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
Here are a couple examples demonstrating the fact that our leaders are not reading what they sign.
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.
What really angers me is that the political parties use this tactic as a means to gain power or leverage. The Republicans did it with the Patriot Act, and now it is the Democrats who are strongly opposing transparency. While both sides are failing us spectacularly, it’s a disgrace and the fact that they don’t want the public to be able to read bills before they are passed both goes against Obama’s claims of supporting transparency in government and our leader’s civic duty.
While I don’t expect our leaders to be able to fully understand every law-simply not possible as they are written in “lawyerese”…and have you ever talked with your representative? They are unlikely to be the most intelligent person you have ever met-I think that opening them up to the public is what needs to be done. The public is likely to be apathetic at large, and the various media outlets will spin the information towards their political leanings, but the information would be out there for intelligent people to debate. That is the most important thing. We have the means to create an informed populace, and that can only benefit everyone.
Remember when Obama said this:
Mr. Obama promised that he, “…will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Just to make sure we understood him, Mr. Obama repeated in many of his campaign speeches, “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”
Here is what he did:
The first two bills he signed were not posted on the White House website for five days (both were signed within two days of hitting his desk). In late May, Mr. Obama signed four bills in four days, the day after each arrived on his desk. You could argue that the Recovery Act/stimulus bill was an “emergency” (I wouldn’t) but Mr. Obama signed the Recovery Act less than 18 hours after the bill was finalized and well before almost any member of Congress, let alone the public , had read the Bill.
We deserve better.
This posting was automatically scheduled on 10/11/09
As with many of my fellow disillusioned Americans, I had lost all faith in our government some time ago. Obama's true success during his run for the presidency was that he convinced the majority of Americans that change was possible and that he was the person to do it. I was skeptical, but I must admit that he said a lot of the right things during his campaign that led me to believe that he was serious. The most important and compelling case that he made in my eyes was a call for transparency. My thinking is that it is much harder for corrupt politicians to engage in such behavior when the people can see what is going on. I am not naive enough to think that the majority of people would care, but I do believe that enough people would for change to really manifest itself.
To say that Obama has let me down and mislead his fellow Americans to this point is an understatement. Do you want an example of the transparency that he supports? How about we look at the $18 MILLION dollar website Recovery.gov. This is the government's website that is supposed to show us where the money is going. Aside from being a huge failure at its core purpose, the fact that it cost $18 MILLION should raise everyone's eyebrows! For people unfamiliar with what it costs to develop a website, I ask you to consider that it cost roughly $1500-$2000 to create Digg which is one of the largest and most sophisticated sites on the internet. The cost appalls me, but the part that should REALLY concern everyone? How about the supposed transparency.
Back in July, a software company named Smartronix landed an $18 million contract to build a Web site where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money. It was just another part of the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to bring transparency to stimulus spending, we were told.
But it seems the drive for transparency doesn’t cover the contract itself.
After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the General Services Administration released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless.
Don’t believe us? Take a look.
ProPublica sought the contract under the Freedom of Information Act to find out what kind of site Smartronix planned to build and to assess whether it justified the cost, which Republican critics of the stimulus plan called “unreal.”
Want proof that nothing has changed in Washington? How about this little ditty from the man responsible saying that everything is fine:
Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, defended the redactions as “legitimate.” The Web site Smartronix is to build will replace Recovery.gov, the existing stimulus Web portal run by the transparency board.
“I’m not concerned about whether journalists are concerned about this,” Pound said. “We have been very transparent.”
Obama Administration Redacts Contract Details for Recovery.gov
The contract is so heavily redacted that it is worthless. In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal — the main document in the package — were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.
The entire scenario disgusts me, not only because I feel lied to, but because I honestly believe that in this day and age, Obama was our best chance at any sort of change in the way our government works. In the end, he is one of them, and not one of us.
Here is the contract for those interested:
Recovery.gov Contract Documents
I have to admit that I was rather optimistic when Obama was elected President. He struck me as someone who actually may be able to cut through the Washington machine and get something done. I was fearful that the machine would batten down the hatches and work collectively to prevent him from doing anything. As a geek and someone who loves learning, I was most optimistic about his stance on transparency in government. Sadly, I have been let down significantly.
The most recent, and glaring example of this (since I have beat the bailout thing into the ground) is that the White House is refusing to disclose visits by health industry executives.
Reporting from Washington -- Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.
The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.
White House Continues Bush Policies
To be fair, Ben LaBolt (a White House spokesman) said that they were reviewing the policy. How many times have we heard promises from our leaders that have gone unfulfilled however? It happens in the vast majority of instances.
So what happened? Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens' group. In its letter requesting the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.
"It's extremely disappointing," said Anne Weismann, the group's chief counsel. Obama is relying on a legal argument that "continues one of the bad, anti-transparency, pro-secrecy approaches that the Bush administration had taken. And it seems completely at odds with the president's commitment . . . to bring a new level of transparency to his government."
White House Continues Bush Policies
I have to agree with her. I had hoped that Obama would be able to bring about a shift in the mindset of Washington. Transparency is something that our founding fathers would have wanted, and it sickens me that we don't have it. We have the tools in our modern age to make information available to all who desire to view it, but Washington has been sullying itself for far to long to be willing to let the public view the train wreck it has become.
The problem with Washington is that it is controlled by special interest groups. They are entrenched in the fabric and operations of this country. What upsets me about all of this is that it prevents (at worst) - hampers (at best) - any sort of reform to the operations of the government. A government that is clearly in need of changes to its modus operandi.
The latest example of all of this comes from Obama's recent meeting with the American Medical Association. He was at the meeting to promote his health care reform initiative. On one side, there was the AMA, representing 200,000 doctors in America. They want limits on how much money a patient can sue them for for medical malpractice. Doctor's pay an exhorbitant amount of money for malpractice insurance, and naturally, they would like that lowered. Obama wasn't necessarily keen on that idea, and when he expressed such:
Obama and the AMA
"I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards," the president said, greeted by a smattering of boos, a remarkable public response to a popular president accustomed to cheering audiences.
The group actually booed him. While I find it remarkable that a group consisting of 0.07% of the population (roughly-considering rough total pop. estimates) can get an audience with the President (groups like that certainly donate heavily...), I must admit that it takes some large cojones to push forward your interests at the expense of those of the populace. It is this discourse however, that makes this country great. Understand that I feel that they pay too much for insurance as well. I feel that the real problem lies with the insurance companies however.
On the other side, we have the scums of the earth. I am sorry, I mean trial lawyers. Though he offered no support for limiting lawsuits, Obama raised the antennae of trial lawyers' groups just by mentioning the issue. These plagues upon modern societies had issues with anything that may potentially close the vent on their bread and butter. To be fair, I hate lawyers, so it is impossible for me to be impartial in this. I can't stand groups that segregate themselves from society, protect themselves, and change the laws of this country in such a way as to force their existence (Christ, have you read something as "simple" as a website terms of service? Something that should be 3 paragraphs, but is actually 48 pages of fine print!?)
The Center for Justice and Democracy, which says it advocates for injured consumers, attorneys and others, released a letter to Obama signed by 64 survivors of medical malpractice saying they were "extremely concerned that the rights of medical malpractice patients may be stripped away as part of your national health care proposal."
"The notion that 'defensive medicine' is leading to higher health care costs is not supported by empirical data or academic literature," Les Weisbrod, president of the American Association for Justice, the main lobby for trial lawyers.
I can't stand that reform is being halted (not even reform that I completely agree with, mind you) by special interest groups. Change needs to happen. I am not saying that Obama's plan is some cure-all, in fact I most certainly don't think that,- but the bottom line is that something has to be done. And his something is better than the status quo. I don't want the same things out of Washington. Obama instilled a sense that change is on the horizon, in Americans. I don't want it squandered by the entrenched bureaucracy.
Can anyone see how this is going to end? If you can’t, let me tell you. AIG, despite fleecing us taxpayers for billions, will file bankruptcy and close. If you look at the business that you have left, then you quickly realize that they lack the capacity to remain viable. They only have a couple arms that remain profitable, and the profits generated by those are small and continue to dwindle. When you factor in public sentiment towards the company, the efforts made by other businesses-as well as their partners- to distance themselves from the company, it doesn’t take much to realize that this is a sinking ship.
There is one other large factor in all of this: the work force. Don’t think for a second that the employees at AIG are unaware of the future of the company. Many, including some of those that received million-dollar plus bonuses, have already left, and many that remain have put out feelers on Craigslist, Monster, and Twitter.
The real problem at AIG is that the cat is out of the bag. The company was making so much in hedge funds that it focused all of its efforts there at the expense of its legitimate businesses. Due to the enormity of the collapse and how much they leveraged, they have, in effect, dug themselves a hole that they can never get out of.
Therefore, there remains two possible options: we either let them fail and we take our lumps, or we continue to shovel money towards them in order to delay the inevitable. The bottom line is that they do not possess the means to repay the government loans. Continuing to fund them is both asinine and irresponsible. Yet we will continue to do so. Why?
Because it is political suicide to do otherwise. Look at all of the flack Obama and his administration has taken from the media already for telling people the truth about the economy. There is a thought process that believes he has to lie to the people and tell them that everything is fine; that we are on the road to recovery; things aren’t as bad as they seem; that they have the answers to fix this…that belies the fact that this doesn’t serve anyone. If people begin to invest again, based upon false information, then all we are doing is returning to the status quo. A status quo that got us here in the first place.
During the campaign, two words were pushed into the public lexicon: change and maverick. During the campaign, they were both used to convey the same thing to the public. They were meant to imply that the respective candidate wasn't part of the status quo in Washington and because of that, they were able to bring forth the changes needed on Capital Hill to connect with the American public.
I don't believe that John McCain had it in him to vehemently pursue reform to the system. Even if he did, I don't think that he would have been able to accomplish them. I believe Obama had more resolve to actually attempt and push forward his reforms. His is a strange case...actually, now that I think about it, it really isn't...his approval rating is sky high and he is a media darling. Naturally, this means that almost anyone and everyone wants to attach themselves to the Obama gravy train.
This phenomenon actually works to benefit the American people (and Obama) for a change. Whatever it is that he wants to push through the system, he is recieving little resistance. Of course, I view this as beneficial only because I happen to agree with the majority of his policies.
Washington has been run by lobbyists for over 40 years. Whether it has been a religious group, Detroit, the military, energy companies, or teachers unions, etc. the need for change was obvious to any clear thinking American. For better or worse, (can it get worse? ...really?) it would appear that Obama is bringing that change with him. His recent statement about reclaiming Washington actually made me feel proud to be an American.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
[snip]
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/obama-to-lobbyists-bring_n_170724.html
The best part is that lobbyist groups can't openly oppose him for fear of running head on with his popularity. It is this popularity that will allow him to get things done in Washington.
I never really wanted to say that phrase (as it is L.A.M.E.), but here I go. I am putting on my Obama cheerleading outfit. Why? The number one reason is that he is actually going balls to the wall since taking office. He is pushing forward his agenda (agree with it or not), and getting things done. Its rather refreshing to see results so rapidly out of Washington. Previously, it took forever to get anything done, and it was typically bad!
I am also excited because he put a provision into his stimulus bill that preserves net neutrality!
The new bill is perhaps most significant as it represents the first major legislative victory for both net neutrality and open networks. Net neutrality, stymied under the Bush administration via threat of veto, is the concept that internet traffic, including P2P streams, should not be discriminated against or throttled. Open networking is the principal that network providers should not be allowed to discriminate against certain manufacturers or providers devices, if they have the capability to access the network. Those receiving funding to build networks under the bill will have to abide by these principles.
The bill also includes some of the internet speed mandates previously mentioned. Seventy five percent of the networks built must be fast enough to support video conferencing. While telecom comments are scarce, CTIA, the wireless carriers' principal trade group, did urge lawmakers to vote against the proposal which it called "vague, undefined and unnecessary", citing opposition of telecoms to the openness provisions.
I must admit that I am overjoyed by this! My largest complaint with the Obama camp was the selection of Biden as his VP (Mr. Screw the consumer - Go Big Media!), but I have to give a lot of credit to Obama for sticking to his guns. I am not naive, and I realize that much of what he proposes right now will get passed because all of the elected officials want to be associated with his positive media blitzkreig. I think that Obama recognizes this to some degree as well.
I hope that our country isn't too far past the breaking point so that he gets a decent chance to rebuild our country.
The Republicans want to alter the Democrat's $825 million dollar spending package. I may not have an issue with it, because there are some issues with the proposal as it stands now in my view. The majority of the spending takes place a year from now or afterwards...That is my largest hangup. With that said, the Republicans are clinging to their old way of thinking...
They want the government to cut taxes and offer incentives for businesses to increase spending. This old way of thinking worked post-WWII, but it WILL NOT work in our modern world. Why? You would have to be an idiot not to realize how many businesses are poorly ran in our country today. If we offer these incentives, as we have in the past, we will continue to allow those in power to gather more wealth and protect themselves from oversight. We must not allow this to pass. I like that Obama is flat out spending the money. Spending it on tangible goods and services is the only sure way to get results. How can you trust anyone in the business world (or politics for that matter)? At the very least, if Obama follows through with this plan, we will at least have something to show for it. And that counts for alot in politics anymore.
As a Geek, I have to admit that I highly approve of the updated look of the new website. It also underscores how well his people understand the modern world that we live in.
Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country’s 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin — all Democrats — said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.
Gov. David Paterson of New York said 43 states now have budget deficits totaling some $100 billion as tax revenues plunge.
“It’s clear that the federal government needs to step in and jump-start the economy,” said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.
The latest package calls for $350 billion to create jobs by building or repairing roads, bridges and other public works; $250 billion to maintain education; and another $250 billion in “counter-cyclical” spending such as extending unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are typically a responsibility of the states.
The remainder would be used to fund middle-class tax cuts, stimulate the embattled housing market, and stem the tide of home foreclosures through a loan-modification program.
Governor's Call for Stimulus Package
Who didn't think that our leader's would jump at any chance they can to get free money? Do you want to know the strange part? I am potentially for this proposal. It makes sense for the governor's to call for such spending given Obama's stance on stimulating the economy. What it would take for me to support such a measure would be a HIGH level of accountability. I am not talking the laughable accountability that our leaders accorded the jackals in the finance sector, or the nincompoops in the auto industry, but real accountability. I hope that the Obama administration can accomplish this. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time, in the hopes that his team can truly accomplish something in Washington.
Wait! There is more! The U.S. steel industry is calling for Obama to implement a public works plan that could be worth $1 Trillion over two years. Guess what? I am for this as well. As you know, I am typically against government spending, but that is because they typically spend it on asinine projects that further the croneyism of our Capital. I am for infrastructure spending, and so is Obama, so it makes sense that the struggling steel sector would appeal (I still hate lobbyists) to this opportunity and try to capitalize.
I do NOT approve of bailing out the fools on Wall Street who actually thought of ways to create money out of thin air, or the morons in Detroit who caved to Union demands while not having any vision for their companies for the future, but I do approve of giving money to projects that can have tangible results. That is the key difference here. With these two spending proposals, we get something tangible. With the financial bailout for example, we get this:
zero accountability and nothing that benefits the citizens of this nation. I can stand behind tangible results. I hope that Obama can hold these entities accountable. If so, we may actually be able to get out of our financial crisis.
