Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/06/eveningnews/main6064298.shtml?tag=pop

President Obama wants the final negotiations on health care reform - a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill - put on a fast track, even if that means breaking an explicit campaign promise.

\"The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats,\" House Speaker Nanci Pelosi said today at the White House.

The White House is on board with that, too, reports CBS News political correspondent Chip Reid. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed today that \"the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.\"

During the campaign, though, candidate Obama regularly promised something different - to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. (That promise applied to the now-completed processing of forging House and Senate bills, too.)

Back when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House, it was Democrats who angrily complained about secret backroom deals.

Now the roles are reversed.

Click to expand...

Nice. The senators and representatives want to be able to argue their points without the people who elected them knowing what points they individually argued.

They make a play pretending it's to make the process faster, but the reality is that the only difference having cameras in that room is going to make is that each person talking will be held accountable for what they push for in the final bill.

One group that's liable to get burned by this are the pro-choice people. Personally, and behind closed doors, a lot of democrats are against abortion, and that's one of the key parts of the bill that is going to be determined in these meetings.

Democracy in action, indeed.

Yeah transparent governing is something that just won't happen. I'd like to see it, but I think everyone knows it'll never happen.

Considering it was a major campaign promise by Obama to NOT be like the Bush administration I don't think "yeah thats just how government is" cuts it, it certainly didn't cut it for the last administration and they took a HELL of a beating in the press for it. I know from listening to NPR about this the last few days a lot of people in the Obama camp are really unhappy about the Bush-like secrecy. I hope the press shows some guts here and goes after them for this. It's not how I want my country run, regardless of who is in power and frankly I'm sick of it.

I don't see it as secrecy as much as politicians covering their own asses. The final bill will still be available for people to see but they just aren't letting people into the kitchen to see the sausage being made. I would prefer transparency myself but this doesn't feel the same as limiting access to many ridiculous things under the guise of national security.

To be transparent myself: I voted for Obama, I'm not an avowed (or registered) democrat, and I was not a fan of Bush for a variety of reasons that have little to do with him being a republican. Obama clearly over-reached with his promises but I still feel like a bigger deal is being made of this than need be (shock!)

MindDetective said:

To be transparent myself: I voted for Obama, I'm not an avowed (or registered) democrat, and I was not a fan of Bush for a variety of reasons that have little to do with him being a republican. Obama clearly over-reached with his promises but I still feel like a bigger deal is being made of this than need be (shock!)

Click to expand...

I don't think so. People have been feeling left out of the process for the last 8 years and rightly so. So a candidate comes along and makes it a top part of his platform to include openness. Now people are freaking out about healthcare and the bill and what it's going to do and they want to know what their elected representatives are doing. And they are being told, "No."

And let me be clear here, I'm not taking to the streets with my grenade launcher or anything (Mainly because I don't own one. I totally would if I could because... well... GRENADE LAUNCHER) but I'm tired of a government that promises openness and then never gives it to you just so they can cover their own behinds.

You say "people are making to big of a deal over this", I say, lets start making a big deal over things and less being apathetic. We voted our representatives in. They work FOR us. Not FOR themselves.

To be transparent then, since it's the thing we are doing: I voted for Bush the first time around. I did not vote for him on his second term and I did not vote for McCain nor Obama in the last election.

EDIT: The big deal over "this" thing MD. It's not really, at least for me and from what I was hearing on NPR from government openness groups about just "this thing". It's that in the time Obama has been in he's done little to nothing to reverse the way the Bush admin. did things regarding privacy rights. It's a pattern that is unacceptable for any president but that seems to be becoming precedent. Does that make more sense?

Espy;326551][QUOTE=MindDetective said:

EDIT: The big deal over \"this\" thing MD. It's not really, at least for me and from what I was hearing on NPR from government openness groups about just \"this thing\". It's that in the time Obama has been in he's done little to nothing to reverse the way the Bush admin. did things regarding privacy rights. It's a pattern that is unacceptable for any president but that seems to be becoming precedent. Does that make more sense?

Click to expand...

Which I also find upsetting. It is a big deal when the only thing he's done so far in this department is an executive order to curb secrecy.

I'd really like to see more transparency in government. This protecting of senators true positions is redonkulous.

Thats what I'm saying. If your senator is so scared to let you know the work he's doing MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T BE YOUR SENATOR ANYMORE because he's not really looking out for YOUR interests.

Krisken said:

This protecting of senators true positions is redonkulous.

Click to expand...

But then you'll know if they where actually trying to do what they promised... how does that benefit anyone.

View attachment 214

Well, when we feel like it.


(For the record I think you could have just about any politician in that photo, but this photo gets the irony award right now)

Yup, it's a Mission Accomplished moment.

I believe the democrats are both trying to protect themselves, and get this bill passed before the election in which the democrats are expected to lose many seats. It won't change the balance significantly, but chances are good the house and senate won't be filibuster proof, and health care legislation would be that much harder to pass.

But this was a very, very specific campaign promise that he's breaking ONLY to make it so the public can't hold their representatives accountable. There's absolutely no other reason for this. He is implicitly supporting people who don't want to be held accountable for sweeping legislation that will affect every single American. Sure, it doesn't have much teeth - it's fairly gutted from the lofty goals, but it's going to be the foundation of health care in the US for the next few decades, and a bad foundation is worse than no change at all.

Espy, the big deal people are making is about the broken promise. That's not the issue people should be up in arms about. It is just another partisan pivot point to me. Transparency is an excellent thing to be concerned about, though. However that kind of change is likely to come slowly, I expect.

MindDetective said:

Espy, the big deal people are making is about the broken promise. That's not the issue people should be up in arms about. It is just another partisan pivot point to me. Transparency is an excellent thing to be concerned about, though. However that kind of change is likely to come slowly, I expect.

Click to expand...

Why should it come slowly? The technology is in place. The members of Congress are just to much of cum-sucking cowards to actually show any real integrity and work towards the wants and best interests of their constituents. If they were to you know actually do their jobs like they are supposed to none of them would have to worry about this bill costing them their jobs.

I'd also be willing to bet that this bill will be on the President's desk before it's available to be read by the public.

Because people change slowly.

Additionally, there is something of a flaw in the system. Politicians need to appeal to a broad audience. This often means taking a superficial and vague approach when selling themselves to the public. It is a matter of not being able to make some of the people happy all the time or all the people happy some of the time (per Lincoln). I don't like it the way that it is but I understand it. The politicians making sausage in the back room may not be any better or worse of a choice than their opponent, who has the luxury have making a broad appeal with superficial statements while the incumbent gets pinned down with a complicated voting history. You'll never have transparency while politicians are constantly running for office.

I agree most of the way with Espy. I actually don't care about broadly-worded campaign promises as much as I do the lack of transparency in government, period. It got pretty bad during the Bush years, and Obama isn't making it any better, which, considering the Bush years, is something that should be done, regardless.

.

I think the whole deal of "close door" is to representative (senate and house) to protect their own butt. They KNOW the people who voted them in may not like some of the idea (i.e. no abortion support or total out of pocket etc etc) I think the whole thing is kinda fishy and NEED more time to hash it out. Making a "quick" fix is not going to solve anything.

Personally Obama should have put this aside and work on getting the American people JOBS first. I remember his speech saying that it is up to the private industry, well, help those private industry. Or get some government program going. There are bridges and roads of the U.S. that in need of repair. That is a lot of work right there across 48 states. New Orleans are STILL under construction in some parts. There are tons of stuff to do and not enough jobs, why don't the government concentrate on that first THEN worry about healthcare?

I can tell you, if I was a family who is barely making ends meet with bills, food, and roof over my family. I just can't afford health insurance no matter the cost unless it is free, but that is not part of the program is it?

MindDetective said:

Additionally, there is something of a flaw in the system. Politicians need to appeal to a broad audience. This often means taking a superficial and vague approach when selling themselves to the public. It is a matter of not being able to make some of the people happy all the time or all the people happy some of the time (per Lincoln). I don't like it the way that it is but I understand it. The politicians making sausage in the back room may not be any better or worse of a choice than their opponent, who has the luxury have making a broad appeal with superficial statements while the incumbent gets pinned down with a complicated voting history. You'll never have transparency while politicians are constantly running for office.

Click to expand...

Crazy idea. Now bare with me because an idea this radical make shake the very foundation of this site. Congressmen and Senators can actually work to accomplish what they promise and what their voters want. Shocking. I know I know, but that will mean that incumbents will actually be held responsible. I'd rather a new bonehead in office every 2 and 6 years than a bonehead who can do whatever the hell he wants and keep getting elected. I mean how crazy is it that our elected officials will actually have to be good at their job in order to keep it?

Covar;327326][QUOTE=MindDetective said:

Additionally, there is something of a flaw in the system. Politicians need to appeal to a broad audience. This often means taking a superficial and vague approach when selling themselves to the public. It is a matter of not being able to make some of the people happy all the time or all the people happy some of the time (per Lincoln). I don't like it the way that it is but I understand it. The politicians making sausage in the back room may not be any better or worse of a choice than their opponent, who has the luxury have making a broad appeal with superficial statements while the incumbent gets pinned down with a complicated voting history. You'll never have transparency while politicians are constantly running for office.

Click to expand...

Crazy idea. Now bare with me because an idea this radical make shake the very foundation of this site. Congressmen and Senators can actually work to accomplish what they promise and what their voters want. Shocking. I know I know, but that will mean that incumbents will actually be held responsible. I'd rather a new bonehead in office every 2 and 6 years than a bonehead who can do whatever the hell he wants and keep getting elected. I mean how crazy is it that our elected officials will actually have to be good at their job in order to keep it?[/QUOTE]

Now that is crazy talk!

Covar;327326][QUOTE=MindDetective said:

Additionally, there is something of a flaw in the system. Politicians need to appeal to a broad audience. This often means taking a superficial and vague approach when selling themselves to the public. It is a matter of not being able to make some of the people happy all the time or all the people happy some of the time (per Lincoln). I don't like it the way that it is but I understand it. The politicians making sausage in the back room may not be any better or worse of a choice than their opponent, who has the luxury have making a broad appeal with superficial statements while the incumbent gets pinned down with a complicated voting history. You'll never have transparency while politicians are constantly running for office.

Click to expand...

Crazy idea. Now bare with me because an idea this radical make shake the very foundation of this site. Congressmen and Senators can actually work to accomplish what they promise and what their voters want. Shocking. I know I know, but that will mean that incumbents will actually be held responsible. I'd rather a new bonehead in office every 2 and 6 years than a bonehead who can do whatever the hell he wants and keep getting elected. I mean how crazy is it that our elected officials will actually have to be good at their job in order to keep it?[/QUOTE]

Easy to say, harder to implement because "their voters" don't all actually want the same thing.

I'm all for refreshing our government officials more frequently, though.

So... if this conversation has brought up anything important it's that TERM LIMITS are a good thing. So we just need to get our representatives who live off the public teat and crave the power that comes with public office to pass a law that... aw crap!

Espy said:

So... if this conversation has brought up anything important it's that TERM LIMITS are a good thing. So we just need to get our representatives who live off the public teat and crave the power that comes with public office to pass a law that... aw crap!

Click to expand...

I know. Totally screwed.

Espy said:

So... if this conversation has brought up anything important it's that TERM LIMITS are a good thing. So we just need to get our representatives who live off the public teat and crave the power that comes with public office to pass a law that... aw crap!

Click to expand...

Not just term limits, but restrictions on lobbying after serving those terms. When you spend 10 years on a committee that is meant to regulate banks and then step down from your position and shortly after work for the same industry you were supposed to regulate just a year before, then something doesn't pass the smell test.

Krisken;327360][QUOTE=Espy said:

So... if this conversation has brought up anything important it's that TERM LIMITS are a good thing. So we just need to get our representatives who live off the public teat and crave the power that comes with public office to pass a law that... aw crap!

Click to expand...

Not just term limits, but restrictions on lobbying after serving those terms. When you spend 10 years on a committee that is meant to regulate banks and then step down from your position and shortly after work for the same industry you were supposed to regulate just a year before, then something doesn't pass the smell test.[/QUOTE]

that never happ.... oh wait.... nm Yea. but that is not going to pass NOW! cause the senate and house of rep will never pass it. A lot of them been there for YEARS (like 20+ years) sure some of them are new, but most are senators/representative for how long???

I want to say that the Federal Government can't pass term limits because it's a state issue. Supreme Court made a ruling on it I want to say in the 90's.

Covar said:

I want to say that the Federal Government can't pass term limits because it's a state issue. Supreme Court made a ruling on it I want to say in the 90's.

Click to expand...

You have that backwards.

In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled
5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779
(1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.

Click to expand...

Krisken;328664][QUOTE=Covar said:

I want to say that the Federal Government can't pass term limits because it's a state issue. Supreme Court made a ruling on it I want to say in the 90's.

Click to expand...

You have that backwards.

In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled
5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779
(1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That is what I thought. All the terms are in the constitution so it would require an amendment to change it right? I know it states that State reps are 2 years and Senates 6, but didn't limit how many time they can be in office unlike the President which 22nd Amendment limit Presidential office to 2.

Politics, politics never changes...

Chibibar;328672][QUOTE=Krisken;328664][QUOTE=Covar said:

I want to say that the Federal Government can't pass term limits because it's a state issue. Supreme Court made a ruling on it I want to say in the 90's.

Click to expand...

You have that backwards.

In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled
5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779
(1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That is what I thought. All the terms are in the constitution so it would require an amendment to change it right? I know it states that State reps are 2 years and Senates 6, but didn't limit how many time they can be in office unlike the President which 22nd Amendment limit Presidential office to 2.[/QUOTE]

Good to know.

Krisken, thanks for straightening me out.

Covar: I guess the forfathers was hoping that the people will "vote them out" if senators are not doing their job, but alas, a lot of the American people are not exercising their right to vote. Of course getting into office is such an ordeal now-a-days even for house rep, there are cost and such.

Chibibar said:

Covar: I guess the forfathers was hoping that the people will "vote them out" if senators are not doing their job, but alas, a lot of the American people are not exercising their right to vote. Of course getting into office is such an ordeal now-a-days even for house rep, there are cost and such.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that at the time it was drafted people didn't often live to be 90.

Chibibar said:

Covar: I guess the forfathers was hoping that the people will "vote them out" if senators are not doing their job, but alas, a lot of the American people are not exercising their right to vote. Of course getting into office is such an ordeal now-a-days even for house rep, there are cost and such.

Click to expand...

Also originally Senators were appointed by the States instead of voted on by the people. That probably made the rotation of Senators more likely.

Still doesn't help with the rotation in the House, though.

And you know, I think it might have been a better idea to keep the Senators appointed by the states, with each Senator coming from one of the State-level reps.

The system we have now though gives more power to the people. That is never a bad thing.

stienman said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/06/eveningnews/main6064298.shtml?tag=pop

President Obama wants the final negotiations on health care reform - a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill - put on a fast track, even if that means breaking an explicit campaign promise.

\\"The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats,\\" House Speaker Nanci Pelosi said today at the White House.

The White House is on board with that, too, reports CBS News political correspondent Chip Reid. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed today that \\"the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.\\"

During the campaign, though, candidate Obama regularly promised something different - to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. (That promise applied to the now-completed processing of forging House and Senate bills, too.)

Back when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House, it was Democrats who angrily complained about secret backroom deals.

Now the roles are reversed.

Click to expand...

Nice. The senators and representatives want to be able to argue their points without the people who elected them knowing what points they individually argued.

They make a play pretending it's to make the process faster, but the reality is that the only difference having cameras in that room is going to make is that each person talking will be held accountable for what they push for in the final bill.

One group that's liable to get burned by this are the pro-choice people. Personally, and behind closed doors, a lot of democrats are against abortion, and that's one of the key parts of the bill that is going to be determined in these meetings.

Democracy in action, indeed.

Click to expand...

haha, you make it sound like folks who are pro-choice love killing babies. Cute. I'm a democrat and I'm against abortion, but I'm pro-choice. How is this possible, how how how? Riddle me that!??!

I think you might be reading more into that sentence that Stienman meant there to be. I think he might have just meant that despite a public pro-choice face they are personally against it so they have no problem cutting it out of the bill. It takes a real stretch to get "love killing babies" out of that.

What about people who love killing babies, and don't want people to have a choice about it?

...