Promises kept and broken

[tigerbob]

Obama has kept a number of promises over the first few weeks, some of which I was particularly pleased to see. One that he’s broken however that pisses me off a bit is the one about curtailing lobbyist influence.

Close the revolving door on former and future employers:
No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Ethics

I remember Obama taking McCain to task several times on this issue during the campaign, and was very pleased to see it, in particular in relation to healthcare.

However, I'm less pleased to see fractures appearing in this promise. I know that there are people out there who want to defend everything Obama does, because anyone who attacks him on one point "must therefore be a Republican on all other points". Well, I'm not, and I think Obama has done a number of good things over the first 2 months of his administration. This one however, and the manner in which it is being spun, reeks of political damage limitation.

On his first day in office, he signed an Executive Order which was largely aligned with the promise he had made (see link above).

BUT...there was a get out of jail free card hidden in the XO, termed a "Waiver" in the language used (Section 3 of the XO)

Executive Order - Ethics Commitments

Essentially the waiver says the administration can appoint anyone if blocking their appointment would be inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or not in the public interest. That's a pretty damn wide waiver. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could drive a coach and horses right through the middle of it without touching the sides.

And it appears that the waiver is being used.

• William J. Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, was appointed Deputy Defense Secretary (with a waiver).
• Jocelyn Frye, who is now director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, previously lobbied for National Partnership for Women and Families (with a waiver).
• Cecilia Muñoz, now director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, and the administration's principal liaison to the Hispanic community, formerly lobbied for National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization (with a waiver).

More worrying even than these are the stories that some lobbyists are getting in through the back door (i.e. without a waiver of any kind), if they simply "recuse" themselves (i.e. promise not to get involved with stuff they've been lobbying about).

I've included some links to stories related to both these points below.

Obama finds room for lobbyists - Kenneth P. Vogel and Mike Allen - Politico.com
Political Punch: President's Nominee for Trade Rep, a Lobbyist in 2008, to Take Advantage of Loophole in Anti-Lobbyist Regs
National Journal Magazine - Former Lobbyists Join Obama
TheHill.com - Lobbyists slipping into Obama administration
Likely Justice Department nominee faces ethics hurdle - Los Angeles Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10frye.html?_r=1

Now, it may be that this is a storm in a teacup (as we say in England). However, my issue is with lack of transparency. A promise was made during the election campaign, and it is being deliberately circumvented. Even worse, this maneuver is being given a veneer of legitimacy by the use of White House Counsels to certify that hirings are in the public interest.

This is not the change we needed. This, in my view, is the same shit as before, just done with a bit more guile.

I don't particularly have a problem with hiring lobbyists - in fact I think Obama was a bit naive to think he could do without them, but then again he hasn't been an elected politician for very long so I can perhaps excuse that to a point. What I do have a problem with is him changing his mind (or someone else changing it for him) and then trying to limit the damage by coming up with plausible rationales rather than just being honest about it.

Maybe it wasn't him being naive. Maybe it was me for hoping that we'd actually have a politician who would stick to his promises or be honest about why he couldn't. But I can't help remembering that he said we should hold him accountable.

And before the Republicans pile on, let's remember this didn't start with Obama. That would be a bit pot/kettle.

 

[Xenophon]

I believe the term is 'feet of clay.'

 

[editec]

No way that revolving door is every going to close.

In order to be expert enough to be involved in these offices, either in the public or private sector, one has to have SOME experience.

I am NOT trying to justify this, in fact I hate it.

But that is how and why it keeps happening.

There is a LOT more RAW talent out there than billets for that talent to do what they're capable of doing.

But even the potentially talented really need some hands on experience before they can do these jobs and fill these positions.

Hlf the people writing on this board are probably intelligent enough to be a Senator, but there's only 100 of those positions available.

Know what I mean?

When power and powerful positions are so limited, but people capable of doing those positions is not, what matters isn't so much are you capable of doing the job? but who do you know that will help you get that position?

This is why in many cases, the same families are found in positions of power generation after generation in American history.

They're not THAT much more talented, but they ARE that much better connected.

Is this really news to anyone?

 

[Munin]

actually there are certain websites that monitor things like promises kept and broken, like the one in my sig for example: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

according to politifact he has only broken 3 promises and kept 19 promises so far, I think he s doing good so far (in general).

 

[tigerbob]

No way that revolving door is every going to close.

In order to be expert enough to be involved in these offices, either in the public or private sector, one has to have SOME experience.

I am NOT trying to justify this, in fact I hate it.

But that is how and why it keeps happening.

There is a LOT more RAW talent out there than billets for that talent to do what they're capable of doing.

But even the potentially talented really need some hands on experience before they can do these jobs and fill these positions.

Hlf the people writing on this board are probably intelligent enough to be a Senator, but there's only 100 of those positions available.

Know what I mean?

When power and powerful positions are so limited, but people capable of doing those positions is not, what matters isn't so much are you capable of doing the job? but who do you know that will help you get that position?

This is why in many cases, the same families are found in positions of power generation after generation in American history.

They're not THAT much more talented, but they ARE that much better connected.

Is this really news to anyone?

Couldn't agree more. I just want transparency.

 

[tigerbob]

actually there are certain websites that monitor things like promises kept and broken, like the one in my sig for example: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

according to politifact he has only broken 3 promises and kept 19 promises so far, I think he s doing good so far (in general).

I was only aware of 2 of the lobbyists when I started looking into this, but I did get the name of the 3rd initially from Politifact - some of their content turned up in the searches I was doing. I also noticed they had this very point listed as a broken promise (which was nice because I thought I might be barking up the wrong tree).

And you're right, it is a very good site, with a huge number of links used to substantiate its content. It also appears to be a relatively impartial, which makes a change.

 

[amrchaos]

No way that revolving door is every going to close.

In order to be expert enough to be involved in these offices, either in the public or private sector, one has to have SOME experience.

I am NOT trying to justify this, in fact I hate it.

But that is how and why it keeps happening.

There is a LOT more RAW talent out there than billets for that talent to do what they're capable of doing.

But even the potentially talented really need some hands on experience before they can do these jobs and fill these positions.

Hlf the people writing on this board are probably intelligent enough to be a Senator, but there's only 100 of those positions available.

Know what I mean?

When power and powerful positions are so limited, but people capable of doing those positions is not, what matters isn't so much are you capable of doing the job? but who do you know that will help you get that position?

This is why in many cases, the same families are found in positions of power generation after generation in American history.

They're not THAT much more talented, but they ARE that much better connected.

Is this really news to anyone?

Couldn't agree more. I just want transparency.

You want more than just transparency

You want influence!!

That is why Washington is flooded with lobbyists. To gain influence over the people that make the laws. You will never get rid of them. In fact, you wish you had a team of them that worked for you!!

 

[Truthmatters]

Lobbyists are not inherently bad.

I think they should be allowed to lobby but to give NO fucking money except as a citizen.

 

[tigerbob]

No way that revolving door is every going to close.

In order to be expert enough to be involved in these offices, either in the public or private sector, one has to have SOME experience.

I am NOT trying to justify this, in fact I hate it.

But that is how and why it keeps happening.

There is a LOT more RAW talent out there than billets for that talent to do what they're capable of doing.

But even the potentially talented really need some hands on experience before they can do these jobs and fill these positions.

Hlf the people writing on this board are probably intelligent enough to be a Senator, but there's only 100 of those positions available.

Know what I mean?

When power and powerful positions are so limited, but people capable of doing those positions is not, what matters isn't so much are you capable of doing the job? but who do you know that will help you get that position?

This is why in many cases, the same families are found in positions of power generation after generation in American history.

They're not THAT much more talented, but they ARE that much better connected.

Is this really news to anyone?

Couldn't agree more. I just want transparency.

You want more than just transparency

You want influence!!

That is why Washington is flooded with lobbyists. To gain influence over the people that make the laws. You will never get rid of them. In fact, you wish you had a team of them that worked for you!!

Thanks for the definition. And there was me thinking it was a euphemism for people who breed Golden Retrievers.

This may surprise you, but you don't actually know me better than I know myself. No, I don't want influence. I'm quite happy being who I am (a relatively insignificant individual). What I do want - in case the earlier posts didn't make it clear enough - is transparency about who has influence and what baggage they are carrying.

 

[amrchaos]

But bob, what good is knowing who has the influence if you cannot do anything to stop them from stepping on you?

I guess the situation you are pushing for is something like the following: I like to know who shot me!!

What I prefer is: I like to keep people from shooting me!!

That little difference means alot..

 

[tigerbob]

Lobbyists are not inherently bad.

I think they should be allowed to lobby but to give NO fucking money except as a citizen.

But that would mean anyone running for office would have to spend a reasonable amount of money as opposed to an obscene amount. It would also mean they might have less political favors to pay back. Good God, it might also mean influence is curtailed and becomes based on what policies the lobbyists can actually present in a convincing way rather than the ones that come with the biggest backhanders. And lobbyists might actually lobby for the stuff they believe in, not for the stuff with the deepest pockets!

It'd be anarchy!

 

[tigerbob]

But bob, what good is knowing who has the influence if you cannot do anything to stop them from stepping on you?

I guess the situation you are pushing for is something like the following: I like to know who shot me!!

What I prefer is: I like to keep people from shooting me!!

That little difference means alot..

Sure, but that's democracy for you. If you know who has been influencing who (let me rephrase - if you care who has been influencing who) then you can make up your mind about who to vote for.

If politicians actually thought the voters gave a damn they would be more circumspect about who they employ and who they accept brib...I mean contributions from.

Unfortunately, politicians know only too well that a huge number of people vote red or blue out of habit, complacency, hostility or ignorance, and nearly all the rest don't have the time to research issues so they make their choices based on what the media tells them and who wins the debates.

As for me, I like to know the background behind certain headlines (not all of them, just the ones that matter to me), which is probably why I drive most of my friends nuts when they can't happily fit me into one pigeonhole or the other.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lobbyists are not inherently bad.

I think they should be allowed to lobby but to give NO fucking money except as a citizen.

Let's all remember that lobbyists are protected by the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

[tigerbob]

Lobbyists are not inherently bad.

I think they should be allowed to lobby but to give NO fucking money except as a citizen.

Let's all remember that lobbyists are protected by the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Notice the word "free" is not included in the last part of the sentence.

 

[Truthmatters]

Petitioning does not need to involve giving money to a candidate.

People have a right to give money.

Groups and corps dont need to give money to petition.

They can encourage their members to give money as individuals.

Lets all remember that indivuals can only give a certain amount.