Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under government...

Don't speak of a honeymoon--that's long gone. That's over. That's a thing of the past.

Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher goes after the Obama Administration and the Congress:

There’s a shit storm going down on TV right now on CSPAN as the health care bill hits the floor of the House.

Thank you Democrats, for making women take a punch in the throatfrom a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own problems. So Rahm and Obama (who did nothing to stop it) can have their “w”:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.

“Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation,” the Bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. “Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion.”

Well, you have to give the culture warriors something, so they can go around cheering about the big victory that they got in this bill.  So happy to have the chance to line it all up for you all.

Thank you, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, from the bottom of my heart, for sitting on your hands and enabling this shit.  Hope you have fun at all those Common Purpose meetings, those cocktail parties at the Pelosi’s.

You own this one.

There's no way a Republican could write or say anything worse about this administration. That's a devastating attack from the base, and it is the kind of attack that should make a sensible incumbent fear for their job.

I firmly believe that 2011 will be spent pandering to the liberal base to try to make up for days like today. Whether that will do any good is anyone's guess. Will there even be a thing called blogging in 2011? Is it going to become micro-blogging or something like Tumblr? Yes, I did figure out Tumblr. Now, I cannot stop. I just...cannot stop. It possesses my soul now, like some religious artifact from a long-dead religion based on fear and evil.

Wait, who were we talking about?

Filed under: Democrat, Government, Health Care, Liberal

spruiked says...

We originally planned to increase the salary of TNI soldiers in 2011, but we will try to speed up the plan to 2010

The Defence Minister's decision to fast-track salary increases for TNI soldiers is controversial, but also very wise.

The government has almost completed a vigorous process of stripping the TNI of its many business interests built up during the Suharto regime. These businesses helped make a lot of TNI generals very rich. But they also supplemented the meagre salaries of rank-and-file soldiers.

The government's decision to increase the salaries of TNI soldiers --- and not officers --- is a smart move. The TNI is run like a multi-national corporation, with hundreds of thousands of lowly soldiers dependent on rich and powerful generals.

Steps like this will loosen the grip of Suharto-era generals, leaving them to wilt away in their Pondok Indah mausoleums.

Filed under: corruption, government, TNI

23narchy says...

November 7th, 2009 by Ben Goldacre

Ben Goldacre, Saturday 7 November 2009, The Guardian

Obviously it’s pleasing to see, in the storm of commentary over Professor Nutt’s sacking, that everyone outside of politics now recognises the importance of scientific evidence in devising laws. But a strange reasoning twitch has appeared, in the arguments of politicians and right wing commentators. Science can tell us about the molecules, they say, about their effect on the body, and the risks. But policy is a separate domain: a matter for judgement calls on social and ethical issues. Only politicians, they say, can determine the correct way to send out a clear message to the public. It is not a matter for science.

Interestingly this is wrong. Alongside research into the risks of drugs, lots of research has also been done examining the deterrent impact of different laws, classifications, and levels of enforcement. Since every piece of research has its own imperfections (and nobody has yet conducted a randomised controlled trial on drugs policy) you can make your own mind up about whether you find this research compelling.

One strategy is to compare different countries. A World Health Organisation study from 2008, published in the academic journal PLOS Medicine, compared drug use and enforcement regimes around the globe. It was clear: “globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”

Alternatively you can compare drug use between states within one country, if they have very different enforcement regimes, as happened when some parts of the US liberalised their laws a few decades ago. In 1976 Stuart and colleagues found that cannabis use in Ann Arbor, Michigan, wasn’t affected by reductions in cannabis penalties, when compared with three neighbouring communities which kept penalties the same. In 1981 Saveland & Bray looked at national drug use surveys from 1972 to 1977 and found that cannabis use was higher in the ‘decriminalised’ states, both before and after the changes in law, and when they looked at rates of change, although cannabis use was increasing everywhere, the most rapid increase was actually in the states with the most severe penalties. In the same year Johnson and colleagues used survey data on high school use and found decriminalisation had no effect on attitudes or beliefs about drugs. These studies are old, of course, but only because the liberalisations in the law which they rely on for data happened a long time ago.

Another line of evidence comes from “before and after” studies, when laws are changed. Cannabis use in the UK dropped, of course, after cannabis was moved from class B to class C. Prohibition of alcohol in the USA from 1920 to 1933 is the most famous example: here, alcohol use fell dramatically when prohibition began, and the price of alcohol rose to 318% of its previous level. But by 1929, this initial impact had begun to wear off, and rapidly: alcohol consumption had risen to 70% of pre-prohibition levels, was still rising when prohibition was repealed, and the price had fallen to only 171% of pre-prohibition levels. Notably, this reversion to old patterns of use occurred despite escalating expenditure on enforcement, which rose by 600% over the same period. There are many more examples.

This is not an unresearchable question. It is clear that there are many other factors at play in all of these studies, and if they are not sufficiently rigorous for the government, or a brief informal dip into the literature is not enough (it shouldn’t be) then they should commission more formal research: because it is a basic tenet of evidence based policy that if you discover a gap, you flag it up, and commission more work to fill it.

This is important for one simple reason. If you wish to justify a policy that will plainly increase the harms associated with each individual act of drug use, by creating violent criminal gangs as distributors, driving the sale of contaminated black market drugs, blighting the careers of users caught by the police, criminalising 3 million people, and so on, then people will reasonably expect, as a trade-off, that you will also provide good quality evidence showing that your policy achieves its stated aim of reducing the overall numbers of people using drugs.

 

Filed under: alan johnson, ben goldacre, david nutt, drugs, government, prohibition, science, uk

Terr says...

The Eco Institution, a San Diego-based environmental education and training firm, today announced the release of a new and enhanced “Green Consultant” certification and training course. The new online course is intended to make it easier than ever before for home-service professionals and other interested individuals to become Certified Green Consultants, and thereafter to deliver “Green Consulting” services to homeowners, businesses, and organizations in their neighborhoods and communities.

The new course builds on and replaces the Eco Institution’s initial Eco Consultant Certification course, which has been offered since early summer. The new course presents more detailed and advanced training content than was included in the original course, and focuses exclusively on strategies for reducing energy use, water use, and utility costs in homes and workplaces. The release of the enhanced course could not be timed more appropriately, as it responds directly to a recent call by the White House “Recovery Through Retrofit” Middle Class Task Force for greatly accelerated training of environmental professionals. The October 2009 report noted that “there are currently not enough skilled workers and green entrepreneurs to expand weatherization and efficiency retrofit programs on a national scale.”

“In recent months, our nation’s mission has become clear,” Kevin R. Hopkins, the course’s co-author, declared upon announcing the new training program. “Energy- and water-conservation efforts will succeed only if they are implemented and driven at the local level. But to achieve that goal, we literally need an ‘army of Green Consultants’ to visit the millions of homes and workplaces in America, and to help their occupants to save energy and water in the most effective and lasting ways possible.

“As a nation, we certainly have the ideas and initiative that this vital objective demands,” emphasized Mr. Hopkins, a Business Week contributing editor who also served as an economic, energy, and environmental advisor in the Reagan White House. “But now we need one thing more: we need the talent. We need people in every neighborhood and in every community in America who possess the knowledge and skills to bring this goal about. And that is exactly what the Eco Institution’s new Certified Green Consultant Course will provide.”

Responding to the White House Mandate

The new Certified Green Consultant Course has been designed and written to fully comply with the training parameters set forth in the White House’s “Recovery Through Retrofit” overview document. The Presidential report noted that “making American homes and buildings more energy-efficient presents an unprecedented opportunity for communities throughout the country… Home retrofits can potentially help people earn money, as home retrofit workers, while also helping them save money, by lowering their utility bills. By encouraging nationwide weatherization of homes, workers of all skill levels will be trained, engaged, and will participate in ramping up a national home retrofit market.”

The report went on to describe in detail the dimensions of the challenge—and the corresponding opportunity—that is facing the nation. “There are almost 130 million homes in this country,” the report observed. “Combined, they generate more than 20% of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions, making them a significant contributor to global climate change. Existing techniques and technologies in energy efficiency retrofitting can reduce home energy use by up to 40% per home and lower associated greenhouse gas emissions by up to 160 million metric tons annually by the year 2020. Furthermore, home energy-efficiency retrofits have the potential to reduce home energy bills by $21 billion annually, paying for themselves over time.”

The “Recovery Through Retrofit” initiative, which the White House will make more specific in coming months, also will include new national energy-efficiency standards for existing homes along with a program to expand the availability of so-called “green mortgages.” But the training-standards component remains a key centerpiece. “By implementing Recovery Through Retrofit’s recommendations,” the report concluded, “the Federal Government will lay the groundwork for a self-sustaining home energy-efficiency retrofit industry. This report provides a roadmap of how the Federal Government can use existing authorities and funds to unlock private capital and mobilize our communities.”

Saving Green by Living Green

Mr. Hopkins applauded the government’s efforts, noting that it was the key “missing piece” in the nation’s commitment to environmental protection and wiser energy use. “Homeowners and businesses in the United States and elsewhere have long been supportive of environmental initiatives, but have been frustrated by a lack of both knowledge and opportunities for living and operating in a more environmentally responsible fashion,” he said. “But thanks to the emerging Green Consultant profession, local residents and business owners can begin to really make a difference—right in their own neighborhoods and communities.”

That difference they can make means more than just doing a “good deed” for the planet. It also can translate into saving money. Indeed, the Eco Institution emphasizes that, in the difficult economy that has battered the United States and others developed countries in recent years, consumers and small businesses are more interested than ever before in saving money wherever they can—and that planetary consciousness needs to follow suit.

“It’s easy for someone who is passionate about protecting the environment to say that cost doesn’t matter,” says Mr. Hopkins. “And in the larger sense, maybe it doesn’t. But environmental protection and planetary preservation depend on people’s actually taking action. And like it or not, most people today—no matter how committed to the environment they might be—simply don’t have the thousands of extra dollars required to purchase a new hybrid car or to line their rooftops with pricey solar panels.”

With that fact in mind, the Eco Institution focuses its training efforts on helping future Green Consultants to demonstrate to their clients how “living green” and “saving green” go together. By undertaking simple, relatively inexpensive steps—from wiser usage of lighting, heating, cooling, and water to improved insulation and replacement of old appliances—some families can save up to $2,000 or more each year through the adoption of green-living practices, and many businesses can save much more. In addition, U.S. Federal tax credits for energy-efficient structural additions can save taxpayers up to an additional $1,500 in the coming tax year.

A Powerful New Approach to Energy- and Water-Efficiency

The Eco Institution’s Certified Green Consultant Training Course is aimed at both existing home-service professionals—ranging from real estate agents and home inspectors to interior designers, electricians, and plumbers—seeking to add a new line of business to their current professional practices, as well as other individuals (including career-changes, underemployed professionals, and local entrepreneurs) looking to generate extra income and to establish a foothold in a solid and promising next-generation career.

The Certified Green Consultant Course, which was co-authored by veteran energy executive Michelle L. Hopkins, is designed to be a no-nonsense “nuts and bolts” training guide for cost-efficiently saving energy and water at home and work. At the same time, the course (and the Eco Institution’s approach to “Green Consulting” in general) goes far beyond the more formulaic “energy audits” traditionally offered by utility companies and earlier-generation environmental training programs. “The Eco Institution’s new course will help Certified Green Consultants to become ‘trusted counselors’ to their residential and commercial clients, and to help guide them through the maze of technical and legal complexities that surround the practice of energy-efficiency and retrofitting,” Ms. Hopkins explained.

Ms. Hopkins previously served for 17 years in various senior executive capacities with Pacific Enterprises/Southern California Gas Company (now Sempra Energy), one of the nation’s largest energy utilities. Working closely with the company’s award-winning energy-auditing program, she witnessed first-hand how much more effective “trusted energy counselors” were in the field than were the more traditional checklist-driven energy auditors. “Whenever clients needed help in dealing with energy-efficiency or retrofitting issues, our people were always the ‘first call.’ We hope to create the same, powerful dynamic with this new generation of Eco Institution-trained Green Consultants.”

A Rich Course Curriculum

The Eco Institution’s Certified Green Consultant Training Course covers the full range of topics necessary for future Green Consultants to become locally recognized experts in residential and commercial energy- and water-efficiency. Among the topics covered by the 17-unit online course are:

•    Green Consulting as a profession
•    The residential ecosystem
•    Residential heating and cooling systems
•    Insulation and thermostats
•    Windows and doors
•    Household appliances and electronics
•    Water use and water heating
•    Energy-efficient lighting solutions
•    Alternative-energy options, including solar and wind
•    Green home design principles
•    Energy and water use in the workplace
•    Workplace-based recycling practices
•    Conducting Green Home and Green Workplace surveys
•    Marketing and selling Green Consulting services
•    Publishing and promoting Green Consulting services
•    Promoting Green Consulting services online

The Eco Institution’s Green Consultant certification process has been designed for maximum flexibility and adaptability to the needs of individual Green Consultant trainees. Taking advantage of the latest in web-based training technologies, the Certified Green Consultant Training Course is available online, and can be studied at the student’s own pace and on his or her own schedule. Each of the introductory course’s 17 units includes a detailed, easy-to-read text-based lesson, and is accompanied by email-based access to a professional Green Consulting Coach who will guide students through both the substantive and practical aspects of setting up and building their Green Consulting practice.

The Certified Green Consultant Training Course also includes a professionally designed business “Start Up Kit” intended to help Green Consultants to rapidly build their professional practices. Among the Kit’s more than two dozen components are a suite of home consulting, workplace consulting, and marketing and promotion tools that will enable Green Consultants to focus more time on the vital matters of client service and follow-up and less on the rote mechanics of running a business. The centerpiece of the Start Up Kit are comprehensive Green Home Survey and Green Workplace Surveys and Reports, that will enable Green Consultants to review homes and workplaces and to deliver their findings in a cost-efficient and consistent manner.

The Eco Institution operates its Green Consultant credentialing program as an educational and training network and not as a franchise. Specifically, the Eco Institution sets no fee structures that its trained and certified Green Consultants are required to charge and makes no guarantees of any specific income stream (although many Green Consultants and Eco Consultants currently earn from $100 to $400 per home or business survey, and several hundred dollars or more from follow-on work with the same client). Additionally, Green Consultants choose their company’s own name and location, set their own hours, and determine which specific services they will offer and how much they will charge. There are also no sales territories or sales quotas.  Eco Institution-trained Green Consultants keep 100% of whatever they earn from clients, and do not have to pay a “sales commission” or licensing fee to the Eco Institution for ongoing use of Eco Institution materials.

Signing Up for the Eco Consultant Certification Course

Signing up for the Eco Institution’s Certified Green Consultant Training Course is a simple and straightforward matter. Interested individuals should visit the Eco Institution’s Green Consultant web site at www.greenconsultant.com. Alternatively, students may telephone the Eco Institution directly at (877) 235-3170

Filed under: business, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Eco Institution, Eco-consulting, Economic, Employee, employment, Entrepreneurs, Environment, Government, green, Greenhouse, Jobs, Middle Class

Julia says...

The higher education blueprint, Higher Ambitions, sets out a course for how universities can remain world class, providing the nation with the high level skills needed to remain competitive, while continuing to attract the brightest students and researchers.

Higher Ambitions cover

Higher Ambitions – Executive Summary  

 1.7MB

Higher Ambitions – Full report  

 1.1MB

 

Read the press notice

Read Lord Mandelson’s oral statement to the House of Lords

Read David Lammy’s oral statement to the House of Commons

Video and audio

Lord Mandelson’s statement to the House of Lords

David Lammy’s statement to the House of Commons

David Lammy’s podcast interview

Background to the blueprint

Read about former DIUS’ Higher Education debate

Vital reading for those of us involved with or interested in HE in the UK.

Filed under: Ambitions, BIS, Government, Higher Education, UK

23narchy says...

A new British independent poll conducted by Ipsos Mori concluded that the people who do the most illegal downloading also buy the most music. This is in line with many other studies elsewhere and is easy to understand: people who are music superfans do more of everything to do with music: they see more live shows, listen to more radio, buy more CDs, buy more botlegs of live shows, buy more t-shirts, talk about music more, do more downloading -- all of it.

And of course, these are the people the music industry's supergeniuses have set their sights upon for bizarre enforcement regimes like the one that British Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has promised: anyone who lives in a house that generates three or more copyright infringement notices will be barred from Internet access.

"The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access," said Peter Bradwell, from the think-tank Demos, which commissioned the new poll conducted by Ipsos Mori.

However, music industry figures insist the figures offer a skewed picture. The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month.

"The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music," said Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research. "They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity," he continued. "You need to have it at a price point you won't notice."

Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music', says poll (Thanks, Libbi!)

 

Filed under: copyfight, films, government, illegal filesharing, mandelson, music, politics, uk

23narchy says...

November 3, 2009

The Government was bitterly divided last night over the sacking of the Home Office’s chief drugs adviser after its Science Minister said that he was appalled by Alan Johnson’s decision.

Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, wrote to No 10 asking if the Prime Minister could undo the Home Secretary’s decision to dismiss David Nutt.

He said that he had not been consulted by Mr Johnson before Professor Nutt was sacked for having said that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than Ecstasy and LSD, and for questioning the decision to downgrade cannabis. In an e-mail to Nick Butler, the Prime Minister’s policy adviser, Lord Drayson wrote: “Alan did this without letting me know and giving me a chance to persuade him. It’s a big mistake. Is Gordon able to get Alan to undo this? As ‘science champion in Government’, I can’t just stand aside on this one.”

According to The Sun, which obtained a series of e-mails written by Lord Drayson, the minister said he was “pretty appalled” at the decision.

Last night Lord Drayson said: “My comments in the e-mail exchange were my immediate reaction to what had happened, without full knowledge of all the facts. I talked to Alan Johnson and he has assured me of the importance he attaches to scientific advice and his respect for scientific advice while being the person who has to make the final difficult decision.”

The resignation of a key member of Britain’s drugs advisory panel after the sacking of Professor Nutt has left ministers powerless to develop or update drugs policy.

The departure of Marion Walker from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) means that it no longer has a pharmacist representative on the board, contravening its statutory requirements, The Times has learnt.

Mr Johnson is to hold urgent talks with members of the ACMD, who wrote to him yesterday expressing “serious concerns” about the council’s relationship with Government.

It also emerged that the Home Office has started a review of the ACMD to look at whether it is accountable, if it is “discharging its functions” properly and if it continues to represent value for money. The review, which was launched last month and also covers the Animal Procedures Committee, is being conducted by Sir David Omand, a former permanent secretary.

The ACMD is responsible for reviewing all issues of drug misuse and advising Government on abuse, dependency and related social problems.

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Home Secretary is not permitted to amend the classification of any drug, including adding new ones to the list, “except after consultation with or on the recommendation of the advisory council”.

The law requires that six of council members represent particular fields, with Ms Walker the sole pharmacy specialist. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said that ministers risked losing the confidence of expert advisers across government unless they confirm their independence after the sacking. He said that the dismissal of the chief drugs adviser had created an “incredibly regrettable situation that has a potentially negative effect on the relationship between scientists and the Government”.

Sir Leszek, who heads a body that spent £704 million of public money on research in 2008-09, is the highest-ranking scientist on the government payroll to speak out so far over the Nutt affair.

 

Filed under: alan johnson, david nutt, drugs, government, lord drayson, politics, science, uk

  There's no right to privacy when you're a lonesome prairie dog

If you care about privacy, it should shock to you to have to read things like this:

When Attorney General Eric Holder invoked the “state secrets” privilege to quash a lawsuit alleging illegal National Security Agency spying last Friday night, his department’s lawyers sounded a lot like those who worked for President George W. Bush. In fact, they justified the action by filing an affidavit from President Obama’s director of national intelligence that is nearly identical to one filed by President Bush’s intelligence director two years ago.

The strikingly similar affidavit—making the same arguments in the almost exactly the same language—is among the strongest examples yet of how Obama administration officials are adopting Bush-era secrecy positions in major national security cases.

Holder’s move came in the case of Shubert v. Obama, a lawsuit filed in 2006 by four residents of Brooklyn, New York. They allege that their overseas phone calls were illegally intercepted by the NSA as part of a massive “dragnet” of warrantless surveillance ordered by Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reality is, government policies under Obama and Bush are pretty much the same thing:

“Confirming or denying such allegations, again, would reveal to foreign adversaries whether or not the NSA utilizes particular intelligence sources and methods and, thus, would either compromise actual sources and methods or disclose that the NSA does not utilize a particular source or method,” Blair wrote on page nine of his  11-page affidavit.

That’s what Bush’s DNI McConnell said two years ago: “Confirming or denying such allegations would reveal to foreign adversaries whether or not the NSA utilizes particular intelligence sources and methods and, thus, either compromise actual sources and methods or disclose that the NSA does not utilize a particular source or method,” McConnell wrote on page eight of his  affidavit.

Those must be some deep, dark secrets they're hiding. Could the real truth be that they are unable to stop terrorism and that their methods don't work anymore? Could the real truth be that they don't have qualified people evaluating a vast stream of data that can't be adequately searched for relevant information? If everything is on the up and up, and if all of the eavesdropping is overseen by the courts, then what's the problem here? Are they afraid that, if people see how ridiculous their efforts truly are, then their vast funding stream, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, will dry up out of necessity? It's not about good government. It's about how much cash you can ram into those pants pockets. Whether there is an "R" or a "D" next to your name is irrelevant.

The political elite protects itself, and you have no right to know what your government is doing to protect you. I don't want to hear a single liberal screech about how bad things were under Bush. Nothing has changed, except for how they're marketing "change" to you. As long as there's a pretty man in the White House, none of those deep thinkers are going to get spun up about what's really going on.

Filed under: Corruption, Government, Greed, Politics, The Rule of Law

PeterSimoons says...

Polish Undersecretary of State Mariusz Handzlik writes on the implications of a potential strategic alliance between Poland and Romania.

Filed under: Government

 

How hard is this to figure out?

Lobbyists this year began terminating their formal registrations with the federal government at significantly higher levels than usual, a joint study by OMB Watch and the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

The OMB Watch-CRP study found 1,418 "deregistrations" of federally registered lobbyists during the second quarter of 2009, a marked increase for any reporting period during all of 2008 and 2009. This occurred shortly after President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13490, which created new restrictions on former lobbyists appointed to the executive branch. Guidance was then issued in March, which marks the start of the 2nd quarter reporting, that enacted a gift ban and further restricted the kind of communications lobbyists could have about stimulus and TARP funds. Via a recent blog post, the White House also announced, “it is our aspiration that federally registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions,” a practice that is common today.

[EDIT]

The study also indicates that since the beginning of 2008, the number of lobbyists filing termination reports has generally outpaced the number of newly active lobbyists – a trend that considerably accelerated during this year's second quarter. All told, there have been 18,315 lobbyist termination reports filed since January 2008. Meanwhile, only 15,310 lobbyists became active again after previously filing termination reports. This leaves a total of 3,005 lobbyists who have effectively “de-registered,” of which more than half (1,691) have come since April 2009.

If you look at these numbers, you would think to yourself, that's good news for good government. Finally, someone has decided to tackle the rolling bum scuffle that is lobbying and corruption. Finally, the Obama Administration has started to roll back the wanton excesses of the Bush Administration.

If there are fewer lobbyists, the reasoning would hold, then there are fewer people pushing an agenda that doesn't necessarily represent the will of the American people or what is best for them. Now, it stands to reason, not all lobbying is corrupt and evil. A fair enough portion of it is blandly evil, pushing a corporate agenda past the need to accomplish things like health care reform, environmental policies that are good for us, and to make peace in the world. If you think about those who lobby for the insurance industry, for the companies that pollute our environment, and for the companies that make a killing off of killing, that's a sizeable chunk of evil advocacy right there. And even that is not all bad. I used to think all corporate lobbying was simply the business of the American people conducting business. Now, I take a broader view of it, one that is unfettered by party affiliation nonsense. I want good government for a change.

We're not getting that, apparently:

Another troubling issue highlighted by the organizations is that the thousands of lobbyists who appear to have left their line of work may not have actually done so. At the federal level, many people working in the lobbying industry are not registered lobbyists, instead adopting titles such as "senior advisor" or other executive monikers, thereby avoiding federal disclosure requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 

Additionally, the terminology the lobbying community uses does not align with the categories of the U.S. Senate's or the Clerk of the House's lobbying disclosure databases.  For example, on the disclosure form, there is no such term as “deregistration" – a phrase lobbyists and many in the media frequently use.

Given this limitation, the most accurate way currently to determine the number of unique active lobbyists terminating their registrations requires tracking lobbyists' names listed on line 23 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act's form (LD2, which tracks lobbying activity on behalf of a client) and standardizing the data per unique individual lobbyist. Congressional disclosure offices must therefore research the activity of each lobbyist prior to sending notification of missing reports. With no unique identifier per individual lobbyist and with no “deregistration” field, verifying and enforcing compliance with the rules is made much more difficult.

It's one thing to issue and order; ensuring everyone is complying with that order is another matter. The Congress seems unwilling to do what is necessary to ensure that he who deregisters stops lobbying, no matter what. The government is asleep at the switch. It gives a weak order, everyone laughs at it, and business is conducted as usual.

Yes, yes this really is my blog...

Filed under: Corruption, Fraud, Government, Greed, Infrastructure, Politics, Scandal