Smith said he got into politics because he “believed in the future”. He then talked about how Hastings College has pulled people to Nebraska from all over the country, including a cousin of his that came from Colorado. He then joked that his cousin, however, took a Nebraska girl home with him to Colorado, and they were going to have to try and do something about that, cause it was a brain drain from the state. He then talked about how much he supported higher education.
I went up to him afterwards to shake hands with him and thank him for speaking (I was nice to him). He remembered my husband, of course. He was pleasant enough, but then he’s a politician. He asked what I studied when I attended Hastings College, and if I had gone on to get a Masters Degree. I then, however, asked him about a request I’ve been making for over 3 months now: an interview. As he turned away, he just smiled and said, “I’m sure we’ll be running into each other again.”
In other words, I’ll have to keep chasing him, cause it’ll be a cold day in hell before he’ll consent to sit down and have a chat. Of course, if he wanted to prove me wrong, I’d be thrilled.
What I REALLY wanted to say (and probably should have) was that if he was so much for education, why does he keep voting against all the bills that will encourage and promote the chance for a higher education for more and more Americans? Especially those who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise? Just last week, voted against HR 2669 (College Reduction Act of 2007), and gave the lame excuse that it increased entitlement spending (because we all know poor kids should be given any help, right?).
What I SHOULD have said was that if it wasn’t for the Student Loan program, and all the federal grants that I was eligible for, I never could have gone to college. I never would have been able to do something with my life where I could feel I was really making a difference. It was that education that opened my mind up to the world, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. But I was an independent student with no money, and working jobs that paid very little. I took the plunge, moved back to Nebraska to live with my grandma, and put myself through college, working odd jobs and relying on those very loans, grants and scholarships that I could get. Yes, some privately funded grants and scholarships were also of assistance, but if I had only been able to rely on those, I’d have had no chance of affording college.
But then, maybe Adrian would have preferred that, because he wouldn’t be contending with me right now. You see, in addition to the request for a “chat” with him, I’ve spent the last 3 months now sending out at least 6 emails and more than a dozen calls to his offices to also request copies of reports he’s required to file:
- Financial Disclosure Report
- Franked Material (Mass Mailings) Report
- Gift and Travel Filings
- Foreign Travel Reports and Expenditures
These reports are public information. However, in speaking with the House Clerk’s office, they won’t mail them out. I’d have to go into their office and ask for the copies. Now, I could very well ask someone to go in for me. I’m sure I could find a volunteer in the DC area, as I know several people there now, but that’s not the point. The point is that I should be able to get them from my Congressman, and I’ve been asking for 3 months.
On September 5th, I finally spoke to Charles Isom, who is in charge of communications. Finally I had contact with someone who could do something. He said he’d check into getting the forms and get back with me, and I still haven't heard.
During that call, I asked him if I could get an appointment to talk with Smith. His first question was, “Were you looking for....so you could post it on your blog, or were you looking for an off the record?”
I told him that of COURSE I would post it on my blog, It would be something worth talking about. I then said that, if they’re not willing to allow that, would they notify me then of the phone press conferences that they do.
Isom responded, “Those are only for accredited members of the press, they only have so many lines.”
In other words, it appears I fall into some void that they’ve created: I’m not a member of the “press” (which I agree), but since I post my thoughts on a blog, they are showing themselves to be unwilling to allow the same access that constituents are normally allowed to have.
I then asked Isom about earmarks. In a recent Lincoln Journal-Star, someone wrote in that a request had been made to all the Nebraska Representatives to get a list of the earmarks they requested. Rep. Lee Terry had not submitted any earmarks. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and Smith had refused.
Isom also refused me when I asked, so I asked why not. He responded that it’s “office policy”.
I then reminded Isom of one of their very one press releases, after there had been debate on how those earmarks would be handled in the House:
June 15, 2007: Smith: Earmarks Need Disclosure and Debate
"This was a great victory - not only for House Republicans but also for anyone who believes in open and accountable government. Earmarks included in spending bills should be scrutinized by the public, by our constituents and by Members of Congress. I'm pleased this process will now see the light of day," Smith said.
Isom responded, “There’s a difference between requesting an earmark and having an earmark in a bill.”
I asked him, “Why are you not willing to disclose what you’re requesting?”
Isom said, “It’s an office policy...the earmarks we request may not become part of the final bill.”
I told him I understood that, but that didn’t explain whey they were not willing to disclose the earmarks they were requesting. Isom answered, “It’s our office policy because we don’t want to create a false sense of expectation.”
I told Isom that I thought that was a bad excuse, but that “as your voters, your taxpayers, your constituents, I believe we have a right to know what is being requested.“
Isom said, “I appreciate your opinion, but that’s our policy that we’re not going to release the earmarks requested, but only as they’re approved and passed.“
I told Isom that this created the impression that the Congressman wasn’t willing to have an open process with his requests. He said, “We’re in complete compliance with the rules of the House....”, but I interrupted him, saying I understand that, but that most members of Congress were opening up the process.
Isom said, “And that’s their offices, but Congressman Terry chose not to offer any earmarks, and each office has a different approach.”
I finally ended the conversation, because it was pointless. But I didn’t do so without stating to him that this creates an impression that the Congressman is trying to hide something, and that the excuse is completely bogus. I told him that I think most people have enough common sense to know that the request is just a first step, and not a guarantee it will be passed. He simply stated, “I appreciate your opinion.”
I don’t know what Adrian Smith is hiding, but it does feel like he’s trying to hide something. The overall message, though, is that he clearly does not believe in an open government. He wants us to just take his word and accept that he’s doing a good job for all of us. Unfortunately, that’s been the Bush Administration policy for so long: Refuse all requests for information, and sidestep all accountability.
That’s a position Smith seems to hold near and dear as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment