The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration
 

Ok, the other threads are pretty jacked up with side conversations, so I figured I'd start a new one about what President Obama is actually doing.

Yesterday, he froze salaries for top staff members and directed information agencies to err on the side of transparency instead of secrecy. My favorite part was regarding ethics:
Today, Obama ordered the Gitmo and the secret CIA prisons to close. He set up a commission to figure out what to do with the prisoners as well as future prisoners of this kind. He ordered the military to stick to the book and not torture, and he's creating a Mideast envoy position so we can deal with that region better.

So far, so good. :)

Tuesday: Obama halts all regulations pending review -- AP

A good step. I'll be interested to see what ideas the commission comes up with for the prisoners. It's a bit of a sticky wicket.

I don't know. The whole closing Gitmo thing is such a bogus symbolic move. I mean, I agree with the impetus behind the symbolic move, and if closing it gets the ball rolling for fixing what actually needs to be fixed fine, but if closing it is just going to waste time and resources on a symbolic move instead of using our energy to creating proper prisoner procedures and oversight, it's a fail.

I'd rather see Gitmo open with humanely treated prisoners than see Gitmo closed with tortured prisoners elsewhere.

This is a stupid rule, in my opinion. Like it or not, lobbyists are experts in an area. If you simply don't want former lobbyists say so. Though I don't agree with the general branding of lobbyists as a dirty thing.

Kind of like saying we're going to hire thoracic surgeons but they won't be allowed to hold scalpels.

And it is disingenuous. They'll hire people who are policy experts in an area but either have never been overtly active in pursuing policy or were merely the people who hired the lobbyists to do their bidding. The CEO of United Airlines could be named to run the FAA but the United Airlines lobbyist couldn't be hired to work on a commission on modernizing the air traffic control system? Stupid.

It seems very exciting to me. At no other time in my life can I remember ever thinking "yay" about a new president doing things in the first few days in office.

About not accepting gifts, it's amazing it's taken this long to get something like that done. I can't accept gifts in my line of work. I must turn everything over to the boss who then decides to keep it or give it back. It keeps me from giving preference to certain vendors over anything other then what it should be based on.

It seems like common sense that those making laws and governing shoudln't be playing favorites.

This I think should also be a rule of thumb for our diplomatic corps. Like having an Ambassador in the Middle East who speaks Arabic and/or Farsi (etc.). Just having someone who speaks the language might do wonders for diplomacy, it's a sign of respect. In this day and climate, an Ambassadorship should not be a reward because you're a big donor etc.

I think that Gitmo, like Abu Ghraib, has its own messed up culture that needed to be dismantled publicly. I do agree that it is in part symbolic, and that it makes more a good headline than a lasting step, but we need both symbols and action, and we're getting both. If they back down on the follow up, then I'd be pissed.

I think lobbying is a dirty profession that needs to be outlawed, and I hope that one day we will look back in horror that such a concept ever existed. Gifts for elected officials - wrong, wrong, wrong.


I mentioned the Mideast envoy. There's another one being added for the Pakistan/Afghanistan situation.

I don't see why. It is inherent in the system unless you want to somehow separate government from contact with the people it governs.

You do realize that our Mideast envoy is just a lobbyist from our government trying to elicit specific responses from other governments. I'm looking upon it with horror that this concept exists.

Obama allowed to keep BlackBerry


Barack Obama is an avid user of his BlackBerry

Barack Obama is to keep his BlackBerry, becoming the first US president to have access to e-mail in the White House.


























The first! WTF!?!?!

The lawyers fought him on it. He won.

It's not a Blackberry (though it does the same thing; I don't remember the brand but it wasn't BlackBerry). It is some other product that is super duper unhackable technology. They were talking about it on some news show this evening. It costs $3,000.

He's going to be kicking himself when it falls out of his pocket on the train and has to beg IT to get him a replacement.

Somehow, I don't see the President of the United States begging IT for anything!

Thanks. Now I'm humming, "I fought the law and the law won."

I don't either, in reality. But I enjoy imagining it.

More seriously, while I'm glad he's saying "to hell with it" and keeping some means of unmediated communication with others, I understand the concerns about the advisability of the president easily using such things since everything he commits to pixels is subject to request by others.

An IM perfectly normal conversation between friends can look pretty bad when read into the record at a congressional hearing.

Hmmm...maybe he would have to beg IT. Just read this in a Slate article on the history of presidential computers:



And every news story is saying the new expensive toy is a BlackBerry. I'm pretty sure the image I saw earlier had another name on it but maybe I was wrong. Or the journalists are just using BlackBerry as a generic term.

They're using it as a generic term.

I get the feeling it's going to be a long 100 days

I am too. Goes with the whole "IT exists to make your life miserable" complex so many people have.

I heard he gets to keep his blackberry for personal stuff and he'll get another new fancy unhackable device for official business.

Blackberry is not that secure, at least not to the Presidential level.

For offical business word is he will have a brick of a device called a Sectera Edge

An envoy or ambassador is a different story - government to government, supposedly equals (though not necessarily so in reality).

I'd feel a lot better about lobbying if it didn't include gifts, but even so, the inherent unfairness of being able to afford a "man in Washington" to look after one's interests grates on me. I know that groups organize in order to achieve this level of input, but I can't wholly support a system that doesn't at least pretend to represent each citizen equally, no matter their standing.

Yeah, I know, we can't each go whisper in our representative's ear, but perhaps if no one were whispering in their ears, they'd have to actually seek out the facts instead of having a very specific version of it presented on a silver platter.

From Federalist 56.....James Madison says, "It seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

He also said, in relation to the size of the House, the "Numerous bodies (meaning the number of representatives) are less subject to venality and corruption."

While a little off the subject, I don't think it is necessarily lobbying that is the problem....it is the relatively small number of representatives (each now represents approx. 700,000 citizens) that are being lobbied.

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

So you would have the government essentially separated from the people? They get to provide input every 2, 4, 6 years at election time but otherwise we only get to try to influence them when they deign to come seeking our input? We pretty intentionally rejected such forms of government.

Why is government lobbying of other governments different? Heck, in that realm gift giving is viewed as a necessary part of the process (Hey, country X, if you promise to not pursue your own nuclear program/wage war against a neighbor/support our UN resolution we'll build you four nuclear power plants/lower trade barriers/name a tree after you). I'd think it would be even more repugnant.

You didn't say some methods of lobbying are bad, but rather that the very idea of lobbying at all is so repugnant that one day we'll be embarrassed that it ever existed (even though it has always existed in every form of government throughout all time).

Heck, even your own elected representatives are essentially lobbyists. We don't send a member of congress to Washington so that s/he can ignore the local interests back home and only act out of the best interests of the country as a whole, always acting on the average of the national public opinion). No, we expect them to use their influence and understanding of the processes in Washington to hopefully try and make sure local interests are disproportionately represented.

Nowhere in our system of government is there any existence of the idea that when it comes to governing the ideal is that it will at all times exist on a simple "all people's interests are equal" method. Such systems tend not to work in groups larger than small villages where direct democracy can be used in all government decisions and even then lobbying exists.


But anyway, that is all beside the point I was initially making in that the lobbyist rule is stupid. Since it defines a lobbyist in the most meaningless way as being someone who was paid and registered as one and then pretending that no similar conflict of interest exists for the person that hired the lobbyist. In fact, if there is an inherent conflict of interest it is more strongly attached to the community organizer who hires a lobbyist to work their interests than on the lobbyist himself. The latter is just a hired gun and may not even agree with the positions they represent. Such a person should be perfectly fine for inclusion in the adminstration since it could be assumed that once in place he'd actively work in the interests of the new boss.

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow the founders intention and only spend money on things that document says we should.

or, even better

2) Actually follow the founders intention and have one representative for every 30,000 citizens.....with something like 10,000 congresspersons voting on spending bills no lobbyist could possibly influence enough to really sway a vote.

Once we decided to view the Constitution as something "quaint" we opened the door for lobbyist and closed it for liberty:(

Edit to add: Great minds think alike; Scaegles, you beat me to it.

I agree with sleepyjeff.

Alert the media!

It's a good thing too. If they hadn't done that, we'd have over 1,000 in the House of Representatives now! Can you imagine the damage over twice as many congresscritters could do?!?!

You guys are too fast for me!

Enlarging the House of Representatives congress has long been one of the key components in my proposals for keeping the electoral college but getting it back to its original only mild geographic tilt.

My preferred method is to set statute so that after each census, the least populous state gets two votes seats in the House. That will set the baseline for how many people a single seat will represent. Take the mod of each other states populated divided by that number and that is how many they get.

This would, using current population result in Wyoming having 2 (compared to one now), each representing 266,334 people, and California having 138 as opposed to the current 54. And a total of 1,130 members of the the House of Representatives.

If that is too scary for most people, then it could be done by setting smallest to just one and then doing the same thing. This results in Wyoming having 1 (no change), each representing 532,668 people and California getting 69 (an increase of 17) for a total of 554 (just 119 more than now).

But really I think the biggest reason we've not increased the size of Congress is that the idea of having to build a new Capitol to house them and the supporting infrastructure is too scary. And that is, when you think about it, kind of lame.

Neither one of those things would get rid of lobbyists as evidenced by the fact that when both of those things were true (very limited government spending and small class size) lobbying still existed.

So, if that is what you think Madison meant by "safe and competent guardian of the interests" then Madison was wrong from the beginning. Instead I think he just meant it would help keep the lobbying interests local.

But of course, we do all tend to approve of lobbying supporting things we agree with ("you go Audobon Society and get us a new national park!") while deploring lobbying in favor of things we disagree with ("you rotten coal mining companies!").

Though I think an argument can be made that federal lobbying has definitely been rendered more important as federalism has died a slow death over the last century. But most people on this message board support that death.

1) The Founding Fathers were not able to anticipate our modern society, and it's needs. The Constitution is a framework - not a holy document. If we, as a country, have decided that there are things the federal government should do in order to maintain the common good, then we, as a people, have every right to demand the government do them. I think you would find that eliminating all government programs, and just paying for the military would have horrendous results for this country. Any politician that would seriously attempt such a thing would very quickly be out of a job.

The only people that I see who regard the Constitution as "quaint" are the Republicans who seek to strip us of our rights.

2) 10,000 (about 11,666 actually) representatives would be a disaster! You think Congress is inefficient now? The country would grind to a halt! And where would they meet? How would you provide the needed office space? The logistics alone are staggering. It could never happen.

Great idea...you've got my support.


Very lame indeed. To think liberty and freedom are being stifled by architecture....there are sports stadiums that seat close to(and even over) 100 times the required number.

Alex's plan is much more feasable.

It does, however, rely on never ever allowing Guam to transition from territory to state. (Just noticed I was sloppy in my quick spreadsheet and my numbers above include Puerto Rico.)

Using the 2 for the smallest method, with Guam in the picture that bumps things up to 3,518 members of the House. Even Wyoming would have six.

Skype?

It's not just the architecture, it's also the logistics of having that many in Congress. That's the deal breaker. And don't forget that all of those 11,000 people (and their staffs) would be paid!

This is why there is an amendment process. To allow changes if the requirements for changing it are met (in terms of votes and passage).

Yeah, I was being a bit flippant with making a new building the biggest thing I said and putting all the staffing issues under "infrastructure."

I do agree it would be an expensive hurdle, but also think it is lame that if more would create better government that we don't suck it up and do it.

I'm just not convinced it would make for a better government. The inefficiencies would overwhelm any benefits.

Certainly an issue for debate. But as federalism fades I think it becomes increasingly important that there be some relatively local form of representation at the national level.

And more importantly, while I think geographic representation is important enough that straight up 1:1 representation shouldn't be the ideal, I think we've skewed way too far. Rural congressmen now wield too much power in relation to their urban colleagues.

So I could be convinced either way, but I think the complexity of expansion prevents it from being seriously discussed.

I am going to a Blazer game tomorrow night....20,000 fans plus hundreds of employees will all be inside one building.

How many office's are there in the Pentagon?

With that many congresspersons, each one could concentrate on just one committee and wouldn't need a staff. As for their pay.....we don't need professional legislators; each one should be paid a stipend to cover basic living expenses while away from home and nothing more. No pensions, no 6 figure salaries, etc. Think of it as a sort of voluntary jury duty.

The solution is more politicians? I need a drink.

I don't know about Guam, But the District of Columbia is pushing for statehood and Obama is on record supporting it.

Probably not. Even if it helped the complaints we have now I'm sure it would produce new issues we despise just as much.

Ultimately the problem is that people aren't inclined to pay close attention to government involving more than a few thousand people and once people aren't paying close attention they'll eventually get screwed.

We could balkanize but I don't want use a passport to visit Sacramento.

There is also this point:

We all have just one representative in the House. I think I'd rather have someone representing me that one out of 435 rather than one out of 11,000; someone who has 1/435th of the power rather than 1/11,000 of the power.

Like this?

Amen to that!

There are more people in DC than in Wyoming so admission of DC wouldn't significantly change the numbers (DC would get 1 or 2 depending on the method but wouldn't change the multiple).


To quantify the overtilt of geography in federal government:

Wyoming gets one elected federal position per 174,277 people.
Texas (California is not worst off) gets one elected federal position per 703,070 people.

Just looking at the House, the best person to congress ratio is Wyoming again at 522,830 people per congressman while Montana has 957,861 for their single congressman. But this skew is more agnostic to rural/urban nature of the state.

Ok, that is a good point.

Although, in a way, it kinda proves mine

On the other hand you get to have less influence in trying to select the representative you think will best represent you.

Would you rather have 1/100,000th the influence on someone who will have 1/11,000th the power or 1/900,000th the influence on someone who will have 1/435th the power.

Difficult to say where the line is since I think we would agree that having one representative in the House for the entire country would not be good. But having every single person in the country having their own representative in the House would also not be ideal. I sense a graduate degree in computational political science in attempting to model it.

Attachment 956

:D

I'll leave it you to to organize a civil, productive debate amongst all 20,000+.

To the first part: Sure you can put 20,000 people in a building when all they have to do is sit there and not move. Once each of them has to have a desk, and an office, and staff... it adds up really quickly.

24,000 people work in the Pentagon. I'm not sure how many have their own office. But also consider: what's the annual budget of the Pentagon? Do you want to add that much to the federal government's budget?

And sure you can spread out congresspeople more when you have that many, but I don't buy that they could away without staffs. I doubt that one person could even read all of the legislation that gets considered, leaving no time to write any, or research any, or do anything else one might expect of members of congress (like listening to their constituents). And maybe you like the idea of non-professional legislators, but I think they're a disaster. The job is too big to do part-time, and won't be smaller with more legislators. There will still be just as many bills to vote on - actually a lot more, I'd wager, as you'd have a lot more legislators trying to make their mark.

Having said all that, if we, the American people, believe that increasing the size of Congress is in our interests, we should do it. But we should be aware of the costs.

Dancers and free T-shirts may help:D

From C-SPAN:

With 10,000 in Congress, that would potentially equal 180,000 full-time staff alone! We would need to build 8 Pentagons to hold all the Representatives and their staff!

It would sure help the unemployment numbers.

Actually, it would make more sense to use the average count. So "only" 140,000. Not that that's better, just sayin'

The original 1st article (which didn't pass) of the Bill Of Rights stipulated that congressional representation not exceed 50,000 per representative. At our current population, that would equal 6100 Representatives. Still unworkable IMO.

I guess it didn't pass for a reason then.

Environmental protections are generally an issue with the traditional partisans switch sides on whether "states rights" is an important concept.

I'm ambivalent about allowing states to create their own fuel economy standards.

I definitely think that the CAFE standards should be significantly increased and Washington should stop letting the manufacturers weasel their way out the increases that are coming.

But I don't know that I agree with allowing state standards to rule.

Isn't the idea that huge states like CA will pass very high CAFE standards which will, in effect, raise standards across the country? It makes more sense financially for car companies to make all of their cars meet the toughest standards rather than to make several different versions of their cars to meet several different CAFE standards.

Yes, that is the idea for people who like the strategy.

I just don't think it is a good idea to allow single states to start creating national policy. Especially when you getting into a realm where states start conflicting (say California requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars are solar powered while Florida requires that by 2018 more than 50% of cars run on babies).

I'm just not sure really where I draw the line.

Puppies and kitties. The line is drawn at puppies and kitties.

It kinda seems like the only way to truly tighten standards, IMO. The US Congress has been paralyzed for decades from making tough decisions largely due to the influence of auto industry lobbyists.

Speaking of, I really hope that any further money doled out to the banks/financial companies and the money going to the auto industry forces them severely restrict their tens of millions of dollars spent on lobbying each year. BoA and Citigroup alone spent $11,400,000 on lobbying in 2007 and $8,750,000 in 2008.

It might be, but it is an idea that can cut both ways. Simply by requiring different labeling or production forms states could keep certain drugs out of their states or, if it would be enough trouble, out of the country.

"To better protect the children of our state from accidentally taking drugs that can cause severe hormonal fluctuations, all birth control pills sold in this state must be at least 1/4" in diameter, green in color, embossed with the poison-guy face, and imprinted with a code that identifies every person who saw the pill from initial manufacture through bottling. This law is in no way designed to limit a woman access to birth control. In fact, we so strongly believe in birth control that so long as these requirements are met we removed prescription requirements."

Well yes, if you agree that CAFE is the top of a very slippery slope. And while I realize your bc scenario is an extreme example, CAFE does require minimum standards to be met (overseen by the NHTSA) but it does not specifically require uniformity amongst states (i.e. higher standards are not prohibited).

Drug regulation and standards on the other hand are, by law, solely the purview the FDA and requires prescription drugs to be uniform. Drugs are also required by law to have a uniform look (or looks) and changing anything would require an additional round of application and proof that the new "version" of the drug met the same standards as the old. I believe it also requires the states to sell any/all drugs that have been approved for sale by the FDA.

Limbaugh: Obama is 'frightened of me'