Home › Blogs › kmorrison's blog ›

Dems 2nd No Vote Against Transparency

Submitted by kmorrison on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:31
in

For the second time this year the Democrats have voted against transparency and by voting against posting a bill online 72 hours before it the vote. Transparency was a huge theme in the last election, this administration claimed it would be the most transparent in history, and while this vote is not President Obama fault, it shows that the Democrats, as a whole, are not living up to the promises of last election. Posting bills online prior to a vote was specifically mentioned during the 2008 race, and now that it is no longer politically convenient, transparency has been thrown overboard.

Democrats’ Second Vote Against Transparency

0
Your rating: None

Comments

More delyaing tactics and BS

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 13:22.

Don't believe everything that you hear on FOX news. What the Republicans were proposing was just another delaying tactic. They wanted the full legislative language worked up and posted, an effort that would have taken weeks and which is pointless in this case, becasue the Finance Committee doesn't work off the legislative language, it works off of conceptual language. So instead, the conceptual language is going to be posted before the vote.

 

 

Correct

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 14:20.

And the legislative language is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't a lawyer with a lot of time on his hands. The title of the blog post, that this was a "vote against transparency" is a lie.

 

 

During the Election...

Submitted by kmorrison on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 13:55.

...it was repeatedly promised that bills would be posted online before a vote.  PDF'ing a bill and putting it online is not that time consuming if you have staff.

I repeat

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 14:09.

The committee in question does not work in legislative language, it works in conceptual language. It is going to post the conceptual language. The Republicans asked for the legislative language to be posted, which would take 2 or 3 weeks to be worked up, and the would not be what is actually voted on. 

Delay for the sake of delay.

Post Both Then

Submitted by kmorrison on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 14:35.

Fox isn't the only one to call it a lack of transparency...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574301050879872972.html

I don't doubt that mark up language could be tough to read, but it's ridiculous to say that it will take to long to post it online.  It takes maybe 5 minutes longer to PDF a doc versus xerox a doc.  When it has been promised that bills will be posted online before a vote during a campaign, all that is being asked is that a promises be lived up to.  Post both the mark up and the summary and the problem is solved.

 

There is no "both"

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 14:52.

There is no legislative language from this committee. So there is no "both" to post. The Republicans want to delay for two weeks while the legislative language is created....but then it won't be used.

And, BTW, the clip you posted is a WSJ guy talking to a FOX talking head, so it disingenuous to say that FOX and your WSJ constitute independent verification.

From What CBS Reports...

Submitted by kmorrison on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 16:51.

...its the 'plain language' version that would have to be created.  Don't see any reason why the legislation itself can't be posted, or how 'no legislative language' could exist if the proposal is to put the bill online 72 hours before a vote...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5332887.shtml

What part of this don't you understand?

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 16:55.

This is from your link:

The Senate Finance Committee considered for two hours today a Republican amendment -- which was ultimately rejected -- that would have required the "legislative" language of the committee's final bill, along with a cost estimate for the bill, to be posted online for 72 hours before the committee voted on it. Instead, the committee passed a similar amendment, offered by Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), to put online the "conceptual" or "plain" language of the bill, along with the cost estimate. Usually, the Senate Finance Committee considers "conceptual" language because the actual legislative language in a bill is filled with jargon and references to existing legal code that can make it nearly impossible to follow.