Transparency Schmansparency

When it came to divulging basic information, it was Richard Nixon's administration that became infamous for the phrase, and practice, of "modified, limited hangout." Now the Obama administration has abandoned all but the "limited" part. The candidate whose most identifiable promise was to provide open and transparent government instead is leading an administration rife with secrecy, stonewalling and prevarication.

The administration repeatedly has stiff-armed Congress, the media, outside organizations and even a prestigious independent government commission. It has raised "none of your business" from an adolescent rejoinder to a public policy - to keep the public in the dark.

Before examining examples of this alarming trend, let's remember what newly inaugurated President Obama said in a big press conference on Jan. 21, his first full day in office. His words and tone could not have been more clear:

"The way to hold government accountable is to make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made [and] how they're being made. ... Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known. ... The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it."

That's how Quin Hillyer's recent article at the Washington Times begins.  He points out that this was a great idea, but it was spoken by a man who typically kept campaign promises only until he broke them.  Some other specific examples of the lack of transparency in the Obama adminstration:

Consider the president's unfathomable decision to support the radical leftist, anti-American, would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya when all the lawful authorities in Honduras removed him from office for subverting the clear text of the Honduran constitution. Even the American Law Library of Congress concluded that the Honduran Legislature and courts acted lawfully, yet the Obama administration actually has imposed sanctions on the Honduran people, who long have been our allies.

Since July 8, 16 senators have been asking the State Department to explain the legal rationale for its stance. They received no substantive response. When Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, and three House members traveled to Honduras, U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens urged them to read a memo by State Department counsel Harold Koh explaining the administration's analysis. On Oct. 6, the senator's staff specifically requested that memo from the department. No response.

And...

The same evasive tactic was used when the Justice Department under the ethically challenged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to drop an already-won case against members of the New Black Panther Party for blatant voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place. Respected Republican Reps. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia and Lamar Smith of Texas requested explanations. So did The Washington Times. The Justice Department first said the decision was made by "career prosecutors" without political appointees weighing in. That was untrue. As for the further requests for information from Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith - no dice.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, with statutory authority to examine such issues, also requested an explanation. Sorry, Charlie. Ignoring the law giving oversight rights to the commission, the Justice Department basically told the commission to take a hike.

And...

...when the White House fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, without proper notice or explanation, Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley demanded documents. Mr. Grassley long has been praised widely for his efforts to protect whistleblowers and IGs. Yet the administration continues to jilt him as well.

And the hits just keep on comin'...

The administration has refused to honor a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Chicago Tribune for Freddie Mac board minutes from when White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was a director. It has ignored multiple FOIA requests for White House visitor logs, including one from its pet network, MSNBC. It denied an FOIA request for documents on a treaty on intellectual property rights. It refused an FOIA request for documents related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout. And as far back as June, Newsweek featured a headline saying "Obama Closes Doors on Openness" because of loopholes making its disclosure guarantees "astonishingly weaker" than those under President Clinton.

Infamously, the administration also tried to punish the Humana insurance company for the sin of communicating with its own customers. It told an Arizona sheriff he couldn't tell the press about his roundup of illegal immigrants. It has declined to cooperate with bipartisan congressional requests for hearings with its policy "czars." And of course, it is participating in closed-door negotiations on health care despite Mr. Obama's famous pledge to work out the details in front of TV cameras.

The bottom line here is that, despite promising repeatedly to bring transparency and accountability to Washington, Barack Obama has brought precisely the opposite.  Why, you may ask?  Well, this could be one part of the answer:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Tuesday that it had no choice but to instruct American International Group last November to reimburse the full amount of what it owed to big banks on derivatives contracts, a move that ended months of effort by the insurance giant to negotiate lower payments.

Fed officials offered the explanation in a rare response to a media report after Bloomberg News said that the New York Fed, led at the time by then-President Timothy F. Geithner, directed AIG to make the payments after it received a massive government bailout. The officials said AIG lost its leverage in demanding a better deal once the company had been saved from bankruptcy.

Lawmakers and financial analysts critical of the payouts say it amounted to a back-door bailout for big banks. AIG, the recipient of a $180 billion federal rescue package, ended up paying $14 billion to Goldman Sachs over months and $8.5 billion to Deutsche Bank, among others. Before the New York Fed intervened, AIG had been trying to persuade the firms to take discounts.

The precise cost to taxpayers of these decisions is difficult to determine. Bloomberg, quoting an industry source, reported Tuesday that AIG was aiming to pay just 40 percent of the $32.5 billion it owed to the banks. Using those figures, the report concluded that the government needlessly overpaid $13 billion.

Basically, the federal government was using taxpayer funds to inject money into its favorite (failing) institutions without any transparency or oversight.  Hot Air summarizes on the confirmation:

This isn't exactly shocking, of course.  It had been clear that the AIG bailout had been used in just this manner almost from the very beginning.  It does, though, put a much different spin on the actions and rhetoric used by the administration and Democrats in Congress this year.  They have used AIG as their poster child for Wall Street run amuck, made national issues of its compensation to executives, and played class warfare on its bailout with very little reservation.  Not only did they use AIG as a political tool for their populist bombast, now it's clear that they used AIG as a money-laundering service to bolster other financial institutions with as little transparency as possible.

One of the key firms involved here is Goldman Sachs.  Several top Obama advisers are former GS employees.  When all of this started to melt down last fall, do you remember the only major firm that didn't get a bailout?  Lehman Brothers.  It folded completely, and is now gone.  I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs were fierce competitors.  Hmmm...

And yet, amazingly (cough, cough), while many other huge firms were/are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, GS is reaping record profits and positioning themselves for a gigantic boost from carbon credit trading in the future.  If you're wondering where that might sound familiar, it's probably because of Obama's cap-n-trade policy that is soon to be debated in Congress, which would not only 'necessarily skyrocket' energy prices on American families, but it would also set up a national system of trading...carbon credits!

Move along...there is nothing to see here...move along...there is n...WAIT, THERE'S SOMETHING REALLY SHINY AND HOPE-N-CHANGEY OVER THERE!!!

Transparency schmansparency.

There's my two cents.