Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20814)	12/21/2003 2:45:14 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793843

It's a real issue whether someone in government can ask the expert opinions of business leaders on issues without it being laid bare for their opponents to make political hay with, which does tend to harm the quality and quantity of the advice next time around. FACA has never set well with administrations. One constant with every change of administration is how many political appointees get tripped up by it. It's as sure as crocuses poking their heads up in the spring. They would huff and puff and send memos when told that they couldn't meet as planned with outsiders. And they would blister and bluster when caught after the fact. I would not presume to argue the merits of the law, only that it is the law, and that it is a thorn in the side of every administration. Trips up political appointees even worse than the federal contracting and personnel regs. Maybe it's time someone took a run at changing it. I don't know. That question seems very different to me, much more like the arguments over the secrecy of Hillary Clinton's committee to reform health insurance in 1993. Yes, Clinton's and Cheney's committees are the same issue. You're right, the Padilla matter is a different subject. What I was suggesting that they have in common is not the subject area but the distaste of administrations for being told that they can't do whatever they want and the way that they sometimes stubbornly dig in and think that they can prevail by stonewalling. which does tend to harm the quality and quantity of the advice next time around. Yes, it would harm the advice next time around, but that, I think, is beside the point. The meetings shouldn't have occurred in the first place, not in private. So there should be no issue of making hay or awkward revelations or a next time around. It's not a good idea to give people a pass when they evade the law on the grounds that revelation after the fact would be problematic. Then everyone will evade without consequence. If we don't want that law, we should change it or at least take our lumps when caught. If we want it, we should abide by it.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20814)	12/21/2003 2:46:30 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793843

Happy Chanukah! Webcast of menorah lightings all over the world, beginning at 2:45 p.m. chanukah.org