Home / transparency
Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts
More adventures of the most open and transparent administration in history: Confiscating donor cell phones before fundraising dinner

More adventures of the most open and transparent administration in history: Confiscating donor cell phones before fundraising dinner

Even former Hillary Clinton staffers are calling this policy "absurd." It just goes to show you how hard it is to campaign when you are constantly saying something in public that tries to hide how incredibly leftwing a person really is. Reason.com has this:
Pool reporter David Nakamura of the Washington Post reported that at a $35,800 a head fundraiser at the home of Blackstone COO Hamilton “Tony” James in New York City Monday night, the 60 attendees were asked to place their phones in plastic bags by the door. An Obama aide called the move it "standard operating procedure," but veterans of a range of other campaigns said they'd never heard of the practice, which is common in secure White House spaces where there are concerns of espionage, but unknown in contexts in which only political secrets are discussed. The new prevalence of sophisticated audio and recording capacities in mobile devices owned by virtually anyone wealthy enough to write a check to a political campaign, however, has put a new pressure on campaigns concerned with staying on a public message. Former aides to presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman all expressed surprise at the practice, and they've never seen an instance where a campaign asked donors to surrender their cell phones. The former Clinton aide called the Obama policy "absurd," suggesting that the Obama policy is almost certainly a response to the infamous 2008 fundraiser where Obama described voters in rural Pennsylvania as "bitter."
Obama's broken promises on transparency

Obama's broken promises on transparency

From Politico:

. . . A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.
But three years into his presidency, critics say Obama’s administration has failed to deliver the refreshing blast of transparency that the president promised.
“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”
David Sobel, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that “despite the positive rhetoric that has come from the White House and the attorney general, that guidance has not been translated into real world results in actual cases. … Basically, the reviews are terrible.”
Open-government advocates say some administration practices are actually undercutting Obama’s goal. Among their complaints:
• Administration lawyers are aggressively fighting FOIA requests at the agency level and in court — sometimes on Obama’s direct orders. They’ve also wielded anti-transparency arguments even bolder than those asserted by the Bush administration.
• The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories. “There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States,” ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told White House press secretary Jay Carney at a recent briefing for reporters. . . .

A longer list is available at the original article.
Biden and DOJ officials meet in private with gun control advocates on Tuesday

Biden and DOJ officials meet in private with gun control advocates on Tuesday

So it looks like the Obama administration is moving into high gear on gun control. From the left wing Huffington Post, though it isn't surprising that they get this inside scoop on the Obama administration.

With the Obama administration gearing up for its first attempt at reforming federal gun policy, Vice President Joe Biden’s office has begun assuming more of an active role.

Aides to the vice president were present at a 90-minute meeting that the Department of Justice hosted with gun control advocates on Tuesday, administration officials said. And while those officials stressed Biden’s involvement in the gun policy discussion was still very much in its beginning stages -- “at this point, we are just gathering ideas from people,” said an administration official, “and [the Vice President’s staff is] involved in that” -- those in attendance were pleased to see Biden emissaries at the table, interpreting it as a sign of seriousness on the administration’s behalf.

“We have had other meetings with folks at justice and meetings with other people in the administration,” said one attendee. “This was the most thorough engagement we have had to date.”

The vice president, after all, was the lawmaker most closely associated with the last major congressional effort to refigure Second Amendment rights. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was written, in large part, by then-senator Biden. It included major curbs on assault weapons, not only barring the manufacturing of 19 different brands of firearms, but also outlawing the possession of newly manufactured high-capacity magazines.

The law expired in 2004, and despite several high-profile gun-related incidents since then, efforts at re-introduction have failed. . . .
What congressional debate was meant to look like

What congressional debate was meant to look like

A more open process probably also means that fewer bills will get passed.

It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t on schedule and it wasn’t the least bit predictable.
But it was pure Boehner.
Long before he took the reins of the House Jan. 5, Boehner began promising that he would bring the House back to its more freewheeling roots. Over five days, there was confusion — even mayhem — on the floor as freshmen learned the legislative process and veterans dusted off their debating skills. . . .
Even some veteran Democrats praised what was the most open and sprawling floor fight the House had seen in years.
“After as little openness as we’ve had, it’s a very big change. It’s refreshing, and I think it’s a good thing,” said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the House and a member of Congress since 1955. “We’ll see whether the members like it.” . . .
Obama blocked probe of an inspector general and now blocks probe into his firing

Obama blocked probe of an inspector general and now blocks probe into his firing

This is a pretty gutsy move by the Obama administration.

Violating its own guarantee of unprecedented transparency, the White House is blocking an investigation into the controversial firing of an inspector general who exposed one of President Obama's political supporters-a California mayor-for misusing federal funds.

First Lady Michelle Obama was reportedly behind the contentious June dismissal of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin and congressional investigators want to interview the aide (Jackie Norris) who may have given the order. . . .
White House blocked science panel report on "Worst-case Oil Spill Estimate"

White House blocked science panel report on "Worst-case Oil Spill Estimate"

Not that I ever believed that this administration was science based, but it is interesting to see the difference in media reaction to claims that the Bush and Obama administrations put the kibosh on some sort of science report. The Obama actions did get some coverage, but not on the national evening news reports.

The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been, according to a panel appointed by President Obama to investigate the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well. The Unified Command — the government team in charge of the spill response — also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says, citing interviews with government officials.

The White House didn't not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

But Jerry Miller, head of the White House science office's ocean subcommittee, told The Associated Press in an interview at a St. Petersburg, Fla., conference on the oil's flow that he didn't think the budget office censored NOAA. . . .
If the Democrats can't estimate how much Obamacare will add to the IRS's budget, how can they seriously estimate the other health care cost changes?

If the Democrats can't estimate how much Obamacare will add to the IRS's budget, how can they seriously estimate the other health care cost changes?

It should be clear that these were just guess about the health care costs and in many cases (such as the IRS) they didn't even hazard a guess. Now it is clear that even the Democrats who wrote the bill say that they don't know (or won't say) how much the IRS enforcement will cost.

A warning that federal tax officials will need more congressional funding to administer the Democrats’ health reform law has rekindled the partisan debate over its cost effectiveness.

Senior Republicans have said for months that the new responsibilities required of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the legislation would saddle the agency with billions of dollars in additional costs — expenses not accounted for in the bill.

A Wednesday report from the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), an independent watchdog within the IRS, backed those claims, finding that the agency currently lacks the resources to take on the new duties. …

“Before ObamaCare passed, [Minority Leader John Boehner] and others warned that it would require an army of new IRS agents,” Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Michael Steel said in an email. “Democrats denied it. Now we know the truth. . . .

The office of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, echoed that, saying Friday that funding and staffing levels won’t be decided until the IRS comes up with an implementation strategy.

“Until those factors are determined,” a Finance aide said in an email, “it’s premature to specify what the IRS will need, and certainly premature to infer the IRS won’t be able to handle it.” . . .
"Oil Spill Coverage Trending Down"

"Oil Spill Coverage Trending Down"

Wasn't this "the biggest environmental disaster the country has ever faced"? Do you think that the lack of coverage is due to Obama's restrictions on news coverage? The Associated Press has this:

Journalists covering the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have been yelled at, kicked off public beaches and islands and threatened with arrest in the nearly three weeks since the government promised improved media access.

Adm. Thad Allen, the federal government’s point person for the response, issued a May 31 directive to BP PLC and federal officials ensuring media access to key sites along the coast. BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles followed up with a letter to news organizations, saying the company “fully supports and defends all individuals’ rights to share their personal thoughts and experiences with journalists if they so choose.”

Those efforts have done little to curtail the obstacles, harassment and intimidation tactics journalists are facing by federal officials and local police, as well as BP employees and contractors, while covering the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history.

“We think a lot of the restrictions are way tighter than they need to be,” said Michael Oreskes, an AP senior managing editor. “So far, I think the government has done a better job of controlling the flow of information than of controlling the flow of oil in the Gulf.” . . .


Broadcasting & Cable has this:

The BP Gulf oil spill was the top story among a mix of media for the week ending July 4, but there are signs the story may be "losing some steam."

That is according to the latest Project for Excellence In Journalism's (PEJ) weekly news coverage index.

The story captured 15% of the news hole, but that is down from the week before, when it had 23% for the number two spot behind the General McChrystal story. And just the week before, the story commanded 44% of the news hole. It was the lowest percentage of coverage since April 19-25, when the oil rig first exploded and the underwater gusher began.

"The once-hot political narrative--the performance of the Obama White House in the crisis--has diminished," said PEJ in its analysis. And while other developments could produce a spike in coverage, the relief well that may provide a breakthrough in containment is not expected to be ready until August."

The second biggest story (13% of the news hole) was about fears of a fizzling economic recovery. Third, with 11%, was coverage of the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Elena Kagan, though that was only half the attention given to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings last year at this time.

Number four at 8% was the story of 10 people in the U.S. accused of being part of a Russian spy ring, while Afghanistan was at number 5 with 5%, down from the 25% and top spot it claimed the week before thanks to the ousting of McChrystal atop the war effort there.
Some documents on Donald Berwick, the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Some documents on Donald Berwick, the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

A couple of writings of Dr. Berwick are here and here. He claimed that government can run the health care system so much more efficiently than private providers.

The Washington Times has this information on Berwick's padded CV.

A NY Times piece that is useful is here discusses rationing.

Krauthammer on "Democrats Don't Want Health Care Debated Again"

From the Hill:

"Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered," Baucus said in a statement.


Transcript of yesterday's WH press briefing:

Q Can I ask one question about Dr. Berwick? Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on Senate Finance, said that he requested that Berwick be given a hearing a couple weeks ago. And obviously, Chairman Baucus did not schedule that. Republicans say they were eager to have the hearing. They wanted to talk about Dr. Berwick’s views and things he said in the past, and it was Democrats who flinched.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, two things. We have -- whether everyone likes it or not, we’ve passed a very important Affordable Care Act, many things of which have to be implemented by the beginning of next year. Whether it’s Medicare and Medicaid innovation, whether it’s increased investment in health IT technology to ensure greater cost savings and greater quality of care, so we need somebody on the job now.

I think if you look at the appointments process such as it has been over the past 18 months, I'm not entirely sure somehow that a hearing was the hurdle. We have had more nominees waiting longer than any administration in recent history. Martha Johnson, who’s probably not a name you know -- she’s the head of the -- she’s the administrator for the General Services Administration -- it took her 10 months to be confirmed to a job of which certainly I can’t recount that her nomination or her name derived some great controversy. Yet it took 10 months and the vote was unanimous.

Q I'm not talking about Martha Johnson, I'm talking about Dr. Berwick.

MR. GIBBS: And I'm talking about a process that is clearly broken; that the President currently has a total of 189 nominees pending before the Senate. The Senate generally has acted on the President’s nominations one or two days before a recess. We have people that are waiting -- 49 of those nominees have been pending for more than six months.

There is no doubt, Jake, that there is a process up on Capitol Hill right now that was not in any danger of moving forward in a way that was quick enough and needed somebody at HHS to run CMS -- that is an important job. This is somebody who has been -- who all involved say is uniquely qualified. And by that I mean the last two CMS -- the last two people that had run CMS from the Bush administration both strongly supported Dr. Berwick’s appointment.

Q But Republicans say Berwick supports health care rationing. That's why they wanted the hearing. I mean, is that true? What’s your reaction to that criticism?

MR. GIBBS: I think that Dr. Berwick made the point that we have rationing right now; that health insurance companies are deciding, based on their bottom line, who gets care. Dr. Berwick -- I doubt if Dr. Berwick was a supporter of whatever theory that is supposed to be, that Mark McClellan and Tom Scully, the previous CMS administrators for the Bush administration, would support his nomination.

Again, I think it’s the type of politics that demonstrates just how badly broken the appointments process is. And the President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. In this case, because the appointments process is clearly broken, he did so through a recess appointment.

Q Did you want to avoid a hearing because of some of Dr. Berwick’s statements on income redistribution, on praise for the national health service of Britain?

MR. GIBBS: No. The President appointed somebody who he believed -- and people, both Democrats and Republicans believed -- was uniquely and supremely to run an agency of the size of CMS.
The Most Transparent Administration Ever hasn't had a press conference for 215 days

The Most Transparent Administration Ever hasn't had a press conference for 215 days

From the Washington Times:

President George W. Bush's longest stretch between prime-time, nationally televised press conferences was 214 days, from April 4 to Nov. 4, 2004. Mr. Obama tops that record on Monday, going 215 days - stretching back to July 22, according to records kept by CBS Radio's veteran reporter Mark Knoller.

The president has seemingly shunned formal, prime-time sessions since his last disastrous presser, when he said police in Cambridge, Mass., "acted stupidly" by arresting a Harvard professor who broke into a home that turned out to be his own. The off-the-cuff comment took over the news cycle for a week, overshadowing his push for health care reform, and culminated in a White House "Beer Summit," where the president hosted white police officer James Crowley and the black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr.

"He does seem a little snakebit on the whole presser thing," said Julie Mason, a longtime White House reporter and board member of the White House Correspondents' Association.

"At his last big press conference in July, he lost control of the message with his response to the Gates question, and then returns six months later with an unannounced, five-question avail in the briefing room - on a snow day. Was it something we said?" , , ,
Leaks about what will be in the new version of the health care bill

Leaks about what will be in the new version of the health care bill

This bill will clearly be more costly than the Senate bill and more of the burden for paying for it will be borne by Medicare payroll taxes and additional Medicare cuts. Obama and Democrats keep promising that there won't be cuts in health care. But why is anyone taking this seriously when the Democrat plan is taking a big cut out of Medicare payments that already compensate hospitals and doctors for less than their costs? This should just be viewed as a tax on medical care providers (hint: further raising the costs for privately insured patients). Note also that the back door huge $60 billion payoff to unions is still in the bill. Why should union workers be subsidized relative to their competitors in non-unionized firms?

The changes to the Senate bill under consideration total about $200 billion and would increase affordability subsidies, change the Cadillac tax on high-end insurance plans to reflect a deal cut with labor unions and further fill the gap in seniors' drug coverage. The changes would be paid for primarily by increasing Medicare payroll taxes and additional Medicare cuts, Democratic insiders said. . . .


Here is the ultimate irony. Democrats are having the televised summit on February 25th to show how transparent they are, but at the same time they are putting together what will be the actual bill in secret. The summit is for show, but the bill being put together in secret is what counts.
Obama grudgingly admits that he broke his C-SPAN promise

Obama grudgingly admits that he broke his C-SPAN promise

During his address to Republican Congressmen last week, Obama wasn't willing to go as far, basically just admitting the first paragraph.

But Mr. Obama, answering a high school student's question about his administration's record on openness, stressed that most of the deliberations over the health care bills were in fact on television because they were negotiated in several congressional committees during open hearings. He also cited praise from an independent ethics watchdog group that has described his administration as the most open in recent history.

Speaking at a town hall in Nashua, N.H., Mr. Obama nevertheless acknowledged that he met repeatedly with Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill behind closed doors to discuss how to merge the House and Senate health bills, which take different approaches to several thorny issues. Doing so violated the letter and — according to some — the spirit of a pledge he made on the campaign trail to broadcast all the negotiations on C-SPAN. . . .
"Progress," but "I'm not going to go into specifics" -- So Much for Transparency

"Progress," but "I'm not going to go into specifics" -- So Much for Transparency

Nancy "There has never been a more open process for any legislation" Pelosi isn't releasing any specifics on the health care negotiations. No one else is giving any specifics.

After two and a half hours talking health care at the White House, congressional Democrats and President Obama are making progress, but don't expect to reach an agreement on pay-fors today, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters a short while ago.

"I'm not going to go into specifics because it's a whole package, and we have to reach agreement on the whole package," he said. "I think this president's participation in the details is an indication of how critically important he thinks it is for the American peope to do what he said he would do and that is to be sure that every American has access to afforable quality health care. And that's not just rhetoric. He's walking the walk."

Hoyer said there is an understanding in the room about how angry House members are over the inclusion of a tax on high-end insurance plans, but that was not the focus of the meeting.

"We've been talking about the whole gamut of issues that are raised by differences by the Senate and the House, the whole gamut," he said.

Asked if Obama told lawmakers what he wants in the bill, Hoyer showed a little separation-of-powers leg.

"Yes, of course, he's given his opinions," Hoyer said. "Congress is an independent body, but we're very interested in what the president's views are."
More confirmation that the Dems will do the Health Care Conference in Secret

More confirmation that the Dems will do the Health Care Conference in Secret

Dems to secretly put together the health care bill in conference.

Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent. And, if the left-wing blogosphere is to be believed, the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.

The Talking Points Memo website reported Monday that Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans," a House Democratic aide told TPM, indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."

It also, say those who are following the issue, allows Pelosi to avoid having to cut deals with problematic House Democrats like Michigan's Bart Stupak, who has promised to do what he can to scuttle the final bill if it provides for federal funding of abortions. . . .
Pork and more pork in the health care bill, no wonder the Democrats want to do all the negotiations in secret

Pork and more pork in the health care bill, no wonder the Democrats want to do all the negotiations in secret

The Freedom Project has a lot of links that it has put together on pork given out in the health care bill. Senator Schumer claims: “Every state got something [in the health care bill]," but it looks to me that Democrat Senators got a lot of pork. Senator Harry Reid "said that if a senator didn't get his state "something" in the health-care "reform" package, then that senator wasn't doing his or her job," though Reid apparently didn't get anything for Nevada. Note that this fits in with the pork given out in the Stimulus, where the money didn't go to states with the most unemployment or other problems, but tended to go to more Democratic states. I have already put up links to many of these points over time, but it is still useful to put them all together in one place. If this doesn't convince the Democrats to have some transparency, I am not sure what will.

The Wall Street Journal calls it "special-interest discrimination" [Transfers to Longshoremen Union] that demonstrates "how all health-care choices will soon be made as Washington expands its political control over one-seventh of the U.S. economy." Here are some of the lowlights:

Pork greased reform's passage: "With the bill hanging in the balance, [Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)] won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal critics have dubbed the Cornhusker Kickback is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years." (Politico)

The $300 million Louisiana purchase: "Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, provided one of the last two votes needed to bring the government health care takeover to the Senate. She didn't even blush about selling her vote. 'I am not going to be defensive. And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix,' Mrs. Landrieu bragged on Nov. 21. This gross windfall will flood into her state through added benefits in the health care bill. This is government at its worst." (Washington Times)

Mmmmm, Pork: "Buried inside Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's 12/19 manager's amendment was a mysterious $100M for an unspecified 'Health Care Facility.' It was confirmed by ABC News' 'The Note' and AP that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) inserted the following paragraph into the health care bill on behalf of his home state…" (National Journal)

Republicans Take Aim at Deal-Making: "Several states -- including Nebraska, Vermont and Massachusetts -- won deals for more generous federal payments under the Medicaid program. 'Who will pay for these special deals?' Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) asked his colleagues. 'The answer is simple -- every other state in the union.'" (Wall Street Journal)

Cost-control and taxes for some, but not for others: "White House budget director Peter Orszag has claimed that the bill's 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance plans is key to reducing health costs. Yet the Senate Majority Leader's new version specifically exempts 'individuals whose primary work is longshore work.' That would be the longshoremen's union, which has negotiated very costly insurance benefits. ... In other words, controlling insurance costs is enormously important, unless your very costly insurance is provided by an important Democratic constituency." (Wall Street Journal)

Concessions lawmakers won in the health bill: "SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA., pushed a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits. … Elsewhere, Medicare Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to Medicare." (Associated Press)

Senate's Deal: Compromise or Corruption?: "Democrats shrugged off questions about the one state deals - saying this is how you get to 60 votes.' That's what this legislation's all about - it's the art of compromise,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. Republicans called it the art of corruption." (CBS News)
Whatever you call them – the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase – these massive giveaways are simply wrong and emblematic of a bill that has been negotiated behind closed doors and away from the watchful eyes of the public and the media.


That's why House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republicans are calling on the president and his allies to "scrap the bill" and start over with a better plan – like the Republican solution that would lower premiums and cut the deficit – and to start conducting major legislative negotiations out in the open.
Obama administration's lack of transparency on national security

Obama administration's lack of transparency on national security

So much for promises on transparency:

While Hoekstra and King were briefed by the White House about the Detroit incident, the pair were also chafing yesterday at what they said was the Obama Administration’s tight control on information about the Detroit incident. As with the shooting at Ft. Hood in November, the White House has ordered federal agencies not to provide briefings or answer inquiries from members of Congress, leaving all such contacts to be handled by the White House.

“I don’t think I ever saw that throughout President Bush’s time in the White House. I could call directly to the director of the CIA or the [National Counterterrorism Center] and get whatever briefings I wanted,” Hoekstra said. He called the briefing limits “totally inappropriate,” but said the White House maintained the orders were needed because of the ongoing criminal investigation.
Stupak predicts problems for the Health Care Bill

Stupak predicts problems for the Health Care Bill

CNS News has this interview with Congressman Stupak. I listened to the interview and it didn't sound as positive. This interview sounds like a good reason for an open conference between the House and Senate.

“If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview.

CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson’s language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?”

“No, absolutely not,” said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan.

“The Senate bill will not receive support in the House,” Stupak said. “If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing.”

Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special “carve outs” for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid.

“That’s not what it’s all about,” he said. “This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it’s not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That’s not what health care is all about. That’s not the policy, that’s not the principle behind the bill. . . .

Stupak was incensed at the special deals.

“All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?”

Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors “take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept” -- and that the bill would tax people who have “decent” health insurance programs.

“Aren’t you really going to force more people off health insurance?” Stupak said.

He added: “If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests,” Stupak said. . . .


An overview of some of the new proposed rules in the health care bill can be seen here. For example,

Q: What if I refuse [getting health care]?

A: You’d face a fine. It would start at $95 a year in 2014 and rise to $750 a year by 2016, or as much as 2% of your income, capped at the value of a basic insurance plan.


Is this serious? Is a fine of even $750 or 2 percent of one's income going to make it financially worthwhile for people to get insurance when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions?
Did President Obama promise to make his administration the most transparent ever?

Did President Obama promise to make his administration the most transparent ever?

On health care the president promised that all negotiations would be open to the public: "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." As the President meets in a closed door session with Senate Democrats, it might be worth remembering that.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



AP also has this about another different meeting tomorrow:

It's hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.
The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama's uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama's first year in office ends, the government's actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president's words.
"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails," Obama told government offices on his first full day as president. "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." . . .
So much for unprecedented transparency: "EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade"

So much for unprecedented transparency: "EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade"

What would the reaction be if the Bush administration had tried to silence critics this way? This is not the first time that the Obama administration has tried to silence experts in government who disagreed with their global warming decisions. From Fox News:

Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked as lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in its San Francisco office for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.

Williams and Zabel oppose cap and trade -- a controversial government allowance program in which companies are issued emissions limits, or caps, which they can then trade -- as a means to fight climate change.

On their own time, Williams and Zabel made a video expressing these opinions.

VIDEO: EPA Employees Speak Out Against Cap and Trade

"Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors," Zabel said in the video. "We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional," he said.

Their bosses in San Francisco approved the effort by Williams and Zabel to release the tape, but after an editorial they wrote appeared in the Washington Post, EPA Director Lisa Jackson ordered the pair to remove the video or face disciplinary action. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)