Commuter 1: “…because it’s actually two separate bills, and the House and the Senate have to meet in some kind of committee before they can send it on to him.”
Commuter 2: “Yeah. Isn’t that funny? I never knew they had to do that before. It’s amazing how we have a government that allows so much involvement from citizens, but we didn’t really pay attention.”
Commuter 3: “Um, yeah. I know. But we have a president now who has open disclosure about everything! It’s on YouTube and podcasts and radio and TV and all. He wants us to know what’s going on. And he doesn’t say ‘we’; he says ‘I’. I like that.”
And I’ll bet you can’t guess which one of these comments was made by the 20-something-year-old high-school teacher.
Isn't it ironic that in the midst of all the transparency, the "open" president is trying to rush a Stimulus bill through Congress so fast we still don't really know what's in it?
For example, did you know that:
Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
I quite agree. There's more commentary where that came from.
It's time for the Stimulus to stall while we figure out what's in it. More transparency please.
UPDATE:
Here's another example of some not-quite-transparent Obama shenanigans: politicizing the census. John Fund writes at the Journal:
"There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."
Obama? Partisan? Nah. Can't be!
