Jan 21 2009
Obama issues executive orders, but what effect do they really have?
Obama held a press conference this morning to explain his first executive orders. These orders supposedly make government more free and open. He also says they make government “accountable.”
One of them is a difference in the way that his administration will “interpret” the Freedom of Information Act. Obama says that from now on, information will only be withheld if a separate authority such as the Attorney General tells him that it’s constitutional to do so. Obama says there’s been “too much secrecy” in Washington. That sounds good on its face.
But that doesn’t change the fact that any so-called “authority” would be appointed by him. When is the last time anyone remembers an Attorney General or other department head in Washington telling the man who appointed him (of either party) that he couldn’t do something? So instead of saying “I will not release this information” he will now say “I will not release this information, and my Attorney General, who I appointed, says I don’t have to.”
The real test will be when a conservative group starts hammering the Obama administration with FOIA requests and gets turned away. Then we will see how open the administration really is, and how quickly the press and liberals jump to Obama’s defense to justify the denial of information. Liberal groups seeking classified defense information are a bit less likely to run into roadblocks.
Another order freezes the pay of Administration staff. That sounds like a positive step, but in reality only affects around 100 employees at The White House. The federal government employs millions of people. The people affected largely make six-figure salaries, so a pay freeze isn’t about to bankrupt them. On the other hand, it has little to no effect on the federal budget, and certainly no effect on yours or mine. Does anyone really believe the press secretary or chief of staff are swayed by their annual pay increase anyway?
Obama said that “[f]amilies are tightening their belts, and so should Washington,” yet this comes in the face of the nearly $ 1trillion he wants for the “stimulus package”, a large percentage of which goes to government projects like updating computers at the State Department or renovating government offices. It also comes in the face of his $160 million+ inauguration.
Included in the package of “ethics” orders was a set of rules regarding the hiring of former lobbyists, and the ability of former officials to lobby. Many of these rules are similar to previous rules, although some are much more restrictive. The questions is, do they work? Restricting someone from lobbying for the industries they regulated doesn’t make that much difference. Lobbyists are hired for their insider contacts and knowledge of the process of getting things done in Washington.
It will be relatively easy to circumvent these rules, and Obama himself has already used the loopholes in them to appoint Tom Daschle as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. While not technically a “lobbyist” with the lobbying firm Alston and Bird, Daschle earned over$16 million “advising” them on policy. What sort of lobbying does Alston and Bird do? The firm lobbies for health care interests before the……..Department of Health and Human Services.
It would be equally easy to leave government and “advise” a lobbying firm, while not technically a lobbyist.
Earlier, Obama issued a “request” to stop all trials at Guantanamo Bay, likely because he will close it and either release the terrorists or order them tried in civilian courts. This will likely result in the vast majority of the terrorists being released, not because they are innocent, but because of the myriad technicalities and evidence rules which will allow many of them to walk away on technicalities. This will set our enemies free to continue their war of terror on us, as many of them will and already have.
Those released will have to be just that…..released. But released to where? Many detainees are still being held because there is no country willing to accept them. If they are innocent and are not a threat, why won’t anyone take them? And if no one will take them, will Obama release them here? The alternative is to put them in civilian prisons without convictions, and we can’t do that, right? People are up in arms every time they find out a sex offender is released from prison into their neighborhood. How will they feel when Johnny Jihad moves in?
Symbolic gestures make good sound bites for your supporters in the media and blogosphere to crow about, but decisions not made with focus group testing and that have real consequences are a different matter entirely.
