Nothing about Pay Freezes, Full Disclosure and limits on Executive Privilege?
By spalladino
@spalladino (17891)
United States
January 26, 2009 9:31am CST
I see several criticisms of President Obama's actions during his first few days in office, including half truths about lobbyists which I have already addressed, yet there's not one discussion (unless I missed it) about the following directives. Is that because no one can come up with a complaint about him freezing the wages of over 100 White staffers, or reasons why full disclosure and tightening the reigns of executive privilege are not good ideas? Just trying to get a grasp on the mindset of this board which seems decidedly negative of late. 
"Regarding the pay freeze, which will leave pay levels for senior positions where they were under President George W. Bush, Obama said he is acting because “families are tightening their belts and so should Washington.”
There are more than 100 White House staff positions under the office of the president that pay more than $100,000 annually, including chief of staff, White House counsel and chief speechwriter.
Full Disclosure
To promote transparency in government, Obama said federal agencies and departments should err on the side of disclosing information rather than keeping it from the public when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Under the directive, a White House statement said, three officials must produce an “open government” manual within 120 days. Attorney General-designate Eric Holder is ordered within the same time frame to develop new guidelines for greater disclosure.
“For a long time there has been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said. “The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over.”
The move was another signal that Obama is making a clear break from the former administration. Bush tightened rules limiting disclosures after the Sept. 11 attacks and came under fire from Democratic members of Congress for withholding documents.
Executive Privilege
Obama also decreed that only he would have the power to assert executive privilege, so as to “limit its potential for abuse.” That may be a reference to former Vice President D1ck Cheney’s assertion of executive privilege in keeping documents from Congress. His actions triggered lawsuits from historians and open-government advocates."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azQJo_wu7f64&refer=home
"Regarding the pay freeze, which will leave pay levels for senior positions where they were under President George W. Bush, Obama said he is acting because “families are tightening their belts and so should Washington.”
There are more than 100 White House staff positions under the office of the president that pay more than $100,000 annually, including chief of staff, White House counsel and chief speechwriter.
Full Disclosure
To promote transparency in government, Obama said federal agencies and departments should err on the side of disclosing information rather than keeping it from the public when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Under the directive, a White House statement said, three officials must produce an “open government” manual within 120 days. Attorney General-designate Eric Holder is ordered within the same time frame to develop new guidelines for greater disclosure.
“For a long time there has been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said. “The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over.”
The move was another signal that Obama is making a clear break from the former administration. Bush tightened rules limiting disclosures after the Sept. 11 attacks and came under fire from Democratic members of Congress for withholding documents.
Executive Privilege
Obama also decreed that only he would have the power to assert executive privilege, so as to “limit its potential for abuse.” That may be a reference to former Vice President D1ck Cheney’s assertion of executive privilege in keeping documents from Congress. His actions triggered lawsuits from historians and open-government advocates."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azQJo_wu7f64&refer=home1 person likes this
8 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I personally think the pay freezes should have gone farther. Congress and Senate should NOT get their pay raise this year. They should be frozen too. There was actually a bill to do that....but not enough of them supported it for it to pass. Go figure. Congress wants us to tighten our belts...but they are not willing to tighten theirs. Obama should preasure them NOT to take their pay raise this year.
1 person likes this
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
26 Jan 09
And this is how we know who is a "public servant" and who sees politics as a carreer.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I agree with you, lil, he should pressure Congress about their pay raises this year. I guess we'll see if he does.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
26 Jan 09
yep. I agree with you there. A lot of companies are on a pay increase freeze right now. My HB will not get a pay raise this year. None of the employees at his company will. But we are not complaining....we are just happy he still has a job. So our elected officals should not get a pay raise either. But I guess that just shows you who really cares and who is just in it for the money and perks. Unfortunately the bill never even got close to passing so that shows us that a majority our members of congress are in it for the money and perks.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Jan 09
I applaud the pay freezes actualy. I think, like many in here, he should take a pay freeze as well, maybe he will but that remains to be seen. I am in agreament too with many who have said congress should pass a resolution freezing their pay as well, figure the odds of that happening though.
1 person likes this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Jan 09
But if Obama vetos the pay raise, if I am not mistaken, the bill can go back to the congress and if it pays with 2/3 vote... they get their pay raise.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
27 Jan 09
Well, sure they can but they all have to consider what their constituants back home would say...and do when they come up for re-election. 
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jan 09
The thing about Congress is that Obama has veto power and can veto a pay raise for them if he chooses to. I guess we'll see.
What about the other two items I quoted? Any opinion on those?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I noticed this too. I guess we're not going to see any positive comments about Obama from those who have been against him from the start. I know, those of us who didn't support Bush have been accused of the same thing, of overlooking any of the good thing he did, but I personally disagree with those allegations since I DID give Bush credit for his increase of assistance for AIDS victims in Africa. I wish I could think of more to praise him for but I really can't right now.
Anyway, I think those who oppose Obama won't give him credit for anything they would normally agree with because to do that would be to criticize the former President. Therefore, it's more fun for them to post about the oath being bungled, what balls the First Couple attended and the cost of the Inauguration.
Annie
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I remember how the "Obamaites" (is that how it was spelled? 
) were accused of not being able to say anything negative about him no matter what the issue was. I thought I'd see if the same was true with the opposition. So far, it appears that it is.
) were accused of not being able to say anything negative about him no matter what the issue was. I thought I'd see if the same was true with the opposition. So far, it appears that it is.1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
27 Jan 09
You didn't give me the wrong idea OLIJULSAR...your comments have been very fair and your comment about McCain twitching his nose and snapping his fingers gave me a chuckle.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Jan 09
The pay freezes are fine, but then again, who can't live comfortable on $100,000 a year. And then too.. how many does this effect? Not enough to make much a difference other than just "show". Throw in these people all have "expense accounts" that things can be "said" to be business related but really aren't.. I ma sure it is very common for people with expense accounts to have lunch with someone, talk "business" for a few mintues then enjoy the rest and write it off in their expense reports... that was a free lunch no matter what anyone says. Plus the tax payers pay for company cars and car expense and over night logdging when it is a "business" related issue... just to many ways to get things free so a simple pay freeze at $100,000 isn't much to be an inconvenience.
ANd I notice it wasn't the higher up executives making OVER $100,000 that he targeted.. just the "little" guys. And a pay "freeze"... so what, they have been making that for years, now they just don't get "raises". Many of us have not gotten raises for years and years. And again, if you can't live nicely on $100,000 a year, you are are greedy and shouldn't get anymore until you can learn how to value what you do have and spend it wisely.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
26 Jan 09
Personally I think it's sickening that congress gets to give themselves raises every year for doing a piss poor job when they are all making over $200,000 a year or more, yet school teachers here in Florida haven't had a pay raise in 5 years while making a fraction of that income and working a thousand times harder.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jan 09
"Regarding the pay freeze, which will leave pay levels for senior positions where they were under President George W. Bush,"
"There are more than 100 White House staff positions under the office of the president that pay more than $100,000 annually, including chief of staff, White House counsel and chief speechwriter."
Senior positions are senior positions and I believe that the words "more than" mean higher than $100k per year...and was just used as an example.
BTW, I don't know where you are but when my husband and I lived in Maryland 6 years ago, we earned over $100k per year and were by no means living high on the hog. We didn't live in a new house, an exclusive neighborhood or drive new vehicles. Housing especially in D.C. and nearby Maryland and Virginia has been extremely expensive for many years.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I do agree with you about Congress, taskr, and the teacher's pay rate down here.
1 person likes this
@Opal26 (17679)
• United States
27 Jan 09
Hey spalladino! You know I was wondering that myself! Do you
think that people only want to post when there are things
to actually complain about? I think that it is just too soon
to be judging President Obama in a negative light! He has
only been in office for one week! I think in that week he has
already implemented some great things! But, even if that
wasn't the case I think that certainly he needs more than
one week to get some serious things done before anyone can
really come to any conclusions! For now, I think he is on the
right track and I hope that in days and weeks and months to
come he will continue to bring about the "changes" that he
promised! I for one am counting on it!
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
27 Jan 09
Hi Opal! Today's experiment certainly shed some light on things...at least for me. I posted three positive actions and intentionally chose non-controversial ones.
By some, the pay freeze for senior White House staff was criticised, questioned, twisted and dismissed as being unimportant. I suspect that had John McCain won the election and done the exact same thing he would have been roundly applauded for "taking on" his own staff. 
Full disclosure was ignored completely and limiting Executive Privilege had basically the same fate with the exception of some twisting of that as well.
Some particularly valiant attempts to remain negative including throwing in everything but the kitchen sink for good measure!
Not everyone was completely negative and I have taken into consideration that times are tough for lots of folks but that's really no excuse for ignoring the obvious.
And, you're right, it's only been a week. 
Full disclosure was ignored completely and limiting Executive Privilege had basically the same fate with the exception of some twisting of that as well.
Some particularly valiant attempts to remain negative including throwing in everything but the kitchen sink for good measure!
Not everyone was completely negative and I have taken into consideration that times are tough for lots of folks but that's really no excuse for ignoring the obvious.
And, you're right, it's only been a week. 
@TheCasualReporter (283)
• France
27 Jan 09
I've been spending a fair amount of time on whitehouse.gov where you can read Obama's executive orders and presidential memoranda in their entirety. I think he's doing a great job so far.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
27 Jan 09
He hit the ground running like he said he would. There are so many problems, both nationally and internationally that need to be addressed. It can't all be done in a day or a week...kinda like if your house has been completely trashed. You have to start somewhere.
@taface412 (3175)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I did not think any thing of it until i heard how much the whole shindig cost (inaugaration). Since we have roughly criticized (and it was due by the way) the Bail out people who wasted the money they were given by going to expensive retreats and such, why can we not find it distasteful that the inaugaration cost $150 million dollars when in the past the average was $40 million. All the while people are being laid off of jobs, losing homes, and experiencing pay freezes. I am not saying this in a rough criticism I am saying that it was not needed in the time of need.
And no matter what, whomever wound up in the office will be criticized.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Jan 09
All you are doing is stating FACTS. The cost of that inauguration was disgusting. No celebration is worth that....ever. And since they are giving more bail out money to the very ones that spent their money selfishly and greedily that put us in this mess in the first place... more bail out money isn't going to help the economy.. it will just bail out the people that put us here, so they can keep their jobs and high salaries to do it again. I just don't understand why that money is going to a select few, when if it was given to the american people, even in form of tax cuts and deductions..we could get ourselves out of this mess that these comglomerates put us in. You have to spend money on product to make an economy move. paying greedy peoples debts isn't going to do a thing.
