This could be an interesting constitutional fight. Its interesting that everyone seems to think that the president is seizing power right now. I don't think that we are in danger of losing the government to a power mad president. Right now, yes the executive is asserting its power, but at some point the power will swing back toward congress. Its a normal cycle of events in American politics.

Has anyone noticed that this Bush guy is kind of a dick?

JPatten: Right now, yes the executive is asserting its power, but at some point the power will swing back toward congress. Its a normal cycle of events in American politics.

Not really. Power has steadily been ceded by Congress to the executive for the last 100 years, and there has not been the slightest indication that the trend might abate or reverse.

Wow, way to uphold and support the constitution there George. And we still have another year to deal with this douche bag. It's frightening to think how much more damage he can still do to this country in that time.

Just in time for Dems to take office

Well, he finally does something right for a change.

This has happened before. Pres asks for money for his projects and gets rejected by congress who change the budget numbers and then the pres doesn't spend on their pet projects. It turns out it tends to be good for the tax payers since pork projects get stalled or killed and its about the only way a federal government department will shrink.

Something something stopped clock something.

How about nullifying all the Executive Orders of the past 7 years instead?

Go read some of the stuff Franklin Roosevelt did with Congress in 1932, 1933. Or with "packing the Supreme court."

Generation_D: Go read some of the stuff Franklin Roosevelt did with Congress in 1932, 1933. Or with "packing the Supreme court."

Been there, done that. While the tactics are similar, FDR was responding to the Great Depression initially. FDR was attempting to deal with a massive economic collapse, and doing so to benefit all his countrymen & women. Lincoln faced similar challenges during the Civil War.

Bush is none of that. While 9/11 was an attack upon our country, it was from a fringe group, not a nation/state with resources to invade, overcome the Republic (Look out, it's the Afghan Navy!). Basically, the Bush Administration has exploited a tragic event to maximize its power, not for the good of the country, but to enrich its own.

So the subject is presidential power over congressional, not whether the use of it was justified or in the best interest of the country.

Time to send another box of pretzels to the White House.

this has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative and everything to do with keeping the democrats from getting the same thing the republicans had for so long.

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT

/Less Gov't =better gov't

So I guess the people complaining about this possible action want to see the earmarks stay put and continue to increase spending????

Way to go KOS.

real shaman: So I guess the people complaining about this possible action want to see the earmarks stay put and continue to increase spending????

Way to go KOS.

Or, the people complaining about this have seen this president's predilection to utterly ignore the checks and balances, and see this as another way in which he will continue to attempt to turn our government into a monarchy?

Just playing devil's advocate.

Earmark ass Earmarks

CravenMorehead: Wow, way to uphold and support the constitution there George. And we still have another year five to nine years to deal with this douche bag and his heir apparent Huckabee. It's frightening to think how much more damage he can still do to this country in that time.

/we're farked

Bush decides that after eight years he has finally had enough, considers issuing an executive order nullifying all earmarks

... and redirects all the funds to the executive branch.

/My guess

real shaman: So I guess the people complaining about this possible action want to see the earmarks stay put and continue to increase spending????

You guess wrong.

The people complaining about this...well, I'll just speak for myself , I find it amusing that this President, who spends like a drunken sailor and signed whatever drunken-sailoresque budgets put before him by his own party, with nary a complaint, suddenly finds his principles when facing a bloated budget from a Democrat-led budget (which is full of Republican pork, too).

...and out come the neocon tools to praise him.

real shaman: So I guess the people complaining about this possible action want to see the earmarks stay put and continue to increase spending????

Way to go KOS.

Or you could read the article, which is pretty thoughtful on the subject, and find out for yourself.


Naaah. Blind demonization is much easier, isn't it?

Lionel Mandrake: The people complaining about this...well, I'll just speak for myself , I find it amusing that this President, who spends like a drunken sailor and signed whatever drunken-sailoresque budgets put before him by his own party, with nary a complaint, suddenly finds his principles when facing a bloated budget from a Democrat-led budget (which is full of Republican pork, too).

And, in which the President even admits has less pork than the previous budget.

This is a blatant partisan maneuver, just like his vetoing of the Defense appropriations bill that he demanded.

The fact that it also would act to increase Executive power is just icing on the cake, although I suspect it would be Pyhrric icing, since I doubt the GOP will hold the Executive next year.

Six and a half years late - but if there really is a "suck it, Murtha" at the end of this latest squabble I'll be happy.

And a "suck it, Stevens...Lott...Lewis...Mollohan...Byrd...Rangel...and any of you other farks who earmarked money to name buildings after yourselves" while we're at it.

/tom coburn ftw
//yeah he's crazy, but he's cheap crazy

Can you make an executive order eliminating social security, too?

There is absolutely no chance of something like this working, given that the congresspeople involved (I don't know how many don't have earmarks benefiting their districts, but it's probably a tiny fraction) care about this more than about anything else that happens in the country.

Shaggy_C: Can you make an executive order eliminating social security, too?

Make it a lockbox, and it would work fine.

Il Douchey: DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT

/Less Gov't =better gov't

ah yes, because we really want a monarchy, or worse.

Result of Dubya earmark!

The first article of the Constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Congress to collect taxes and decide how to spend money from the federal treasury. The president has the right to either agree or disagree; not to choose what he wants.

If Bush does this, it will erode one of the sacred checks the Congress has an the Executive branch. If the Congress loses the power to balance the power of the president, then Monarchy is just another fancy word for unchecked executive power...which is what we would have.

Well, let's see: Obama won the Iowa Caucus. Britney Spears will eventually kill herself. Why not make it a Perfect 'pulling our heads out of our ass' trifecta and impeach this stupid motherfarker once and for all?

And that pathetic senior citizen of a VP?

Guntram Shatterhand: Well, let's see: Obama won the Iowa Caucus. Britney Spears will eventually kill herself. Why not make it a Perfect 'pulling our heads out of our ass' trifecta and impeach this stupid motherfarker once and for all?

And that pathetic senior citizen of a VP?



Democrats are too smart for that. You impeach Bush, then the war profiteer Richard Bruce Cheney becomes president.

You impeach Cheney, then Bush appoints his handpicked successor who will get the Republican nomination.

Bush is an abomination. I'm betting that about 98% of the entire population of Earth (including 75% of Americans) now recognize this. He, more than any other president (including Nixon) deserves to be impeached, but his handlers have hard-wired him in so that no one dares to impeach him.

On the bright side, it looks like he's destroyed the republican party for the next 20-30 years. It's going to be a looooong time before people will ever trust a republican in the White House.

The notion of checks and balances, like many Western governing principles, assumes that people will actually -act- in their self-interest.

Wake up, Congress.

Wouldn't it be teh funni if congress just wrote a signing statement on his executive order saying they didn't have to obey it if they chose not to? Duuuuhbya would prolly asplode.

how is this good?

1. issue request for the funding of your war
2. pass funding on the stipulation that dems get something out of deal
3. issue executive order nullifying all earmarks, like a 10 year old on the playground, manipulating the rules to a game he or she created
4. ????
5. PROFIT!!!

Yes, lets please nullify legislative bullshiat with a process that is legislative bullshiat.

As long as President Obama and his democratic congress can negate all this on January 21, 2009, I say let the baby have his bottle.

Ron Paul Revere: So ignoring the Constitution is OK when you agree with the desired end? Go Cheney yourself. FDR's and Lincoln's actions were despicable violations of the law of the land. FDR's court-packing essentially erased over 100 years of recognition of civil rights. But hey, it's OK because we were in financial trouble. Nevermind that the New Deal did NOTHING to help the economy. The only thing it accomplished was the dependency of the people upon the government, and, well, that's how we got to where we are now. ;)

Sorry, but nonconcur with your arguments. The New Deal was meant to releave poverty to the unemployed, help the economy recover, and reform the country's economic & banking systems. If you think the FDIC, TVA, SSI, and the SEC are bad ideas, you're badly mistaken. Yes, FDR tried to have legislation passed to "pack" the SCOTUS, but he didn't succeed. Yet, he did get most of his New Deal legislation including the minimum wage passed in Congress & through the Supreme Court.

As for Lincoln, the Southern states were in rebellion, violating the US Constitution by seceding from the Union, as well as seizing federal property and firing upon Ft. Sumter. Alas, the US Constitution is silent on what to do in such situations. Lincoln did very well, even holding elections during the Civil War. Plus, he freed the slaves, the main cause for the South to run out of the Union.

Judging from your response & byline, I suspect you don't like the government telling you what to do with yourself, your money, or property. Deal with it.

Which, at this point, would be more of a formality than anything else.

Bush decides that after eight years he has finally had enough, considers issuing an executive order nullifying all earmarks.
=================

If it's an executive order banning congress from ever issuing another earmark ever again... he'd save a small shred of whatever dignity he had left (In other words: HELL YEAH!)

If he's nullifying all that have already been passed... I think Bush needs to suck it.

Goodfella: Guntram Shatterhand: Well, let's see: Obama won the Iowa Caucus. Britney Spears will eventually kill herself. Why not make it a Perfect 'pulling our heads out of our ass' trifecta and impeach this stupid motherfarker once and for all?

And that pathetic senior citizen of a VP?



Democrats are too smart for that. You impeach Bush, then the war profiteer Richard Bruce Cheney becomes president.

You impeach Cheney, then Bush appoints his handpicked successor who will get the Republican nomination.

Bush is an abomination. I'm betting that about 98% of the entire population of Earth (including 75% of Americans) now recognize this. He, more than any other president (including Nixon) deserves to be impeached, but his handlers have hard-wired him in so that no one dares to impeach him.

On the bright side, it looks like he's destroyed the republican party for the next 20-30 years. It's going to be a looooong time before people will ever trust a republican in the White House.

Yay for made up stats.

// No didn't vote for Bush.

MyRandomName: Yay for made up stats.

// No didn't vote for Bush.



Not made up. The US only accounts for 5% of the world population. I don't think there's any nation outside of the US (except for maybe Israel) who approves of Bush. Also, latest polls show that 75% of Americans also disapprove of Bush. That would mean than 95% plus another 3% (equaling 98%) of the world population dislikes the crook.

Goodfella: MyRandomName: Yay for made up stats.

// No didn't vote for Bush.



Not made up. The US only accounts for 5% of the world population. I don't think there's any nation outside of the US (except for maybe Israel) who approves of Bush. Also, latest polls show that 75% of Americans also disapprove of Bush. That would mean than 95% plus another 3% (equaling 98%) of the world population dislikes the crook.

Yeah.. but the polls didn't ask whether they liked Bush or the leading Dem frontrunner less.

Which is where your logic hits the FAIL iceberg.

maeryk

Yeah.. but the polls didn't ask whether they liked Bush or the leading Dem frontrunner less.

Which is where your logic hits the FAIL iceberg.

If you ask the 95% outside the U.S., the Dem runner almost always has more support.

Congress could impeach bush and chenney at the same time, plenty on both to do so. it would piss hilary off if nancy became president before her.