Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the well-they-certainly-are-transparent dept.

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.

62 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Transparency in Government is good! by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...except when it applies to us?

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

    1. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nobody reads anymore:

      "In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA, "because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority."

      The appeals court ruled that the White House was required to archive the e-mails, but not release them under the FOIA. Instead, White House e-mails must be released under the Presidential Records Act — but not until at least five years after the end of the administration."

      Nothing to see her folks.

    5. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      At this point, I have come to the conclusion that Obama has difficulty distinguishing between "transparency" and "invisibility."

    6. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by tmosley · · Score: 2

      The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?

    7. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Then no one should get excited when they don't respond since they are not required too.

    8. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      Fool you once, shame on him.
      Fool you twice, shame on you.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    9. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      those who think the true power browers will ALLOW a 3rd party candidate - you assholes are so out of touch with reality, you are helping to ruin things by giving people false hope.

      the only way to fix this is to totally break it and reinvent it.

      the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES. how long will it take you numbskulls to get this into your heads? america is NOT a free nation and those who run things alternate parties to keep us thinking we have a choice.

      the last few decades have been mostly the same, only with some minor details as differences, to give us the impression that we have a choice.

      we have NO CHOICE. we have not had a choice for decades; maybe not ever.

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

      I wish you guys were right, but you are simply out of touch. the big guys control things and its a grand distraction to think that voting A or B (or C!) will have any meaningful impact.

      the sooner we all admit voting and 2party system is fully broken, the sooner we can get real change. until then, your cute 'vote for indie' does nothing at all but make you think you are superior, all the while, still playing the game set out for you by the real power brokers.

      and btw, you will never know the names of the real power brokers. the figureheads are just that; there to give you a reason to rally and fight 'the othe guy' over. but the real purse strings are held by those who are not elected and who are plutocrats, ultra rich who truly control how things go.

      I wish I was wrong! but experience shows that 'voting' has not done a damned thing to restore rights to the people and over time, things continue to get worse for us, not better, no matter WHO we 'vote' for.

      sigh - wish people would see this and stop believing in the fairy tale.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by knightghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    11. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    12. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      To be fair, "most transparent" relative to the past may be true. If you get a D- while all your predecessors got an F, then you have the "best grades so far". Thus, technically he may be correct, even if misleading.

      I'm not sure perfect transparency is good thing anyhow. When they tried an open public discussion on the ACA bill, it turned into a useless posing and rant session. People spend more time performing for a sound-bite-sensitive crowd than doing real work.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    13. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um, there was zero debate on Obamacare before it was voted on.

    14. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!"
           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    15. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The GOP had nothing to do with the ACA. They had no power to speak of at the time. The DNC owns the whole stinking pig fuck. And they no longer have to power to fix/change it. LOL.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      It's a question of what's right, not what's legal, that the OP is talking about. It's hypocritical for an administration that campaigned on being transparent to then engage in this sort of activity, even though what they're doing is perfectly legal. It's like promising to use an investor's money for one thing and then suddenly using it for something else that is perfectly legal but contrary to what you said. Were this administration a corporation, we'd be able to sue them (and pretty much every previous administration too, for that matter) for fraud, but we have no such recourse against the head of the executive branch for the promises he makes during a campaign cycle.

    17. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    18. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not having direct power doesn't mean you can't have influence. They were given a decent opportunity comment on specifics of the ACA, and decided to rant about the bill's very existence and "socialism" instead.

      Their direct power level was determined by voters, not by O. You can't blame O for that. I'm thus not clear on what you are faulting O for. What specifically would you do different if you were O?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    19. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    20. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      "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.

      You're focusing on the wrong arena to affect change. Sure, a 3rd party president would deb ground breaking; but the odds are stacked against such an outcome. At the local level, however, things are different.You can elect council members, state representatives, Congressional representatives,and maybe the odd Senator. Do that, and you get noticed. Elect enough and you can hold enough power to decide which party becomes the majority party. Then you can affect change.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    21. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    22. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by RingDev · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe you may be suffering from ODS.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      The GOP introduced over 700 amendments to the ACA before it was put to the floor for a vote. Of those, 161 passed. Compared to the 36 Dem submitted amendments that passed.

      To claim that the "GOP had nothing to do with the ACA" is verifiably untrue. To further claim that "They had no power to speak of at the time" highlights a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how the legislative branch of our government works.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    23. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      How can anyone debate a piece of legislation that is so complex it would take (and has taken) years to analyze and understand in a few days?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    24. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by RingDev · · Score: 2

      I don't believe there was anything barring people from reading it. I sat down over quite a few evenings at the time reviewing the proposed bill.

      The rush where Pelosi and others were pushing for a vote was after the amendments had been completed. The bill was readily available for reading for months before then, and the amendments were available to read, but some individuals attempting to slow the passage down (until after Kennedy was out of the picture) were arguing that we should have delayed the passage until a complete new reading could be completed.

      Don't get me wrong, I strongly detest the idea of legislation more than a couple of pages long written at a 6th grade reading level. But to claim that people "were not allowed to see or read" is factually untrue.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    25. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level.

    26. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      If you believe you can win a rigged game by playing? Then you sir are naive or a fool. If you want to see what will happen if you get close to that 15% look up "Ron Paul vote rigged" to see both the RNC and the press insure that nobody in critical primary states would know the man existed, including several reports by those that counted the votes who said "The numbers we gave the RNC were NOT what the RNC reported, they took votes from Paul and gave them to Romney". Despite many calls for an investigation? None occurred.

      At this point it should be obvious to all but the most willfully blind that this system is too corrupt to save, any attempts to affect change from within is simply useless. It would be like finding the guy with a 3 card monty table in central park and thinking "if I put enough money down and work REALLY hard I'll come out ahead"...no you won't, its a rigged game designed to give you the illusion of control while those that have the real power continue their agenda of "following the Brazil model" of making the world a place where those on top have all and those on the bottom have nothing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    28. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      How am I advocating splitting parties? I'm just pointing out that if you live in a red state, and you don't like the Republicans, your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate is totally wasted. There is zero chance that a Democrat will win the electoral votes in your state if it's a Republican stronghold like any southern or midwestern state. Mississippi is NOT going to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate in 2016, I guarantee it.

      So if you live in one of these states (which is most of them), voting for the opposition candidate is already a wasted vote. So why not vote for a third party? They're not going to win either, but at least it would show support for a different party, maybe get them more funding and recognition, and maybe get the two main parties to move closer to their platform to try to capture those voters. What is there to lose?

      Now, if you live in a swing state like Ohio or Florida, you might want to disregard this advice. After all, in 2000, it was a very, very small number of votes that decided which candidate got Florida's electoral votes. You might also want to disregard if you're in one of the two states which doesn't have winner-takes-all in the electoral college. But that still leaves around 40 states which have predetermined outcomes.

    29. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    30. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      He wanted the name Obama to be remembered forever.

      And, I think he will. As in :

      "Obama....worst president, ever..."

      Seriously, I think he has fully displaced both Bush Jr and Carter for bottom rung.

      And he still has almost 2x years to go?!!?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    31. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by macs4all · · Score: 2

      Well, I think it was along the lines of "We have to pass it to find out what's in it..."

      And that demonstration of abject laziness on the part of the Congresscritters voting on the bill is the fault of Obama, how?

    32. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Republicans had rather a lot to do with the drafting of it, even if none of them voted for it in the end. It went a lot like this:

      R: If you remove X, I might vote for it.

      Obama: OK, it now doesn't have X.

      R: Psyche! Not good enough, sucker. Hahaha! But seriously, if you add Y, then I might vote for it.

      Obama: OK, it now has Y.

      R: OMG! Everybody, come look at Y! That's Death Panels! Obama wants to kill your grandmother!...

    33. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass.

      Does it not bother you that the bill was so unpopular as to necessitate such a strategy?

      The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing.

      Because, perhaps, those bills are unpopular? Because they only succeed in fixing a little while making other things worse for most people?

      But now, we can't bring any improvements to the table. Democrats have their victory and will push back against any changes to their wonderful law. Republicans will not vote for a bill that is anything short of completely repealing the ACA.

      Congratulations Obama, you have managed to ruin the hopes of real healthcare improvement for a long time.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    34. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vote for someone outside of the current two-in-one party system.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    35. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      anyone with any shred of intelligence saw through the rouse. if not the first time, there was NO excuse for the second time.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    36. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    37. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    38. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    39. Re:Transparency in Government is good! by dtmancom · · Score: 2

      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 remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The typical response to me would be, "Well, you're just racist, then." And that would end the conversation.

  2. Most transparent Admn ever.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ....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....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by HBI · · Score: 5, Informative

      He wasn't ready for the job. He can't work with people - if Clinton managed it with Gingrich, he could have done the same today. Hell, Gingrich was smarter than these boobs today. He has a Nixonian level of paranoia and vindictiveness. Lastly, he has Valerie Jarrett to insulate him from reality. He gives a good prepared speech and has the best political team money can buy, but he's a freaking cipher otherwise and entirely lacks the personal touch unarmed with a teleprompter.

      Given the disconnect between his public persona and his actual performance, is it no wonder that most of the promises were broken? The promises were made by Axelrod and Plouffe...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by AntEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His election was the triumph of marketing over substance!

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    3. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      There is no war on women and non-christians. There's a war against the programmed divisiveness of identity politics.

      There is? I sure don't see one. I see a war *about* the programmed divisiveness of identity politics, with different sides choosing the identity politics they want to fight for. Not too many damn people fighting against it.

    5. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Working with people = compromise. The government has too many people that refuse to give the other side absolutely anything because they think it makes themselves appear weak or not a true Republican/Democrat

      Fixed that for you. Refusing to budge on any point isn't compromise, and holding the daily operation of the government and the financial stability of the economy hostage isn't negotiation-it's just plain old blackmail.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Most transparent Admn ever.... by ckatko · · Score: 2

      I think you're missing how much of a whore the media was leading up to the Iraq war, completely drowning out any dissonant experts including high ranking military, political scientists, and historians.

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/...
      http://www.salon.com/2007/04/1...
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      The media will do anything that gets them readers. Morals, ethics, and political leanings have nothing to do with it. The all-mighty dollar crosses all political boundaries.

  3. Re:As president, I support a transparent governmen by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Informative

    And I will harshly persecute anyone who dares to break that secrecy.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  4. Nothing to hide, Heh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 ....

    1. Re:Nothing to hide, Heh! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Calm down Zippy. In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA. So there's nothing to get your panties in a bind over.

  5. Sounds reasonable to me by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    Radar and laser don't apply to me if I'm speeding. Right? Oh.

    FCC rules don't apply to me using interesting hardware to intercept cellphone traffic. Right? Oh.

    Regulations don't apply to me if I want to sell firearms to people in Mexico. Right? Oh.

    Yep, this seems par for the course. We peasants can go fuck ourselves while the ruling class does what they please. I mean we can't expect them to reveal the horrific things that are going on to protect corporate trade secrets. Sheesh.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Sounds reasonable to me by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering the FOIA act does not apply to the White House, I don't know why you are whining.

  6. Re:Fine. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA jackass. Nothing heinous is going on. Offices within the White House are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. However, the Office of Administration was the odd man out. In 2009, a Federal Court ruling confirmed that the Office of Administration is exempt from FOIA like other Offices within the White House.

    The White House is required to archive e-mails and release them under the Presidential Records Act; not until at least five years after the end of the administration.

    So the sky is not falling.

  7. Transparency and Open Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
    Transparency and Open Government
    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

    Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

    Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

    Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

    I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

    This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

    BARACK OBAMA

  8. Re:the fix to the problem by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Informative

    LMOL scary when people don't read. The White House was always except from FIOA. Try again Zippy.

  9. Most transparent government ever by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    am I right guys?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  10. Re:A final admission of defeat? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    What things, in your opinion, should the Republicans have supported? When President Walker (for example) does X (say back the Keystone Pipeline) would you expect the Democrats to fight that? Would you say that is proper? If so then shouldn't the Republicans fight Obama at every turn when Obama does something they disagree with?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  11. More of the same by edawstwin · · Score: 2

    Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.

    Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
  12. Re:A final admission of defeat? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  13. Regulations Are Great by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

    Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.

    We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.

    Clear, concise law at that. Not 2,000+ pages of crap nobody has read.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  14. Re:I hope you brought your toga... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Fuck the poor!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  15. backstory by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    During the McCarthy hearings, this was a primary bone of contention between McCarthy and Eisenhower (who, despite both being Republicans, personally despised one another). Ike insisted that the president's records, and those of the executive branch, could NOT be subpoena'd for McCarthy's hearings.
    When the courts tended toward finding that the PRESIDENT's correspondence and files were sacrosanct by the separation of powers rules*, this didn't apply to the State Dept records, so Ike had the State Dept file cabinets physically moved to the Oval Office.
    McCarthy, hinting that the President was doing this because he might have something embarrassing in the files, had finally crossed the line by maligning a figure of such public reverence that the public couldn't tolerate it. Logically, he was perfectly correct; it seems unreasonable that Ike would have gone to such lengths to simply defend a presidential prerogative on principle alone, but then again his personal enmity for McCarthy likely played a role as well.

    *final curious appendix to this story: one of the Junior Congressmen working for McCarthy, who saw how the courts went to the mat to defend the IRONCLAD sanctity of Ike's files from Congressional snooping would later find that such precedents were little defense in protecting his own files, Mr Richard Nixon.

    --
    -Styopa