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This discussion has been archived.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 SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:17PM (#46507781)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:29PM (#46507939)

    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.

  • by ganjadude (952775) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:30PM (#46507965) Homepage
    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
  • by approachingZero (1365381) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:41PM (#46508121) Homepage
    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 rife with cronyism.

    But she didn't have the right pedigree, and she had that funny accent, and she presented a threat to the status que, so she had to be portrayed as a caricature that the left felt politically correct to destroy.

    Some people bought into the program. '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'

    It's no wonder we have the Tea Party, and this year (if the IRS is held in check) things will start to change.

    Ask yourself this, what is the accepted image of the Tea Party as put forth by the media? Why is that?
  • by macbeth66 (204889) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:48PM (#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 Feyshtey (1523799) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:59PM (#46508349)
    He took an oath to protect and defend the Consitituion. He's not only failed to do so, but he's actively campaigned against the laws and procedures in regard to it. He's ignored it by circumventing or coopting the co-equal branches. If that's not ipeachable actions I dont know what is.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @04:40PM (#46510263)

    a law that would simply require the president to obey the law!

    When the executive is subject to the law, you have a democracy or a republic

    When the exectuive is able to write or change the law, you have monarchy and tyranny

    I never thought the Democrats would be able to out-evil themselves in Presidents - their guy, Woodrow Wilson, was my previous bet for the absolute worst as he, among other things, segregated the US government by race (that's right, if you were educated by unionized school teachers (Democrat activists) you probably thought the US was ALWAYS segregated by race and that this ended with the civil rights act under Johnson in the 1960's). Black Amercians were always free in the northern colonies and they even participated in the Revolutionary war. The southern colonies had slaves before, during, and after the Revolutionary war (until the civil war). The Constitution DID NOT count blacks as 3/5ths of a person... it counted "non-free" persons as 3/5ths (i.e. blacks in the north were always full people and only southern slaves were 3/5ths for purposes of allocating seats in congress (to prevent southern states getting so much power in congress that they could spread slavery further)). The REAL introduction of OFFICIAL race-based segregation within the US federal government was by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. Even on his WORST day, however, Woodrow Wilson did not imagine he was above the Constitution and could write and re-write laws on his own.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly

Working...