# Another win for Obama and transparency in government **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363 "2009-08-14T01:03:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/21 "2009-08-14T19:38:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough. I agree that it’s absurd to equate this to the level of secrecy in the last administration, when Cheney invented a whole new branch of government to avoid giving up secrets, and the administration engaged in blatant contempt of congress to avoid giving up secrets. Redacted pages in a contract just ain’t the same. Especially when it appears that the redaction was at the request of the supplier, not the government. I’m with you in that I wish the government had said no, but as stated earlier, I’m betting that requiring the supplier to divulge all of that would increase the cost for the government in the future. Oh, and as to why I’ve been posting all of this info. Look between our posts. 🙂 Not that it will do any good in his case, but you never know who might be lurking. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/22 "2009-08-14T20:12:57Z")
Certain categories of information (such as confidential business information) are always exempt from a FOIA request. Unless someone can show that the redactions do not fall under any exemption I can’t see a legitimate cause for uproar. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/23 "2009-08-14T20:31:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama made claims of transparency as a campaign promise. The partisan claim of “change” would be his. He changed nothing and his supporters got the same. It will be the gift that keeps on not-giving. So, no? You don’t have anything specific to bring up? You instead would like to keep making vague and baseless bogey-boos? Just wanted to make sure that you hadn’t decided to actually join the meaningful part of the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/24 "2009-08-14T20:45:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, no? You don’t have anything specific to bring up? You instead would like to keep making vague and baseless bogey-boos? > > Just wanted to make sure that you hadn’t decided to actually join the meaningful part of the conversation. Obama made claims of transparency. He didn’t deliver. The stimulus package was rushed through before the public could vet it let alone Congress. What’s the debate? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/25 "2009-08-14T21:01:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama made claims of transparency. He didn’t deliver. The stimulus package was rushed through before the public could vet it let alone Congress. What’s the debate? Congress wrote it. Why would they not know what’s in it? Do you understand how congress works? The stimulus was emergency legislation, it was specifically not covered by the sunlight policy Obama wanted to enact. But as I said, sunlight couldn’t be enacted because some on the right are such filthy degenerate liars (death panels, forced euthanasia, government takeover of health care, socialism!!!11one) that the sunlight period would allow these morons to begin their mass lie emails. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/26 "2009-08-14T21:03:29Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > For those who don’t want to take the time to read, but also don’t want to just take sleestak’s word on it, it’s actually not as mysterious as claimed, and it appears that the redaction was at the insistence of the vendor, not the government. Pricing is available, for instance. For the most part, **it appears that they’ve blacked out names and backgrounds of individuals involved in the project** , as well as what Smartronix likely considers valuable trade secrets in their proposal. The actual statement of work doesn’t seem redacted much, if at all. Their perceived value in these “trade secrets” is likely overrated, but that’s true with just about any corporation. Basically, it appears that they don’t want you to know that John Doe is the project manager, and that they use Endeca for guided navigation, Tridion as the CMS, and Rails as the dev platform, etc. (all products and personnel are simply examples, as it was blacked out, so I have no clue what they used 🙂 ). > > As for cost, it appears that the initial work, including hardware is around 7 million or so, a bit over 80% which is in labor. Considering that they have BI, CMS, and various other things in addition to the site itself, you can burn through that amount of money VERY fast. Hell, my company only has three main websites and we spend several million a year just on developers. CMS and BI systems can hit 7 figures out of the box, and if you custom build them, they can cost that much or even more. > > It appears that they are also responsible for operations, maintenance, and even upgrades, for 3 years, and that also appears to be included in the 18 million. It’s still a decent chunk of change, but it doesn’t appear to be a $400 toilet seat. I’m betting they could have forced Smartronix into full exposure as part of the initial contract, but I’m guessing the price would have been higher. (bolding mine) Revealing the actual individuals who are getting paid under a government contract is an ordinary piece of public information that should not have been redacted. It is how you prevent patronage contracts. It is one thing to know that K Street Web Design, LLC got the contract; it is quite another to see that Michelle Obama is the project manager and Jill Biden is the lead designer. The _Chicago Sun-Times_ recently tendered a FOIA request for the names, positions, and salaries of every city, county and state employee in Cook County and every state university employee and promptly put this up on their website. There is no reason that the White House should have redacted similar information here. Furthermore, contractors know–expect even–that their bid and the details of their contract and performance will be matters of public record and subjected to scrutiny by interests ranging from your garden-variety goo-goo types through to their competitors. Eighteen million for the [recovery.gov](http://recovery.gov) website, even including the three-year extended warranty, seems excessive. Your repair to BI and CMS seems designed more to confound the issue than clarify it. Would you care to elaborate on what these are and why we should pay millions of dollars for it. I am troubled that people seem to react to any criticism of the Obama administration with such blind loyalty. Believe it or not (and you probably will not, sadly), Barry doesn’t shit rainbows and glitter. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/27 "2009-08-14T21:04:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But as I said, sunlight couldn’t be enacted because some on the right are such filthy degenerate liars (death panels, forced euthanasia, government takeover of health care, socialism!!!11one) that the sunlight period would allow these morons to begin their mass lie emails. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/28 "2009-08-14T21:06:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > :rolleyes: What exactly are they doing on the healthcare bill? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/29 "2009-08-14T21:10:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Congress wrote it. Why would they not know what’s in it? Do you understand how congress works? > > The stimulus was emergency legislation, it was specifically not covered by the sunlight policy Obama wanted to enact. > > But as I said, sunlight couldn’t be enacted because some on the right are such filthy degenerate liars (death panels, forced euthanasia, government takeover of health care, socialism!!!11one) that the sunlight period would allow these morons to begin their mass lie emails. When I become King of the World, you, **Lobohan** , will be my Minister of Truth. “Of course, we cannot enact sunlight. Why, if we did, some people might use it to comment unfavorably on the Administration’s proposals!” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/30 "2009-08-14T21:18:42Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > When I become King of the World, you, **Lobohan** , will be my Minister of Truth. > > “Of course, we cannot enact sunlight. Why, if we did, some people might use it to comment unfavorably on the Administration’s proposals!” As you wish, your Eminence. 😃 As I say, comment is what they wanted. Outright lies that turn little old ladies into shrill incoherent animals is what they’re getting. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Palin are liars. They lie. A lot. And some of the weak, stupid or uneducated take them to heart. Have you seen the town halls recently? Sunlight is a good idea, but it’s not worth getting their programs torpedoed by disinformation. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/31 "2009-08-14T21:36:16Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The Chicago Sun-Times recently tendered a FOIA request for the names, positions, and salaries of every city, county and state employee in Cook County and every state university employee and promptly put this up on their website. There is no reason that the White House should have redacted similar information here. Those are government employees, so perhaps you’d like to respond to this: [QUOTE=sciurophobic] Certain categories of information (such as confidential business information) are always exempt from a FOIA request. Unless someone can show that the redactions do not fall under any exemption I can’t see a legitimate cause for uproar. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kimmey\_Gibbler] Eighteen million for the [recovery.gov](http://recovery.gov) website, even including the three-year extended warranty, seems excessive. Your repair to BI and CMS seems designed more to confound the issue than clarify it. Would you care to elaborate on what these are and why we should pay millions of dollars for it. [/QUOTE] It may or may not be excessive, but after looking over the statement of work, I certainly don’t find it outrageous enough to convince me that it is. As I noted, my company has three sites and spends far more than that on them over a three year period. FAR MORE. BI is Business Intelligence, and it can cover a wide spectrum of things, such as dashboards with various key performance indicators, cubes that you can slice and dice to find out all sorts of things, canned reports, ad hoc reporting tools, data mining, etc. CMS stands for Content Management Systems and are repositories for the content that makes up the site. In this particular case, while not knowing if it is a custom job or off the shelf, their requirements are extremely comprehensive, so it wouldn’t be cheap either way. > [@](#): > > I am troubled that people seem to react to any criticism of the Obama administration with such blind loyalty. Believe it or not (and you probably will not, sadly), Barry doesn’t shit rainbows and glitter. I’m far more troubled by people who post drivel like this without actually bothering to notice that we’re not all completely comfortable with this. [QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Nothing nefarious, but I’d argue it’s pretty dumb in this instance: when you’re spearpointing the gummint’s policy on transparency, it’s bad PR to show data paranoia. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DMC] I completely agree. I’d either like it fully exposed, or if blacked out, an explanation as to why, for each section. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] What is far more interesting is what was the process for awarding this contract. I am not saying one way or the other, but that is the real question isn’t it? [/QUOTE] You really could have avoided that unfounded snark, as you went from valid questions to a **Magiver** clone in about 2 seconds. Plenty of us have potential issues with this redaction, and it appears that those who don’t just don’t give a shit, not that they are letting the administration slide because he’s the “messiah.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/32 "2009-08-14T21:55:28Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Those are government employees, so perhaps you’d like to respond to this Simple. The identities of the employees collecting paychecks on federal contracts is not “confidential business information.” And asserting a FOIA exemption is an affirmative defense; it is not up to the detractors to make that argument. If you think there is a FOIA exemption, why not let us know. > [@](#): > > It may or may not be excessive, but after looking over the statement of work, I certainly don’t find it outrageous enough to convince me that it is. Well, obviously “it may or may not be excessive.” That’s the law of excluded middle, after all. > [@](#): > > As I noted, my company has three sites and spends far more than that on them over a three year period. FAR MORE. I suppose I’ll just have to take your word for it, bro. But it occurs to me that if websites routinely cost $18 million, we’d probably see a lot fewer websites out there on the old intertubes. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/33 "2009-08-14T21:59:46Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You really could have avoided that unfounded snark, as you went from valid questions to a **Magiver** clone in about 2 seconds. Plenty of us have potential issues with this redaction, and it appears that those who don’t just don’t give a shit, not that they are letting the administration slide because he’s the “messiah.” Unfounded snark? I did not say anything about whether this was awarded properly or not. I was just saying that the process for awarding contracts is more important, I think than the contract itself. And I am not talking about this particular government contract, but all government contracts. Was this a competitive contract or was it a no-bid given the time issue? I am not saying one way or the other, and I am not assuming it is one way or the other. I am just saying that how contracts are awarded is of more interests than what is in them. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/34 "2009-08-14T22:07:05Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Unfounded snark? I did not say anything about whether this was awarded properly or not. I was just saying that the process for awarding contracts is more important, I think than the contract itself. And I am not talking about this particular government contract, but all government contracts. Was this a competitive contract or was it a no-bid given the time issue? I am not saying one way or the other, and I am not assuming it is one way or the other. I am just saying that how contracts are awarded is of more interests than what is in them. Sorry, but that was directed at **Kimmy\_Gibbler** , not you, but I can certainly see how it was confusing due to the placement. I was actually using you as one of several counter examples to his statement that people are being blindly loyal. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/35 "2009-08-14T22:16:26Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Simple. The identities of the employees collecting paychecks on federal contracts is not “confidential business information.” And asserting a FOIA exemption is an affirmative defense; it is not up to the detractors to make that argument. If you think there is a FOIA exemption, why not let us know. [Okay](http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/foiaex.html). How about exemptions 4 and 6, for starters? > [@](#): > > I suppose I’ll just have to take your word for it, bro. But it occurs to me that if websites routinely cost $18 million, we’d probably see a lot fewer websites out there on the old intertubes. Who said anything about routine? What they are hoping to accomplish is anything but routine. Whether they succeed or not is the question, but until they have actually completed the work, I don’t see how we’ll know for sure. Websites are far more than just what you see on the screen. I can create the Google search page in about 2 minutes. Creating the entire search infrastructure that lives behind that page costs them far more than 18 million a year, and that’s without including the hardware and bandwidth costs. Hell, Google probably has internal reporting applications that cost more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/36 "2009-08-14T22:30:48Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > [Okay](http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/foiaex.html). How about exemptions 4 and 6, for starters? (4) Their names and their positions are neither privileged nor confidential information nor are they trade secrets. Information is not made confidential just because the government or the contractor calls it “confidential,” otherwise you would just have government agencies call any information that don’t want publicized “confidential” and then assert the exception. Confidential information is information of a kind that reasonably needs to be kept private for competitive purposes or for personal safety or to prevent personal embarrassment, balanced against the public’s interest in knowing the information (thus salary data, while usually confidential, is revealed in the case of government employees because the public is entitled to know who is the recipient of public monies and how much they get). (6) Disclosure of their names or their positions is not the kind of disclosure that constitutes “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” So neither exemption applies. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/37 "2009-08-14T22:38:22Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > (4) Their names and their positions are neither privileged nor confidential information nor are they trade secrets. Information is not made confidential just because the government or the contractor calls it “confidential,” otherwise you would just have government agencies call any information that don’t want publicized “confidential” and then assert the exception. Confidential information is information of a kind that reasonably needs to be kept private for competitive purposes or for personal safety or to prevent personal embarrassment, balanced against the public’s interest in knowing the information (thus salary data, while usually confidential, is revealed in the case of government employees because the public is entitled to know who is the recipient of public monies and how much they get). Once again, there is no evidence that a government agency is the one requesting the redaction. The majority of the redactions were in the technology section, which could very easily contain what the company considers to be trade secrets. > [@](#): > > (6) Disclosure of their names or their positions is not the kind of disclosure that constitutes “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Says you. Since you asked me for evidence, I guess it’s now time for you to show your’s. > [@](#): > > So neither exemption applies. May or may not be true, but you certainly haven’t brought anything to the table to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/38 "2009-08-14T22:40:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is a ridiculous refutation. You cannot possibly accuse your opponents of hypocrisy because a statement made by one of them may indirectly contradict a statement made by a completely different one. If that weren’t absurd enough, you’re “contradicting” a serious post with one made flippantly. I wasn’t attempting to say one conflicted the other. They’re both in the same apologist vein. I was just responding to them both at once. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough. I agree that it’s absurd to equate this to the level of secrecy in the last administration, when Cheney invented a whole new branch of government to avoid giving up secrets, and the administration engaged in blatant contempt of congress to avoid giving up secrets. Redacted pages in a contract just ain’t the same. If the argument here was “Obama is more secretive than Cheney!” then you may have a point. But it isn’t. The argument is that Obama is more secretive than he said he’d be. You can’t wrap everything Obama does in “it’s less evil than the Bush administration, therefore it’s okay!” - there’s plenty of room for having bad government that doesn’t quite fall under Bush-level bad. You are attempting, like the other poster, to handwaive away anything Obama does simply because the last administration is worse. We can judge what the current administration does under its own merits. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Such as? > > A reasonable quibble might be the sunlight rules, but I gather they didn’t realize how much that would gum up the works. Remember, 21st century conservatives can turn medicare paying for voluntary end of life counciling into death panels. With an opposing side willing to outright lie and drive the ignorant into hysteria, putting bills out for an extended time is a bad thing. Republicans killed sunlight because they’re so dishonest and wretchedly underhanded that it was inviting trouble. > > That’s my take anyway. So wait - because there would be misinformation, we can’t put the truth out there? The truth is too precious to share with people! And besides, they might lie, so we have to hide the truth to protect it! ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/39 "2009-08-14T22:52:24Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Once again, there is no evidence that a government agency is the one requesting the redaction. Where do you think these documents came from? They came from the White House. The White House redacted them. If the contractor said, “White House, be a swell and redact this info. KTHXBAI,” it is the _ **responsbility of the White House** _ to ensure that that information is exempted under FOIA. Otherwise, Presidents would just ask congenial businesses to request redactions of information that the President wanted to suppress. > [@](#): > > The majority of the redactions were in the technology section, which could very easily contain what the company considers to be trade secrets. OK, obviously you don’t understand that courts are well aware of the problem of businesses calling things “trade secrets” in a self-serving way to avoid disclosure. Fortunately, courts have cottoned on to this dastardly trick and have a set of criteria more exacting than “Is it in a folder called ‘Trade Secrets’?” when evaluating such claims. The information must not be generally known, the possessor of the trade secret must get a commercial benefit from the fact that the information is secret (in addition to the value of the information itself), and steps must be taken by the one asserting trade secrecy reasonably to protect the information from disclosure. The identities of project staff do not meet this test. > [@](#): > > Says you. Since you asked me for evidence, I guess it’s now time for you to show your’s.May or may not be true, but you certainly haven’t brought anything to the table to convince me. The analysis is basically the same for confidentiality. Additionally, the one asserting privacy rights must show an expectation of privacy in the subject matter, which is pretty hard to do when _you are working on the website that will publicize the details of federal contracts._ Why is it so hard to admit that the White House fucked this one up? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363/40 "2009-08-14T23:00:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I wasn’t attempting to say one conflicted the other. They’re both in the same apologist vein. I was just responding to them both at once. > > If the argument here was “Obama is more secretive than Cheney!” then you may have a point. But it isn’t. The argument is that Obama is more secretive than he said he’d be. You can’t wrap everything Obama does in “it’s less evil than the Bush administration, therefore it’s okay!” - there’s plenty of room for having bad government that doesn’t quite fall under Bush-level bad. You are attempting, like the other poster, to handwaive away anything Obama does simply because the last administration is worse. > > We can judge what the current administration does under its own merits. > > So wait - because there would be misinformation, we can’t put the truth out there? The truth is too precious to share with people! And besides, they might lie, so we have to hide the truth to protect it! We aren’t hiding the truth at all. The bills are available as they have been. But letting them sit for five days would allow the crazies to build a head of steam that isn’t worth it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-win-for-obama-and-transparency-in-government/506363.md?page=3)