• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama administration HHS head K. Sebelius violates Hatch act

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Apparently you're trying to do more than just posting it as an example of checks and balances working as they should. No one said it was ok for her to do it. She took responsibility and adhered to the penalties. What more do you want? Are you looking for tea party style hatred with us carrying pitchforks and torches to slander her?
++

Sounds like more Faux outrage from the usual posters.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Sounds like more diversion and thread derailing from the usual shill.
Then answer everyone's question, what is it that you want?

She was reported, paid back the money, the system worked. What do you want? Execution? Impeachment of Obama for this, LOL?

Like I said, more faux outrage.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
What happened is exactly what should have happened and what I wanted to happen. An important member of the cabinet is caught using her official job to make partisan political remarks in violation of the Hatch Act. She gets called on it and they have to pay the costs that would normally be carried by the taxpayers. It's why I posted it, it's an example of checks and balances working as they should and reining in a Democrat for stepping over the line.
I agree with you here. It certainly wasn't the tone of your OP though given this:

is dirty and they're using taxpayer money to do it. Big surprise. Who was it that said he'd have the most transparent administration ever?
Isn't this exactly what would happen with a transparent administration? Transparent does not mean that you're never going to do wrong (that's basically impossible, even for those who never intend to do wrong) it means that if someone does do wrong that you admit your mistake and fix it.

There are other things to hammer on Obama in terms of government transparency, but a government agency coming down on an Obama staff member is not one of them.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
She was fined though... so what more do you want to see happen? Congressional hearings?

It ain't that she's a Democrat. It's that she's a cabinet member and not a particularly high-profile post.

What do you want?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Then answer everyone's question, what is it that you want?

She was reported, paid back the money, the system worked. What do you want? Execution? Impeachment of Obama for this, LOL?

Like I said, more faux outrage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/kathleen-sebelius-hatch-act_n_1880856.html

I don't think you understand. Under the Hatch Act any employee who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate that violates the Hatch Act is supposed to be fired. It's the law. Sebelius broke the law, was caught by OSC and she should be fired. No outrage, I'm used to hypocrite Democrat supporters.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Yes, for sound is simply air compression in oscillating waves which fall within the frequency range and of enough force to be able to be heard. A human being there or not is irrelevant to this.

Now, if you ask if it makes a noise, then that is a good question. A noise is any unwanted sound...so it depends on if the sound it makes when it falls is wanted or unwanted.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/kathleen-sebelius-hatch-act_n_1880856.html

I don't think you understand. Under the Hatch Act any employee who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate that violates the Hatch Act is supposed to be fired. It's the law. Sebelius broke the law, was caught by OSC and she should be fired. No outrage, I'm used to hypocrite Democrat supporters.
Supposed to be fired? Says who? Clearly you are the one who does not understand: Removal from duty is purely OPTIONAL: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Supposed to be fired? Says who? Clearly you are the one who does not understand: Removal from duty is purely OPTIONAL: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/
Quote:
Removal is the only penalty authorized for violation of the Hatch Act, under 5 U.S.C.S. § 1505.
Your own link. She was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
The link doesn't say firing is MANDATORY, it says it's the only penalty authorized under the Hatch Act. In fact the very next sentences say...
The Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) has plenary jurisdiction under § 1505 to determine after a hearing whether the violation warrants the removal of the officer or employee from his office or employment. The Board considers whether removal is appropriate on the basis of seriousness of the violation.
You're also wrong about who the Hatch Act applies to. Nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate have nothing to do with the act as far as I know, it covers ALL federal employees (with a few exceptions like GAO and military).

Based on that, I don't see why you're so outraged. She was caught and properly reprimanded for it as far as I can tell.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Your own link. She was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Again - the only penalty AUTHORIZED. Are you aware of the definition of authorized? If the board decides not to impose a penalty, then nothing happens.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
The link doesn't say firing is MANDATORY, it says it's the only penalty authorized under the Hatch Act. In fact the very next sentences say...


You're also wrong about who the Hatch Act applies to. Nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate have nothing to do with the act as far as I know, it covers ALL federal employees (with a few exceptions like GAO and military).

Based on that, I don't see why you're so outraged. She was caught and properly reprimanded for it as far as I can tell.

From Ryan's link:
In contrast, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7326 requires the board to impose a penalty on federal employees, consisting of not less than 30 days’ suspension without pay, even where the board determines that the violation does not warrant removal. In other words, although a state employee may avoid a penalty for violating the Hatch Act, a federal employee cannot avoid being penalized.
This is of course the way laws work - Republicans are required to pro-actively prove they haven't broken laws, Democrats are allowed to break them, then simply pay back the money and enjoy cabinet-level positions while wondering what all the fuss is about when caught.

Curiously, while the unquestionably objective and thoroughly unbiased mainstream press is busy collaborating to make sure Romney gets asked all the embarrassing questions, they seem to be ignoring this issue in Obama's press conferences. Curious, huh? Guess they're too busy sending out tweets with Obama fund-raising links to catch something insignificant like this.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
From Ryan's link:

This is of course the way laws work - Republicans are required to pro-actively prove they haven't broken laws, Democrats are allowed to break them, then simply pay back the money and enjoy cabinet-level positions while wondering what all the fuss is about when caught.

Curiously, while the unquestionably objective and thoroughly unbiased mainstream press is busy collaborating to make sure Romney gets asked all the embarrassing questions, they seem to be ignoring this issue in Obama's press conferences. Curious, huh? Guess they're too busy sending out tweets with Obama fund-raising links to catch something insignificant like this.
And being accused of violating the Hatch Act is not the same thing as a legal finding that you violated the Hatch Act. I was also responding mainly to the (incorrect) idea that she MUST be fired. If it's determined that she clearly violated the Hatch Act, a suspension would seem to be appropriate. But the determination has to be made by people less biased than Internet commentators with a political axe to grind.

I don't really know what the rest of that rant was about, to be honest, since I didn't say anything about parties and you mainly seem to have done that whole thing all by yourself. But if you want my two cents, the Republicans would get a lot farther making a case instead of endlessly whining about the media and how unfair it is when the media accurately reports things Republicans say or when they don't jump on whatever barely-a-story has captured the attention of the conservative pundit sphere.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
This is of course the way laws work - Republicans are required to pro-actively prove they haven't broken laws, Democrats are allowed to break them, then simply pay back the money and enjoy cabinet-level positions while wondering what all the fuss is about when caught.

Curiously, while the unquestionably objective and thoroughly unbiased mainstream press is busy collaborating to make sure Romney gets asked all the embarrassing questions, they seem to be ignoring this issue in Obama's press conferences. Curious, huh? Guess they're too busy sending out tweets with Obama fund-raising links to catch something insignificant like this.
At least you'll have 4 more years to complain.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
And being accused of violating the Hatch Act is not the same thing as a legal finding that you violated the Hatch Act. I was also responding mainly to the (incorrect) idea that she MUST be fired. If it's determined that she clearly violated the Hatch Act, a suspension would seem to be appropriate. But the determination has to be made by people less biased than Internet commentators with a political axe to grind.

I don't really know what the rest of that rant was about, to be honest, since I didn't say anything about parties and you mainly seem to have done that whole thing all by yourself. But if you want my two cents, the Republicans would get a lot farther making a case instead of endlessly whining about the media and how unfair it is when the media accurately reports things Republicans say or when they don't jump on whatever barely-a-story has captured the attention of the conservative pundit sphere.
Compensating the government for the cost of the trip would seem pretty strong evidence that she violated the Hatch Act. Maybe she's just looking for ways to pay "her fair share"? For the other, I have no problem with the media accurately reporting what Republicans say, even when it's filmed in secret through a door. I just wish the media could occasionally muster up a little attention to Democrats violating federal law. But as you say, it's barely-a-story as long as it's Democrats violating federal law.

Republicans caught by a stoner rag saying non-politically correct (though inarguably true) things at a fund-raiser? Huge story. Democrat Cabinet Secretary violating federal law? Barely-a-story.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
At least you'll have 4 more years to complain.
That's the true beauty of voting Libertarian. No matter what happens, I get four more years to complain.

Frankly I'm surprised more cranky old men haven't made the jump. Beats hell out of actually waiting for kids to cross my lawn.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
More follow up to the story:

ABC News' Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violating the Hatch Act, at today's press briefing. Carney responded that Sec. Sebelius had made an "inadvertent error based on extemporaneous remarks."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel claimed Sec. Sebelius had made “extemporaneous partisan remarks” during a speech in her official capacity earlier this year.

The Hatch Act prohibits employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in partisan political activity.

The standard penalty for violating the Hatch Act is termination. According to OSC, any “employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.”
http://nation.foxnews.com/white-house/2012/09/19/wh-calls-sebelius-lawbreaking-inadvertent-error
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Health and Human Services Secretary violated the Hatch act when she made partisan remarks when she was delivering a speech in her official capacity. They had to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for costs and expenses. The Office of Special Council sent their findings to the President.
http://whistlewatch.org/2012/09/osc-finds-hhs-secretary-sebelius-violated-hatch-act/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/12/investigators-sebelius-illegally-campaigned-on-taxpayers-dime/



Dirty politics is dirty and they're using taxpayer money to do it. Big surprise. Who was it that said he'd have the most transparent administration ever?
In comparison Obama does have the most transparent administration ever. Now what point were trying to misconstrue?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY