About Time

Let the debates begin.

Moderators: Astarin ShadowPrince, Zahrim, Rhen

About Time

Postby Wenceslas » January 28th, 2008, 8:08 pm

On Tuesday, President Bush will issue an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on and included in a law approved by Congress. This will effectively end the common practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language instead of placing them in the actual text of the bill. This means earmarks will be subject to votes, which will better expose them to the light of day and help constrain excessive and unjustified spending.

The Executive Order will provide that with regard to all future appropriations laws and other legislation enacted into law, executive agencies will not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks from any non-statutory source, including requests included in congressional committee reports or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law, or when an agency itself decides that a project or other transaction has merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decision-making.


Exposure to the light is usually fatal to worms and other under-the-rock dwellers...
It's at least a start to a little more exposure of ridiculous earmark spending.
Wenceslas
MCP's buff pimp
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: April 14th, 2004, 11:37 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Postby Ifni » January 30th, 2008, 4:07 pm

I am not a religious man, but Hallellujah! Bush definitely got this one right imo, this is something that has needed to be done for a long long time.
Image
Ifni
I talk too much
 
Posts: 424
Joined: April 15th, 2004, 1:07 am

Postby Xanai » January 30th, 2008, 10:21 pm

Not to stick a monkey wrench into the situation but I do have a couple questions...

If the money appropriated to federal organizations isn't voted on by Congress, how is it legally appropriated?

If it's not legally appropriated, then why the need for an Executive Order? Just arrest whoever is distributing the money right? Same as bank-robbery or money-laundering. If you can prove that Congressman so-and-so was the source of the illegal money transfer then arrest them for racketeering?

If the money is legally changing hands (ie there's some stupid, screwed-up law that allows Congress to do this), then how does the President have the legal authority to over-ride such a law? The President doesn't have the authority to pass laws, no matter what he keeps telling people with his Executive Orders.

Like I said, I'm all in favor of stopping the Federal gravy-train, but IMO this just looks like another step down the path to fascism, where the executive office is the supreme source of all government.

Xanai
Xanai
I talk too much
 
Posts: 585
Joined: April 30th, 2006, 2:19 am

Postby Parthin » January 30th, 2008, 10:32 pm

No, it's just an end to sneaky pork that stays out of the Congressional record.
Image
Everquest is more fun than watching girls pee in a bucket!
Parthin
I talk too much
 
Posts: 819
Joined: September 27th, 2006, 1:38 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby Wenceslas » January 31st, 2008, 2:56 am

how is it legally appropriated?


Before today - it was *tacitly* approved by the POTUS.
This time he stated "No more".

Small differences.
Wenceslas
MCP's buff pimp
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: April 14th, 2004, 11:37 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Postby Xanai » January 31st, 2008, 6:29 pm

Before today - it was *tacitly* approved by the POTUS.

So Congress passed a bill, the President *tacitly* enacted it and thus "pork spending."

Basically, Mr. Bush is going to veto any such agreements in the future? And that's what the EO does? I seem to be very much in favor of it then.

However, I fear good ideas cloaked in murky minutia.

Leader: Let's stop illegal immigration!
People: Yay!
Leader (to himself): Now all we gotta do is round up the Jews, the gypsies and the mormons...

Getting stuff done is great, how we go about getting done is important IMO.

Xanai
Xanai
I talk too much
 
Posts: 585
Joined: April 30th, 2006, 2:19 am

Postby Wenceslas » January 31st, 2008, 7:23 pm

Hey DUDE!

Notice I did NOT specify President Bush?

Did you notice that??

Do you want to know why?

It's because this shit has been going on for DECADES.
President Bush is the FIRST president to issue an order to stop that bullshit.
He's not the first to SEE it.
Wenceslas
MCP's buff pimp
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: April 14th, 2004, 11:37 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Postby Xanai » February 2nd, 2008, 3:14 am

Hey DUDE!

Notice that I don't care who the President is?

Did you note I used the term "leader" not Bush?

Myopic much?

Who cares who does it, the real question is: Is it legal for them to do so? If it is, then please let me understand how the process got started and kept going illegally. If it isn't then it's a bad idea, the President can't make laws (Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States for example).

Xanai
Xanai
I talk too much
 
Posts: 585
Joined: April 30th, 2006, 2:19 am

Postby Wenceslas » February 2nd, 2008, 4:17 am

Basically, Mr. Bush is going to veto any such agreements in the future? And that's what the EO does? I seem to be very much in favor of it then.


You didn't mention Mr Bush...
my bad.

=-)
Wenceslas
MCP's buff pimp
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: April 14th, 2004, 11:37 pm
Location: Portland Oregon


Return to Rhen's Politics, Religion and World Events Forum.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron