Gitmo will get a lot of run, but I want to focus on some important to me, specifically the lobbying rules. Now, if only we could crack down more on Congress:

Quote:Announcing the White House moves while attending a ceremony to swear in his senior staff, Obama said the steps "represent a clean break from business as usual."

The pay freeze affects the roughly 100 White House employees who make more than $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," Obama said.

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.

The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years. Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.

Obama called the rules tighter "than under any other administration in history." They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyist in his White House.

"The new rules on lobbying alone, no matter how tough, are not enough to fix a broken system in Washington," he said. "That's why I'm also setting rules that govern not just lobbyists but all those who have been selected to serve in my administration."

'Too much secrecy'

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said.

He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" nor go as far as he would like.

"But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country," Obama said. "And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come."

Bravo!

(it's a start)

Quote:Announcing the White House moves while attending a ceremony to swear in his senior staff, Obama said the steps "represent a clean break from business as usual."

The pay freeze affects the roughly 100 White House employees who make more than $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," Obama said.

Ok, that's a good thing.

Quote:Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

Now, that's just stupid. People were hired presumably b/c they were SME, w/ perspectives on matters that come from experience. Suddenly they aren't supposed to be involved in those very areas where they're expert?

Inepxerienced. Dumb.

Quote:The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.

Those kinds of rules already existed. I got hammered w/ ethics classes while supporting gov't agencies.

Quote:The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years.

There are pros and cons here. I'm not sure I really want career civil "servants", but the alternative isn't much better.

Quote:Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.

Not news.

Quote:'Too much secrecy'

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should,

That's probably true, and the Bush administration made it worse. But shrinking the gov't would assist with this problem in a much healthier way.

I'm not keen on the closing of Gitmo because I've yet to hear what they're going to do with the detainees that are there now.

The rest of the orders I don't have too much trouble with.

My concern is more around what Penetta is going to do to the CIA.

Quote:In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Oh, our enemies are gonna love this f'n idiot.

Where exactly does President Obama stand on lobbyists?

As for the other good news of the day: Guantanamo trial halted for 9-11 accused. Justice finally comes to the rescue of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his compadres.

(01-21-2009 03:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  As for the other good news of the day: Guantanamo trial halted for 9-11 accused. Justice finally comes to the rescue of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his compadres.

I'm glad you're concerns are being addressed.

Way to stay on topic fellas.

(01-21-2009 03:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Where exactly does President Obama stand on lobbyists?

It's pretty clear where he stands on day 1.

This was one of my pet issues and I wish it would carry over to the crooks in Congress. There is no valid cause being served by letting lobbyists literally author the very bill documents being voted on in either chamber. It has got to stop. Way too much influence.

And in a perfect world, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), would get reversed in favor of John Rawls' views on the subject.

(01-21-2009 03:41 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Oh, our enemies are gonna love this f'n idiot.

That is ironic, considering he wouldn't release his list of campaign donors, health records, etc.

Lobbying, in it's current form, should be outlawed. Lobbying was intended to be a way to present information to the politicians about bills coming up for a vote. But what it became was a way to buy the votes needed to pass bills. Ordinary citizens can't afford this, which means that bills will get a hard push from everyone - except the public.

I see no reason for rich men to be pampered by businesses or organizations at a cost of millions, when the taxpayer pays these people thousands. The taxpayer will always lose, since any political hack is for sale to the highest bidder...

And he's already seeking a waiver to the lobbiest rule.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/c...index.html

Change we can believe in.

(01-21-2009 04:03 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(01-21-2009 03:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Where exactly does President Obama stand on lobbyists?

It's pretty clear where he stands on day 1.

Ok, it's day five now. Can you tell us where he stands today?

If they can't find something to charge these dudes with in 5 years, there is a problem. Even if it's some made of stuff, and they have a sham of a trial. Charge them with something.

They're not looking to charge them with anything. They're looking to keep dangerous people locked up.

(01-24-2009 10:39 AM)Paul M Wrote:  They're not looking to charge them with anything. They're looking to keep dangerous people locked up.

What I'm saying is that if you charge them, then you can still lock them up, and the left will stop complaining.

I don't think simply charging them is going to silence the critics. They will go from, "your holding innocent men without charge", to "you've charged innocent men". I mean someone said yesterday in another thread their just goat herders.

Quote:Jugnaut 01-21-2009 05:22 PM

Well technically, they're just accused people. We need to have a trial to find out whether they are terrorists or random goat farmers who got turned in by someone who didn't like them for thousands of dollars. My guess is the latter.