Unfortunately for the Democratic party, the Democrats in Connecticut decided not to renominate Joe for the Senate. This is very disheartening to me. He was a great leader in the party, and while no one ever agrees with any politician all of the time, I agreed with him most of the time. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out if Lieberman runs as an independent. I think he has a substantial chance of winning over both the Republican and Democrat. If the Republican ends up winning, the Dems have just blown a big hole in both their feet.
Lieberman Defeated in Democratic Primary
Lamont Relied On Net Roots -- And Grass Roots
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Connecticut at the Forefront
Well, I am back from an absolutely unforgetable vacation in the Granite State. Coming home, I had to pass through my old stomping grounds in Connecticut. All of the signs for the polling places are up. I think this primary is one of the biggest elections to hit the state in who knows how long.
I kind of wish that I could still vote in CT. I would be voting for Lieberman without question. He does not agree with me on all of my issues, but he has been a long time leader and supporter of the middle of the Democratic party, and has done a tremendous job serving the people of CT. If he is able to pull this one out, he will, without doubt, have to modify his support for the war in Iraq. While it is imperative for a leader to "lead," it is also imperative in a democracy for a leader to also "follow" the people who elected him. There is a fine line between being a leader who is receptive to the will of the people, and a panderer. I believe if Lieberman is re-elected, he will be the former and not the latter.
Lieberman's Primary Challenge a Referendum on Voter War Anger
Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War
Lamont's Lead Slips On Eve of Primary
I kind of wish that I could still vote in CT. I would be voting for Lieberman without question. He does not agree with me on all of my issues, but he has been a long time leader and supporter of the middle of the Democratic party, and has done a tremendous job serving the people of CT. If he is able to pull this one out, he will, without doubt, have to modify his support for the war in Iraq. While it is imperative for a leader to "lead," it is also imperative in a democracy for a leader to also "follow" the people who elected him. There is a fine line between being a leader who is receptive to the will of the people, and a panderer. I believe if Lieberman is re-elected, he will be the former and not the latter.
Lieberman's Primary Challenge a Referendum on Voter War Anger
Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War
Lamont's Lead Slips On Eve of Primary
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Tax Evasion for a Tax Break
It is nice to know that Congress is looking into curbing billions of dollars of tax evasion by the richest Americans... just to give it back to them in an estate tax break linked to raising the minimum wage.
Really, what is the use...
Tax Shelters Saved Billionaires a Bundle
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A04
A Senate committee today plans to criticize multimillion-dollar tax-avoidance schemes used by four prominent individuals, to highlight what it concludes is a more than $40 billion-a-year drain on federal coffers by offshore tax scams.
The panel is scheduled to release a 370-page report, which it provided to The Washington Post, that details how these wealthy, politically connected people ducked hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payments by using secretive corporations and trusts on the Isle of Man. The billionaires who took advantage of this tax haven included Robert Wood Johnson IV, owner of the New York Jets football team; Sam Wyly and Charles J. Wyly Jr., longtime Republican donors and backers of President Bush; and Haim Saban, a Democratic Party fundraiser who made his first fortune promoting Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.
(Full Story)
Really, what is the use...
Tax Shelters Saved Billionaires a Bundle
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A04
A Senate committee today plans to criticize multimillion-dollar tax-avoidance schemes used by four prominent individuals, to highlight what it concludes is a more than $40 billion-a-year drain on federal coffers by offshore tax scams.
The panel is scheduled to release a 370-page report, which it provided to The Washington Post, that details how these wealthy, politically connected people ducked hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payments by using secretive corporations and trusts on the Isle of Man. The billionaires who took advantage of this tax haven included Robert Wood Johnson IV, owner of the New York Jets football team; Sam Wyly and Charles J. Wyly Jr., longtime Republican donors and backers of President Bush; and Haim Saban, a Democratic Party fundraiser who made his first fortune promoting Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.
(Full Story)
Battle Over Darwin Hits the Ballot Box Again
The recent decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to teach creationism along side science may have political ramifications in November.
Several moderate Republicans and Democrats are running against the conservative evangelicals who decided to re-write the science curriculum so as to add creationism. As we saw with Dover, Pa., where the conservative school board members who changed the curriculum there and were all tossed out of office, the majority of Americans can separate faith from science.
There is nothing wrong with believing in creationism. It is a personal choice. But when it comes to science class, it just does not fit.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming election.
Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack
Election Could Flip Kan. Evolution Stance
Several moderate Republicans and Democrats are running against the conservative evangelicals who decided to re-write the science curriculum so as to add creationism. As we saw with Dover, Pa., where the conservative school board members who changed the curriculum there and were all tossed out of office, the majority of Americans can separate faith from science.
There is nothing wrong with believing in creationism. It is a personal choice. But when it comes to science class, it just does not fit.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming election.
Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack
Election Could Flip Kan. Evolution Stance
Monday, July 31, 2006
Read the Writing On the Wall
The Republicans decided to release their campaign strategy today...
I thought that Democrats were doing enough to possibly kill there own chances of retaking the House and Senate this year, but then the Republicans decide to go and be idiots in their own right.
Campaign slogan #1: "Democrats in Congress will raise taxes"
Not exactly a winning slogan guys. A plurality of Americans see that the ballooning deficit is going to do us more damage than good. At this point, during a war, most Americans are willing to do their part to ensure that the troops are cared for... the elderly are cared for... kids are educated... and we don't pass along all of our debts to future generations. Republicans just sound like spoiled kids at this point. They want all of the benefits without any of the responsibility.
Campaign slogan #2; "Democrats are Cut and Run"
Hello... Wake up call to the GOP. The majority of Americans want a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops starting this year, ending with the majority of the troops out by the end of next year. "Stay the course" is about as far from popular demand as you can get. Iraq is not a mining issue... Hello!
Campaign slogan #3: "Democrats will proceed with impeachment proceedings against President Bush."
While the majority of Americans don't want Bush to be impeached, his approval rating is in the mid 30's. Again, not exactly a winner when it comes to a campaign slogan. First, every one knows that Cheney is the Vice President. Impeachment is not really an option. Additionally, while most Americans don't want Bush impeached, they are not going to be crying into their beers if he is. If you have to choose between affordable health care and a livable minimum wage, or the presidents neck, they are going with their own interest. Why are they going to be concerned about the presidents employment when they are more occupied about loosing their own job to India.
The GOP could have come up with a lot better things, but they decided to go with a lot of weak arguments...
Thanks guys.
I thought that Democrats were doing enough to possibly kill there own chances of retaking the House and Senate this year, but then the Republicans decide to go and be idiots in their own right.
Campaign slogan #1: "Democrats in Congress will raise taxes"
Not exactly a winning slogan guys. A plurality of Americans see that the ballooning deficit is going to do us more damage than good. At this point, during a war, most Americans are willing to do their part to ensure that the troops are cared for... the elderly are cared for... kids are educated... and we don't pass along all of our debts to future generations. Republicans just sound like spoiled kids at this point. They want all of the benefits without any of the responsibility.
Campaign slogan #2; "Democrats are Cut and Run"
Hello... Wake up call to the GOP. The majority of Americans want a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops starting this year, ending with the majority of the troops out by the end of next year. "Stay the course" is about as far from popular demand as you can get. Iraq is not a mining issue... Hello!
Campaign slogan #3: "Democrats will proceed with impeachment proceedings against President Bush."
While the majority of Americans don't want Bush to be impeached, his approval rating is in the mid 30's. Again, not exactly a winner when it comes to a campaign slogan. First, every one knows that Cheney is the Vice President. Impeachment is not really an option. Additionally, while most Americans don't want Bush impeached, they are not going to be crying into their beers if he is. If you have to choose between affordable health care and a livable minimum wage, or the presidents neck, they are going with their own interest. Why are they going to be concerned about the presidents employment when they are more occupied about loosing their own job to India.
The GOP could have come up with a lot better things, but they decided to go with a lot of weak arguments...
Thanks guys.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Republicans Bow to Pressure to Raise the MInimum Wage
It is pretty sad actually that Republicans must bow to pressure to do the right thing (House to Vote on Increase in Minimum Wage). But, as usual with the GOP whenever they look like they are going to be doing something for the good of the majority of the American people, there is a catch.
The Republicans will support an increase in the minimum wage if, and only if, there is also a huge tax cut for the uber-wealthy. The GOP is demanding a tax cut in the estate tax for the estates of multimillionaires.
So, as usual, they can't do the right thing without demanding to put us in more debt with more handouts to the richest 0.5% of the population. As it stands now, the last tax cut on estate taxes will cost the U.S. Treasury trillions of dollars over the next decade. There is nothing like cutting taxes during a time of war and when we have the highest debt in our nations history. Not only can't these guys think about our long term future. They can't think past next Tuesday.
Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.
A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.
The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.
(Full Story)
The Republicans will support an increase in the minimum wage if, and only if, there is also a huge tax cut for the uber-wealthy. The GOP is demanding a tax cut in the estate tax for the estates of multimillionaires.
So, as usual, they can't do the right thing without demanding to put us in more debt with more handouts to the richest 0.5% of the population. As it stands now, the last tax cut on estate taxes will cost the U.S. Treasury trillions of dollars over the next decade. There is nothing like cutting taxes during a time of war and when we have the highest debt in our nations history. Not only can't these guys think about our long term future. They can't think past next Tuesday.
Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.
A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.
The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.
(Full Story)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Why Israel Cannot Win the War Against Hezbollah Like This
Israel has every right as a sovereign nation to defend its boarders and its people from the Hezbollah terrorist organization. I find no fault with Israel for taking military action against Hezbollah and its supporters. But, unfortunately, the current operation is doomed to failure unless a political solution is found. Additionally, the current crisis shows that democratization of the middle east does not necessarily bring stability and peace.
While the current plan for Israel to enter southern Lebanon and take Hezbollah head on is intended to decapitate and reduce the ability of Hezbollah, it is doomed to fail for several reasons.
First off, this sort of exercise will have the short term effect of greatly diminishing the ability of Hezbollah to attack Israel via missiles or other offensives. But, long term, it will do nothing to lessen the ability of Hezbollah to strike at Israel. The only way that Israel can have long term impact on Hezbollah is to take and hold southern Lebanon for the indefinite future. Israel had done this up until 2000 when it withdrew from southern Lebanon unilaterally. The expenditures of many and manpower it took to hold these areas was high and weighed heavily on the Israeli state. Unless Israel is willing and able to re-occupy the areas, Hezbollah will re-arm and re-man the area soon after an Israeli troop withdraw. Israel has made other incursions into Lebanon to destroy the Hezbollah forces, and each time, they have returned with equal or greater force. It has been proven over and over that an occupation force does not bring long term stability, nor does it stop Hezbollah from organizing and laying in wait for its next opportunity. We have seen from Israel's occupation of multiple areas that while it may make the interior of Israel safer, it does nothing to quell the greater conflict.
Second, due to the scope of the war, many innocent civilians have been killed or wounded. While Israel may be attempting to be as precise as possible in its offensive, it seems to be killing as many (if not more) civilians as militants. This is due to collateral damage, mistakes, and the fact that Hezbollah has no problem hiding behind civilian populations when attacked. this has the effect of making Israel look as sinister as Hezbollah, and wins the support of Muslims to the Hezbollah cause. Hezbollah, in its humanitarian efforts, comes out looking like the hero and not the villain to the people of the Arab middle east.
Third, the Israeli offensive does nothing to turn the tide of support that Hezbollah receives from Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran, each with their own political purposes for supporting Hezbollah, will come out of the crisis unscathed, and without real consequences for their support of Hezbollah. Syria and Iran will continue to support the terrorist activities of Hezbollah long after this conflict. Unless Israel was to take actions that would deter Syria and Iran from supporting Hezbollah, Hezbollah will be anything but diminished in capacity long term.
Unfortunately for the soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force, the only way to conduct this operation with minimal civilian casualties as well as doing a real clean sweep of Hezbollah is to conduct only ground offensives with air support. The current air strikes on targets in Beirut have had the effect of neither doing real damage to Hezbollah, or creating public support for Israel's self defense.
The only way that Israel will have a permanent effect on the situation is to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and its supporters internationally, as well as driving a wedge between Hezbollah and the local populace. This cannot be done with the current operations. This is a political operation, not a military operation. While Israel may achieve short term security through its current operations, it may set itself back in the goal of a long term peace.
Additionally, the current crisis shows that democracy, in and of itself, will not be a cure to the ongoing conflict. The two nations that have come out in condemnation, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are both authoritarian regimes. While the two fledgling democracies in the region, Lebanon and Iraq, have respectively done nothing to curb Hezbollah, or come out in condemnation of Israel without a condemnation of Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, there is no political solution to be found with Hezbollah itself. The only way for Israel to arrive are long term peace it to come to a political solution with Hezbollah's supporters. Syria is the most likely to come to some sort of political solution. But for a political solution to be reached with Syria, the US will probably have to compromise on its other policy and political agendas.
This situation, obviously, is a bad one with no easy solution. It will take some very strong politically will from many varied parties to end this, but the current situation will not be alleviated by military means alone.
While the current plan for Israel to enter southern Lebanon and take Hezbollah head on is intended to decapitate and reduce the ability of Hezbollah, it is doomed to fail for several reasons.
First off, this sort of exercise will have the short term effect of greatly diminishing the ability of Hezbollah to attack Israel via missiles or other offensives. But, long term, it will do nothing to lessen the ability of Hezbollah to strike at Israel. The only way that Israel can have long term impact on Hezbollah is to take and hold southern Lebanon for the indefinite future. Israel had done this up until 2000 when it withdrew from southern Lebanon unilaterally. The expenditures of many and manpower it took to hold these areas was high and weighed heavily on the Israeli state. Unless Israel is willing and able to re-occupy the areas, Hezbollah will re-arm and re-man the area soon after an Israeli troop withdraw. Israel has made other incursions into Lebanon to destroy the Hezbollah forces, and each time, they have returned with equal or greater force. It has been proven over and over that an occupation force does not bring long term stability, nor does it stop Hezbollah from organizing and laying in wait for its next opportunity. We have seen from Israel's occupation of multiple areas that while it may make the interior of Israel safer, it does nothing to quell the greater conflict.
Second, due to the scope of the war, many innocent civilians have been killed or wounded. While Israel may be attempting to be as precise as possible in its offensive, it seems to be killing as many (if not more) civilians as militants. This is due to collateral damage, mistakes, and the fact that Hezbollah has no problem hiding behind civilian populations when attacked. this has the effect of making Israel look as sinister as Hezbollah, and wins the support of Muslims to the Hezbollah cause. Hezbollah, in its humanitarian efforts, comes out looking like the hero and not the villain to the people of the Arab middle east.
Third, the Israeli offensive does nothing to turn the tide of support that Hezbollah receives from Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran, each with their own political purposes for supporting Hezbollah, will come out of the crisis unscathed, and without real consequences for their support of Hezbollah. Syria and Iran will continue to support the terrorist activities of Hezbollah long after this conflict. Unless Israel was to take actions that would deter Syria and Iran from supporting Hezbollah, Hezbollah will be anything but diminished in capacity long term.
Unfortunately for the soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force, the only way to conduct this operation with minimal civilian casualties as well as doing a real clean sweep of Hezbollah is to conduct only ground offensives with air support. The current air strikes on targets in Beirut have had the effect of neither doing real damage to Hezbollah, or creating public support for Israel's self defense.
The only way that Israel will have a permanent effect on the situation is to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and its supporters internationally, as well as driving a wedge between Hezbollah and the local populace. This cannot be done with the current operations. This is a political operation, not a military operation. While Israel may achieve short term security through its current operations, it may set itself back in the goal of a long term peace.
Additionally, the current crisis shows that democracy, in and of itself, will not be a cure to the ongoing conflict. The two nations that have come out in condemnation, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are both authoritarian regimes. While the two fledgling democracies in the region, Lebanon and Iraq, have respectively done nothing to curb Hezbollah, or come out in condemnation of Israel without a condemnation of Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, there is no political solution to be found with Hezbollah itself. The only way for Israel to arrive are long term peace it to come to a political solution with Hezbollah's supporters. Syria is the most likely to come to some sort of political solution. But for a political solution to be reached with Syria, the US will probably have to compromise on its other policy and political agendas.
This situation, obviously, is a bad one with no easy solution. It will take some very strong politically will from many varied parties to end this, but the current situation will not be alleviated by military means alone.
Huge Waste in the Department of Homeland Security
It has been confirmed that billions of dollars have been wasted by the Department of Homeland Security over the last couple of years doe to a 739% increase in no-bid contracts handed out by the government.
Just like many of the sweetheart deals handed out to the politically connected in Iraq, no-bid contracts end up costing the taxpayers billions in waste and fraud. As we know, the president rewards his friends, and they are cashing in big time now.
Unlike FDR who made it a policy to deter war profiteering, Bush has done nothing to indicate that war profiteering is not a noble cause.
Homeland Security Contracts Abused
By Griff Witte and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 27, 2006; Page A01
The multibillion-dollar surge in federal contracting to bolster the nation's domestic defenses in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been marred by extensive waste and misspent funds, according to a new bipartisan congressional report.
Lawmakers say that since the Homeland Security Department's formation in 2003, an explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse. Based on a comprehensive survey of hundreds of government audits, 32 Homeland Security Department contracts worth a total of $34 billion have "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement," according to the report, which is slated for release today and was obtained in advance by The Washington Post.
The value of contracts awarded without full competition increased 739 percent from 2003 to 2005, to $5.5 billion, more than half the $10 billion awarded by the department that year. By comparison, the agency awarded a total of $3.5 billion in contracts in 2003, the year it was created.
Among the contracts that went awry were deals for hiring airport screeners, inspecting airport luggage, detecting radiation at the nation's ports, securing the borders and housing Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Investigators looking into those contracts turned up whole security systems that needed to be scrapped, contractor bills for luxury hotel rooms and Homeland Security officials who bought personal items with government credit cards.
(Full Story)
Just like many of the sweetheart deals handed out to the politically connected in Iraq, no-bid contracts end up costing the taxpayers billions in waste and fraud. As we know, the president rewards his friends, and they are cashing in big time now.
Unlike FDR who made it a policy to deter war profiteering, Bush has done nothing to indicate that war profiteering is not a noble cause.
Homeland Security Contracts Abused
By Griff Witte and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 27, 2006; Page A01
The multibillion-dollar surge in federal contracting to bolster the nation's domestic defenses in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been marred by extensive waste and misspent funds, according to a new bipartisan congressional report.
Lawmakers say that since the Homeland Security Department's formation in 2003, an explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse. Based on a comprehensive survey of hundreds of government audits, 32 Homeland Security Department contracts worth a total of $34 billion have "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement," according to the report, which is slated for release today and was obtained in advance by The Washington Post.
The value of contracts awarded without full competition increased 739 percent from 2003 to 2005, to $5.5 billion, more than half the $10 billion awarded by the department that year. By comparison, the agency awarded a total of $3.5 billion in contracts in 2003, the year it was created.
Among the contracts that went awry were deals for hiring airport screeners, inspecting airport luggage, detecting radiation at the nation's ports, securing the borders and housing Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Investigators looking into those contracts turned up whole security systems that needed to be scrapped, contractor bills for luxury hotel rooms and Homeland Security officials who bought personal items with government credit cards.
(Full Story)
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Specter Wants to Sue Bush
Following up on yesterdays post on how the American Bar Association denounced Bush's unprecedented use of "signing Statements (Story), Republican Senator Specter is planning to introduce a bill that would allow Congress to sue the president for the use of the signing statements. The issue is that Bush attaches statements to bills that state that he will not follow, or will interpret the bills passed by congress to his own liking. The constitutionality of the signing statements is very suspect since the president is supposed to enforce the laws passed by congress, and not make up his own laws (as he seems to really like to do).
The bill to be introduced by Specter would allow congress to sue the president in federal court in order to determine the constitutionality of the signing statements. For example, the presidents statement that he will not adhere to a ban on torture would be examined as to if the signing statement was in conflict with the law. If it is in conflict, than the signing statement would be thrown out and Bush would be held to enforce the law without exception.
Sen. Specter readies bill to sue Bush
WASHINGTON (AP) — A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."
(Full Story)
The bill to be introduced by Specter would allow congress to sue the president in federal court in order to determine the constitutionality of the signing statements. For example, the presidents statement that he will not adhere to a ban on torture would be examined as to if the signing statement was in conflict with the law. If it is in conflict, than the signing statement would be thrown out and Bush would be held to enforce the law without exception.
Sen. Specter readies bill to sue Bush
WASHINGTON (AP) — A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."
(Full Story)
Monday, July 24, 2006
American Bar Association Denounces Bush's Signing Statements
What I have said before about Bush's unprecedented use of "signing statements" that he attaches to bills when he signs them, has been denounced by the American Bar Association.
Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A05
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.
"The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."
The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.
(Full Story)
NYT's take - Legal Group Faults Bush for Ignoring Parts of Bills
Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A05
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.
"The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."
The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.
(Full Story)
NYT's take - Legal Group Faults Bush for Ignoring Parts of Bills
Friday, July 21, 2006
Bush Logic
Ok, let me get this straight.
In regards to stem cell research, Bush thinks it is wrong to "kill innocent life" in order to potentially save the lives of millions more.
But, in regards to 30,000 plus Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq war, is it ok to "kill innocent life" in order to bring democracy and the potential of peace.
In regards to homeland security, it is better to have security than freedom.
But, in regards to Iraq, it is better to have freedom than security.
It is good that we have the "snow flake babies" that were created from fertilized eggs as a bi-product of fertility treatments.
But, it is also ok to disregard the fact that without stem cell research and the destruction of many embryos, we would never had developed the technology that allows people to have test tube babies and the frozen embryos that eventually resulted in "snow flake babies."
It is ok to veto a bill that would allow researchers to develop cures for disease and disability.
But, it is not a problem that the embryos that he is stopping from being used in research will be destroyed anyway.
Am I getting this all right?
I think Jon Stewart said it best on the Daily Show. The way to change Bush's mind on this is to re-name stem cell research.
Instead, it shall forever be know as "The War on terrorible Diseases."
In regards to stem cell research, Bush thinks it is wrong to "kill innocent life" in order to potentially save the lives of millions more.
But, in regards to 30,000 plus Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq war, is it ok to "kill innocent life" in order to bring democracy and the potential of peace.
In regards to homeland security, it is better to have security than freedom.
But, in regards to Iraq, it is better to have freedom than security.
It is good that we have the "snow flake babies" that were created from fertilized eggs as a bi-product of fertility treatments.
But, it is also ok to disregard the fact that without stem cell research and the destruction of many embryos, we would never had developed the technology that allows people to have test tube babies and the frozen embryos that eventually resulted in "snow flake babies."
It is ok to veto a bill that would allow researchers to develop cures for disease and disability.
But, it is not a problem that the embryos that he is stopping from being used in research will be destroyed anyway.
Am I getting this all right?
I think Jon Stewart said it best on the Daily Show. The way to change Bush's mind on this is to re-name stem cell research.
Instead, it shall forever be know as "The War on terrorible Diseases."
Rush Limbaugh: Hard Up
This one is almost too funny to be true. Rush Limbaugh, was busted when he brought back a prescription for Viagra from the Dominican Republic. Him using Viagra? That is really no surprise, nor is it something that he should be ashamed of (especially as a Republican). Overweight men who smoke (in Rush's case it is Cigars) and who have other medical problems (of which I am not at liberty to discuss) tend to have problems getting it up.
So, what is the problem than? Well, it turns out that he had the prescription written out in someone else's name. It is illegal to do this and could jeopardize his plea agreement from when he was busted for obtaining drugs illegally.
I really wish that Rush would do what he has been preaching for years and take responsibility for his illegal behavior. After all, it was Rush who claims that drug penalties are too lax and that the end user should get the maximum sentence for their addiction. He should march right up to the judge and demand that he be sent to prison. If he has no sympathy for criminals, should expect and demand no sympathy from others when he breaks the law.
Viagra threatens Limbaugh plea deal
So, what is the problem than? Well, it turns out that he had the prescription written out in someone else's name. It is illegal to do this and could jeopardize his plea agreement from when he was busted for obtaining drugs illegally.
I really wish that Rush would do what he has been preaching for years and take responsibility for his illegal behavior. After all, it was Rush who claims that drug penalties are too lax and that the end user should get the maximum sentence for their addiction. He should march right up to the judge and demand that he be sent to prison. If he has no sympathy for criminals, should expect and demand no sympathy from others when he breaks the law.
Viagra threatens Limbaugh plea deal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
