<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Transparency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/transparency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>House Republicans Pass Budget Transparency</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/house-republicans-pass-budget-transparency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/house-republicans-pass-budget-transparency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy-programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fannie mae]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freddie mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[postal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk-the-lender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott-garrett]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/house-republicans-pass-budget-transparency/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The annual federal budget is a whopping $3.6 trillion, but that figure fails to capture the true burden of government on taxpayers. There are a number of GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) that are considered off budget.  Politicians use off-budget entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Postal Service to obfuscate the true cost of government.  Additionally, the government runs a number of credit programs, in which taxpayers are on the hook for loan guarantees.  These guarantees include loans for college students and for energy programs, such as the one that purveyed failed green energy programs like Solyndra. Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs. Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 3581 – The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act (Scott Garrett).  This legislation brings Freddie and Fannie back on budget so taxpayers can see the true cost of these officious and destructive enterprises.  In addition, the bill will subject all loan guarantees to the &#8220;fair value&#8221; accounting method that is used in the private sector. Astoundingly, almost every Democrat voted no on this commonsense bill.  Remember that this bill doesn&#8217;t mandate any changes to these programs or enterprises; it is not an ideologically charged bill.  This legislation merely forces Congress to reflect the true cost of government in the annual budget, not unlike what every family does with their household budget.  Sadly, even this moderate reform was too bold for Democrats. We will be forced to clash with members of the House leadership over the next few weeks, but we should commend them when they bring legislation from conservatives, such as this budget reform bill, to the floor.  As for the Senate, we need to get them to agree to pass any budget, much less use prudent accounting methods. Cross-posted from The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/house-republicans-pass-budget-transparency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the WaPo/ABC News poll “worthless”?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dynamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sample]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] That&#8217;s the verdict from the normally easygoing Ed Morrissey .  While I agree with his biggest criticism of the poll, it is still possible to get something out of it. I agree with Ed that the recent tactic of not disclosing the party breakdown of the sample is simply absurd.  In an era where trust in institutions &#8212; including journalism &#8212; is low and demands for increased transparency are on the rise everywhere, hiding this basic information from public view invites skepticism and ridicule.  The WaPo, ABC News, and Gary Langer ought to be embarrassed. However, Ed also complains that it&#8217;s &#8220;a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.&#8221;  The poll does in fact provide head-to-head results for both adults and registered voters; the WaPo noted both results for each in its accompanying coverage:  In a general-election test, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent among all Americans; more narrowly, 51 to 45 percent, among registered voters. Among all adults, it’s Obama’s first time topping 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Romney since July; it’s his first time ever above that point among registered voters. (Ed has updated his post to reflect this, while noting that other hyped aspects of the story do not give the RV numbers, which is certainly a fair critique.) The history of this poll, and comparison to other polls, can tell us a bit about what is going on in this particular poll, even without the party breakdown of the sample.  Ed correctly notes that the sample in this poll tends to produce Dem-friendly results, which is probably why the recent decision to omit data about the sample really set him off.  However, I would add that the dynamic producing those results has been that this poll historically tends to undersample both parties (and disproportionately undersample Republicans).  The corollary, which (afaik) Ed has not stressed, is that the result inflates the sample of Independents. Accordingly, this nugget from the WaPo coverage is doubly notable: Obama’s momentum since mid-January has evened the score with Romney among political independents. Among independent voters in the last Post-ABC poll, Romney held a 12-point edge; now these voters split 48 percent for Obama, 47 percent for Romney. First, this reportage tells you that the poll is still collecting the party data but not reporting it in the released results.  Second, when you compare this poll&#8217;s results to other recent polls  (1/12 &#8211; 2/5), the Obama +6 result is not particularly out of line.  Indeed, the topline results here merely add 2 or 3 points to each side of the Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted at roughly the same time, which is margin of error type stuff.  And it&#8217;s not all that different from the mid-January PPP poll which showed a more pronounced Obama surge with independents.  This poll&#8217;s similar gap with higher numbers suggests this poll&#8217;s sample probably includes more Republicans and possibly more Democrats (as the PPP poll did) at the expense of the now supposedly more Obama-friendly Indies. What accounts for the supposed Obama surge with Indies?  One possibility the WaPo coverage raises is the State of the Union speech, which fell within this poll&#8217;s window.  However, that would not account for the surge in the PPP poll.  A more plausible explanation is the modest uptick in the economy (and it&#8217;s overhype in the establishment media).  This poll has Obama improving a few points not only in overall job approval, but approval on how he&#8217;s handling the economy.  However, even this poll has his job approval with Indies underwater , so presumably his approval on the economy does not look great with Indies. Accordingly, the underlying dynamic in this poll is probably similar to that seen in the PPP poll: it&#8217;s not about Obama as much as it is about Romney. Q25 in this poll shows 52% say that the more they hear about Romney, the less they like him, which is not as bad as Newt Gingrich&#8217;s 60%, but still bad.  This is a function of the campaign and its media coverage.  Technically, Romney gets marginally better coverage than Obama &#8230; but Romney is getting more coverage than Obama .   Thus, people are hearing more negative coverage of Romney than Obama.  Obviously, the balance will shift once the GOP nominee is effectively known.  And this is one reason why  head-to-head polling is basically meaningless at this point in the cycle .  So it&#8217;s a bit ironic that the head-to-head is where the WaPo/ABC poll chose to report the results for registered voters. &#8212; Update : I wasn&#8217;t even going to mention this, but Dem pollster Margie Omero does at the HuffPo: Today the Washington Post/ABC News released a survey showing Obama over majority support among registered voters (51% Obama, 45% Romney). But as Romney&#8217;s pollster Neil Newhouse (a partner in the firm Public Opinion Strategies) pointed out in a blast email, the poll asked about a few of Romney potential liabilities just prior to the vote question. This goes against polling best practices, and it&#8217;s possible the survey shows elevated Obama numbers as a result. Omero also notes that Obama&#8217;s liabilities were not questioned before concluding that the underlying issue is Romney&#8217;s likability.  Again, if Romney is the nominee, that is likely to shift.  But Omero highlights that the problem with the poll mirrors the dynamic in the media coverage. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the WaPo/ABC News poll “worthless”?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LegacyVankampen375</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] That&#8217;s the verdict from the normally easygoing Ed Morrissey .  While I agree with his biggest criticism of the poll, it is still possible to get something out of it. I agree with Ed that the recent tactic of not disclosing the party breakdown of the sample is simply absurd.  In an era where trust in institutions &#8212; including journalism &#8212; is low and demands for increased transparency are on the rise everywhere, hiding this basic information from public view invites skepticism and ridicule.  The WaPo, ABC News, and Gary Langer ought to be embarrassed. However, Ed also complains that it&#8217;s &#8220;a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.&#8221;  The poll does in fact provide head-to-head results for both adults and registered voters; the WaPo noted both results for each in its accompanying coverage:  In a general-election test, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent among all Americans; more narrowly, 51 to 45 percent, among registered voters. Among all adults, it’s Obama’s first time topping 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Romney since July; it’s his first time ever above that point among registered voters. (Ed has updated his post to reflect this, while noting that other hyped aspects of the story do not give the RV numbers, which is certainly a fair critique.) The history of this poll, and comparison to other polls, can tell us a bit about what is going on in this particular poll, even without the party breakdown of the sample.  Ed correctly notes that the sample in this poll tends to produce Dem-friendly results, which is probably why the recent decision to omit data about the sample really set him off.  However, I would add that the dynamic producing those results has been that this poll historically tends to undersample both parties (and disproportionately undersample Republicans).  The corollary, which (afaik) Ed has not stressed, is that the result inflates the sample of Independents. Accordingly, this nugget from the WaPo coverage is doubly notable: Obama’s momentum since mid-January has evened the score with Romney among political independents. Among independent voters in the last Post-ABC poll, Romney held a 12-point edge; now these voters split 48 percent for Obama, 47 percent for Romney. First, this reportage tells you that the poll is still collecting the party data but not reporting it in the released results.  Second, when you compare this poll&#8217;s results to other recent polls  (1/12 &#8211; 2/5), the Obama +6 result is not particularly out of line.  Indeed, the topline results here merely add 2 or 3 points to each side of the Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted at roughly the same time, which is margin of error type stuff.  And it&#8217;s not all that different from the mid-January PPP poll which showed a more pronounced Obama surge with independents.  This poll&#8217;s similar gap with higher numbers suggests this poll&#8217;s sample probably includes more Republicans and possibly more Democrats (as the PPP poll did) at the expense of the now supposedly more Obama-friendly Indies. What accounts for the supposed Obama surge with Indies?  One possibility the WaPo coverage raises is the State of the Union speech, which fell within this poll&#8217;s window.  However, that would not account for the surge in the PPP poll.  A more plausible explanation is the modest uptick in the economy (and it&#8217;s overhype in the establishment media).  This poll has Obama improving a few points not only in overall job approval, but approval on how he&#8217;s handling the economy.  However, even this poll has his job approval with Indies underwater , so presumably his approval on the economy does not look great with Indies. Accordingly, the underlying dynamic in this poll is probably similar to that seen in the PPP poll: it&#8217;s not about Obama as much as it is about Romney. Q25 in this poll shows 52% say that the more they hear about Romney, the less they like him, which is not as bad as Newt Gingrich&#8217;s 60%, but still bad.  This is a function of the campaign and its media coverage.  Technically, Romney gets marginally better coverage than Obama &#8230; but Romney is getting more coverage than Obama .   Thus, people are hearing more negative coverage of Romney than Obama.  Obviously, the balance will shift once the GOP nominee is effectively known.  And this is one reason why  head-to-head polling is basically meaningless at this point in the cycle .  So it&#8217;s a bit ironic that the head-to-head is where the WaPo/ABC poll chose to report the results for registered voters. &#8212; Update : I wasn&#8217;t even going to mention this, but Dem pollster Margie Omero does at the HuffPo: Today the Washington Post/ABC News released a survey showing Obama over majority support among registered voters (51% Obama, 45% Romney). But as Romney&#8217;s pollster Neil Newhouse (a partner in the firm Public Opinion Strategies) pointed out in a blast email, the poll asked about a few of Romney potential liabilities just prior to the vote question. This goes against polling best practices, and it&#8217;s possible the survey shows elevated Obama numbers as a result. Omero also notes that Obama&#8217;s liabilities were not questioned before concluding that the underlying issue is Romney&#8217;s likability.  Again, if Romney is the nominee, that is likely to shift.  But Omero highlights that the problem with the poll mirrors the dynamic in the media coverage. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the WaPo/ABC News poll “worthless”?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sample]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[underlying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wapo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] That&#8217;s the verdict from the normally easygoing Ed Morrissey .  While I agree with his biggest criticism of the poll, it is still possible to get something out of it. I agree with Ed that the recent tactic of not disclosing the party breakdown of the sample is simply absurd.  In an era where trust in institutions &#8212; including journalism &#8212; is low and demands for increased transparency are on the rise everywhere, hiding this basic information from public view invites skepticism and ridicule.  The WaPo, ABC News, and Gary Langer ought to be embarrassed. However, Ed also complains that it&#8217;s &#8220;a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.&#8221;  The poll does in fact provide head-to-head results for both adults and registered voters; the WaPo noted both results for each in its accompanying coverage:  In a general-election test, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent among all Americans; more narrowly, 51 to 45 percent, among registered voters. Among all adults, it’s Obama’s first time topping 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Romney since July; it’s his first time ever above that point among registered voters. (Ed has updated his post to reflect this, while noting that other hyped aspects of the story do not give the RV numbers, which is certainly a fair critique.) The history of this poll, and comparison to other polls, can tell us a bit about what is going on in this particular poll, even without the party breakdown of the sample.  Ed correctly notes that the sample in this poll tends to produce Dem-friendly results, which is probably why the recent decision to omit data about the sample really set him off.  However, I would add that the dynamic producing those results has been that this poll historically tends to undersample both parties (and disproportionately undersample Republicans).  The corollary, which (afaik) Ed has not stressed, is that the result inflates the sample of Independents. Accordingly, this nugget from the WaPo coverage is doubly notable: Obama’s momentum since mid-January has evened the score with Romney among political independents. Among independent voters in the last Post-ABC poll, Romney held a 12-point edge; now these voters split 48 percent for Obama, 47 percent for Romney. First, this reportage tells you that the poll is still collecting the party data but not reporting it in the released results.  Second, when you compare this poll&#8217;s results to other recent polls  (1/12 &#8211; 2/5), the Obama +6 result is not particularly out of line.  Indeed, the topline results here merely add 2 or 3 points to each side of the Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted at roughly the same time, which is margin of error type stuff.  And it&#8217;s not all that different from the mid-January PPP poll which showed a more pronounced Obama surge with independents.  This poll&#8217;s similar gap with higher numbers suggests this poll&#8217;s sample probably includes more Republicans and possibly more Democrats (as the PPP poll did) at the expense of the now supposedly more Obama-friendly Indies. What accounts for the supposed Obama surge with Indies?  One possibility the WaPo coverage raises is the State of the Union speech, which fell within this poll&#8217;s window.  However, that would not account for the surge in the PPP poll.  A more plausible explanation is the modest uptick in the economy (and it&#8217;s overhype in the establishment media).  This poll has Obama improving a few points not only in overall job approval, but approval on how he&#8217;s handling the economy.  However, even this poll has his job approval with Indies underwater , so presumably his approval on the economy does not look great with Indies. Accordingly, the underlying dynamic in this poll is probably similar to that seen in the PPP poll: it&#8217;s not about Obama as much as it is about Romney. Q25 in this poll shows 52% say that the more they hear about Romney, the less they like him, which is not as bad as Newt Gingrich&#8217;s 60%, but still bad.  This is a function of the campaign and its media coverage.  Technically, Romney gets marginally better coverage than Obama &#8230; but Romney is getting more coverage than Obama .   Thus, people are hearing more negative coverage of Romney than Obama.  Obviously, the balance will shift once the GOP nominee is effectively known.  And this is one reason why  head-to-head polling is basically meaningless at this point in the cycle .  So it&#8217;s a bit ironic that the head-to-head is where the WaPo/ABC poll chose to report the results for registered voters. &#8212; Update : I wasn&#8217;t even going to mention this, but Dem pollster Margie Omero does at the HuffPo: Today the Washington Post/ABC News released a survey showing Obama over majority support among registered voters (51% Obama, 45% Romney). But as Romney&#8217;s pollster Neil Newhouse (a partner in the firm Public Opinion Strategies) pointed out in a blast email, the poll asked about a few of Romney potential liabilities just prior to the vote question. This goes against polling best practices, and it&#8217;s possible the survey shows elevated Obama numbers as a result. Omero also notes that Obama&#8217;s liabilities were not questioned before concluding that the underlying issue is Romney&#8217;s likability.  Again, if Romney is the nominee, that is likely to shift.  But Omero highlights that the problem with the poll mirrors the dynamic in the media coverage. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Government is Playing Hide and Seek With Airfare Taxes</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BrennanShawna20</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tom graves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[travel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ When purchasing a product or service, we all like to see the itemized list of charges – one that separates the cost of the purchase from the share going to Uncle Sam through the form of taxes and fees.  Needless to say, government bureaucrats don’t like that.  They desire that we remain blissfully ignorant of government’s burden on our everyday lives.  This is one reason why they concocted the withholdings scheme for income tax collection.  Now, they are expanding their tentacles into commercial taxes so they can obfuscate the magnitude of taxes and fees on airfare purchases. Without much fanfare, the Department of Transportation (DOT) enacted a rule which requires airlines to ensconce all government taxes and fees in a single total advertised price with the fare.  For example, if you purchase a $350 plane ticket with $50 of taxes and fees, the DOT is demanding that the airline advertise the price as $400.  Airline passengers pay over a dozen taxes and fees on any given airplane ticket, but the government doesn’t want us to know that.  The rule was finalized last April, but only took effect last week. The timing of this rule is very fortuitous.  This week, Congress will finalize negotiations for a long-term FAA funding bill.  This bill authorizes the collection of all taxes – including taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and cargo –directed to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which provides the bulk of FAA funding.  As usual, Democrats want to spend more money on wasteful projects, and are all too hungry to increase aviation taxes.  What better way to leverage tax increases than by forcing airlines to hide their cost and to shoulder the blame for the perceived higher price tag at the top! This is yet another insidious plan to raise taxes and place unconstitutional mandates on private enterprise – all by administrative fiat.  It must be stopped in its tracks.  Today, conservative Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) is introducing a bill, the Travel Transparency Act, which will void the DOT rule, and demand that passengers have the right to view all the aviation taxes in separate line items for each ticket purchased.  Graves asserted that “the federal government should not be inserting itself in the private sector to limit consumers’ ability to see how much they’re getting taxed. If the American people can’t see these costs clearly, I fear it will be easier these fees and taxes to be raised without their knowledge.” Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who used to be a Republican, defended the rule as a necessary means to ensure that passengers are treated with &#8220;dignity and respect.&#8221;  The only thing this rule will accomplish is ensuring that passengers retain their &#8220;respect&#8221; for government, while blaming the airlines for perceived increases in ticket prices. At present, airline passengers are on the hook for at least 16 different taxes and fees on the average airline ticket.  Additionally, they must incur the most harmful backdoor tax; the high cost of jet fuel resulting from decades of anti-energy growth policies.  We must ensure that the existing taxes remain transparent so that Congress will have a harder time sneaking through new tax increases.  Please ask your member of Congress to cosponsor Tom Graves’s Travel Transparency Act. Cross-posted to The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GAB Keeps Voters in the Dark on Fraud, Sides with ACLU</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gab-keeps-voters-in-the-dark-on-fraud-sides-with-aclu/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gab-keeps-voters-in-the-dark-on-fraud-sides-with-aclu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aclu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media-trackers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[walker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[widely-believed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gab-keeps-voters-in-the-dark-on-fraud-sides-with-aclu/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ From the diaries by Neil Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board has been a poster child for dysfunction for a while now and even still this supposedly non-partisan agency never ceases to amaze with its inexplicable behavior.  In December, a GAB representative said that Mickey Mouse or Adolph Hitler could sign a recall petition and it would pass their initial review.  A judge literally had to order the Board to actually look for fraud instead of putting a rubber stamp on recall petitions.  What the GAB is doing now is beyond the realm of sanity and all Wisconsin voters should be outraged. Now the ACLU seems to be pulling the strings.  The ACLU of Wisconsin recently raised privacy concerns of posting Governor Walker recall petitions on the GAB’s website.  Initially, the Board committed to posting the Walker recall petitions online this past Monday .  They have since changed their tune and have decided to kowtow to the ACLU despite the fact that they have an established practice of posting petitions online as they did for State Senate recall petitions last summer and again for the four Senators under recall threat right now. This change is a major snub to every Wisconsin voter, who already has reason to doubt the competence of the Board and the credibility of the entire system.  It is also a slap at Tea Party and other grassroots groups across the state that are involved in protecting the system against fraud with Verify the Recall efforts.  The Walker Campaign has now received all of the recall petitions, but the public is left without them.   Verify the Recall had planned to begin their Walker recall review process on Monday so that they can adequately review the alleged 1 million signatures within the 30 day window for challenging fraud which is widely believed to effect tens of thousands of signatures.  But Verify the Recall’s 11,000 volunteers are left waiting while the clock is ticking. In response to the GAB’s delay, both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the MacIver Institute filed open records requests asking for copies of the recall petitions under Wisconsin’s open records law. Even liberal Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, said that the petitions should be public. The state’s largest newspaper, a conservative group, and a liberal leader all agree that these recall petitions should be public.  Now, that should tell you something. Back in November, Media Trackers warned about privacy concerns.  Yet it was not until the middle of January that the ACLU decided to play politics with the GAB and bring their privacy concerns forward.  Here we are now at the end of January that the GAB makes a last minute decision to do what the ACLU wants.  (Ironically, Politifact ruled Media Tracker’s report as “Mostly False” even though the ACLU’s concerns vindicate Media Trackers’ warning). With the amount of suspected fraud in the recall process piling up after initial reviews of the State Senate recall signatures, it is critical that there is transparency in the recall process.  Wisconsinites need to be able to trust that there truly are enough recall signatures before having recall election forced on them that could cost taxpayers $20 million . The GAB has a long way to go to regain the public’s confidence in their abilities and the system they manage which directly impacts the future of this state.   They need to ensure accountability.  If they can’t or won’t, the people of Wisconsin should have the chance to protect the electoral process and hold the GAB accountable. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gab-keeps-voters-in-the-dark-on-fraud-sides-with-aclu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tech at Night: Google causes a privacy stir, Twitter causes a censorship stir, Grassley continues to fight</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/tech-at-night-google-causes-a-privacy-stir-twitter-causes-a-censorship-stir-grassley-continues-to-fight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/tech-at-night-google-causes-a-privacy-stir-twitter-causes-a-censorship-stir-grassley-continues-to-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data roaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lightsquared]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[siri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/tech-at-night-google-causes-a-privacy-stir-twitter-causes-a-censorship-stir-grassley-continues-to-fight/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services . Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn&#8217;t helping its case by pleading that it&#8217;s alright because certain users are excluded , which just furthers the premise that there&#8217;s something wrong with it. But ultimately, you&#8217;re in control of what you do online . Personal responsibility: it&#8217;s not just for breakfast anymore. I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email. Once again, the real LightSquared issue isn&#8217;t even LightSquared. This is about the Obama administration. the actual decision is irrelevant at this point and Chuck Grassley will keep fighting for process transparency . The SOPA battle didn&#8217;t end with defeating SOPA. We still need to solve the problem of foreign free riders. That&#8217;s why Steve Forbes joins those taking a look at the OPEN Act . I&#8217;m just one guy, but it wasn&#8217;t hard for me to figure out why this Washington Post story is garbage . In the course of making the case against Net Neutrality, by pointing out that we need wireless providers to be able to innovate and expand, and get those innovations and expansions paid for, the WaPo claims that Apple&#8217;s Siri would overload wireless networks. That never made sense, though, and of course it&#8217;s not true . Siri&#8217;s sending in a few seconds of audio, and getting back some text, then maybe doing a web search. That&#8217;s not going to kill a network. It&#8217;s not even video. The problems are spectrum (we need more of it) and regulation (we need less of it). Get government out of the way, and we&#8217;ll allow incentives to build bigger, better networks. Unless the Roaming regulations which actually encouraged Sprint to reduce its network coverage, free riding on competitors&#8217; networks, reducing total capacity and harming rural users. So again, one of the better things we can do is whip the FCC into shape by restricting its freedom to do bad things. No more picking winners and losers . California coughs up a million bucks after losing its video game censorship case . Watch people cheer, until they remember the ESA was pro-SOPA. Twitter wants to censor EuroNazis and probably Chinese users. Blaming Twitter for this is dumb. But then again, Anonymous and other radicals pitching a fit about this don&#8217;t intend to actually stand up to Red China or the EuroSocialists who censor their people online. Blaming Americans is the easier route, so naturally they take it. It&#8217;s easy to talk about turning over Facebook and others accounts after people die , but in the case of all free online accounts, how do you prove that the deceased actually &#8220;owned&#8221; that account? With most property there is a paper trail, a transaction, or something that ties the owner to the property. But free online accounts, who do they really &#8220;belong&#8221; to? And how do you prove it, without a paper trail? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/tech-at-night-google-causes-a-privacy-stir-twitter-causes-a-censorship-stir-grassley-continues-to-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Let the Full House Decide Major Legislation</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/let-the-full-house-decide-major-legislation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/let-the-full-house-decide-major-legislation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[madison-project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supercommittee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/let-the-full-house-decide-major-legislation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We have a legislative process, often referred to as &#8220;regular order,&#8221; for good reason.  The committee, floor, and conference committee stages of the process are designed to maximize transparency and allow all members of Congress to offer their input on the impending bill. In recent months, there has been a disturbing trend among House leaders to jettison the floor process in the House in favor of a shortcut straight to conference committee with the Senate.  They claim that this is needed in order to finish all the &#8220;must-pass&#8221; legislation on time.  In reality, they are undermining their own majority in the House, while abdicating gratuitous power to the Senate.  You would think that Republicans would be eager to leverage the power of the House – the one body they control – as much as possible.  Instead, they have shown that their desire to forge deals supersedes transparency, as well as the leverage of their own conference. Under regular order, after a bill has been fully vetted and voted on by the members of the committee with jurisdiction, it is then sent to the floor so that all members can vote on amendments to the bill.  The other body follows the same procedure, either concurrently or sequentially.  At that point, the two legislative bodies reconcile their differences by instructing conferees to a conference committee or by ping-ponging the bill back and forth until one body acquiesces. However, under ‘House GOP order,’ they have agreed to send bills to conference committee even though the bills were never considered on the House floor.  In some cases, the bills never even got out of committee.  In other instances, they took obsolete bills that passed the House and totally transformed them without coming back to the conference for a floor vote. First it was Harry Reid’s minibus bills.  After House Republicans worked assiduously to formulate a commonsense budget for FY 2012, House leaders went straight to conference on Senate appropriations bills – bills that eschewed all our budget figures and policy riders – that were never considered on the House floor.  This allowed the statists in both parties to negotiate bad legislation behind closed doors.  Once the conference committee reported its final product, each body was forced to vote up-or-down – without any opportunity to offer amendments.  The same thing occurred with the $1 trillion omnibus. Those spending bills, which affect every facet of government, never went through regular order in the House.  Even though one bill had already passed the House, Harry Reid tacked on new appropriations bills, funding massive components of government.  These additional rider bills never passed the House, yet leadership in both parties felt that by using the name of the passed bill as the title, they would give the impression of using regular order.  While they may be correct in the technical definition of regular order, they are clearly employing a stratagem that negates the transparency of the legislative process.  Moreover, here is what Republicans promised on page 33 of the Pledge to America : “We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.” Another example is the payroll tax cut package.  When Republicans caved on the two-month payroll tax cut package last December, the long-term bills were dead.  They should have begun the new session by passing a new bill that would allow all members of the conference to ensure that unemployment insurance is reformed and that, at the very least, the entitlement spending in the bill is fully offset in a meaningful way.  Instead, they chose to send it off to a conference committee. House Republicans will now be placed in an awkward position when they are forced to vote up-or-down on an agreement that will undoubtedly be offensive to most conservatives.  Harry Reid is already talking about larding up the conference report with a proposal to extend over 80 temporary tax credits and deductions (the annual “tax extenders”) that expired last year.  While some of those extenders are pro-growth, others are handouts to green energy .  Is it really a good idea to force Republicans to vote up-or-down on a single bill that contains a tax cut on the one hand, and entitlement spending and green handouts on the other? These are all consequential and far reaching bills that require more attention from the full House than a simple up-or-down vote on a conference report.  They should only go to conference based on a current bill passed by both houses, not based upon some tentative agreement between a few members, or an antiquated bill that has been abandoned prior to conference. The reality is that this pernicious precedent was already set with the idea of the Supercommittee, which was hatched from the inane debt ceiling deal.  The idea that a small group of Congress could be given complete authority over every aspect of budget and taxation is an anathema to the traditions of our legislative process. Why would Republicans want to negate the leverage that is inherent in control over the most consequential body of Congress?  They have control over all budget and taxation bills; let them use it to comply with their pledge for greater transparency. Are they worried that there is not enough time to pass all these wonderful bills through an open amendment process on the floor?  Then stay in session longer.  It’s not like they have other jobs. A tight schedule is not an excuse to short-circuit the legislative process, especially for the purpose of passing bad legislation. Cross-posted from The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/let-the-full-house-decide-major-legislation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oh Yes, It’s in Article 1</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/oh-yes-it%e2%80%99s-in-article-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/oh-yes-it%e2%80%99s-in-article-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[after-the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cited-the-fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inexplicit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[only-referenced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regarded-as-yet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific-clause]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/oh-yes-it%e2%80%99s-in-article-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ At the beginning of the 112 th Congress, as part of an effort to inject more transparency into the legislative process, the House adopted a rule requiring that each bill be accompanied by a Constitutional Authority Statement.  The purpose of the rule was to expose the cavalier attitude of those members who desire to legislate ‘just because they can.’ Well, after a year of legislating under this rule, it appears that we are in serious need of accountability measures to provide some clarity and specificity to the authority statement.  Otherwise, the rule will be regarded as yet another “transparency” gimmick of Congress. Republican congressional staffers combed through almost 3800 bills and joint resolutions that have been introduced this year, in an effort to gauge the clarity and specificity of the Constitutional Authority Statements.  For the most part, the results are pretty pathetic.  Here are some of their key findings: Overall, 945 bills contained authority statements which do not reference a specific power granted by the Constitution.  Many of these merely cited “Article 1” or “Article 1 Section 1” “Article 1 Section 8.” In other words, they just cited the fact that Congress has the power to legislate, but failed to divulge which constitutional power or specific clause is supporting their legislation. There were 732 bills which only referenced the commerce clause, 660 which only referenced the general welfare clause, and 321 which mentioned the necessary and proper clause without reference to a previous Constitutional clause to which the necessary and proper clause might apply. In total, there were 2658 Constitutional Authority Statements that were either questionable or vague.  That represents roughly 69% of all bills and resolutions introduced in the 1 st Session of the 112 th Congress. While more of the vague citations are attributable to Democrat bill sponsors, many Republicans were lax in offering meaningful authority statements.  Almost as many Republicans used the inexplicit commerce clause as Democrats. After the first year of the Constitutional Authority rule, it is clear that it has failed to dissuade members from proposing frivolous legislation.  At a minimum, every authority statement should detail the specific clause and power that authorizes the legislation.  Moreover, the statement should be accompanied by a brief explanation describing the reason why there is a constitutional mandate for that particular bill.  Without further improvements, this rule is just a waste of ink and paper. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/oh-yes-it%e2%80%99s-in-article-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Report: Occupy “Creator” Mass Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren Collects Millions From Wall St. Through Democratic Party….</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/report-occupy-%e2%80%9ccreator%e2%80%9d-mass-senate-candidate-elizabeth-warren-collects-millions-from-wall-st-through-democratic-party%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/report-occupy-%e2%80%9ccreator%e2%80%9d-mass-senate-candidate-elizabeth-warren-collects-millions-from-wall-st-through-democratic-party%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston-herald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elizabeth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hypocrisy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard-cordray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-hypocrisy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warren]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/report-occupy-%e2%80%9ccreator%e2%80%9d-mass-senate-candidate-elizabeth-warren-collects-millions-from-wall-st-through-democratic-party%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To add to the hypocrisy, Warren is the brains behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency Obama appointed Richard Cordray to that is meant to police . . . you guessed it, Wall Street. Via Boston Herald: I thought Elizabeth Warren was all about transparency. We are all still waiting for her to ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/report-occupy-%e2%80%9ccreator%e2%80%9d-mass-senate-candidate-elizabeth-warren-collects-millions-from-wall-st-through-democratic-party%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

