Joho the Blog: Freedom of Less Information Act

September 03, 2007

Freedom of Less Information Act

The Bush White House has decided that the Office of Administration is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Office of Administration covers Oval Office operations, appointments, and scheduling.

Which reminds me: NPR covered Bush's announcement that the government is going to provide some help to people whose homes are being foreclosed on. In the interview, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to estimate even roughly how many people the measures would help:

When asked how many people it's expected will benefit from the new proposals, Paulson says he doesn't want to "overpromise and underdeliver."
"We can't keep everyone in their home. We sure as heck can make a big effort to help those who have the capability to own a home refinance, and what we're going to do is make a effort," Paulson says. "And to me, success is helping as many people as possible."

What? This is a public official. He works for us, and not just in the sense that we pay his salary. Why can't he give us an estimate of how many people will be helped? He either has a ballpark idea or he's completely incompetent. This isn't a security issue. Yet Paulson feels he doesn't have to give us even the slightest idea. This politically-based silence should not be acceptable to us citizens. Yeah, it's a small thing. But it's indicative... [Tags: politics mortgages treasury bush foia]

Posted by D. Weinberger at September 3, 2007 04:53 PM

Comments

Anyone so inclined can run right over to the entirely bogus-seeming White House Interactive site (where the current question is, "George Bush is what number as president of the U.S.?" - an inquiry submitted, no doubt, by Miss North Carolina as she prepped for her big quiz) and inquire about this.

E.g.:

Why is the Office of Administration not subject to the Freedom of Information Act? When was this decided, and by whom, and with what authorizing action? What documentation was provided with this notice of change to demonstrate that it was within the law? How was this change announced? What criticisms, if any, has it encountered from the press? How has it been defended? Would it sustain a Supreme Court test? What is the moral justification? The pragmatic purpose? The goal?

The nice people at WHI will have no problem whipping up a batch of bullshit brownies.

Posted by: tom matrullo | September 3, 2007 09:16 PM

When asked how many people it's expected will benefit from the new proposals, Paulson says he doesn't want to "overpromise and underdeliver."

Remember BushCo believes in faith-based solutions.
Thus, Paulson's speech is Compassionate Conservative code for either:

1) You poor sods better start praying!

Or...

2) You dumb dolts haven't a friggin' prayer!

Either way. It's Hobson's choice.

Which is also to say:

In a Democracy, sometimes you get the sort of worthless government you prayed for.

Posted by: koreyel | September 3, 2007 09:40 PM

Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Comments

Post a comment

Joho the Blog An Entry from the Archives

Comments

Post a comment

Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives