Barack (The Builder) Obama is an interesting candidate simply because he is so charismatic! He care about the things I care about and he says all the right things! Barack wants to fix America, to heal America....

But I question if good intentions are enough... I REALLY want to like Obama but I have to continuously ask myself, is he a better candidate for the Democratic party than Hillary Clinton or is he the 'sexy' choice? Herein lies the problem... Hillary, in my opinion, is more equipped to handle White House responsibilities in her experience and knowledge. Hillary is a smart, smart woman and she knows what's going on! Unfortunately.... people hate and vilify her! Can Hillary unite the country and its government in spite of her being such a polarizing figure? Sadly, I doubt it. Even when Bill Clinton was messing around, somehow people managed to villify her.

But back to Barack... He says, as I mentioned, all the right things but let's look at his platform and his own Blueprint for Change. Over the next few entries, I will focus on a few of the issues - to maintain some pretense of brevity - such as Ethics, Health Care, Economy, Education, Energy and Foreign Policy as I believe these things to be the core issues currently facing our country and where possible compare Obama's platform to Hillary Clinton's platform. Through the course of this blog entry I will frequently make direct references to Barack Obama's Blueprint for Change as denoted by an asterisks.

Today's topic is -

Ethics:

Obama wants to reduce the impact of Lobbyist and special interests groups, make the government more transparent and eliminate wasteful spending.

I agree with this. Our domestic (and foreign policy) is too influenced by big business and other political interests. If I had my druthers, lobbyists would be banned from congress, regardless of their representations. There are public forums in which special interests groups can voice their concerns and share their message(s) with the American people who can then vote for the representatives that they feel best represent their interests and the interests of America. I have also said for years that the government forgets that they work for us, not the other way around. As employers, we deserve to know what our employees - our representatives - are doing under the actions as funded by our tax dollars and everyone has known that America spends frivolously for years and years and years. I would actually like to see more of an Accountant for the Executive and Legislative branch who openly shops for the 'best deals' for the government by way of open bids and increasing direct competition. In fact, we should consider eliminating some government contracts, to procure items, all together. A free market economy would actually support this and as a result, it would positively impact inflation and lessen the need for tax increases.

How does Obama plan to do it?

Shine Light on Washington Lobbying*

• Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters
• Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules
• Support Campaign Finance Reform

My Thoughts:
The internet database of lobbying information, reports and records and campaign finance records is an expansion the 'Google for Government' idea that Obama championed with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and can be wrapped into his desire to create a 'contracts and influence' database. This is an absolutely great idea that is much in line with the technical abilities of the 21st century and is supported by the Freedom of Information Act.

That being said, do we need more government bloat to create an 'independent watchdog agency' under his plan for 'independent monitoring'? If you create transparency in government, I believe that the national news media is more than capable of exposing every little tidbit that could be construed as a scandal... in fact, they make their living off of it. An independent agency would simply eat away at tax payer dollars without results. What happens when this agency finds impropriety or misconduct? It would go back to Congress... an institution notorious for protecting their own. What was the last independent investigation that actually even concluded positively? Our government has a series of checks and balances; we need to strengthen them and we need to have laws in place that better govern professional conduct in office (not personal conduct).

I also don't understand how he plans to reform Campaign Finance laws. The idea of free television and radio time is a good idea that has been bandied about for years. How do you give the networks and radio enough incentive to give away free airtime when they are often claiming to have trouble generating advertising revenue as it is? There would obviously have to be tax incentives, but then how do you decide who is 'eligible' for this airtime? If I ran for office, would I be eligible too? There is no meat here. It's an idea that will never come to fruition at this rate.

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks*

• Create a Public “Contracts and Influence" Database
• Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
• End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts
• Sunlight Before Signing
• Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending

My Thoughts:
The database idea has already been covered, so I won't rehash this. It's a good idea. Exposing 'Special Interest Tax Breaks' under the same method is also a good idea. 'Google for Government' is simply a good idea all around. The only question that I have for this is how do you do it while minimizing overhead? Any new project requires a bulk initial investment, obviously, but how do you do this without overspending and who decides what is to be exposed? Are we really going to see any progress with this?
No-Bid Contract abuse is a big issue in this country because of the high level of professional 'nepotism' that seems to take place and becomes exposed after the fact, once the paperwork has been signed. I agree with Obama that all contracts over $25,000 should be competitively awarded; however, I'd like to take it once step further. ALL contracts should be competitively awarded. What is to stop medium contracts from becoming a series of small (under 25K) contracts? I still favor the idea of a central accounting agency to monitor spending beyond the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General. I would like to see one of these institutions (if not a combination) establish a buying program that seeks the best savings on behalf of the government. If our mothers can bargain shop and clip coupons, so can our country.

I also agree with the idea of 'sunlighting' a bill before it gets signed and enacted; however, the suggestion that the bill can be exposed and commented on for 5 days as an improvement is 'farcicle' at best. So we, Americans, are going to review a bill for 5 days on whitehouse.gov and create comments and then the President will sign or not sign this bill with input from the American people? Who is going to read the thousands upon thousands of comments that will be sure to arise on the day before it is signed? This is a false sense of input. If you want to give Americans more input into the government and process, you expose non-emergency bills to the due process of the voting system. Towns do it, states do it... our central government should consider doing it, possible through annual or bi-annual elections... or better yet... look for ways to leverage the power of the internet. Yes, we hire/elect representatives to make these choices for us, but don't think that internet comments will affect the legislative process. Allow Americans to have the option of registering online and granting them the ability to make a yes/no opinion on the website, in addition to any comments. While this vote may not count, elected officials would have a more accurate view into the wants, needs and desires of the American people and can better craft their own votes and decisions to more accurately reflect the needs of the country. Barack Obama, tell us how you plan to implement this process!

Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act is a good idea when it comes to monitoring 'Pork Barrel Spending'. It goes back to transparency in government, which is actually a significant portion of Obama's platform that gets overlooked. Will it make much difference? Perhaps not in the short term when congress men and women are busy scratching each others backs; however, come election season their constituents will have a more complete body of work to see where their representatives stand and their justifications for their actions, allowing them to make better informed decisions.


Bring Americans Back into their Government*

• Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats
• Make White House Communications Public
• Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public
• Release Presidential Records

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence*

• Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers
• Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics
• Reform the Political Appointee Process

My Thoughts:
This is almost the 'feel good' portion of the Ethics outline. Cabinet officials to have periodic town hall meetings? Wow. This is so not new. I really don't understand the inclusion of this. Politicians have been trying to emulate and one-up FDR, and his 'Fireside Chats' for decades. And yet, noone seems to understand that it isn't so much the fact that you're talking... It's what you're saying. Administrations have been doing town hall chats for so long now that we're almost bored with it due to the lack of substance and direct communication. I don't put much water into this.

Public communication of policy correspondence with and within the White House should have been the primary point here. Again, Americans don't want to know that you're going to talk to us, we want to know that you're going to tell us something useful. We're not all cut out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Correspondence around public matters should be made public within reason to respect to security and internal discourse. (That'll teach them not to send 'funny' forwards to each over government email as well! ;) ).

Publicizing regulator agency discussions is not a bad idea. Granted, some individuals might choose to make popular comments rather than the tough, unpopular but correct decisions; however, this is a kink that will work out over time. We should only want strong, intelligent people of conviction running our country as it is. The idea of a public forum is perhaps a little excessive and unrealistic. Public forums cost money. Obama... don't waste money. Media and new media is perfectly acceptable and accessible. I am sure C-SPAN could use the additional programming and there's already a mechanism in place.

As for the release of presidential records, what more can be said? It's been a disappointment that the current administration has fought so hard to hide their actions from the court of public perception that I think the distaste spreads to most people regardless of political affiliation. The biggest joke has been Cheney's insistance that he is not really part of the Executive OR Legislative branch and therefore not subject to the rules governing either.

I do hope that whomever takes office really takes the issues of special interest influence to heart. We hear so much about it and Barack Obama is not a trailblazer here by any stretch of the imagination. I respect his decision not to take contributions from special interests; however, he is not the first person to denounce special interests groups... Would he be the first to follow through?

If he follows through with his idea to create at least a two year gap between employment and appointment interactions with regards to contracts and regulations, that would be a good start. Removing the ability of former employees to lobby the administration they once worked for would also be a strong continuation.... Although it won't address the idea that 'my friend is your friend too' which would lead to introductions between two parties through a common mediator *wink wink*. Why not go further and say that no former appointee can seek employment within a lobbying form for the remainder of the administration? It would be tantamount to a non-compete clause.

In the section entitled "Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics" Obama states that he "will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution." To me this seems entirely frivolous. This is just additional paperwork that has to be sorted and filed. If someone wants to hire someone of the same political affiliation they will. They'll just come up with some 'other' reason. I really have issues with needless red tape.

"Reform the Political Appointee Process" is all about former FEMA Director Michael Brown. Obama states that "every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission." What exactly does this mean? Does it come with a hug?

Barack Obama has a lot of good thought process when it comes to Ethics Reform in government and has a lot of ideas as to what he wants to achieve; however, in constant with his campaign in general he tells us what he wants to achieve, without actual substance with regard to how he will achieve it, beyond 'Executive Order' - something Hillary has often excelled at by comparison. Unfortunately, Hillary lacks the style and finesse that Obama has. She's a bulldog and a fighter, where Obama is a natural orator with the charm of a modern day JFK, which is why while Hillary had rushed out to a frantic early lead, Barack Obama has been able to maintain a steady pace to (seemingly) win the race.

Sadly, Hillary Clinton has had less to say on 'Ethics in the White House' than Barack Obama, because I would have loved to have compared the two side by side. Over the next few releases I will compare the two 'would be nominees' on the remaining issues where I think it is evident as to who has better thought out their paths to the White House.

Note: I have used The Boston Herald as a source to view the candidates platforms merely because I felt it was presented in the cleanest manner.