Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government

Obama Administration Transparency Getting Worse 152

Posted by samzenpus
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
schwit1 writes "The government's own figures from 99 federal agencies covering six years show that halfway through its second term, the administration has made few meaningful improvements in the way it releases records. In category after category — except for reducing numbers of old requests and a slight increase in how often it waived copying fees — the government's efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Administration Transparency Getting Worse

Comments Filter:
  • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:29AM (#46507055) Homepage

    “This is the most transparent administration in history,” -- Barack Obama, February 2013

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- Napoleon, Animal Farm, by George Orwell

    • At least they're transparent about their transparency.
    • by DigitAl56K (805623) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:44AM (#46507309)

      “This is the most transparent administration in history,” -- Barack Obama, February 2013

      He must have been speaking about how obvious their stance with regarding releasing information was.

      But to make a counter-point, much as I loathe to do so, it's also possible with all the NSA/Snowden stories that they have faced more requests for documents that are classified than typical. It would be nice to see the chart from TFA displayed as a 100% breakdown rather than a stacked breakdown.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        Anything refused under that angle is basically denial of working with the FOIA process, basically using "national security" as an excuse to get out of everything via the loophole as designed.

        That is exactly a lack of transparency, not an excuse for it.

      • by funwithBSD (245349) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:49AM (#46507383)

        Transparent as in we can see right through this bullshit.

        • Apparently you all are looking past it. Republicans and democrats will keep winning elections because people will only vote for what is being spoon fed to them and the decline will continue.

          • by HiThere (15173)

            Sorry, but no. It's a system designs problem...except that those in power don't see it as a problem.

            The basic problem is that the election process is plurality wins rather than majority wins. This ensures that the winner will be one of no more than two major parties when the system is in a stable or quasi-stable state. Third parties have essentially no chance. This is unlike a majority wins election where you have either multiple rounds of voting, or you condense the multiple rounds via some sort of ran

            • In one organization, unless someone wins 2/3rds of the vote, they draw straws from among the finalists. It works quite well, achieving what campaign finance reform is intended to achieve, without the free speech issues involved such as potentially making it illegal for a blogger to speak their opinion.

              It makes a lot of dog-eat-dog campaigning unnecessary because the candidates aren't fighting tooth and nail for that extra 0.1% of the vote - just put up a pretty good candidate, who can get at least 20%-35%

              • by HiThere (15173)

                In organizations where there is not a lot of publicity driven voting with funding from biased sources that should work fairly well, but that doesn't describe the US political system. Even so it should act to moderate the extremism. But note that that system is hardly describable as "plurality wins".

                Even so, to me it looks as if the system that you have proposed will act so as to maintain and increase the concentration of wealth and power among those that already have it, and squeeze out those on the edges

                • You end up with a lot less "publicity driven voting driven by funding from biased sources" when no amount of money can buy win. So long as people contribute $X, enough to get your message out, the person with ten times as much money has little or no advantage - both names go into the hat. Campaign finance has extremely diminishing returns. If, in a given race, it takes $1 million in publicity to get 20% of the voters, two million will get you to 25%. Three million will get 27%. Ten million will get 35%.

    • by CharlieG (34950)

      But of course, it is all Bush's fault, due to the regulations and rules he put into effect

      Bueller? Bueller?

    • I'm not even sure at this point WHY they're moving towards opacity. (Is opacity the opposite of transparency when it comes to government?) He's not going for another term, so it's not like hiding details from the voters is going to get him another term. And he's obviously not going to get in real legal trouble, he'd be pardoned by whoever the next guy was, worst case scenario. He's keeping Bush administration secrets about torture secret. [firstlook.org] He was elected in part because people thought he was an anti-bu
    • by argStyopa (232550)

      At least we can count on the fact that there aren't any lobbyists in Washington anymore!

    • by labnet (457441)

      “This is the most transparent administration in history,” -- Barack Obama, February 2013

      "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- Napoleon, Animal Farm, by George Orwell

      I read his autobiography. He is a nobody who came from Chicago, thus sombody owns hiss ass; I'm just not sure who.

    • by Squidlips (1206004) on Monday March 17, 2014 @04:01PM (#46510541)
      you can keep your transparency
  • Unless someone is planning to pull a Kennedy on him, he's got 34 months to go...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bobbied (2522392)

      Unless someone is planning to pull a Kennedy on him, he's got 34 months to go...

      Oh please NO! I don't want to get Biden as president with all the sympathy of having to take over under those circumstances. Not on your life.

      I'll keep the guy I know over dementia prone Biden who would be wheels off nuts. Obama will be totally emasculated by the end of this year when his party looses the Senate. Let him spend his last two years in office planning for his presidential library. If we are ever going to fix this, he has to stay in office and be marginalized as much as possible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JDAustin (468180)

        You really think Obama is going to act like other former presidents and leave DC for Chicago or Hawaii? His ego would never allow for it. He will stay in DC and be a thorn in the side of whoever the next president is (Dem or Rep).

        As to Biden....tell me again why Palin was so bad compared to Biden again?

        • by bobbied (2522392)

          You really think Obama is going to act like other former presidents and leave DC for Chicago or Hawaii? His ego would never allow for it. He will stay in DC and be a thorn in the side of whoever the next president is (Dem or Rep).

          Perhaps, but if he looses the Senate, he's going to take two brutal years of signing the veto line over and over or he will have to "play ball" and compromise. I'm hoping his narcissistic mind set won't let him stick around a group of people not singing his praises and doing his bidding and he will run off with his tail between his legs after 24 months of getting hit by the rolled up newspaper over and over.

          Of course, he could try to sick around and try and rescue his legacy. I just figure it's less like

        • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:16PM (#46507761)

          Because Palin was a soundbite politician. She had an open distaste for carefully considering all sides of an issue, favoring the use of quick slogans ('Drill Baby Drill') to win over the unthinking. It's always hard to tell a politicians image from reality - behind closed doors she could have been a genius in all things - but the image she carefully projected was of the quick-thinking renegade who didn't have the time to actually read any reports or listen to advisers, but instead promised she could run a country on gut instinct and American luck.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by ganjadude (952775)
            well, not for nothing but she and other republicans (and other democrats) correctly predicted we would be having problems with russia and that they are still a treat to freedom. Obama took cheepshots at her and romney and now look at whats happening, imperialist russia crawling back
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Unless you do some research on your own and look at her very real track record of reform in Alaska, then yes she is only a soundbite politician.

            It would be more accurate to say she was a working class mother who ran for office and made changes to a state rife with cronyism. Unless you do some research on your own and look at her very real track record of reform in Alaska, then yes she is only a soundbite politician.

            She is / was a working class mother who ran for office and made changes to a state
          • by bobbied (2522392)

            Because Palin was a soundbite politician.

            Which politician ISN'T after the soundbite? With the media today, it's ALL about the soundbite, because they refuse to actually spend 5 min explaining what the real positions are. It takes too much time and doesn't sell advertisements.

            But I have a few sound bites for you to classify... "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." "not even a smidgen of corruption" "What difference does it make" or to include the original article, "the most tr

            • by Feyshtey (1523799)

              With the media today, it's ALL about the soundbite, because they refuse to actually spend 5 min explaining what the real positions are.

              You make it sound like they spent 5 minutes finding out what the position of the person is, rather than scanning for the R or D of policitcal affiliation in the bio and regurgitating their owned canned stereotypes provided them by their news organization.

              True journalists are an endangered species.

          • by Quila (201335) on Monday March 17, 2014 @02:02PM (#46509039)

            favoring the use of quick slogans ('Drill Baby Drill') to win over the unthinking

            "Yes we can," "Change we can believe in," "Common sense gun laws," "Most transparent administration"

          • Braindead soundbites like this gem from 2008?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PMmY20nJ8E [youtube.com]

          • Yaknow, I'd take gut instinct and American luck over career sociopath politicians anyday. How about you?
        • Uh, wtf is he gonna do in DC? Clinton had a much bigger ego than Obama. He's nowhere near to DC.
      • by DarkOx (621550)

        I agree he has to stay in office. We need to make absolutely sure he takes the blame for all his fuck-ups.

        It would great if the GOP could take the Senate. It would possibly enable them to castrate the Affordable Care Act, and it would be worth it in that sense, but I am not optimistic.

        Its just to many seats to pickup. In some ways its better if they don't get the Senate. It will make 2016 election simpler because it will be more possible to blame the DNC/Obama. It might at that time be possible to grab

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Don't worry, there's no way the GOP doesn't take the Senate. What probably won't happen is that they won't get the veto-proof majority, but come the end of this year, we'll be looking forward to a GOP House and Senate. There's no way it doesn't happen, even Democrat advisors admit as much.

          It is absolutely essential we kill the ACA dead. If we don't, people will start to rely on it, and then, much like Social Security, we'll never be rid of it. I'd much rather put a stake in ACA and lose 2016 (which in unlik

          • > It is absolutely essential we kill the ACA dead. If we don't, people will start to rely on it, and then, much like Social Security, we'll never be rid of it.

            ACA needs time to fail, so that the inevitability of single-payer takes root.
            Single-payer, that atrocious idea shared by almost all advanced countries, including these evil aging Germans with their balanced budget...

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Yeah, because the GOP has proven that once in power, they govern for the benefit of all, compromise with minority positions, and pursue policies that balance the interests of capital and labor.

          Oh that's right, they nominate telegenic yes-men who rubber stamp a pre-existing agenda that inflames international tensions and entrenches white, christian, business owners disproportionately into positions of power.

    • He is one quater through his term. And he is through playing nice.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yep, I went there!

    See folks, no thanks to Dick Chaney, the Bush Administration grabbed more power for the Executive branch.

    And when folks like me protested, we were labeled "Liberal" or "UnAmerican" or some such derogatory term.

    Now, the next guy has all that power.

    See?

    Our Constitution has checks and balances for a reason. A BIll of Rights for a reason. And when we try to be selective in there application, it backfires.

    Also, this just shows how corrupt our Ruling Class is.

    For those of you who were "In [wikipedia.org]

    • "Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come in the night and done it, and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that Snowball had thrown it down the well. Curiously enough, they went on believing this even after the mislaid key was found under a sack of meal." -- Animal Farm, by George Orwell

  • by wganz (113345)

    in what manner?

    From a POTUS that is the most secretive about his own past?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204)

      The one who published a (ghostwritten, but nothing unusual there) autobiography an inch thick, including many stories of his family life and childhood?

  • Spying on citizens is one thing, but to think the CIA was spying on Dianne Feinstien and her Senate Select Committee on Intelligence really crosses the line.
  • At least third parties have stepped up, and I would say are doing a far better job at Government transparency.
    And who cares about transparency? Great, now I can see in minute detail the human rights abuses, and constitutionally illegal practices of the government on a constant and institutional level. Yay, that totally fixes the problem.

    • by DarkOx (621550)

      Yay, that totally fixes the problem.

      It does not fix a thing, but its hard to solve any problem when you don't know what it is. Solving the problem starts with transparency.

  • He was too busy Shilling healthcare.gov [funnyordie.com]

  • by macbeth66 (204889) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:48PM (#46508205)

    Really? You (schwit1) must be disappointed on a regular basis.

    Sorry, even if Obama really wanted to change things, he's still an elected. The bureaucracy marches on and very rarely cares about the comings and goings of temporary staff, even if they are the boss.

    • by Richy_T (111409)

      He wanted to change things. He just wanted to change different things from the things he said he was wanting to change.

  • I politician *lied* to me?! I feel so disillusioned....
  • Sorry I couldn't resist. Let the flame wars begin

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet

Working...