Richard Milhous Obama?

[oxcoug]

Can any of Obama's most avid advocates in these parts provide a cogent defense for requiring all prospective govt contractors to disclose all past political contributions in applications for govt contracts?

Steny Hoyer and Claire McKaskill sure can't which is why they've publicly broken ranks with the admin on this.

WTF? I mean WTFingF??? To date I've written off Obama's various flaws and fumbles to benign naivete, incompetence or ideological moorings. But this reeks of deep dish pizza.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...n9G_story.html

[TripletDaddy]

To determine whether there may be a Haliburton conflict of interest in awarding the contract? Basically the opposite side of the coin you are opposing, namely to weed out enemies.

I'm not necessarily for it, btw. But silly to not see any reason for it, at least IMO.

[YOhio]

This is a stupid issue on both sides. Political contributions are already publicly accessible. Putting it onto a contract proposal is a paperwork hassle, but it doesn't divulge new information. Its not like the source selecting contract officer is that partisan anyways. They know throughout their career they'll work for parties and are incredibly risk averse.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't know. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it might be a lot of paperwork. On the other hand, it passes the 'does it piss off oxy?' test. So I'm conflicted.

[oxcoug]

This is a stupid issue on both sides. Political contributions are already publicly accessible. Putting it onto a contract proposal is a paperwork hassle, but it doesn't divulge new information. Its not like the source selecting contract officer is that partisan anyways. They know throughout their career they'll work for parties and are incredibly risk averse.

Yeah they're publicly accessible - so why is it material to the application process? Why shld they be included in applications for contracts? Why does it a seamless matter of flipping a few pages for a political appointee reviewing the application to see what opponents the applicant has assisted?

Why an executive order?

[landpoke]

Yeah they're publicly accessible - so why is it material to the application process? Why shld they be included in applications for contracts? Why does it a seamless matter of flipping a few pages for a political appointee reviewing the application to see what opponents the applicant has assisted?

Why an executive order?

Because YOhio is a closet Obama lover. You people need to drum him out right quick.

[Moliere]

Yeah they're publicly accessible - so why is it material to the application process? Why shld they be included in applications for contracts? Why does it a seamless matter of flipping a few pages for a political appointee reviewing the application to see what opponents the applicant has assisted?

Why an executive order?

Just because it's publicly available information doesn't mean it ever gets looked at.....or at least looked at until it's too late. It does seem like a bit of a hassle but there is some basis behind the (proposed?) rule.

The other issue is that when you fill a document so full of crap that crap becomes meaningless. This happens over and over in regards to required accounting disclosures in 10Ks as well as other required items in proxies and such.

[oxcoug]

Because YOhio is a closet Obama lover. You people need to drum him out right quick.

Oh he's been drummed the **** out.

It's one thing to have a situation in which every applicant knows "hey - our contributions are on the public record and therefore it is possible and perhaps likely that the people reviewing our application will go look that up." It's a couple of bridges beyond that to effectively say "we WILL review your political donations and we will signal this to you by forcing you to list them in your application even though its irrelevant to your qualifications for the contract."

[The_Tick]

I don't know. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it might be a lot of paperwork. On the other hand, it passes the 'does it piss off oxy?' test. So I'm conflicted.

Why the hate for my future employer? (If people would get off of their asses that is.)

[landpoke]

Why the hate for my future employer? (If people would get off of their asses that is.)

He's never gotten over their support for the current Libyan regime.

[YOhio]

Yeah they're publicly accessible - so why is it material to the application process? Why shld they be included in applications for contracts? Why does it a seamless matter of flipping a few pages for a political appointee reviewing the application to see what opponents the applicant has assisted?

Why an executive order?

There are very few contracts that would ever have the involvement of a political appointee. Of those contracts, the only bidders are the huge integrators (Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, GE, BAH, Batelle, etc) that diversify their political investment. A political appointee doesn't have a warrant to contract for the USG and those who do have the warrants would be incredibly stupid to eliminate an otherwise contractor because of a political donation. They'd get destroyed on bid appeal and potentially face jail time. The right is naive to think the Obama administration can use this for to punish enemies and reward friends. The Obama administration is also naive to think this gives them some kind of transparency credibility, which is why they're doing it in the first place. They're getting hammered for transparency, particularly in their prosecution of whistleblowers, and this is an obvious play to appease those concerns. It won't work, makes them look foolish and accomplishes nothing except additional paperwork.

If they really did want to keep tabs on the political donations of those performing on federal contracts/grants, they should just integrate the FEC and CCR databases. It would be significantly less hassle for the contractor and could update regularly as opposed to tied to each unique proposal.

[New Mexican Disaster]

There are very few contracts that would ever have the involvement of a political appointee. Of those contracts, the only bidders are the huge integrators (Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, GE, BAH, Batelle, etc) that diversify their political investment. A political appointee doesn't have a warrant to contract for the USG and those who do have the warrants would be incredibly stupid to eliminate an otherwise contractor because of a political donation. They'd get destroyed on bid appeal and potentially face jail time. The right is naive to think the Obama administration can use this for to punish enemies and reward friends. The Obama administration is also naive to think this gives them some kind of transparency credibility, which is why they're doing it in the first place. They're getting hammered for transparency, particularly in their prosecution of whistleblowers, and this is an obvious play to appease those concerns. It won't work, makes them look foolish and accomplishes nothing except additional paperwork.

If they really did want to keep tabs on the political donations of those performing on federal contracts/grants, they should just integrate the FEC and CCR databases. It would be significantly less hassle for the contractor and could update regularly as opposed to tied to each unique proposal.

Stop talking like you know something. I want red meat only.

[YOhio]

Stop talking like you know something. I want red meat only.

Remember when you were all infatuated with Mike Huckabee. lol!!!!