Stop paying attention to the Iowa Caucus thing for a second, if you would?
Yes, knife-play is *fun*, but something more important's come up.
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress | Earmarks | Sou-eee! Sou-eee! Sou-eee! | Stop Spending my Money — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Captain's Quarters has its eyes on the prize:
Sources on the Hill tell some of us that a critical point has been reached at the White House on whether to issue an Executive Order that would prevent federal agencies from spending funds on 90% of the earmarks in the Omnibus Spending Bill. According to the whispers, the earmarkers on Capitol Hill have begun to lean heavily on the White House to let the matter drop and to keep the earmark funding in place. Every day brings a fresh round of calls from the same lawmakers who porked up the overdue spending bill, "airdropping" almost all of them (against the new rules in Congress) to keep the porkers from accountability.
Ed goes on to note that we need to keep on top of this if we expect the White House to issue this Order. So, send a cheerful, polite email tonight to comments@whitehouse.gov discussing why you want this to happen; and call them tomorrow at 202-456-1111 to follow through. Shoot, you can even do both if you're a Democrat: you guys are supposed to be against waste, too these days, right?
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Is Roger Wicker an Improvement Over Trent Lott? — Comments (10) »
Stop paying attention to the Iowa Caucus thing for a second, if you would? 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Mr. President, throw down the gauntlet, sign the executive order to stop this madness.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
It's certainly nice to know someone else is paying attention to what's really important.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain
BTW - is that the way you spell "sou-eee"? I mean, I KNOW that's the way you say it, but is that the way you spell it?
Little help from the Dems? Little help?
Thanks for the info.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Can you email me GWB's private number? A personal touch is much more respectful.
I mean if a hacker from Iceland can get through, surely you must have the cell.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
You wildly overestimate my influence: I am a B-List blogger on an A-List site, and I am on no-one's speed-dial.
Alas.
Alack. :)
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Any person with a bookshelf containing an opus on Medieval Art, certainly has the number.
You must think I am a fool.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
What are they gonna do about it? He's already whomped them on the spending bills and the war funding. I guess I fail to see the downside for the Bush administration...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I sent an email and have already gotten the automated response. No worry; I was expecting that. I also have the WH on speed dial and will be calling tomorrow. I believe he will sign the EO, for a few reasons, not the least of which it will be like putting sawdust in their brownies!
Hillary is only for the rights of women who don't accuse Bill of sexual assault!
Sounds good to me! I'll email & call before I hit the woods tomorrow!
I guess the dems don't want to go another round defending earmarks - it just pains me to think which republicans might join them...
We could always bring back the line item veto.
I'm sure that it will be actually done! Yea, right... Dream on folks...
This is the lifeblood of both parties, do you actually expect them to cut their own throats? Not actually a question...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I have sent a letter and passed this information on. Thanks for the post.
With one stroke of his pen GWB could go a long way toward restoring his administration's credibility on the fiscal front. If he does this, expect plenty of weeping and gnashing of teeth from the porkers in Congress. There will be bipartisan retribution from the powerful appropriators as well. Essentially, what's left of the GWB agenda will be DOA in Congress because they will be so pissed at him. No matter, he should do it anyway. This is a fight that the American public would back him on. If he engages here, it will be the first time in a long time that the public will see him as being above the partisan fray.
--------------------------------------
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)
...ahead of time: there's a delay in speaking with an operator (I have NO idea if that's because of people calling about this, but it's a nice hope to have) and a time limit on voicemail messages. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Now except for listening to Rush today I am completely ignoring the entire pile of dung occurring in Iowa, having lost all respect for the state, the process and the circus. With the nonsense going on now I am really put in mind of election night 2000, when so much skulduggery and corruption was afoot we went to bed sure Algore was president and we were in utter and black despair. Now the blogosphere is fully involved in the obfuscation and manipulation as well as the Drive-Bys. I can't watch or listen to this today and probably not on N.H. primary day either.
I'm a political junkie but my sanity and blood pressure are more important. (Sanity comes solely when listening to Rush, anyway.)
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
.. it will be MY email that tips the scales in our favor, and results in that Executive Order.
I'm an optimist.
I don't know much about executive orders. How do they work in such a way that the President can do this without Congress immediately fuming that theirs is the power of the purse? If it's constitutionally sound, by all means, put a stop to it. But...er. How is it?
____________________________
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."
have the force of law unless a Court holds that they exceed the maker's authority either in the face of superceding express law or by impinging into an area where the maker has no authority.
As I understand the Earmark issue, most, not all, earmarks take the form of an expression of Congressional intent as to how an appropriation is to be expended but are not explicitly set out in the appropriating language. If there is express language in the appropriations bill directing that public funds will be expended to make widgets, the Executive must spend that money on making widgets - whether it wants to or not. Nixon got very crossthreaded with Congress over what was styled "impounding" funds that Congress had expressly appropriated. Since Congress has explicit appropriation authority and the Executive must execute, Nixon exceeded his authority. This sort of thing happens often at the state level; the Leg wants something done that the Gov doesn't. A smart Gov will just have the 'crats drag their heels and mumble a lot about inefficient bureaucrats. A Gov who wants to make a statement will just say s/he's not going to do it and have the fight, though the Leg will ulitimately win if it has the political will.
So, back to earmarks. If the Congress appropriates $10B to fund the programs of the Department of Widgetmaking but doesn't explicitly say just what those programs are, then the DOWM just carries on doing whatever it said in its budget that it was going to do. If the Congress lays intent language over that appropriation saying that the DOWM should use some of that money to build a museum to the art of widget making in the 1st district of some state, the argument is, and I believe it, that the Executive is not bound by the intent statement. GWB could, under this theory, simply issue an E.O. telling the Departments that they are not to expend any funds except as directed by the budget explicitly or by explicit appropriation language, thus negating the earmarking intent language.
I think he'd be on sound legal grounds. Our separation of powers language is very similar to the federal Constitutions, and we've had lots of these fights here and the law always shakes out as I describe, although often one side or the other just backs down due to the politics.
In Vino Veritas
____________________________
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."
If I have the chance tomorrow I will call during the day.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777