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]
|
