Goy,
There are procedures outlined in the statute that allow him the access he stated he wanted. He does not need to do an end around the statute to get what he stated he wants. A lot of assumptions are being made here. That he wants the reporting to be done outside of procedural channels set forth in statute. That he wants not just progress reports and data summary, but specific data that is denied him by statute. That he wants to direct the census rather than allowing his appointee to do so. That he has some nefarious plan in mind.
BHO specifically stated that passage of all new laws would be given ample time for public review and public comment. That statement was a bald-faced lie.
He promised to hold himself to a higher standard and failed to do so on this one point though not with this legislation. Let’s look at what he promised,
Obama “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
He clearly does not believe this to be ‘non-emergency’ legislation (most people agree on this point), so the promise he made regarding ‘non-emergency’ legislation does not apply here. That said he is allowing 4 days of the promised 5 for review of this emergency legislation on the WH website (see above link) so even if you hold this to be ‘non-emergency’ he did give some time for public review.
He did break this promise in regards to earlier indisputably ‘non-emergency’ legislation and that was a disappointment. I guess I have an expectation that no politician will not break at least some campaign promises so I don’t seethe when one of many falls by the wayside. He has done a better job than most at this point. See politifact for a check on how he is coming on his campaign promises.
As Nav pointed out, the bill has been floating about long enough for legislators and their staffs to read it and the changes were small enough that the staffs had time to read them and brief the legislators if the legislators could not find time due to tv and radio commitments where they were commenting as though they knew what the bill contained.
You claimed that the passage of this bill was materially different in process than that of previous bills. You have in no way shown that to be the case. What you have pointed out is Obama’s failure to live up to a higher standard that he said he would do. This is a failing, but an entirely different one.
Really? Did you get this in a communique from his administration? Fine.
It seems self evident. There were negotiations that resulted in a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. He therefor had the votes necessary to pass the bill. Had he delayed the majority may have either increased or evaporated. Rather than gamble on that outcome he did what politicians do; he struck while the iron was hot.
You don’t like the stimulus bill. Persomally I’m a bit ambivalent about it. Claiming that it was passed in a materially different process than earlier legislation is false. Claiming some new standard should be in place due to the size is another matter entirely. At what dollar point or % of GDP should this new standard apply? Apparently $1.3 trillion tax cuts don’t apply. Neither apparently does an over $0.5 billion overhaul of Mdeicare. On the other hand a just under $0.8 billion stimulus, or “stimulus” if you prefer, bill does warrant this new procedure. Looking at this it seems that tax bills have a different limit structure for this needed new procedure. What is it you suggest?
