Organizing for America | Posts with the tag transparency in government

Posts with the tag transparency in government

By Sharon M from West Palm Beach - Feb 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pm EST

This may sound like a crazy idea but I have a proposal for the use of some of the funds that would otherwise be directed to banks and credit card companies. It seems that a lot of the people who have been losing their corporate jobs previously worked in banks, brokerage houses and administrative jobs in large corporations. Perhaps a new compliance branch of the government could be set up, then hire these individuals and train them to be compliance auditors and then send them to Wall Street and into all of the banks that received TARP funds. The purpose would be to find out just exactly what is going on in the market. What is motivating trading trends? Can we ferret out those people who are in Hedge funds that are using the stock exchange as Las Vegas? Can we figure out how the bankers who took TARP funds actually spent them? Can we figure out what is driving the corporations to do mass layoffs, thus creating a deeper recession by the moment?

This action would put a lot of middle class people back to work. Benefits would be restored. Mortgages and credit cards could be paid, thus eliminating bad loans and thereby eleminating the need to have taxpayers fund the finance industry. I personally would prefer to put money in the hands of employees rather than the hands of bankers looking for more cash to grow their banks.

As for the remaining bad loans that never should have been given, let the banks deal with the consequences of their predatory lending games.

We are all asking for transparency and accountability. The only way to achieve that is to have the adequate number of people working who can audit. We cannot go to war with Wall Street with guns and weapons of violence but we can go to war with pencil pushers descending on all of the businesses that have laid off vast numbers of employees and let them know that the party is over and greed is no longer an acceptable business plan.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Lets define "Public"

By Rich England - Feb 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm EST

According to the U.S. Appellate Court, "There can be no limit to the surveillance of an employee by an employer". Therefore, every elected official, and their political appointees, should have a camera on their shoulder, a microphone in their pocket, and while they are at work, they're online! In addition to the streaming video, the currently updated list of political contributions and contributors needs to be presented. It would be appropriate to present the management plans and progress reports for the staff.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

First draft of our Platform Statement

By Rae - Jul 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm EDT

Hello all,

If you click on Read more at the bottom of this post, you will see the full text of my first draft of our Platform statement. For those of you who were at our meeting, I didn't try to reconstruct our conversation. Instead I tried to synthesize the different issues, perspectives, and discussions into language that would be appropriate for a political platform. So, if I misrepresented or left out something you feel passionately about, this is your chance to get it back in.

Please, be critical and be constructive. Use the comments feature to suggest changes or offer critique, but please try to be as specific as possible. If you're displeased with the wording of something, suggest an alternate wording and explain why you prefer it, or at least be very specific with why you don't like the present wording. If you want to see something added, draft your addition and post it. Don't forget to read and reply to others' comments as well.

You'll have until Sunday night at 7:00 pm to post your comments. Then I'll gather them all up and submit our recommendation to the committee. Please feel free to forward the link to this post to as many people as you think would be interested. Critique is healthy and strengthens the quality of our ideas.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (6) | Report Objectionable Content

Open Government

By Duane Kuehn - May 30th, 2008 at 4:51 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

     The media says that the economy and Iraq are the two issues of most concern in the 2008 Presidential Election. However, the media has said many things political lately and walked away with egg on the face.

     Personally, when I got my little survey card, I did not put “Open Government” at the top of my list simply because I did not understand it. What it actually meant or how important “Open Government” is to our country. Until I began looking into things, I never gave much thought to the “Freedom of Information Act”. It did not seem to concern my living life from paycheck to paycheck.

     “Transparent” or “Open Government” is more important today than ever before. Never before has the government been so overwhelmingly secretive. When local Board of Education meetings are closed to the public whose children they serve and Presidents issue an Executive Order* that their actions in office be hidden from public view for twenty years, something is amiss.

     The Constitution of the United States of America does not allow the three branches of government to cloak themselves in secrecy. The Constitution allows secrecy in one, and only one instance. That allowance given to the Congress if the Congress believes it is necessary. It was very important to the life of Congressional persons of the time.

     Being a Congressperson was a very dangerous occupation. In the heat of debate, fistfights between statesmen were hardly unusual while Congress was in session. At times, the floor of Congress might look more like a bar brawl than a place of honorable debate.

     A Congressperson not only risked physical altercations in the House and Senate, they also risked getting pummeled to death in public by people who might be incited to violence at a stance taken in the Congress.

     The Constitution gives the Executive branch no allowance for Secrecy in its functions. Secrecy for the Oval Office, apparently swiped while behind closed doors.

     “Open Government” opens those doors, allowing “We the People” to participate in Democracy as it should be.

     Today, we have with a very telling Presidential Election in progress. The three main candidates, at this time, are John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is important to know where they stand on the issue of “Open Government”. All three have given positions on this issue.

     Much better than listening to a sensationalist media and gossip, one should probably go to the official websites of the various candidates to find out what they are proposing on all issues, as well as “Open-Transparent Government”.

     John McCain limits himself to pork barrels as earmarks, lobbyist activity in respect to the “revolving door” and campaign donations of big money that “buy” candidates. He falls short of offering proposals that effectively address any of the concerns he mentions.

     Important here is to recognize the difference between “pork barrels” and “earmarks”, as Mr. McCain does not.

     A “pork barrel” adds monies to a bill and “earmarks” the money to be spent on a project unrelated to the bill itself. Such as adding a million dollars to a military bill and “earmarking” it to build a school gymnasium somewhere.

     An “earmark” does not increase the amount of the bill in question; it specifies how the receiving government agency is to spend the monies. A multi-million dollar military bill can have a certain amount of those millions “earmarked” to be spent updating gear for the soldiers. “Earmarks” are not the “bad boys” of government spending. They are an important way for Congress to designate where/how a given agency is to spend the money.

     John McCain gives no explanation as to how he will stop the “revolving door” (legislatures who leave office to become lobbyists). John also denounces the “buying” of candidates with big money campaign donations, but is not adverse to accepting and using such donations himself. As is said, “The proof is in the pudding”.

     Hillary Clinton has a “ten point” program addressing the need for Open Government.

     The problem I see with Hillary is that she says one thing, such as the same ‘big money’ that buys candidates but is not above grabbing for these campaign monies herself. She also has a history of doing that which she now professes to repair in government. The question becomes, “Will she stick to her promises?”

     Barack Obama is an anomaly in modern politics. On the official website of his campaign are issues, his position on these issues and a more in-depth explanation of how he would address these issues, than is normally seen in politics.

     “Open (Transparent) Government” laces throughout the site and the “issues”<“ethics” path alone can be found 15 points on Open Government.

     While the media, polls and the pundits hash over why is he so popular and is it a political campaign or a movement; we have the answer in front of us. Over 70% of “We the People” have lost trust in our government. Over 90% of “We the People” feel that “Open Government” is a very important issue in this 2008 campaign. Obama is a political campaign and a movement too.

     Barack Obama stepped forward and immediately demanded “Change” in government. That change being a re-Opening of Government doors to “We the People” who own those very doors.

     He spoke to the heart of a people who have come to mistrust the very government they elect. Barack Obama’s campaign base is on the changes in government that are very important to 90% of “We the People of the United States”.

     The proof is in the pudding and Mr. Obama has a history of opening government doors. He has put his voting record and sponsorships where his mouth is, he walks the ideals that he talks. He not only speaks out about ‘big money’, he refuses to accept its donations in his campaign.

     “Open Government” and Barack Obama walk hand in hand, and that is the reason for his popularity with “We the People of the United States”.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Legendary Journalist Roger Wilkins Visits South Carolina for Barack

By T. Neil Sroka - Oct 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

Roger Wilkins knows Washington, and Roger Wilkins knows how much Washington needs to change.

Wilkins worked in the Johnson Administration as an Assistant Attorney General and later became the first black member of the Washington Post's editorial board. During his years at the Washington Post, he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Watergate scandal. In the years to follow, Wilkins has served as the editor of a major newspaper (the now-defunct Washington Star), the first black columnist for the New York Times, a leader of the Free South Africa movement, and a distinguished Professor at George Mason University, where he still teaches today.

This week Wilkins traveled across South Carolina to share his reasons for supporting Barack's candidacy.

During a discussion yesterday with communications students at the College of Charleston, Wilkins emphasized Barack's aim of creating more transparency in our goverment.

I have observed and written about a government that was reluctant to give information to the public, and I worked in a government that was systematically deceiving the people about what was going on in the war in Vietnam. I am convinced that most important freedom we have among all the freedoms in the Bill of Rights is to know what the people in charge... are doing as they make policy for us and for our children... and I couldn't agree more [with Barack's position on improving transparency in government].

For Wilkins, Barack's commitment to transparency is reflected in the way he wants to approach the challenges facing the country, a style defined by a willingness to hear opinions that differ from his own and conduct open, honest dialogue with the American people about the decisions he'll make.

[Barack is] a brilliant man with an extraordinary gift for listening to other human beings. He doesn't have the attitude that "I'm the smartest person in the room." He has the attitude that "I need to listen to other people, reason with other people to figure out how we can get out of this mess.

Barack's openness to hear different opinions is one reason Wilkins is confident that Barack has what it's going to take to effect the fundamental change America needs.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.