Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney spent $8.9M of government money on transition (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No . . . (19+ / 0-)

    and I'm sorry to be contrarian, but there is nothing inappropriate about this. If you read the story, you will see that the law was passed to encourage candidates to prepare for the transition for the sake of national security, and that there were strict limitations on the spending, and that much of the resources can be recycled.

    I know we all have contempt for Romney, but this is a non-issue. Democratic non-incumbents, in the future, will take advantage of the law in the same way -- as they should. It was passed by congress in what it considered to be the national interest.

    This diary should come down, not be recced.

    •  I find it incredible that Romney needed a 500 (18+ / 0-)

      person transition team. YMMV

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:06:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If a potential president has to be encouraged (6+ / 0-)

      with public funds to set up a transition process while they are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions, then they probably shouldn't even be in the running. A planned transition with details about who might do what and how should be a basic element of a campaign to take over the executive branch of a country as powerful as the United States. We shouldn't need to entice them to come up with a plan.

      "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

      by progdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:06:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  agree, this is utterly stupid. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, lirtydies, deminva, VClib
    •  Not to be contrarian to your contrarian... (8+ / 0-)

      ... but before something like this is implemented it may behoove us taxpayers if the person receiving these "transition dollars" is actually formally vetted to receive these monies in the first place.  The presumptive nominee shouldn't receive the funds until a national security check on he and his staff has been completed and published publicly - if this involves the release and reviews of tax documents and other financial disclosures, so be it.  If the nominee wants our money to transition to be President, then he had better provide us with proof that he is authorized to receive the information he is requesting.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:11:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's a major party's nominee. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, ColoTim

        That's all the vetting he needs.

        •  Maybe to he and his party... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541

          ... but he's spending our money setting the framework which could in some way be considered a shadow government.  It is only logical these people should be fully vetted (including the incumbent) prior to assuming any role in an endeavor of this kind.

          Think about it, right now there is a group of 500 people that have had access to whatever information the transition team deemed important without a single one of them being elected or vetted.  They had computers (presumably laptops) with who knows what information in their possession.  This information may relate to national security, or it may relate to information which allows them inside information related to government contracts upon which personal fortune may be gained.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:37:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Part of what the bill does ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Amber6541, VClib

            ... is allow for early vetting of security clearances precisely to allay your concerns. Seriously: read the bill.

            •  I read the bill and don't see the section... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue aardvark, joynow

              ... you are referencing.  I see a section called "Security Clearances" which appears to be defining the phrase "eligible candidate".  But nothing that indicates that the 500 people the candidate selects are vetted by anything other than the fact that the candidate himself is eligible:

              (as defined in section
              9002(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)—
              ‘‘(i) a candidate of a major party (as defined in section
              9002(6) of such Code) for President or Vice-President of the
              United States; and
              ‘‘(ii) any other candidate who has been determined by the
              Administrator to be among the principal contenders for the
              general election to such offices.
              If that hurdle is passed, the administrator then:
              ‘(i) ensure that any candidate determined to be an eligible
              candidate under such subparagraph—
              ‘‘(I) meets the requirements described in Article II,
              Section 1, of the United States Constitution for eligibility
              to the office of President;
              ‘‘(II) has qualified to have his or her name appear
              on the ballots of a sufficient number of States such that
              the total number of electors appointed in those States
              is greater than 50 percent of the total number of electors
              appointed in all of the States; and
              ‘‘(III) has demonstrated a significant level of public
              support in national public opinion polls, so as to be realisti-
              cally considered among the principal contenders for Presi-
              dent or Vice-President of the United States; and
              ‘‘(ii) consider whether other national organizations have
              recognized the candidate as being among the principal con-
              tenders for the general election to such offices, including
              whether the Commission on Presidential Debates has deter-
              mined that the candidate is eligible to participate in the can-
              didate debates for the general election to such offices.’’.

              I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

              by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:22:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

                •  I actually looked for a prior bill... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... I tried to find the original bill passed in 1963 which appears to have been amended in the mid 2000's to take into account the Patriot Act and didn't find a reference to anything which says that if a person is nominated, and that person meets the criteria outlined above, that person and her/his designees can have access like this without full vetting (background checks, conflicts of interest, suitability, etc.).

                  I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                  by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  The diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joynow

      does not need to come down. It's still interesting information. Not too many of us knew about this fund.

      People can read the comments and see if they agree it's good or bad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site