Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@stolichnaya

“Issa, issa, wossname.”

“Issa wossname. You know. Thingie. A play. They’re pretendin’ things.”

From Sandman, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.”

[Equipoise]

@stolichnaya

Apropos of nothing, but reading Issa’s name always makes me think of a drunk Discworld inhabitant.

“Issa, issa, wossname.”

This dickhead having that name upsets me because Issa is the name of one of my favorite singers (formerly Jane Siberry)

[Squink]

@Equipoise

Stupid Republican idea of the day

I think the GOP’s 19 page* Affirmational Federal Budget (pdf) might count as a second “Stupid Republican idea of the day”:

Instead of returning to double digit levels of inflation and the failed
economic policies of the 1970s, Republicans support maintaining the cost
of living after witnessing the booms and busts triggered by loose
monetary policy.
…
Instead of spending money on wasteful
programs under the guise of “stimulus” and
“investments,” Republicans seek to ensure that
the federal budget cannot grow faster than
families’ ability to pay the bill.

I really really really like that first “idea”, but why does that second bit sound like pandering?

---

*including cover page and back cover

[Robot_Arm]

@brownie55

I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney’s energy policy meetings should have been public too.

That’s what I was going to ask about. Why should an unelected, unofficial participant in government be subject to more stringent public reporting rules than the vice president? So, what are the requirements about policy groups that elected office-holders take part in?

[elucidator]

Hell, give 'em a dose of overkill! Stream the meetings online, with transcripts published daily. They want transparency? We’ll *swamp *them with transparency! Of course, we’ll expect the same from them, its only fair, after all…

[MovieMogul]

Now, now, we haven’t even discussed the GOP’s alternate budget proposal:

Later, Norah O’Donnell asked Mike Pence to provide basic details, to no avail. Pence continued to talk about details as forthcoming. O’Donnell sort of thought that having continually criticized the administration for projecting a long-term deficit figure, that it was absurd that the GOP couldn’t even offer their own projection for the sake of comparison. Pence suggested that the very fact that the GOP plan was getting criticized constituted “progress.”

---

“After 27 days, the best House Republicans could come up with is a 19-page pamphlet that does not include a single real budget proposal or estimate. There are more numbers in my last sentence than there are in the entire House GOP budget.”

---

Robert Gibbs offered: “There’s one more picture of a windmill than there are charts of numbers. And there’s exactly one picture of a windmill.”

[Gangster_Octopus]

@ArchiveGuy

Now, now, we haven’t even discussed the GOP’s alternate budget proposal:

I was dismayed at the Thomas Kincaide report cover.

[NurseCarmen]

These ideas intentionally left blank.

[Boyo_Jim]

If the First Lady is going to have a policy role then she should have exactly the same rules applied to her as other presidential advsors… Like say, Karl Rove. He spit at a Congressional subpeona and got away with it until GW was out of office.

[Frostillicus]

I thought maybe the Republicans were trying to legislate the length of the sleeves on the First Lady’s dresses.

[furt]

In an abstract, theoretical way, I can see his point. I might even have supported it if it came up when First Lady Hillary was being tasked with developing major policy initiatives (Indeed, I’ve heard it argued that the reason Hillarycare failed was because it was developed behind closed doors, and that a more public process might have helped).

But bringing it up now, when Michelle Obama is engaged only in excactly the kinds of stuff that fall under the “historic role of the first lady” is just asinine.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Frostillicus

I thought maybe the Republicans were trying to legislate the length of the sleeves on the First Lady’s dresses.

You might argue it’s worse – they’re trying to disarm her.

[elucidator]

@Boyo_Jim

You might argue it’s worse – they’re trying to disarm her.

Indictment pending.

[kdeus]

What Rep. Issa is talking about is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) (5 USC Appx 2). FACA applies to any committee that is (1) convened or controlled by the executive, (2) makes a consensus recommendation to the Agency head or President AND (3) includes at least one person who is NOT a officer or employee of the U.S.

If all three conditions apply, then FACA applies and the committee meetings must be open to the public (and the public must be given notice that they are occurring), the committee must include representatives from all interested groups, and certain recordkeeping requirements must be met. Basically, its a much bigger pain in the neck to be a FACA committee than not.

In 1993, this came up when Mrs. Clinton championed health care reform efforts. Her commission consisted entirely of federal officers & employees, except for her. The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found that the First Lady is, for purposes of FACA, a federal officer or employee.

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as “Cheney” and “Mrs. Clinton”, to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he’s gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

[jayjay]

@kdeus

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as “Cheney” and “Mrs. Clinton”, to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he’s gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

In other words, it’s a possibly legitimate and commendable bill that’s being torpedoed by its Republican sponsors’ ham-tongued rhetorical trippery. Sounds par for the course.

It just amazes me that, rather than letting this work its way through Congress under its legitimate cover, Issa decided he was going to try to jump-start it by tossing his shoes at the most popular First Lady in more than 40 years. I’m more and more convinced that the Republicans are taking their cues from Michael Scott.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@kdeus

What Rep. Issa is talking about is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) (5 USC Appx 2). FACA applies to any committee that is (1) convened or controlled by the executive, (2) makes a consensus recommendation to the Agency head or President AND (3) includes at least one person who is NOT a officer or employee of the U.S.

If all three conditions apply, then FACA applies and the committee meetings must be open to the public (and the public must be given notice that they are occurring), the committee must include representatives from all interested groups, and certain recordkeeping requirements must be met. Basically, its a much bigger pain in the neck to be a FACA committee than not.

In 1993, this came up when Mrs. Clinton championed health care reform efforts. Her commission consisted entirely of federal officers & employees, except for her. The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found that the First Lady is, for purposes of FACA, a federal officer or employee.

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as “Cheney” and “Mrs. Clinton”, to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he’s gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

So there’s already a law that covers this, or am I not understanding something.

[kdeus]

G. Octo-

There is a law that covers this, but the law has not kept up with the facts. For example, when Vice President Cheney formed a (non-FACA) committee to discuss energy policy, his reasoning was that they were not a FACA committee because they did not form a consensus opinion.

So there is a law, but the law could use some refining due to skillful interpretation from both the Clinton & W. Bush years. But I don’t think Mrs. Obama is your boogeyman for why this needs to happen right away.

[Ca3799]

From the RNC Membership Survey:

1. A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialism. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree
Disagree
Undecided
http://web.campaignsolutions.com/rnc/2009survey/default2.aspx?

[elucidator]

My personal favorite from this coprophiliac’s delight:

9. Should we resist Barack Obama’s proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay “volunteers” who perform his chosen tasks?

Hooo, doggies!

[Boyo_Jim]

I can tell they really struggled to omit any possible bias in the phrasing of their questions.

Should bureaucrats in Washington, DC be in charge of making your health care choices instead of you and your doctor?

Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?