Something Truly Bipartisan, But None of Us Are Going to Like It

[Kathianne]

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/late-in-the-game-eads-promises-more-alabama-jobs-2008-01-15.html



Business & Lobbying
Bush earmarks plan roils Dems, fractures GOP
By Kevin Bogardus and Manu Raju
Posted: 01/15/08 06:38 PM [ET]

The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee are calling on President Bush to back away from threats to kill funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.

The pre-emptive warnings from the top Democrat and Republican on the panel are the clearest signs yet that President Bush could face a bipartisan backlash if he uses his executive authority to wipe out the more than $7 billion in earmarks.

Bush signed the fiscal 2008 spending legislation into law shortly after Christmas Day, but has indicated he might direct officials at federal agencies to ignore the nearly 9,000 member projects written in the bill’s report language.

The executive order would generate enormous support from fiscal hawks, but would roil already poor relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress — not to mention infuriate many Republicans touting the projects to their constituents....

[manu1959]

why would i not like it......earmarks should be banned....

[Dilloduck]

why would i not like it......earmarks should be banned....

Aren't earmarks a sneaky way for politicians to pay back special interests who helped them get elected?

[manu1959]

Aren't earmarks a sneaky way for politicians to pay back special interests who helped them get elected?

that and if i want your vote you say put a million in there for my pet project and i will vote for your bill......

esentially they are graft and bribes.....

[Kathianne]

why would i not like it......earmarks should be banned....

Referring to the 'bipartisanship' in Congress. They are all evil!

[5stringJeff]

Bush finally grows a pair!

[pegwinn]

Ya know, I don't have a problem with congressmen taking a bit of cash back to the district.

I don't like it when the roll it in tinfoil and hide it in a freezer though.

Seriously. Maybe once a year we could have an annual bacon bill that grants each critter XXX dollars to use in the district as he see's fit.

The rest of the time, ban the bacon. Unless it is Sizzlean.

[82Marine89]

I'd rather keep my money and spend it as I see fit.

[pegwinn]

I'd rather keep my money and spend it as I see fit.

You, me, the guys down the block, we agree. But, do you really think its going to happen.

Allowing it once a year might actually save some money, who knows?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Spending our money is 90 percent of what Congress does. Yet 90 percent of that isn't even Constitutional.

[Dilloduck]

Spending our money is 90 percent of what Congress does. Yet 90 percent of that isn't even Constitutional.

Shoot to the other extreme for a sec-----everyone has to survive on what they can bring in with their own paycheck----period. How many Americans can do that ? We are now in a system where we are totally dependent on our dollar as handled by a few elite people. IF they handle it wrong--we starve.

[pegwinn]

Shoot to the other extreme for a sec-----everyone has to survive on what they can bring in with their own paycheck----period. How many Americans can do that ? We are now in a system where we are totally dependent on our dollar as handled by a few elite people. IF they handle it wrong--we starve.

It's been a really loooooooong day DD. Can you break that down into stupid people talk and type slower so I can understand it. I know the point is right at my nose, but my eyes are crossed and I just aint gettin it.

[Yurt]

Spending our money is 90 percent of what Congress does. Yet 90 percent of that isn't even Constitutional.

congress has the authority to make and pass laws.....

what i am missing here?

[Dilloduck]

It's been a really loooooooong day DD. Can you break that down into stupid people talk and type slower so I can understand it. I know the point is right at my nose, but my eyes are crossed and I just aint gettin it.

ok--simple as I can put it-----We are dependent on our economy. I can't raise enough food to feed myself. Therefore I have to "play" capitalism even if I don't like it. Now capitalism is global and the ones that are really good at it ( fair or not) call the shots. The Fed even invents money if it needs to. It's all rigged.

[JohnDoe]

It's been a really loooooooong day DD. Can you break that down into stupid people talk and type slower so I can understand it. I know the point is right at my nose, but my eyes are crossed and I just aint gettin it.

I think he is talking about the federal reserve and the health of the Dollar....?

The Dollar's value is dropping like crazy, we could be wiped out on that alone...it is one of the few powers and duties the us congress actually has constitutionally...?

[manu1959]

I think he is talking about the federal reserve and the health of the Dollar....?

The Dollar's value is dropping like crazy, we could be wiped out on that alone...it is one of the few powers and duties the us congress actually has constitutionally...?

there have been many countries who's currency has tanked .... all are still around.....remember when russia and japan's currency tanked.....what will hapen is the dollar will no longer be the currency of choice.....we could always freeze our currency like china does and tell the rest of the world to jam it.....it is why i keep saying no more foreign aid...no more foreign military bases.....invest in america....outsource to america....

[pegwinn]

congress has the authority to make and pass laws.....

what i am missing here?

They are exceeding the authority granted them by the Constitution. See Art 1, Sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8)


ok--simple as I can put it-----We are dependent on our economy. I can't raise enough food to feed myself. Therefore I have to "play" capitalism even if I don't like it. Now capitalism is global and the ones that are really good at it ( fair or not) call the shots. The Fed even invents money if it needs to. It's all rigged.

Got it. You are correct. Unless you move to a mountain and become Grizzly Adams neighbor.

[Dilloduck]

there have been many countries who's currency has tanked .... all are still around.....remember when russia and japan's currency tanked.....what will hapen is the dollar will no longer be the currency of choice.....we could always freeze our currency like china does and tell the rest of the world to jam it.....it is why i keep saying no more foreign aid...no more foreign military bases.....invest in america....outsource to america....

Do you see ANY way that our economy ISN'T going global ?

[JohnDoe]

there have been many countries who's currency has tanked .... all are still around.....remember when russia and japan's currency tanked.....what will hapen is the dollar will no longer be the currency of choice.....we could always freeze our currency like china does and tell the rest of the world to jam it.....it is why i keep saying no more foreign aid...no more foreign military bases.....invest in america....outsource to america....well, I bet the others didn't owe 10 trillion dollars to other countries, adding hundreds of billions more each year with no end in sight either...what if these countries alla China, saudi arabia and Japan don't want to continue to invest in the dollar? We raise interest rates to attract them, right? n or they walk.... what then?

[avatar4321]

Bush finally grows a pair!

He has nothing to lose. He wont be President in a year. He doesnt want to see this nation in worse shape than when it was given to him. Why the heck not? I would do the same thing.

[Yurt]

They are exceeding the authority granted them by the Constitution. See Art 1, Sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8)



Got it. You are correct. Unless you move to a mountain and become Grizzly Adams neighbor.

it was a wee tongue in cheek about their ability to "make and pass" laws, e.g., their power to make a law that grants them power to spend...

however, i am intrigued by exactly what authority they are exceeding. i followed your link.....what are you saying they are exceeding.

[pegwinn]

it was a wee tongue in cheek about their ability to "make and pass" laws, e.g., their power to make a law that grants them power to spend...

however, i am intrigued by exactly what authority they are exceeding. i followed your link.....what are you saying they are exceeding.

Originally it was written:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Hugh Lincoln http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=187674#post187674)
Spending our money is 90 percent of what Congress does. Yet 90 percent of that isn't even Constitutional.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You mentioned making and passing...... and I noted they were exceeding thier constitutional authority. I sited the specific passage of the document where the fed powers are enumerated. The next passage is specific actions forbidden to congress just in case they thought to try. Between the two it tells us which and what laws "made and passed" are/are not constitutional.

Example. Any law which establishes a federal standard or appropriates money for education is actually unconstitutional because education doesn't appear within the enumerated powers.

The Supremes at the time of the creation of the DOEd likely knew this. But, officially, all laws are considered constitutional unless challenged. And, even if you are correct in your challenge, you must still demonstrate standing to bring the challenge forth.

Another one is disaster relief and foriegn aid. Nowhere in the document are either of those actions authorised to the congress.

Hope that helped.

[Yurt]

Originally it was written:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Hugh Lincoln http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=187674#post187674)
Spending our money is 90 percent of what Congress does. Yet 90 percent of that isn't even Constitutional.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You mentioned making and passing...... and I noted they were exceeding thier constitutional authority. I sited the specific passage of the document where the fed powers are enumerated. The next passage is specific actions forbidden to congress just in case they thought to try. Between the two it tells us which and what laws "made and passed" are/are not constitutional.

Example. Any law which establishes a federal standard or appropriates money for education is actually unconstitutional because education doesn't appear within the enumerated powers.

The Supremes at the time of the creation of the DOEd likely knew this. But, officially, all laws are considered constitutional unless challenged. And, even if you are correct in your challenge, you must still demonstrate standing to bring the challenge forth.

Another one is disaster relief and foriegn aid. Nowhere in the document are either of those actions authorised to the congress.

Hope that helped.


No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

From your direct/link cite, ie, i clicked and this came up first. So I thought you meant this. Let's look at the powers.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


general welfare..... ambigious and never ending if ever i saw something, hence my tongue in cheek, where does this "welfare" end?


To coin Money

where does this power end? after the welfare?

[pegwinn]

Ambiguous indeed. From the same link, if you click on the word "welfare" you get this:



Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


I totally get it that folks will stretch a clause or two (but thankfully not Santa) to get a bill thru. The commerce clause IIRC is the most widely IMO abused.

Too bad they don't pay me to fix these things.