Do you remember these Obama campaign promises:
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government” — Barack Obama, January 28, 2009
Promising “a new era of openness in our country,” President Obama [said]: “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency” — CNN, January 21, 2009
“A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, ‘sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’ In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike. . . .
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government” — Barack Obama, January 21, 2009
How does Obama square his “new era of open government” with left-wing liberal’s refusal to investigate Acorn’s rampant corruption, intimidation techniques and voter fraud ?
Why would the Congress use the cover of Michael Jackson’s spectacle of a funeral to slip through Cap & Trade is “open government” is now they name of the game?
Why is Obama so very anxious to pass a healthcare bill he hasn’t even read?
Obama was asked in a press conference about Section 102 of the Health Care Reform Bill and he could not answer … stating he was unfamiliar with that section. That is simply amazing to me since Obama has promised us that if we have andwant to keep our private insurance we can … and Section 102 deals precisely with that issue.
While Section 102 does not “outlaw” private health insurance as some have claimed, it does regulate it out of existance:
Secton 102.a does allow individual plans to be grandfathered in so long as they do not ever change their benefits, cost shares, terms & conditions (except as required by law), or enroll any new people except dependants after the date this plan goes into effect. But how realistic is that? How long can the plan remain competitve without enrolling new members or changing something? This means that they can’t reduce the cost shares the enrollee has to pay without it being “required by law” or they lose their grandfathered status, right? They can’t increase their benefits without it being “required by law” to better serve their enrollees without losing their grandfathered status. Yes, this will prevent them from reducing benefits and cost shares, but it also prevents the reverse.
Section 102.c states that any individual plan that is not grandfathered (meaning static and not allowed to change to reflect new technologies and procedures that are not “required by law”) “may only be offered as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”
And what about all these Czars? How do they fit into Obama’s “open and transparent government?” By most counts, Obama currently has nearly three dozen czars in his administration, managing everything from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to ending the genocide in Darfur. It is interesting to me that both Republicans and Democrats seem to have a problem with this Czarist system:
“The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., wrote in a letter to Obama.
Rep. Jack Kington, R-Ga., promised legislation to address what he’s call a “parallel government” that he says diminishes the Senate advice and consent role.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed concern that the president may be breaking his promise of transparency stating that by “creating these czars that are insulated from accountability, whose work is not transparent, he’s moving in exactly the opposite direction.”
How about this little tidbit? According to the watchdog organization overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full tab for bailouts and stimulus since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars. Thats about $80,000 for every American citizen.
According to the Associated Press, that $23.7 trillion figure is comprised of “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve.”
In testimony delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP, will tell Congress that “the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations aimed at making the TARP program more accountable and transparent.” According to Barofsky, taxpayers are in the dark as to who has received the money and what they are doing with it.
Oh yeah … I remember now … they are buying pork! It seems that the Department of Agriculture has awarded a contract worth $1,191,200 for 2 lbs of “Frozen Ham, Sliced”.
So … I wonder … where is all this “sunshine” and transparent government you promised your voters Mr. Obama? Or … was it all exactly what I believed it to be … a big, fat charismatic lie?
Hey… does it bother anyone else that Obama now controls OnStar?
Oh wait …. I know … it is all Bush’s fault we now have a left-wing shadow government and at its head … a tin-horn dictator.