most transparant administration in history

I meant to post this last night, here it is today, slightly edited:

Using the same rationale it is using to explain its refusal to release evidence of Mr. Bush's torture programme, the Obama administration is moving to block release of other information, such as civilian deaths in Afghanistan. They're also adopting Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's positions of secrecy in another area, White House visitors. This Bush/Cheney position was used to block access to the oil and coal companies who formulated Mr. Bush's energy positions for him; we don't know what Mr. Obama might be doing, since, after all, we don't know who is visiting. Maybe nothing. Maybe lots of things. We don't know.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to save a big LBGT fundraiser with the DNC next week by issuing not an executive order (which wouldn't expire) but a presidential memorandum (which will) to temporarily authorise some partnership benefits for GBLT federal employees. Dan Savage is extremely not impressed, as the most important one - health benefits - are specifically not included. Yes, it's quite true that Federal legislation would be required to extend health benefits, but, as Mr. Savage asks:

And will Obama send legislation up to Capitol Hill to extend HEALTH BENEFITS to the partners of gay federal employees? The same president who talked such good game—"all that's required is leadership"—on ending DADT and has done fuck all since taking office? The same president who said "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples" and then turned around and argued that the states could ban gay marriage to save money? That guy is going to get legislation through Congress awarding health benefits to gay couples?

Other commentators have noted that the official announcement will be made after it's too late to be covered by that evening's news cycle, and that the sources in the article about the announcement say outright that it's damage control, not substance. AmericaBLOG notes that apparently, he will be addressing none of his eight, now seven, theoretically-still-supported campaign pledges.

Oh, and in case you missed it - that seven vs. eight thing - the whole "repeal the Defence of Marriage Act" pledge (nr. 8) vanished off the White House site two months ago. This makes that whole viciously anti-gay pro-DOMA brief filing - written by a Bush functionary but signed off upon by an Obama appointee - make a little more sense, I suppose. (I didn't link to it before, but Law Dork wrote a long post explaining why Mr. Obama's DOJ did not need to go that far, even given the decision to aggressively defend DOMA.) Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has demanded an explanation, but has heard nothing back.

I am amused by this website, Obama's Plan for Gay Rights. You may also find this petition site of interest, or not.

eta: Oh good. Mr. Obama's memo - not an executive order - will be giving Federal agencies rights they already have. So it really is purely nothing. Awesome. (There are rumours that he might talk about DOMA, as well, so maybe he will hit one of his eight-slash-seven promises with some rhetoric. Too bad that's not, you know, reality.)

MBS market

No time for more, but I want to note that over the last couple of days the new benchmark bond (5.0 FNMA) for mortgages has spiked back up, in a large, intervention-of-scale sort of way. Mortgage rates are accordingly being shoved hard down, in the 5.375 area again, well down from the 6.0% touched earlier on. That's a long way to go from the 4.0 target, but it's closer.

MBS traders talking about this are saying that this either strong intervention or flight to safety, and if it's flight to safety, look out below for the equities markets - this is a lot of money. Various others have said that the Fed can support the stock market or the bond market at this point in time, but not both.

I have a bunch of news stuff, but no time to post it now. Maybe tonight.

Follow-ups

Richard Socarides, former aid to President Bill Clinton, outlines his position on why Mr. Obama did not actually have to defend DOMA in court at all, and how such decisions are arrived upon. I'm not fond of parts of his reasoning, but it sounds reasonably accurate. And regardless, I'm convinced that the brief did not have to be what it was.

At the White House press briefing today, Presidential Press Secretary Gibbs reiterated that the Obama administration stands behind the DoJ brief, and declined specific opportunity to distance the administration from the brief's arguments referencing incest and child-marriage cases - let alone the whole 'if they want benefits they can just marry an opposite-sex person like they ought to be doing anyway' and 'fags cost money and aren't worth it' arguments.

Salon's John Aravosis outlines how Mr. Obama has lost the trust of his GBLT supporters, which I am happier every day to say did not include me:

On taking office, Obama immediately announced that he was doing away with the Clinton-era concept of special assistants who served as liaisons to various communities like gays and Latinos. He then went ahead and appointed special liaisons to some of those communities anyway, but never to the gays. Around the same time, the White House Web site, once detailing half a page of presidential promises to the gay community, overnight saw those pledges shortened to three simple sentences. Gone were five of the eight previous commitments, including the promises to repeal both Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA... senior White House officials kept telling the media that they weren't sure when, if ever, the president would follow through on his promises to the gay community. ... last week [Mr. Obama] had his Department of Justice file a brief in defense of DOMA, a law he had once called "abhorrent." In that brief, filed on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (which outlawed bans on interracial marriage) [he] compared our love to incest and pedophilia.

Tonight, [Chief Executive Obama] will try to make amends by signing either a memorandum, a directive or an executive order, directing some federal agencies, but not others, to provide some benefits, but not others, to some gay federal employees, but not others, at some undisclosed time in the future. (And the benefits may reportedly go away when Obama leaves office.)

First problem, federal agencies already have the right to provide these benefits to gay employees -- and several, including at least one DOD agency, do. Second problem, the administration can’t tell us exactly which benefits they’re talking about and for which employees. That’s because this was all hastily thrown together after the incestuous and pedophilic gays nearly brought down a Democratic National Committee gay pride fundraiser scheduled for next week. A gay blogger got hold of the event’s guest list and published it, and once D.C.’s gay paper, the Washington Blade, announced that it would be staking out the entrance to the event with camera and video, the $1,000 a head attendees started dropping like flies.

In other words, the only reason we're getting anything: The gay ATM ran dry. ...

When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? ... Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present.

This last section outlines why "patience" is not much of an option, and why so many people are so very upset. "Later," in these calculations, is exactly the same as "never."

Statement, reactions, and HR 2517

Well, Mr. Obama's said his piece. In it, he refers contradictorily to a "memorandum" and an "executive order," but everything I hear still says it's a presidential memorandum, not an actual order. He refers to working on equality in the "months and years ahead"; "years" is not my favourite word.

He also announced support for "The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act" (HR 2517 / S 1102, introduced 20 May 2009, referred to various committees and subcommittees where it has been since then, text of house version here) which would enable Federal government employees to receive domestic partnership benefits. It would provide Federal employees separate but theoretically equal access to the benefits granted married heterosexual couples; most irritatingly, reading the bill, I note that in the current version of the bill, a legal same-sex marriage would not automatically grant DP status. Legally married same-sex couples would still be required to go through a new set of DP registration hoops. If this bill allowed being legally married to count as DP registration for the purposes of this bill, it would be much more interesting, as it would actually directly work against DOMA's legislative effects. However, it does not, at least as of today.

Pam's House Blend has the video and transcript. Comments there are not positive. Slog has a round-up of reactions. An important one is John Avarosis's, over on AmericaBLOG, who says that in fact that DOMA does not prevent the Federal government from offering health benefits for DPs, and that the Obama administration is lying about that. (Or at least being disingenuous.) Details at the link.