The Most Transparent Administration Ever

[3rdnlng]

Not faulting you at all, I realize that's likely what happened. And my second post was simply asking for other instances of the non-transparency of the administration so we could have a larger conversation that wasn't based on anecdotal examples. I am not refuting anything. I totally agree that this administration backed out of a promise to become more transparent. But I don't have any examples at hand to actually point to an instance where they could have been transparent and chose not to be. That's all I want, an actual example that we can discuss. Since you are the OP and trying to make this point, I think it is on you to find another concrete example to make your point since your original example did not work. Otherwise, the conversation will devolve into personal attacks like it is dangerous close to now. And I suppose I am "not very credible" because I ask that we center our discussion around actual examples rather than bashing things willy-nilly?

 

Here's one from the Huffington Post:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

 

And here's one from Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0511/Obama_administration_opposes_transparency_for_Fannie_Mae_Freddie_Mac.html

Edited November 18, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

Here's one from the Huffington Post:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

 

And here's one from Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0511/Obama_administration_opposes_transparency_for_Fannie_Mae_Freddie_Mac.html

 

Quite often it's not even the President's call. Fannie and Freddie, for example...if they're anything like Ginnie (and they're not - they're far, far more screwed up), "transparency" runs afoul of more than a few finance and privacy laws. For another example, the contracting and procurement process is practically required to be opaque to preserve fairness and guarantee - in ironically and extraordinarily wasteful fashion - that the taxpayer isn't getting ripped off.

[WilliamCody]

Here's one from the Huffington Post:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

 

And here's one from Politico

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0511/Obama_administration_opposes_transparency_for_Fannie_Mae_Freddie_Mac.html

 

from the Huffington article:

Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes.

 

Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored.

 

Major agencies cited the exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.

 

This reveals, to me, that there is little centralized command in the administration. Either that, or it was a PR move and the admin had no intention of ever stopping the exemptions.

 

from Politico:

The Obama administration is opposing an effort by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to make failed mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subject to public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act, Marketwatch reports.

 

Edward DeMarco, the Housing and Urban Development official who oversees the federal bailout and effective control of the firms, said it would set a bad precedent and be expensive to make them comply with FOIA, the financial news outlet said.

 

My guess is that it would be time consuming and expensive to reply to the many FOIA requests that would come from this move. Its up to the public to debate whether the information gained from such requests would be worth such an expenditure. We'll have to decide in this case what is more important, getting the "real story" behind Freddy and Fanny, or spending more money on these inquiries. I always tend to fall on the side of more information.

[3rdnlng]

Quite often it's not even the President's call. Fannie and Freddie, for example...if they're anything like Ginnie (and they're not - they're far, far more screwed up), "transparency" runs afoul of more than a few finance and privacy laws. For another example, the contracting and procurement process is practically required to be opaque to preserve fairness and guarantee - in ironically and extraordinarily wasteful fashion - that the taxpayer isn't getting ripped off.

 

The Huffington Post article compared the amount of exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act in 2009 to 2008. Just going by that, Bush's administration was a lot more transparent. We know though that transparency is more than just letting people know how decisions were/are being made. It's about honesty and by extension lack of "spin" ie. we created "X" amount of jobs but the real story is that we "saved" a trillion good paying jobs with the Stimulus.

[DC Tom]

The Huffington Post article compared the amount of exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act in 2009 to 2008. Just going by that, Bush's administration was a lot more transparent. We know though that transparency is more than just letting people know how decisions were/are being made. It's about honesty and by extension lack of "spin" ie. we created "X" amount of jobs but the real story is that we "saved" a trillion good paying jobs with the Stimulus.

 

And that's probably not a good measure, as it's non-random (i.e. not all FOIA requests are equal - I'd expect more requests related to the financial industry since 2008, which are rather more liable to restriction under FOIA than other types), and a raw number (i.e. you'd expect more rejections if there's more requests - a percentage of requests rejected would be a more accurate number).

[3rdnlng]

And that's probably not a good measure, as it's non-random (i.e. not all FOIA requests are equal - I'd expect more requests related to the financial industry since 2008, which are rather more liable to restriction under FOIA than other types), and a raw number (i.e. you'd expect more rejections if there's more requests - a percentage of requests rejected would be a more accurate number).

 

Good point. I don't have the time to do the research it would take to do a comprehensive study, but I certainly get the feeling that this administration is all about cloak & dagger.

[GG]

This topic never gets old - Hope & change, baby.

[Juror#8]

They foolishly promised transparancy during the campaign. Unfortunately, you have to grow up once you get in office.....

 

+1

 

And that has been about 50% of his first term - naive promises that didn't (or couldn't) materialize.

 

For a variety of reasons the guy was woefully unprepared to be president.

[GG]

For a variety of reasons the guy was woefully unprepared to be president.

 

And for another variety of reasons, he's one of the few who also didn't learn on the job.