Law--Any federal employee who bars another employee from reporting to Congress facts that Congress requests, shall NOT be paid.
Finding: The Administration Appointee Thomas Scully, refused to turn over to Congress actuary reports that would have shown a higher cost for the Medicare Drug program than many conservative Republicans were willing to spend. The Bush Administration wanted this boondoggle passed. Thomas Scully would not allow Democrats in Congress to have the correct numbers, and threatened to fire an underling, Mr. Foster, if he passed on the information.
Now the neutral GAO has proclaimed Mr. Scully guilty, and requests he return his salary.
Mr. Scully can afford to do that, since he is no longer a governmental employee, but works as a lobbyist for the insurance and medical industries that benefit most from this Medicare Restriction Drug Program.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So can you translate this into partisan-ese for me? Cause I can't tell what this is supposed to make me think.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that neutral board has the authority to enforce this decision. I'd be surprised if a court proceeding isn't required.
And GAO might be neutral in a partisan sense, but they do work for Congress, so they're not neutral in an institutional sense. I doubt that affected their findings, but it is important to keep the other form of government rivalry in mind when analyzing balance of powers issues.
posted
Okay, so you are saying the Medicare prescription benefit, as it was passed, was bad. It would have been defeated by the Republicans if they had been given the facts by Scully and the subordinate that he threatened with termination.
So is the prescription benefit that was passed worse than no benefit at all? One where the numbers would have appeased Congress would be assumed by most to be even worse.
Do you think this because you really do think drug companies and their products are evil, or just on the principle of Scully being a crook and your distrust of the administration? If the former, I agree. There should not be a prescription benefit. If the latter, then Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that a coatlition majority of a large chunk of republicans in congress, with the dems, would have voted against this bill had the true cost been clear (given the doubt they were already expressing about the bill, in particular), I think its safe to say its a pretty bad thing.
Now, as to the question of whether or not this is a problem with this administration, I'll be content for now with suggesting that any administration which makes a practice of ignoring non-industry input, such as on energy and pharmaceuticals, is going to have this sort of problem systemically.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
