|
||
Obama Lobbyist Rule Doesn't Apply to Lobbyists: Obama
The week, President Obama announced that lobbyists wouldn't be allowed in his administration and nominated a defense lobbyist to be deputy Secretary of Defense.
The rule, and it's an inspiring rule, is that lobbyists can't work for agencies they've lobbied in the last two years. The nominee is William J. Lynn, who was working for Raytheon until late last Thursday. Since then, of course, he's had his memory scrubbed clean with a powerful amnesia agent -- not unlike the one in Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind -- and now he doesn't even know what Raytheon does.
It's like he was never Senior Vice President of Government Operations and Strategy at all.
Obama announced that the revolving door between government and lobbying would be slammed shut -- wait, can you slam a revolving door? -- "for as long as I am president." And broke the pledge while he was saying it.
Talk about hitting the ground running. That's fast.
An anonymous senior White House official explains:
When you set very tough rules, you need to have a mechanism for the occasional exception. We wanted to be really tough, but at the same time we didn't want to hamstring the new administration or turn the town upside down.
In other words, you can't let what you say get in the way of what you do.
--
Also this week, President Obama got a letter from forty-four senators and about 200 congressmen asking him to build more F-22 fighters. How good is the F-22? It's so good that we haven't lost a single one in Iraq or Afghanistan. We also haven't used one.
That's how valuable they are. They're too valuable to use in a war.
We're saving them up, in case the Soviet Union comes back. Or Mothra. Or the Soviet Union and Mothra, working together. And I wouldn't put it past them, either.
But Senator Patty Murray (D-Boeing) explains the real reason we need to keep building the world's heaviest fighter plane:
Continued F-22 production is critical to both the national security and economic interests of our country. At a time when we are looking to create jobs and stimulate the economy, eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs tied to F-22 production simply doesn't make sense.
Not spend money? She's right. That's crazy talk.
Unlike building a plane you won't use.
Here's something cool about the F-22, I mean aside from all the aeronautical engineers it keeps out of trouble: Not only does it weigh three times as much as the Skyhawks John McCain used to heroically crash, it actually weighs more than John Kerry's swift boat. That's bipartisanship.
Why is it so huge? To make it invisible. See, an ordinary fighter-bomber carries its missiles on the outside. (So you know it's a boy.) An F-22 carries its armament on the inside, to decrease its radar signature. Naturally, putting a bomb bay on a fighter jet means you have to make it larger, which makes it easier for radar to spot.
By Yuri Andropov.
None of this matters, since it's just a make-work project anyway. Like a new post office. Only larger and heavier.
During his confirmation hearings Wednesday, William Lynn promised -- if confirmed -- to supervise a strategic review and decide the fate of the F-22.
I wonder if he'll remember that Raytheon is making three billion dollars on it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks for being wiling to call it like it is whether it is our man or not. I do think that the bill kristols , bill oreillys, sean hannitys and rush limbaoughs have this territory pretty well covered already though don't ya think? While you may be correct that Obama knows how to play, I still believe that he is playing for US. I guess in six months or so we'll know for sure by then. It's not like we can un-elect him or anything since bush proved that no one will ever be ousted from the white house under any circumstances. Why not just accept that some promises shouldn't be made but are for the sake of political expediency and hope that the most important of promises (those made directly to the people advocating their personal welfare) are kept with a vengeance. I also happen to believe that Obama has prevented a tremendous amount of self-serving politics from taking root in his administration already despite his vague back-peddling.
One rotten apple in the barrel will destroy all the good apples, several rotten apples will do it faster!
this appointment was a Gates affair
Mr. Gates wanted Mr. Lynn and choose him. That is what you get for keeping Republicans in your Administration. They cannot be trusted, period!!
Major lol to this: "Senator Patty Murray (D-Boeing)"
First, anybody who knows anything about Pentagon threat assessments knows that Mothra isn't the problem, Rodan is. C'mon, he's got three heads going on...
Second, talking about funding programs of such complexity and cost in terms of the employment effects on our nation is like talking about ending starvation with caviar.
I might have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. So cut it out.
We need a reevaluation of our needs.
Frankly, the rule itself was draconian. It made me laugh to see the immediate exception made.
You laugh at a lot of good ideas, I've noticed, from the primary contest where you were dead wrong at every turn, to now. You have a worse track record for being right than Bill Kristol.
We have to do something about the Lobbiests. I sure hope that President Obama is willing to put justice before profits. God Forgive Us all.
While everyone is griping about Obama exercising a clause in his executive order, keep in mind he is staffing the DOJ with attorneys that have wanted to take the Bush Regime to trial for 7 years. If Obama is willing to take the heat for the Lynn appointment, I can only think that he's got a good reason in doing so.
blind faith much?
Obama is hardly an unknown at this point in time. Nothing blind about assuming that he'll continue using the same good judgement that he consistently has for two years in the public eye now.
So you believe that BHO is going to put his predecessor on trial? I'll believe it when I see it.
Okay, you just keep drinking that Obama Kool-Aid with your friends but the reality about him is coming to light to the rest of us and it's not looking good.
Look, it's simple: Lynn is the guy he wants. Lynn was also a lobbyist. Obama wrote the order with waivers like this for such occasions.
Is this cronyism? Was Lynn Obama's roommate in college? Was he his frat bother? Did he donate huge funds to the Obama campaign? Is 70% of his administration going to be staffed with lobbyists and Christian law school grads? No.
This is apples and oranges, folks. This is nit-picking. And I'm sure the President understands the heat he's going to take for it.
So will Obama waive the rule every time he wants a lobbyist? If that's the case, the rule may as well not be there.
If, on the other hand, Obama only waives the rule in special cases, what exactly makes Lynn special?
Sec. 3. Waiver.
(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
================================
Above is the executive order's waiver section. Plainly it allows such a wide degree of latitude as to render the entire order meaningless. It should have been called an "executive suggestion" rather than an executive order. One thing I figured out about Barack Obama very early is that he always inserts an escape clause into all his promises.
Every law has exceptions written into it to address situations when the letter of the law is at odds with the spirit of the law. How would you like it if our laws against murder didn't have "escape clauses" for self-defense. We're dealing with a Constitutional scholar now. We're going to see a much more sophisticated use of law occur than over the last eight, so if you're not into nuance and details, you're going to have a very tough 4 or 8 years.
Exactly. Except a more appropriate metaphor for this clause would be innocent of murder by reason of insanity.
I already see a pattern developing. Every time Barack makes a move that contradicts his stated policies and principles, the buzzwords "nuance" and "sophistication" will be trotted out to defend him, with a few "pragmatisms" thrown in for good measure. If that doesn't work, then that other tired old saw comes out: "Bush saw everything in black and white. We don't need another president like that."
Like saying that "no former lobbyists" in the White House doesn't apply to a lobbyist in the strictist sense....?
It is getting really interesting to me to see the great lengths Obama supporters are going to defend his bad moves.
It is almost like in an elementary school environment where the bad kid tells everyone that they are the one with "the problem."
In other words, Obama wants to have it both ways. And some people will do all they can to see that he does.
Congrtualtions to blocking lobbysts in Washington. Congrtulations to Clinton for emphasizing foreign development (USAID) as part of US foregin policy. However to be effective, Congree needs to pass law banning countries receing foeign aid to lobby in the USA.
Many countries devote a third to half of the 'Foreign Aid' they recieve to lobbying in Washington. This amounts to many many millions of dollars. This makes Foreign Aid really, a "pay-back time" to lobbyists and Washington attorneys who fundraise for the politicians who vote on the aid. The poor countries are an excuse and the American tax payers are the suckers.
For those of you that critisize this article .... this is exactly the type of reporting we need now. We can all get behind Obama when that is appropriate but we also need to keep his feet to the fire on promises made and clear, logical decisions. That's what paticapatory democracy is all about and he knows it.
I criticize the article because it is much ado about nothing. This isn't keeping Obama's feet to the fire, it's nitpicking and dismissive of the economic impact when the defense industry is forced to lay off thousands.
How safe will the Treasury sucking defense industry make us feel when that Social Security check fails to arrive?
Huh? Much ado about nothing? I could list a number of this administrations contradictions but we all knew this going in. What promises has he kept? For that matter, did he actually make any promises during the campaign?
He ran as a blank slate so that we could project our ideas of change upon him. So we all believe we've heard a lot of promises. Most, likely, won't be kept.
Also, it continues the on-going pattern of opacity. He insists we need for the Treasury a man who intentionally defrauded the taxpayers by not paying taxes (save the "error" excuses). He hasn't closed Gitmo, but promises to within the year...but has no plan how this will be done (sorta like overthrowing a dictator but not being prepared for the aftermath). Or getting all those Clinton Foundation names to approve Hillary...except for the really large China-related donor.
Note that I did vote for the President during his primary run - so I don't have Obama Derangement Syndrome. And I really would prefer a successful presidency for him. But he needs to find a way forward sticking to his word, or at least what we all know is basic ethics. If not we're in for another failed President and that's contradictatory to change we can believe in.
It's not nitpicking when someone who campaigned on idealistic terms and an insistence on change simultaneously writes a rule and violates its spirit. I guess the "change" is writing the rule, and we should turn a blind eye to appointing a lobbyist? This is happening in the first week of his administration, and it doesn't auger well to see business as usual become defended because Obama's the guy doing the business. This "can do no wrong" attitude is dangerous in a democracy. It's also vexing to see this mindless boosterism try to drown out the voices of those who'd do what Obama asked us all to do--hold his feet to the fire. It's all about accountability, right?
I don't agree with Chris Kelly all the time, but I'm glad he's making this point, and he's doing the right thing in speaking up. What Obama did was ethically questionable and politically quite clumsy. Personally, I think he needs a 24-hour timeout to assimilate some of what's happened, recharge, and regroup. Hopefully he'll take tomorrow to do that.
I agree with you. So let's make sure that defense industry lobbyists get hired by Obama so money keeps flowing into them companies' coffers that help pay the wages of them defense industry workers. In addition, lets prolong the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for good measure start a couple more. Got to keep the military-industrial complex and the workers it employs happy. Worked for Haliburton, can work for Raytheon.
There's nothing nitpicking about attempting to guard against wasteful expenditures for weapons that we don't need, and Murray's sob-story about how the poor defense contractors are going to be able to sustain a living without an inflated military budget is downright pathetic.
Wow, I didn't realize that taking out a revolving door meant nobody was allowed to enter a building.
One exception does not a revolving door make.
By allowing this one exception, more exceptions will probably follow.
and what if they do? the problem was never lobbyists per se, it was the blatant conflict of interests, and the intentional assigning of them to posts that allowed them to do the most good for their company at the expense doing their actual job. If the exceptions allowed are shown to be actually doing their appointed positions honorably, then it really doesn't matter that used to be lobbyists, does it? the problem only occurs when they don't stop being lobbyists once they take office.
You guys miss the point. Lobbyists are the EXCEPTION... not the RULE.
Under Bush and the culture of corruption, Lobbyists filled all the roles, wrote the legislation, and made the decisions. All it required was a continuous flow of fat envelopes of cash the the RNC.
What's truly amazing is what tiny sums of money many conservatives will sell out their country for.
Bingo! But let's keep that waiver list secret. We don't want no more embarrassments to those on the list and the powers that grant such sweet dispensations!
Except that this particular application of the waiver involves a guy going through that revolving door.
I suppose reading all the ethics rules -- including the part about waivers -- is too much for Lynn's (and Obama's) critics.
If there's an argument regarding his ethics, feel free to gripe. But please don't insult your readers by using the false argument that Obama is breaking his own ethics rules when those rules explicitly allow a waiver.
Smart man that Obama! He was thinking about Lynn while coming up with the rules! Like the 1980s song says, "That's what friends are for!"
then it isn't a rule. if the rule applies to everyone except when it doesn't, doesn't mean anything. He is breaking his own rule, he breaking his pledge to us.
"I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."- who said that?
a rule is like a wall. a rule with exception clauses written in is like a wall with a gate. That allows you to control and closely monitor everyone who passes through, and to be selective of who you allow through. That was the purpose of this law. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
