While you're all outraged about the bailout...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.

I consider this provision in ARRA, among several provisions that require greater oversight and reporting on the use of stimulus funds, to provide some level of transparency and accountability:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:

* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;

* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;

* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";

* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,

* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and

* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.

IMO, that, along with provisions requiring on oversight board and provisions requiring whistleblower protection provides some level of transparency and accountability.

Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.

False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.

I consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 to provide greater transparency in the legislative process than previously existed.

Obviously, you dont agree and that doesnt make this one false either.

That remains to be seen.

Yep....but there is no doubt that the Obama FOIA guidelines represents a reversal and far more transparent to start with than the Bush FOIA guidelines.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines today that direct all executive branch departments and agencies to apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA....
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-253.html

As I said, none of these are perfect nor go far enough, IMO ...but its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

BUt suit yourself.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?

Originally Posted by classicman

Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?

As I said, transparency is relative.

And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.

Would you prefer that the compensation restrictions/oversight panel/whistleblower protection provisions cited NOt be included in the stimulus bill (as they werent in the banking bailout bill that Bush would not have signed if such provisions were included) or that new, more open FOIA guidelines NOT be issued, or new ethics/lobbying requirements NOT be adopted by Congress?

We can either continue under the old ways or adopted policies and include provisions in legislation that MAY make a difference.

And as I further said....none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but IMO, are certainly better than the recent past.

[classicman]

none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but MAY be better ... we'll see... maybe

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.

But there is actually no proff that they will.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.

Nor does it really prove your point. There is no proof that this will change things. We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nor does it really prove your point. There is no proof that this will change things. We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.

We do? Some examples of secrecy, please?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.

If true, then Congress is still doing what did not happen until wacko extremists started doing some 12 years ago.

Whether these bills finally bring responsibility back to America has yet to be seen. But what we do know is the agenda is not to work for America - not for a wacko extremist agenda that - well George Jr signed more than twice as many secret findings as all other presidents combined. This was called transparency to wacko extremists. We now has the secrecy and extremist perversion that is slowly being eliminated. If Pelosi and Reid are ramrodding, then wacko extremist Republicans were raping. Finally, even science is being encouraged again. May we never again see another Terry Schiavo incident because wacko extremists had power.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

If true, then Congress is still doing what did not happen until wacko extremists started doing some 12 years ago.

Mommy, Billy did it - why can't I?? What kind of excuse it that?

Originally Posted by tw

But what we do know is the agenda is not to work for America

Uh, I think you got a typo in there?!?!?! Freudian slip perhaps?

Originally Posted by tw

If Pelosi and Reid are ramrodding, then wacko extremist Republicans were raping.

So that makes it ok? Uh, no.