In my thread on Wikileaks
excon said, "You guys talk about transparency, but when you get some, you don't like it."
So rather than co-opt my own thread let's start a new one on that subject. That Obama, and the Democrat Trojan Horse of 2006 promised over and over they would bring us unprecedented transparency is well documented both here and all over the place. We were going to have bills posted online for a certain length of time so we could examine them, we were going to have the health care talks on CSPAN. Heck, we were probably going to have a transparency czar for all I know.
We have gotten anything but transparency, we can't even get these Democrats to vote on an actual budget, they just deem their constitutional duty to be done and voilà, it's done.
Now comes "finance reform" and more transparency, right? Wrong.
SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission
No longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
Read the rest of the article for examples of why the public having access to SEC workings is crucial, such as the Bernie Madoff scandal. It's all good, right?