Free Markets, Free People

The Growing Opacity Of The Obama Administration

As you’re seeing demonstrated in the machinations concerning GM and Chrysler, not to mention the attempt to pass the card check legislation, unions are a favored constituency within the Obama administration. And it gets even better:

The Obama administration, which has boasted about its efforts to make government more transparent, is rolling back rules requiring labor unions and their leaders to report information about their finances and compensation.

The Labor Department noted in a recent disclosure that “it would not be a good use of resources” to bring enforcement actions against union officials who do not comply with conflict of interest reporting rules passed in 2007. Instead, union officials will now be allowed to file older, less detailed conflict reports.

The regulation, known as the LM-30 rule, was at the heart of a lawsuit that the AFL-CIO filed against the department last year. One of the union attorneys in the case, Deborah Greenfield, is now a high-ranking deputy at Labor, who also worked on the Obama transition team on labor issues.

Apparently, however, it is a good use of resources to spend money on just about everything else under the sun. But of course, if they used resources to bring enforcement actions against union officials who don’t comply with conflict of interest reporting rules, they’d have to start with Deborah Greenfield, wouldn’t they?

Funny how “resource use” suddenly becomes a problem when a probable rule violation becomes fairly evident.

Critics worry that the rollback of union reporting requirements will keep hidden potentially corrupt financial arrangements aimed at rooting out corruption, but unions say the Bush administration reporting rules were unfair and burdensome.

Darn right they were because, you know, they were catching corrupt union officials. Can’t have that. So “unfair and burdensome” – something that tax payers are never able to plead about the gigantic and undecipherable tax code – now takes priority over transparent and accountable.

Hope and change.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

3 Responses to The Growing Opacity Of The Obama Administration

  • I have a fantastic idea:
     
    Since the Democrats are so keen on investigations of “crimes” committed by previous (read: Republican) administrations, how about we plan, in the next Republican White House, to open a massive investigation, with congressional hearings, on the selling of our government to the unions and ACORN. How about some look into how ACORN was used to break campaign finance laws, and how The Clown™ and his Minions worked hand in hand with them to break these laws?
     
    Nah, the Democrats won’t be upset at that. After all, they always want to “get at the truth,” right?

    • Oh, don’t think that I’m not looking forward to doing exactly that.  If the trash wants to play by these rules, then let slip the dogs of war.  Next time there is a GOP majority, I say run investigations of every single person who ever even registered to vote for the trash and run ‘em in on any charge that can be plausibly brought.  Truth and reconcilliation, you know.  And since the trash also have no scruples about passing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, throw a few of those in the mix, too.  Think of how many lawyers, FBI agents and prison guards we’ll be employing, not to mention the construction workers who’ll have to build all those new prisons.  Call it the Law Enforcement Stimulus Act of 2013.

      Not that I’d seriously do this, or support a GOP that engaged in a witch hunt.  SOMEBODY in the country has to be adults, and (as usual) it falls to the conservatives.  But I must say that the mental image of TAO, SanFran Nan, Grand Admiral Reid, Trashcan Chuckie and other trash in orange jumpsuits is quite appealing.

  • Excellent, as long as we’re on this kick about “burdensome”, when does SOX get repealed?  Seeing as that actually *is* burdensome and has significant economic cost (more than a measly $100M!), I graciously await this administration and congress repealing its silliness.

    *crickets*