Post #234,610
11/16/05 10:47:58 PM
|
Disagree
Theres a step in front, where civil servants confer with experts, lawyers and other advisors to (ideally and in a better world than ours) LEARN about what it is they are about to legislate.
Thats what these meetings were, apparently. Meetings with aides (and since they were aids, I bet alot of these meetings happened without any direct knowledge of the CIEIO)where issues were being discussed that these folks thought an energy policy would need to address.
I have no issue with these types of meetings being private and the notes of these meetings being confidential to the taker.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,637
11/17/05 5:23:42 AM
|
Nor would I -
in that 'better world', or even just.. amidst a group of officials less-dedicated to a lifetime of personal aggrandizement of the "exponential $growth" ilk - via the Same industry.
ie Cheney -all by hisself- is a Piece of Work. Him, closeted ___?
These are not 'Normal' times. Or personnel - in Government or in bizness.
|
Post #234,648
11/17/05 9:27:15 AM
|
I just got back from a "step in front"
although interesting I doubt the gummint folks that attended learned dick
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #234,667
11/17/05 10:47:11 AM
|
Qualification on your disagreement
First of all, there is so much work to do that often if you miss those meetings, you miss out. Except on their key issues, politicians tend to become figureheads, rubber stamping choices made by staffers. So a lot of policy is made at what is supposedly a non-policy level. And conversely, after policy is made, what it turns into depends on how it is implemented at lower levels.
But I do agree that there are plenty of meetings that are useless to monitor. (You can remove the words "to monitor" and I still agree with the sentence.) That said, if there is an "out" which government and industry can use to "fly below the radar" on controversial stuff, I firmly believe that they will seek the shade. Therefore I am not inclined to leave them with any.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #234,670
11/17/05 10:56:54 AM
|
Any loophole will be used enthusiastically.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #234,677
11/17/05 11:36:42 AM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #234676 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=234676|ICLRPD]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #234,703
11/17/05 12:39:09 PM
|
If you can say that with a straight face...
...after reading David Brin's "The Transparent Society", then we'll pick this conversation up and continue it. Until then, I'm not picking this fight.
When somebody asks you to trade your freedom for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.
|
Post #234,712
11/17/05 1:49:22 PM
|
I would regardless
there is oversight and then there is obtrusive, non-necessary watchdogging.
In today's environment its leaning too far towards the latter...with a specific focus on "throw their ass in jail" if they say something you don't like.
If you have read the news stories about this...those execs who said "to my knowledge we didn't" are now being threatened to jailtime by congresscritters when they very likely had no real knowledge of these lower staffer meetings and their subjects.
The PAC folks don't ask the Chief Exec to come to these things..they have local and lower business folks come to these things and call it "Government Relations".
Now, do you think that industry experts will be coming forward to offer advice in the future. Guarantee that these folks disallow it by policy...meaning the end result of this is a FURTHER dumbing down of our government.
Superb result.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,738
11/17/05 4:20:42 PM
|
Extremes again
Government should be watched, assuming a free society. When the government no longer has to ask permission to exercise power and the people do, it's not a free society any more. When government becomes as secretive as it has, the suspicion is that government isn't asking permission any more. We have had some pretty heavy handed government in the last 20 years or so. Very few really trust government or at best trust government to be corrupt. Hence the watchdogging mentality. If government would like to avoid this it could be more honest.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with government issuing a statement stating that after meeting with representitives (listed) from Big Oil, various enviromental lobbys (listed), and any other applicable special interest groups (listed), they have come up with an energy policy (stated), for these reasons (stated). It might engender some trust and possibly a decent policy. When they make decisions that shape the future of the entire country, it would be good to know why. If they won't say, then it is up to the citizenry to find out.
That's currently supposed to be done though oversight by our representitives. I would like to say that a candid and honest government would probably not have the same watchdogging going on, but I don't really remember one. I am fairly confident that a dishonest and secretive government is going to attact a lot of snoops and conspiricy theorists. My memory is good enough for that statement...
Oh, and having someone else do the dirty work for you is not a real good defense. So the concept of all those mini meenies doing dastardly deeds in spite of the best intentions of our exemplary, honest, and loyal representitives has probably been run through a horse.
|
Post #234,750
11/17/05 5:24:27 PM
|
Not that extreme
because given the way this and the last several "advice" sessions have gone...all "outed" by the watchdog groups that many feel are necessary...the end result has always been very bad PR >at best<.
If I were running a company I would have a completely changed process by now for my PAC group and my Gov Rltns team when dealing with the Fed...and it would start with "Thou shalt not"
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,751
11/17/05 5:33:15 PM
|
That would be nice
A government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations is called a fascist government. I'd prefer not to have one of those. I would like to see corporations stay out of government entirely. Then maybe people would get some representation; they sure can't outbid a major corp now.
Maybe the last several advice sessions have been bad PR, because they benefited a few corps allied with the present government at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. And they got caught. Poor babies... that can't be allowed to stand. Lock them doors! Shutter the windows! We don't need no stinking democracy. On with the secrecy!
Sheesh...
|
Post #234,770
11/17/05 7:55:28 PM
|
I see we are forgetting a simple credo
Those who can do, do
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.
Those who can't teach gym run for office.
(ok...I made up that last one ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,823
11/18/05 8:26:36 AM
|
Speaking of "Government Relations".
How about [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602518.html|Wal-Mart hiring the wife of a legislator] on a key vote: Preparing for a showdown with organized labor in the Maryland legislature, Wal-Mart has deployed at least a dozen Annapolis lobbyists and is making strong overtures to black lawmakers, including a $10,000 donation to help them pay for a recent conference.
The retail giant hopes to derail legislation that would effectively force the company to boost spending on employee health benefits. o o o Other lobbyists registered to represent the company included Pamela Metz Kasemeyer, the wife of a state senator who voted for the bill;... And this is in broad daylight! But then these folks gave us [link|http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000059|Spiro Agnew] so we can "get the best government money can buy". Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #234,830
11/18/05 9:31:52 AM
|
proves they are cheap bastards, thats all
In Alaska the wife of the chair insurance committee got 75K from insurance co's on workmans comp. 10k pocket change.
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #234,798
11/17/05 11:38:39 PM
|
Litmus test
All things being equal, if this had happened during the Clinton Admin, would you consider it suspicious and/or worthy of investigation?
"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot
|
Post #234,800
11/17/05 11:53:42 PM
|
Let's see...
[link|http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15jun03/hillary.htm|Linky]: The Clinton Administration's Health Care Task Force worked in near-complete secrecy. Its 1,364 page "[link|http://www.ibiblio.org/nhs/NHS-T-o-C.html|Health Security Act]" is a study in complexity. In the view of Jane M. Orient, M.D., author of the forthcoming book Your Doctor Is Not In (Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1994), the Clinton plan "creates cartels, empowers bureaucrats, and disenfranchises both patients and doctors." Emphasis added. I think that one of the reasons why the Clinton health care plan failed was the secrecy. It may not have been the most important reason, but it certainly was a reason. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #234,826
11/18/05 9:12:55 AM
|
No
for fairly obvious reasons...that its no different than before and unfortunately agree with the stance of both administrations that in order to get candid advice to members of the government (in their case the exec branch)...you have to allow these meetings to be and remain private.
To expect different is sort of like expecting it to be ok for your employer to review all your posts here because sometimes you ask for advice that you use in the office.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,828
11/18/05 9:21:34 AM
|
Aha!
According to the report from Scott's link: "Judge Royce Lamberth of the District Court for the District of Columbia judge imposed sanctions for the Clinton administration's misconduct and ordered the government to pay more than $285,000 to the AAPS. The AAPS' litigation contended that the Clintons' Task Force on Health Care Reform operated illegally, relying on private advisors and meeting in secret."
Therefore, Bill, since you concur above, one can definitely and objectively state that the sauce is for both goose and gander.
I rest my case.
Peace,
Amy
"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot
|
Post #234,837
11/18/05 10:41:17 AM
|
Don't think you understand
If there are laws being broken, which apparently someone felt above...fine. I've no problem with the injured parties seeking redress for that. And, if this current group ran afoul of those same laws, then fine, give the injured parties compensation through the courts.
I haven't seen anyone make a similar argument in this case.
I still don't feel that there is a need to have 100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers, watchdogged.
This current situation has turned into a witchhunt. Call it entrapment. Get someone to tell you something, then look at all possible methods of "proving" a lie and slamming them for perjury. And its not the government they are hunting, for the most part. Now its private citizens that possibly even thought they were doing their civic duty.
Now what are you telling them. Your civic duty will get you 3 to 5.
Sorry, I don't volunteer for that and in the end this will be a BAD result. Its a spiral downward that noone will benefit from.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,840
11/18/05 11:02:32 AM
|
This has gone from funny to sad...
If you can prove that no laws have been broken without oversight, then we don't need no stinking oversight. I'm sure all the bad guys will volunteer to be indited.
Watchdogging is none or all. "100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers"... sheesh.
"This current situation has turned into a witchhunt. Call it entrapment." Awww... just 'cause they act in an untrustworthy manner we are such meanies for suggesting that we don't trust them explicitly. Who'd a thunk it?
In the end it'll be BAD... Worse than a civil war? Worse than a fascist state? Well, the business guys will like fascism, and maybe they can sell weapons in the civil war...
And of course only business people can manage anything. We should be grateful that they allow us as much representation as we get. 'Cause they know better 'cause they're business people...
pathetic.
and sad.
Well, we didn't need a democracy anyway. We haven't been using it any time recently.
A sense of humor doesn't help anymore.
|
Post #234,846
11/18/05 11:16:51 AM
|
You're doing it again.
Hey Bill, I still don't feel that there is a need to have 100% of all government meetings, inclusive of lower staffers, watchdogged. [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_the_Sunshine_Act|Sunshine laws] don't, and shouldn't, apply to 100% of all government meetings. One of Congress's most important functions is oversight of the Executive branch. In [link|http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03894.pdf|this] GAO report (31 page .pdf) it says: p.5-6: From the outset, OVP [Office of the Vice President] did not respond to our request for information, including descriptive information on the process by which the National Energy Policy report was developed, asserting that we lacked statutory authority to examine NEPDG activities. We were also denied the opportunity to interview staff assisting the Vice President on the NEPDG effort. As a result, throughout the spring and summer of 2001, we engaged in extensive attempts to reach an agreement with OVP on our information request in an effort to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in a manner that accommodated the Vice President\ufffds asserted need to protect certain executive deliberations. Importantly, we significantly narrowed the scope of our review by, among other things, withdrawing our initial request for minutes of NEPDG meetings. We also offered flexibility in how we would access certain documents. Despite our concerted efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation, the Vice President denied us access to virtually all requested information, with the exception of a few documents purportedly related to NEPDG costs that OVP provided to us. The Vice President\ufffds denial of access challenged GAO\ufffds fundamental authority to evaluate the process by which NEPDG had developed a national energy policy and to obtain access to records that would shed light on that process. As authorized by GAO\ufffds access-to-records statute, after exhausting the processes specified in that statute for achieving a resolution and receiving a request from two senate full committee chairs and two senate subcommittee chairs to pursue our evaluation,4 we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 22, 2002, to obtain the limited factual NEPDG information that we had requested.5 On December 9, 2002, the district court dismissed GAO\ufffds suit on jurisdictional grounds, without reaching the merits of GAO\ufffds authority to audit and evaluate NEPDG activities or to obtain access to NEPDG records.6 After considerable bipartisan outreach efforts to the Congress, GAO decided not to appeal the district court decision.7 A detailed chronology of our efforts to obtain access to NEPDG records can be found on GAO\ufffds Web site. p.7-8: According to the best information that we could obtain, the National Energy Policy report was the product of a centralized, top-down, shortterm, and labor-intensive process that involved the efforts of several hundred federal employees governmentwide. NEPDG\ufffdcomprised mostly of cabinet-level officials (Principals)\ufffdand its Support Group\ufffdcomprised mostly of select DOE officials detailed to OVP\ufffdcontrolled most facets of the report\ufffds development. [...] This wasn't a few people meeting in the hallway and talking about what they were going to do over the weekend. Congress apparently tried to address legitimate concerns by the administration but were thwarted at every turn. On the "witchhunt" - sure there's some posturing and grandstanding going on by the opposition. That's part of the purpose of having an opposition. But shouldn't it be the case that the rules about testifying truthfully, even if not under oath, are respected? Wouldn't it be disconcerting if incorrect information was presented in response to subpoenas by a Senate committee and nobody cared? My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #234,885
11/18/05 1:11:12 PM
|
No, I'm not
Theres a happy medium...and you and I are probably not as far apart as it seems.
I support the GAO oversight, think its a good thing.
And it sounds like they think the law is being circumvented and it sounds like a Judge disagreed with them (unlike the previous healthcare issue apparently).
So process is working.
Sounds to me like there are others here that think there should be no happy medium. And I disagree.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #234,831
11/18/05 9:33:30 AM
|
a previous employer did think it was ok to do same
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
