White House Office of Administration Not Subject to FOIA, Says White House

An anonymous reader writes with this story at USA Today: The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office. The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law.

Comments

Transparency in Government is good!

[Peter Simpson]

...except when it applies to us?

This is not the kind of "hope and change" I voted for, Mr. President.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, did I say "Hope and Change"? I meant "Rules for Thee, Not for Me!" Whoops. - BHO

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[houghi]

Well, vote for the other one next time and see if that makes a difference. It is a tried method that has been done over several decades.

Well, It has been tried and the outcome has been the same every time. But THIS time there wil REALLY be a difference and things will be better.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[sycodon]

Most transparent..Ahhahaha..Most..hehheahhaaa..Most transparent Admi...cough choke...ROFLMAO! oh, Fuck It, I can't even say it without laughing.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[knightghost]

Neither major party supports the country. Vote for a 3rd option.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[Grishnakh]

"but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?

The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.

Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[Tablizer]

Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.

I do credit O for trying it.

To give an IT analogy, it would be like a GUI design meeting where one side adamantly wanted a command line interface and thought all GUI's stank.

Fred: "Bob, do you think the button should go on the top or the bottom?"

Bob: "Screw buttons, GUI's are for sissies and encourage OS bloat dependency."

Fred: "Mark, how about you, where should the button go?"

Mark: "I'll tell you where to shove the button! I refuse to participate in the GUI take-over of computers. This will ruin the fabric of computing society and kill IT jobs!"
     

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[pla]

WTF? Nobody that voted Nader was sane.

You seem to misunderstand the point.

No one who voted for Nader cared about his sanity - Burning the whole fucking thing down and start over looks a hell of a lot more appealing than yet another four years of the slow erosion of our rights.

We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia. The big enemy (drugs and terrorism and copyright violators and Cuba aside), notorious for its human rights abuses and opaque near-totalitarian government. And our political refugees flee there?

People didn't vote for Nader to vote for Nader. They voted for Nader to vote for "anyone else".

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[ConceptJunkie]

The wags would say that if voting could change anything, the politicians would make it illegal.

Actually, I don't really buy that. But, voting only changes something when the electorate is educated and voters take their voting duty seriously. This doesn't happen in the U.S. for a majority of voters. We only need to see who gets elected and their track records to know this.

For every person who is making an informed decision based on their beliefs, and their understanding of the candidates and their positions (and I would guess that the /. audience has more than its share of these), there are several low-information voters who are deciding solely on whose commercial hits all the right notes.

Normally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there is way too much evidence, given the kinds of polls you see about the level of general knowledge of the average American, to believe that most Americans are making educated decisions on whom to vote for. There are other issues, such as our voting system pretty much forcing a two-party system to arise, but just watching the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of many of our elected officials says a lot. In a better world, a lot of these people would have been laughed off of the ballots.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[ConceptJunkie]

This is fine if voting were a philosophical decision. But it isn't. Not really. It's a game theory decision. You are voting to maximize the benefits to the city/state/nation based on the choices offered. Voting for the perfect third party candidate, when there is no chance that person can win, is not maximizing the benefits of the outcome. Voting for the "least evil" of the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning (and in a general election, the number of candidates is almost always two) will produce the most benefit.

Those people who voted for Nader in 2000 were in effect voting for Bush. Those who voted for Perot in 1992 were in effect voting for Clinton. It has nothing to do with Nader or Perot as candidates, but the mechanics of a winner-take-all, first-over-the-line voting system. Voting for a third party candidate is, for all intents and purposes, voting for the candidate of the Two Party duopoly who is _least_ like the third-party candidate.

Every politician, every PAC, every campaign does everything in its power to game the system, not because they are corrupt or evil, although many are, but because that's how you win. Similarly, voters should spend a little more time considering the actual effects of their votes in addition to the intended effects of their vote. I would join in the call for a better, more mathematically sound, voting system, but that ain't gonna happen.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[Obfuscant]

We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia.

And we had people hijacking planes to Cuba because they thought they would get welcomed with open arms and treated better than the normal Cuban.

Where do you expect people who make themselves the enemy of a government to go? They can't go anyplace that's friendly to their ex-residence. There's nothing significant about them going to Russia as far as Russia's human rights record goes, it's all about Russia being unlikely to send them back. They may or may not have some idealized view of how they'll be welcomed there, but when you burn enough bridges eventually you are stuck in one place -- even if that place isn't the nicest island on the planet.

And our political refugees flee there?

And theirs flee here. That's part of the definition of the word "refugee". And a lot of other country's "refugees" flee to here, even when they aren't truly refugees, just because this place is better. People keep forgetting that when it comes to talking about how awful the US is. The US doesn't have an illegal emigration problem, for a reason.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[T.E.D.]

Well, you could try voting in the primaries this time too. That's the only election that actually scares our lawmakers, so that's where an impact can really be made.

That's the realization Lessig's MAYDAY PAC recently came to.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[currently_awake]

Voting for a third party maximizes your influence on government, because the major parties see those "lost" votes as "available, if you offer me something". Politicians don't campaign for decided voters, they campaign for the voters they could influence. If you vote for a major party you have NO influence on government.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[currently_awake]

And Obama voted for all of those bills. He most certainly DID make things worse.

Re:Transparency in Government is good!

[sycodon]

The fact that over 700 amendments were still unable to fix it should tell you something. In the end, no Republicans voted for it.

Democrats will often say, well, what's your alternative? When you are standing at the edge of a cliff and one party is contemplating jumping, you should not be discussing different ways of jumping. Perhaps just not jumping would have been the better solution.

Most transparent Admn ever....

[cayenne8]

....man, I'm glad he's kept so SOOOO many of his election year promises. Transparency was one of the big ones I actually liked in what he was saying.

Oh well....

Re:Most transparent Admn ever....

[AntEater]

His election was the triumph of marketing over substance!

Re:Most transparent Admn ever....

[Archangel Michael]

He isn't "essentially" like a republican, as he has the cover of press. Had this been an actual republican, the press would be apoplectic over this. So, in a way, he is worse that republicans.

And the same can be said for HRC and her email scandal. There is an increased deference given to anybody with a (D) after their name.

So, why would you vote for (D)? Because they say things in ways that make you feel good, while screwing you like an (R)?

Nothing to hide, Heh!

[Anonymous Coward]

What ugly things are you trying to hide Mr. President?

The fact that you are no longer represent people of this country?
The fact that your actions are exact opposite of your rhetoric claims?

Is it an attempt to remove any possibility for people to learn and act,
provided they will wake up one day?

Makes me wonder ....

Re:A final admission of defeat?

[phantomfive]

I expected Republicans to fight him at every turn - that's what opposition parties do.

Blaming Republicans is just an excuse for people with a short memory, their actions are not unprecedented or even the worst ever.....Clinton got it even worse, he actually was impeached. Yet Clinton still got things done.