It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Obama Has to Look Forward To

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

What Obama Has to Look Forward To


www.motherjones.com

The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Agriculture have no plan to work together in the event of a food-borne disease outbreak or terrorist attack. The Department of Defense's security clearance process takes so long it jeopardizes classified information. The EPA's chemical risk assessment program is improperly influenced by private industry.

When Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) requested a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) listing questions his fellow senators might ask President-elect Barack Obama's political nominees at their upcoming confirmation hearings, he probably didn't expect a 150-page list of Bush administration screwups. But that's what he got.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress that frequently exposes waste, incompetence, and corruption in the federal government, supplemented its proposed questions with summaries of problems in the executive branch. The result is a catalogue of hundreds of unresolved issues that the Bush administration is leaving behind for Obama and his administration.

The report, which is divided by department, is strictly limited to what the GAO calls "basic management capabilities," which means it raises questions about personnel, resource distribution, IT, and "results-oriented decision making." Problems like the politicization of the Justice Department are not mentioned. But this report serves as a peephole into the myriad internal problems of the executive branch, depicting a federal bureaucracy that is rife with mismanagement, inefficiency, and faulty communication practices—all of this combining to jeopardize both the nation's health and security.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This is a very interesting article. And I know some on here will discount it because of its source, Mother Jones... but this is from a GAO report on waste and mismanagement in government written at the request of Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

If you want to cut the cost of government, it is not in eliminating programs and cutting funding that the savings will be found... its in the bureaucracy, the red tape and the simple matter of lack of coordination between departments.

For example why we don't have one governmental OS with interlocking programs and shared information with multiple levels of security is beyond me but when the FBI and the CIA and the DOD can't talk to each other... not only is that crazy, its wasteful.

www.motherjones.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Obama doesnt have anything to look forward to really.
When you think about the fact of who surrounds him.
All of the people so deep in the system its crazy...so much for change from a 'non-insider'. (Cant see how anyone ever fell for that to begin with.)

Policy is never made by one supreme leader...even in the case of a king...regardless of what one may think and romanticize about. You must remember there is always someone lurking to take that top place - so in the end, its a bunch of deluded, dysfunctional egos having a go for it...and cooperating just enough to keep them at the edge of power they seek. (One man cant carry out policy alone, unless he has a robotic army that cant think for itself...so far, Im sure Obamas staff all can think for themselves...well enough to influence any good policy he may have had...if any.)

True policy change is only within. Why people feel they have to have a club of people to represent them to give money (taxes) away to is beyond me. YOu really dont need it. Its as if people want to project themselves onto some 'idol' and then put the blame on them if their life sucks. No?

Anyway...Obama - amazing man, not even that great of a speaker. Sounds fake every time he opens his mouth...but then again I think the presidents job is to be an actor...they need to work on it a bit to sound more natural some of them.


Peace

dAlen



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Now that Congress has the executive branch screw up list, maybe they can tack on the Congressional screw up list. Maybe then we can cut out the red tape and redundancy that is encountered in both branches. Cause it is obvious that after approving a 700 Billion dollar bailout, Comgress has no idea what the hell is going on in the first place. Kinda scary thought when you know they hold the purse and is responsible for oversight.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Generally speaking the manager, be it an owner, a CEO or a President sets the tone and the rest of the team follow suit. That has been my experience in the working world so if Obama surrounds himself with insiders and allows them to call the tune then yes you would be correct... but if he calls the tune, which I think he will, then the rest have to follow suit or be replaced.

the bush minor is an excellent example... the executive branch early on set a tune of slavish loyalty and secrecy and that attitude has filtered down all the way through government.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



but if he calls the tune, which I think he will, then the rest have to follow suit or be replaced.


The only problem to this is inexperience. Let's take the military. Obama has no experience and is not a military expert. Obama wants to invade Pakistan. He has no idea how to come up with a plan so he leaves it to the DOD and military to formulate a plan. They formulate 3 of them and explain them to Obama in detail. I take it that even after explaining in detail Obama is still not 100% clear on what it entails. he goes with option b feeling he has the best people around them. We go in and 6 months later the plan is failing. Welcome to Bush 101. Can't call the tune when you don't know the music.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I pretty much agree with what dAlen states about Washington and the nature of these agencys...and the body politic itself.

Seemst to me I recall reading some years ago about Richard Nixon. He wanted to make some changes in the structure of the Federal Government. He asked for someone to make him a map of what the Federal Government structure actually looked like so they could begin and no one could draw a good map for them to begin the process.

What Grover is posting in the OP is standard political rhetoric. Standard political speechifying. People and administrations have been doing this for term after term...and claiming to want to make changes. The only significant change that has taken place is that the government keeps growing and becoming more intrusive into our lives.
One need not be a genius to know that when a government can vote/crreate moneys for any expenditures ...unlimited...they can buy up the whole country and outspend the public for anything they want. The public there upon becomes the enemy and competitor of government ...not government itself. It is the public they must needs control..not the government. No genius required for understanding this.

As to this Grover...it is bottom feeding at it's very best.


the bush minor is an excellent example... the executive branch early on set a tune of slavish loyalty and secrecy and that attitude has filtered down all the way through government.


This template can be used also to describe the administration between the two Bush presidencys..and describe it to a tee. It can be used to describe administrations before these two as well. Not all of us have forgotten that much history that we can be so easily deceived.

I hold no hope for any change in this upcoming administration no matter what the public or political rhetoric.
I hold no hope for the news media for guidance and informations on this as they have become shills against the public for their respective political parties...all of them.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 8-12-2008 by orangetom1999]



new topics




 
0

log in

join