Can I go now?

This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

bimalc: Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week.

You know what vetoing this bill would mean, right? Shutting down the federal government while the Republicans whine that they wanted their earmarks. It's not the right time to start that fight. Wait until the next bill so that even if the fight is a month long the government isn't at risk of shutting down.

bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

earmarks really are not that important. it's a symbol of a problem, but it's not actually the meat of the problem.

it'd be nice to get rid of them, but it would be incredibly irresponsible of obama to try to force the issue during the recession. it is congress's role to write legislation, and the veto isn't meant to be used as the redress of petty grievances.

burndtdan: bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

earmarks really are not that important. it's a symbol of a problem, but it's not actually the meat of the problem.

it'd be nice to get rid of them, but it would be incredibly irresponsible of obama to try to force the issue during the recession. it is congress's role to write legislation, and the veto isn't meant to be used as the redress of petty grievances.

Ah, nuance. The GOPs old enemy.

We call it Frogurt.

I don't know if you're aware of this but this is the farking budget for fiscal year 2009, WHICH STARTED IN OCTOBER, 2008. It just needs to be farking done, since Bush and the last congress didn't want to do the work.

bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

Lacking the line item veto, that's not feasible with this bill.

ricewater_stool: I don't know if you're aware of this but this is the farking budget for fiscal year 2009, WHICH STARTED IN OCTOBER, 2008. It just needs to be farking done, since Bush and the last congress didn't want to do the work.

yeah, this was not the bill to pick the fight on. the signing statement supposedly has a constitutional precedent for it... i'd be interested to find out what that is exactly.

Holy crap, does anyone else think this is huge? He basically said that he can do whatever he wants with any earmarked money.

Is this going to be the death of the earmark? I thought he wanted to reform them, maybe he means to do so in a way that would make them explicitly part of the statute and not under the control of senior committee members.

bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Instead he neutered all of the earmarks by saying that they are only advisory, which is technically unconstitutional. But he is daring the House and Senate to take him to court to force him to respect their earmarks, something that he knows that they will not do because it is political suicide.

Yes, in an ideal world he would have vetoed the bill and told the House and Senate to do it again... only that would have been a farking disaster to do with this bill (because it is the Federal budget starting from last October).

I_Love_Verdi: Holy crap, does anyone else think this is huge? He basically said that he can do whatever he wants with any earmarked money.

No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

Code_Archeologist: which is technically unconstitutional

i'm interested to hear the reasoning behind this update.

Late Update: A reader writes in to observe that the administration's signing statement has constitutional precedent to back it up. I'm in no way suggesting that it doesn't -- merely pointing out that while Obama attempts to undo Bush's past statements, he's clearly reserving the right to defend executive power when he sees fit.

Code_Archeologist: No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

And have to bear the attention of public scrutiny as they defend earmarks.

Code_Archeologist: I_Love_Verdi: Holy crap, does anyone else think this is huge? He basically said that he can do whatever he wants with any earmarked money.

No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

Well that's what he said. Clearly the strategy is as you point out- either work with him on reform or take him to court and commit political suicide.

Diogenes: Code_Archeologist: No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

And have to bear the attention of public scrutiny as they defend earmarks.

or, they'll bend over like the biatches they are and not even fight it.

that's not what should happen ideally perhaps, but it's what will happen.

7of7: bimalc: Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week.

You know what vetoing this bill would mean, right? Shutting down the federal government while the Republicans whine that they wanted their earmarks. It's not the right time to start that fight. Wait until the next bill so that even if the fight is a month long the government isn't at risk of shutting down.

Are you saying there are enough Republicans to filibuster? Because I though John McCain was against earmarks, and with the hefty Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the Presidency, I don't see how else they could shut down the government.

Snarfangel: Are you saying there are enough Republicans to filibuster? Because I though John McCain was against earmarks, and with the hefty Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the Presidency, I don't see how else they could shut down the government.

Whether there are enough people to stage a filibuster or not had this bill not passed today the government would've shutdown today. The continuing resolution that funded the government only extended the budget until today.

How DARE you people turn a Simpsons thread into a political discussion.

Diogenes: Lacking the line item veto, that's not feasible with this bill.

I don't reckon I know what that there "feasible" thing is, but you can take your elitist french words and go back to Kenya where secret mooslims can get away with that sort of nonsense. Us real Amurkans just know that we hates them there earmarks in our stimulus bills.

Code_Archeologist: No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

Where in the signing statement does it say that? Cause that's not even remotely mentioned in the linked article.

FTFA: After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October

That's change I can believe in.

BKITU: That's change I can believe in.

I call it copy-editing you can believe in.

submitter: It says that earmarks in the omnibus are advisory.

Last fall Bush threatened to treat earmarks as advisory. Glad to see Obama is taking advice from his more experienced elders.

There is precedent that appears to support Bush and Obama on this point. The signing statement says the law makes spending conditional on approval of Congressional commitees. That violates the principle of INS v. Chadha, which invalidated a legislative veto of executive acts by a single branch of Congress. The appropriations are valid or invalid on their own. Obama is choosing to disregard the unconstitutional committee approval provision of the law.

KaponoFor3: Code_Archeologist: No, he is forcing the Congress to take him to court to enforce their earmarks. Congressmen are going to have to make their case publicly before the Supreme Court as to why the President must spend Federal money in their districts.

Where in the signing statement does it say that? Cause that's not even remotely mentioned in the linked article.


He said it with lots of words but

Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory.

What this means is that he may choose not to go by the committee spending recommendations and guidelines (read: earmarks) and if he feels that a recommendation or guideline (read: earmark) is excessive (where he says, impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement) he may ignore them altogether.

Now, this is technically unconstitutional, because the Congress alone has the power to choose how the money is collected and how the money is spent. The Executive Branch is supposed to simply take the money and dole it out like it is told to do. Obama has said he is going to choose not to dole out some money... an act that is specifically unconstitutional.

But for the Congress to force Obama to spend the money on the earmarks like they want they are going to have to take Obama to the Supreme Court to get a decision. The decision will go against Obama, there is no doubt about that, the law is actually very clear. But the fact that the Congressmen and Senators are going to have to go to the Supreme Court (and therefore face public scrutiny) to get their earmarks respected is going to make it very unlikely that they are going to actually do so.

BKITU: FTFA: After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October

That's change I can believe in.

I will give you people four hundred and twenty bucks if you STFU.

feckingmorons: BKITU: FTFA: After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October

That's change I can believe in.

I will give you people four hundred and twenty bucks if you STFU.

Code_Archeologist: Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes.

See, I read this as saying numerous provisions of the bill state that executive branch officers, before spending or re-allocating funds, have to receive Congressional committee approval. He is likely correct when he states that this is an impermissible form of legislative authority, as the legislature gets to decide how and in what amount gets spent, but the executive is the branch that actually effectuates the spending.

The rest I read as saying that he will listen to Congressional committees as to how they think the spending should be effectuated/executed, but he will not be bound by their determinations.

KaponoFor3: Code_Archeologist: Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes.

See, I read this as saying numerous provisions of the bill state that executive branch officers, before spending or re-allocating funds, have to receive Congressional committee approval. He is likely correct when he states that this is an impermissible form of legislative authority, as the legislature gets to decide how and in what amount gets spent, but the executive is the branch that actually effectuates the spending.

The rest I read as saying that he will listen to Congressional committees as to how they think the spending should be effectuated/executed, but he will not be bound by their determinations.

i think it's something that isn't really precisely defined in the constitution and would need to be arbitrated legally to really put the question to rest.

i don't think it will be, i think obama's just saying "enough of this bullshiat", but maybe if congress grew a set of balls we could see it decided.

either way i won't lose sleep over it.

Meh.

Code_Archeologist: These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes

Is it wrong that made me swoon? Cause, it did. Wow. That's just awesome.

Signing statements are not necessarily wrong and numerous Presidents have used them. The problem with Bush was that he used them more than all previous Presidents combined and he claimed more power with them to alter the meaning of bills. e.g. he was sent the torture ban bill and rather than veto it, he slapped a signing statement on it claiming he could ignore the bill. That's farked up.

KaponoFor3
See, I read this as saying numerous provisions of the bill state that executive branch officers, before spending or re-allocating funds, have to receive Congressional committee approval. He is likely correct when he states that this is an impermissible form of legislative authority, as the legislature gets to decide how and in what amount gets spent, but the executive is the branch that actually effectuates the spending.

That's how I read it. I don't know enough about how this omnibus bill (or others like it) are set up and how earmarks are worded to really understand this statement though. He's saying that somehow the bill has funding elements requiring Congressional committee approval, which makes it sound like the earmarks were never something that was passed by the full Congress. So he's arguing that the executive does not have to abide by what a mere congressional committee wants.

But if the earmarks were in the wording of the bill that was voted on by the full Congress, then I don't understand the argument. Bleh.

By the way, shocking as it is, a couple of the commenters on TPM seem to know WTF they're talking about...

Before we get too deep into this, here are your constitutional law degrees, everyone.



_{/one per person only, please}

I saw a frogurt stand the last time I went hang gliding.

bimalc 2009-03-11 05:46:36 PM This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto. Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week.
==========================

This is the pelosi-reid congress. They'd keep sending the bill to Obama with earmarks for the next 6 months until Obama would say 'Fark it' and sign the damn thing.

Why is the government shutting down a bad thing, again?

People tend to get themselves back on track when the government stops farking everything up. Laissez-nous faire!

Capitalist1: Why is the government shutting down a bad thing, again?

People tend to get themselves back on track when the government stops farking everything up. Laissez-nous faire!

agreed.

Capitalist1: Why is the government shutting down a bad thing, again?

it isn't if you want to plunge us into a depression.

So instead of spending earmarks on what the Congress critters wanted he will spend it on what he damn well pleases?
Excuse me for being underwhelmed by this signing statement but fark it, it's still a waste of taxpayer money either way.
Good job Baracky.

bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

Vetoing the omnibus spending bill would be an exercise in train-wreck. The chances of getting an omnibus thru a second time in an expedient manner would be low, and without pork, non-existent. You go to the first quarter with the congress you have not the congress you want.

burndtdan: it isn't if you want to plunge us into a depression.

Seems to me the government is the one spending us into a farking depression, no? Shut off the tap and maybe the dollar will stop tanking....

Granted all you welfare queens will need to go dig some ditches or something...

MrLint: You go to the first quarter with the congress you have not the congress you want.

Or you forfeit the first major game, take them out back, and make them front-back-go until they pass the fark out or get in line.

Theological Farker:
Seems to me the government is the one spending us into a farking depression, no? Shut off the tap and maybe the dollar will stop tanking....

Great! Lets start with the military, social security and medicare.

Theological Farker: Seems to me the government is the one spending us into a farking depression, no? Shut off the tap and maybe the dollar will stop tanking....

Huh? The dollar is kicking ass right now. .723839 pounds to the dollar. Much better than ~1 year ago when it was .5 pounds to the dollar.

vernonFL: Great! Lets start with the military,

back to local militias. Yay!

social security

families move back in together and support each other. yay!

and medicare.

Um....time to cull the herd? Yay!

potassium benzoate? in my wharrggable?

bimalc: This was stupid when Bush did and its even stupider now: if you don't want to sign the bill as-is, send it back with a farking veto.

Obama has enough political capital that if he wanted to end earmarks he could just veto anything with an earmark and end these shenanigans in a week. Of course he doesn't want to end earmarks, he just wants to provide political cover for them.

That would have been super fun to watch the DOW crater as any faith left in the federal government evaporates. Think of the buying opportunities! On second thought, it might be nice if my investments were worth more than my 3 gallon jar of change.

Mr. Anon: Huh? The dollar is kicking ass right now. .723839 pounds to the dollar. Much better than ~1 year ago when it was .5 pounds to the dollar.

*mind boggle*

So...we print it like farking monopoly money and it gets stronger?

Makes ALL kinds of sense.

/NOT a finance major

Theological Farker: Mr. Anon: Huh? The dollar is kicking ass right now. .723839 pounds to the dollar. Much better than ~1 year ago when it was .5 pounds to the dollar.

*mind boggle*

So...we print it like farking monopoly money and it gets stronger?

Makes ALL kinds of sense.

/NOT a finance major

The brits have bigger printing presses :)

When the mains stream media is starting to report that there is a pattern of hypocrisy.... then you know it's pretty obvious.

I think even they know where the bad smell is coming from...