Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > January > 28 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USReal clout will reside in eschewing those earmarks
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In his final year in office, George W. Bush could become the president fiscal conservatives wanted.
On Tuesday, he’ll sign an executive order directing the executive branch to ignore “earmarks” that are not actually written into law. Those are the pork barrel projects that individual members of Congress slip into committee reports or “manager’s statements” that accompany the language voted on by both houses. Earmarks gave us Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere and, in Georgia, the Train to Lovejoy.
The president clearly has the authority, according to the Congressional Research Service, to ignore earmarks not contained in the text of legislation passed by the House and Senate.
His decision would have been all the more admirable had it applied to the 11,735 earmarks amounting to $16.9 billion included in the current year’s spending — and had he started earlier and disavowed the practice by the administration, as well. But nevertheless, this is a start.
In some respects, getting Bush to this point could be the script for a movie on “Tom Coburn’s War” or “Jeff Flake’s War” — a tribute to the senator from Oklahoma and the representative from Arizona who have aggressively pushed their party on earmarks.
When U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Roswell) was home for the Thanksgiving break, he announced that he would no longer ask for earmarks. His Republican colleague, Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville, said he, too, will decline to ask for earmarks in this year’s budget.
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah, a “repentant sinner” on earmarks, is among the leaders of an effort to declare a moratorium on earmarks until Congress can set rules for greater disclosure, advance notice and open debate.
As members of Congress were issuing statements eschewing earmarks and as the president prepared to announce that he’ll veto any spending bill that does not cut the number of earmarks in half, an interesting story appeared in the day’s news.
It was an Associated Press analysis of the $555 billion spending bill that President Bush signed last month.
Here’s the first paragraph: “Atlanta and other drought-stricken Georgia cities miss out on millions of federal dollars to repair leaky water infrastructure because the state’s congressional delegation lacks clout on key funding committees in Washington.” Its analysis revealed that 33 states got more money in earmarks for water and sewer projects, with Georgia getting “just $1.6 million.”
The media unwittingly are often advocates for more and bigger government — in large part because it’s the quickest and easiest “solution” to problems of crime, poverty, education, discarded children and other social ills. The solution, therefore, is to insist on more caseworkers, wiser supervisors or more teachers with smaller classes — and if those are not forthcoming from one level of government, we demand it of another.
It does not occur to me that the federal government should concern itself with leaky pipes in Atlanta or with a local road in south DeKalb — or with any other problem more properly the responsibility of city, county or state government.
Furthermore, for a nation at war, in the throes of disruptive global competition while wrestling with illegal immigration, health care financing, looming Social Security bankruptcy and the like, the last thing I want is members of Congress fixing potholes in Snellville or dripping faucets in Fayetteville.
Earmarks, like the one for commuter rail to Lovejoy, simply divert federal tax dollars from a legitimate transportation need to one that’s not — or marginal at best. Once the pork is in place, it then means state dollars are diverted, too. And, as with the rail line, it means local taxpayers may also be on the hook. And for what? Nothing ever identified competitively as a top priority or need.
Lack of clout? Shoot fire, man, that’s precisely why we get more and bigger government. Labeling members of Congress, or the entire delegation, as ineffective because they’re not the greediest porkers at the trough is why government grows. We make government officials spend and hire to prove they are “effective” in public office.
Permalink | Comments (111) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By TW
January 29, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
11,735 earmarks amounting to $16.9 billion
We spend that much in Iraq every 30 days…
Time for an American President…
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I cannot imagine any conservative objecting to any president declining to enforce Congressional statements not enrolled into the bills. Even if a Bill Clinton announced he would not spend money urged in Republican earmarks, few conservatives object to a failure to spend (except on true military needs.) Our leftist friends often decry the executive “signing statements” employed during the Bush administration, but those statements have the same effect at law as the manager statements purporting to interpret the will of Congress. As the branches are co-equal, this prospective executive inaction on earmarks may reduce spending overall.
The editorial page of the WSJ has urged this action – refusal to acknowledge “earmarks” - for the past six months. I note that Jim also laments the President’s refusal to apply the standard immediately. Our free-spending leftist friends – authors of most of the current earmarks - would have objected to the lack of comity, however. There is an element of fairness that requires notice to your opponent when you are changing the rules to the game, so I do not fault the President for making the standard prospective. Perhaps, if there are some particular members who deserve to be insulted, the President will selectively ignore earmarks benefiting those districts anyway, just for the fun that will ensue. The Congress is now on notice – no easy shortcuts on spending; the entire Congress must vote. Maybe the more interesting question is whether the democrat presidential candidates will embrace the President’s position.
By ron
January 29, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Jim,It’s late for George to become fiscally conservative isn’t it?He’s spent his time usurping power he didn’t have.We’ll be rid of him in less than a year now.The next occupant of the White House won’t be fiscally conservative either.It’s not in the nature of the beast.
By Craig
January 29, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
“in his final year in office”
Love that word “final”…
By Curious Observer
January 29, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Let’s cut to the real reason for the opposition of Georgia representatives to earmarks. Anyone with any sense knows that earmarking has been a standing practice for decades. So why this griping now?
The truth is that Georgia chose to replace its long-serving Democrats in Congress with freshly minted Republican rednecks. Those representatives lack the pull to insert earmarks. Therefore, their response to their powerlessness is to try banning all earmarks.
And how interesting it is that once the Republicans lost control of Congress, they suddenly launched a campaign against earmarks. It was a wonderful practice for them when they controlled the purse strings. They inserted thousands of earmarks to buy the votes of constituents. Now that they are in the minority, they have suddenly undergone a conversion: let’s get rid of all earmarks.
These are truths that Wooten and his Dubya supporters lack the integrity to express.
By jm
January 29, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
I am reminded of the movie “Casablanca”. W the incompetent after seven plus years in office is apparently shocked that the bills sent to him be congress (which he signed) contained earmarks, like that famous republican earmark, “The Bridge to Nowhere”.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
January 29, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
I really like how the GOP waited for some Democratic cover to bring up the earmark issue…after years and years of shameless abuse…that’s nice.
But what I really enjoyed from last night’s ramble was the impact of letting the tax cuts lapse on the average American…that figure GW came up with is a hoot.
Using that logic, the average bonus recieved by myself and a Goldman Sach’s employee last year was somewhere around $2 million…
I didn’t realize I got such a big bonus!
Fear is an amazing motivational tactic. Keep it up!
By OneForTheRoad
January 29, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
I feel your pain, Mr. Wooten. I say this clout — this accursed seniority — is an abomination that should be wiped from the halls, offices, gathering places, meeting rooms, and closets of all politically motivated establishments. Vote, I say. Vote for change. More change in the pockets of every man, woman, and child in this great nation. Leave no one behind — No — not even a child. Now go forward. All one hundred of you, go and vote for change in my pocket and in your pocket and in all of our pockets. Bring me home some bacon. I like bacon. It goes well with eggs. And grits, and toast. Coffee, where’s my coffee.
By ckt
January 29, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this
The $16.9 billion this last year, huh? You didn’t want to follow that with a note recognizing the decrease from the $44 billion the year before?
Ohh yeah, that would admit republicans were the true aggressors in the march of the earmark. They oversaw an increase from $11 billion to $44 billion in 6 years from 2000 to 2006.
It’s always amusing when the republican party chooses to stand up and fight. I don’t think the American people will fall for it this time though, Jimmy.
By Ron Paul Supporter
January 29, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
Elect Ron Paul 2008 and further ensure the abolishment of ‘earmarks’ forever. But starting with the IRS is reason enough! Wouldnt you like to keep 100% of your paycheck? Imagine the boom to the economy!
By Captain Freedom
January 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
THE Captain returns refreshed from his vacation cruise to the Galapogos where He has garnered incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by the Islamunistosodomites, the Tri-Lateral Commission, and Steven Spielberg, who of course represent Soros and the rest of ahem them.
But no matter. THE Captain scheduled carefully so as to be home in front of a large-screen TV in time to witness Our Leader’s triumphant final SOTU address. Rubbing His thighs in anticipation, THE Captain set out a spread of champagne, fine pate, ground ryeseed crackers, and Cheetos as He prepared to live blog the event on Little Green Troglodytes. Good times laid out before me like a sunrise over Lake Sinclair.
Things were going along nicely enough, with Our Leader demonstrating his Masculine Superiority over the democrat girly-men (and manly girls) by flashing his daemonic smile at the end of every sentence he proclaimed without biting his tongue. (Namby pamby Daily Kossites slander Our Leader by calling this a “sneer” or a “smirk”. Bedwetters.)
But then, to THE Captain’s horror, Our Leader stumbled into heathen territory, and it was as though THE Captain was watching helplessly as God’s Annointed President had his head mounted on a crudely carved pike by mau-mauing envirofascists. The horror…the horror.
For there was George Walker (texas ranger) Bush, calling clearly and loudly for a limit to the amount of so-called “greenhouse gases” that can be released into the atmosphere by honest, job-creating industrialists. Why on God’s Earth would any sane Right Thinker call for such insanity? It is almost as though someone had kidnapped Our Leader and replaced him with a programmable parrot like Sister Dusty, only this sock puppet is controlled by AL GORE who has made the empty body of Our Leader call for a policy that de facto recognizes the VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!
THE Captain, staggered by this realization, aspirated upon a pate-laden Cheeto and fell to the floor, unconcious. When He awoke, it was to the sounds of Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning. Desperate for some word that indicated that Our Nation recognized the horrible danger we are in, I scanned the major news outlets. Alas, it appears that it is, once again, up to THE Captain to alert the nation to an evil more evil than Islamulesbiafascism itself…
Yes, THE Captain refers to SCIENCE UNLEASHED. May God have mercy on our souls.
Oh, and yes, Jim…earmarks are bad, very bad. Too bad we cannot have a GOP controlled Congress where such a practice never saw the light of day. Oh, sure, earmarks always happened the same way, it just never saw the light of day. But had you actually listened to the speech entire before writing your column, you would have been able to address the more important issue. THE Captain understands, though, that people like you and Fred Thompson need to conserve your fading energies and get to bed early. Plus there is that classic Matlock episode that ran opposite the SOTU, and a man really must set priorities.
By Redneck Convert
January 29, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
Well, when the godly Republicans done the earmarks, everything was fine. We got about everything us rednecks in GA wanted—roads, cut-thrus, hall of fame, etc. Wooten and the rest of us godly conservatives was mighty happy. Now the librul Democrats are in charge and they won’t hardly let us earmark nothing. So I say get rid of the earmarks. If we can’t get them nobody should.
It figures the bunch of libruls on this blog would want to mention how much we earmarked and all when we was in charge. Well, what we done was Righteous in those six years so the earmarks needed to cost a lot. You always spend more on what’s Right. The libruls always griped about that Alaska bridge and how much it would cost. Well, if you was one of the 50 people on that island it was a good cost.
But when the libruls took over Congress what they done was Evil. They earmarked stuff for their own people, not ours. And I ain’t paying taxes so some pantywaist pointy-head in VT can have a new road while I ain’t even got the GA 400 entrance from my trailer yet.
Anyhow, I was mighty proud of My President last night. I watched him say every word. Course, when that librul Democrat come on after the speech and made out like My President wouldn’t work with Congress, I turned my back to her like I always do when things come on I don’t want to hear.
I’ll be mighty anxious to watch the election results from FL tonight. Everyone is saying its between McCain and Romney. Well, the Rev. Huckabee has a hidden weapon: prayer. I figure he’ll come out on top. Prayer worked when Sonny needed to get a water plan going and it will work to make the Rev. Huckabee the winner in FL.
Have a good day everybody.
By Sam Jam
January 29, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
No More Demopublicans No more sorry same ol’ same ol’
Screw ‘em all Vote Ron Paul For Save Our Country
And don’t fret so much you chicken little wussies. Your head won’t be sawed off when the U.S. minds it’s own business for a change. Nevermind what Mcinsane tells you.
By deegee
January 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Don’t we Georgians pay federal income taxes? Aren’t we supposed to get something in return? What are we supposed to do? Send our money to Washington and let them spend it on some other country? Oh, nevermind.
By GaVoter
January 29, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim. I see you have offered up quite the platter of porky pigs to eschew. Really! You know, sometimes it’s the left-overs that are most noteworthy. Wouldn’t you agree?
We all know by now what you get when you subtract one from IBM — HAL. Right? Ok. What do we have left when we subtract one from 666? No, not 665. Use the example above — it’s 555. That’s what is leftover after we remove the earmarks from the discussion. Billion, that is — five hundred and fifty-five BILLION other reasons to not be bothered with the stuff that stumping is made of.
Give me a BREAK!
By TW
January 29, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
deegee - Relax. Your money pays for Saxby’s green fees.
By Peter
January 29, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Wow what a concept……7 years later the President acts like a responsible guy……what a change, what a breath of fresh air.
Well after messing the Whole deal up, he wants responsible spending.
I ask you this…when you are spending $350 billion a year on a made up WAR, why are you questioning 18 billion for at home projects?
Funny thing the $350 Billion feeds his favorite guys Haliburton, the $18 Billion here at home would actually feed those that work in the US.
Imagine that creating jobs here at home?
Wow what a concept!
By Jack
January 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Earmarks are just vote buying for the politicians who are doing their main job which is staying in office. When it comes to money, Republicans and Democrats are like pigs at a trough. The earmarks will be gone when donkey’s fly.
By Political Foreskin
January 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Not even Wooten can make a silk parse out of the south’s earmarks. He’s the Mike Tyson of journalism. I always found it ironic that Mike Tyson chewed on Hollyfield’s when it was Mike who owned the cauliflower ears….and leave it to Wooten to mollycoddle ol’ Big Ears. (sorry)
By Truthifier
January 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, while you are correct in stating that Democratic members of Congress are the authors most of the current earmarks, I think the statement may be confusing for those who don’t understand the Congressional appropriations process. For those who are not familiar with how this system works, the majority party typically is allocated two-thirds of earmark dollars while the minority party receives the remaining one-third.
Democrats are the authors and recipients of most of the current earmarks, just as the Republicans were the authors and recipients of most of the earmarks when they were the majority party.
I think it’s only fair to spread the blame (or credit, depending on your political leanings) around where it is due.
By profit
January 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Correct Jack, so let us remove the incentive to buy votes: One term, and one term only in any Federal or State office: The politician must then sit out an entire election cycle prior to running for any other elected office. The specical interests groups will not like this proposal, as they will have to go out and try to buy new Senators and Congressmen each election cycle. To Bad
By Just Nasty and Mean
January 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
You know, we can ask our Ga. delegation to take the ethical route and not add to the out-of-control spending via earmarks—and all we’re going to get out of it is “screwed”. The Federal spending snowball has been rolling so fast and so long—-it isn’t going to stop because of any noble acts (albeit late) from anybody.
Unless our congressmen play this slimy game, Georgia will continue to be a MAJOR net looser in the tax contribution vs: receipt game.
There is no winner in a spitting contest. The only way to come out ahead is to spit more often.
By @@
January 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Bush did say that both parties are guilty when it comes to earmarks and pork barrel spending—I’ll give him that.
I preferred to walk away from the T.V. seeing it as a Big Dig on the Massive HOLE, Ted Kennedy (The Lion that Hoard)!
By Political Foreskin
January 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
I suppose punning is the earmark of corniness, but then Iowa cornsilk purse to Wooten for providing such kernels of wisdumb. Let Tyson get his sustenance however he may, I say; Wooten is mine, and Mike’s too dumb to have him. “Hipsters, Flipsters and finger-poppin’ Daddies, toss me your lobes!” says Lord Buckley riffing on the Bardolicious riffing on Marky Mark. If Tyson had lived in ancient Rome, he’d have had his ears chewed off by lions within Caesar’s earshot.
By getalife
January 29, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Romney and McCain call each other liberals.
OMG, they read the blogs.
Bwa.
By Political Foreskin
January 29, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
The rest of you are pretenders. I am the certified intellectual.
By Craig
January 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer @ 8:20 you are brilliant. And the problem will only get worse. As the good folk of Georgia continue to send troglodytes like Kingston and Price and Chambliss to Washington, while the rest of the country is moving forward, our influence will continue to wane.
By Dennis
January 29, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Some rather interesting remarks emminating from Mr. Wooten today.
More so since his boy, GWB, didn’t veto a single spending bill or any other give away bill for his first term in office. Only recently, has GWB seemed at all interested in the financial debts he has caused to this country.
I guess that’s what you get from being a guy who has never known proverty, or even want, or thinks money grows on trees (oil wells?) or, whose rich daddy never told him “No”.
And on another financial note, am I wrong to recall that all of the tax breaks for corporations during GWB’s first term weren’t supposed to stimulate the nation’s economy?
Or did the corporations simply take the money and do their investing in foreign countries - leaving more and more Americans out of work?
Whatever, we are where we are, it happened on the GWB/Republican watch.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Well, the Captain is back! Hip hip etc!! I was hoping he’d stay on the Galapogos and send a turtle back. The turtles can move faster and they are cute! Now the Captain—mud fence and all that—well, welcome back, our traveling expeditious troglodyte…
Now, on to Jim Wooten who has it right as always. No more tacked on earmarks! When you’re in debt, cut expenses.
Some of you libs are saying you SHOULD get something from our government, as if you are not getting ANYTHING. So I will say what you hate to hear: The government is protecting your FREEDOM. And for those with short vision: Iraq is part of securing that freedom. And it costs.
Now some of you don’t seem to like it here. Go ahead and try Kenya, Zimbabwee, Tibet, Burma, or Sudan(or RedNeck’s trailer park, a foreign outpost on it’s own). It seems you libs can’t learn any other way.
So I congratulate Jim Wooten again for endorsing conservative ways and pushing for more economy and less earmarks from our Congress.
By getalife
January 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Not a peep from jim on earmarks when the gop had total power.
There were two gop that did attack earmarks in the gop rubber stamp Congress. Congressman Flake and Ron Paul. Watch C Span today and the gop will try to steal more of your freedom after failing yesterday. The gop cheered this on last night. Where are the libertarians on FISA?
The rest of your ilk spent money like Vitter at a brothel.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
First, earmarks are budget dust.
Second, the real waste is in budgeted items.
Third, the waste of money is not as compelling to this nation’s interest as is the waste of human potential and happiness that results from the mispending.
Fourth, the pork problems could be eliminated with a line-item veto, concerning the constitutionality of which, a more in-depth column is due.
Fifth, contrary to Red-Eyed Jim’s assertion, it is not we who “make them” do it; they do it through spineless acquiescence to the Hill Game as they find it, for earmarking is one way in which those clowns keep score. It is vote-buying only secondarily; a Palace p-ssing match foremost.
Sixth, it is quite terrible that the real match, the Championship, as it were, consists of budgeteering itself—-a game played for far greater stakes than those involved in earmarking.
Seventh, that was a damn fine post of jbm’s top o’ the mornin’, was it not?
get:
Compared to the stubborn Giuliani, both Romney and McCain are indeed liberals: they both made political careers out of meeting Leftists half way, and there really isn’t much either of them can do to conceal that fact now. They’ve both been slimed by association with callous and feckless liberalism, and lately Red-Eyed Jim has been slipping into that much of his own volition.
By Artie Sammish
January 29, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Once there was a Congressman and former state legislator who got elected by acclamation time and again for reporting to his ultra-conservative constituents that he had done no lawmaking or budgetary pleading while in office, but had spent his time instead working against every Democratic target of opportunity, fiscal or otherwise.
Now that was “common sense conservatism”!
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Dear Truthifier @ 9:51, agreed. I was perhaps unclear in explaining why I made the observation: not particularly to stain the opposition, but to explain why the president was making the interpretation prospective when, as many posters have suggested, he could have saved us some real money here and now. I do not mean to suggest that democrat earmarks are meaningfully different from republican earmarks – all are wasteful, corporate welfare by another name. (And by all means, let’s spread the blame as widely as appropriate. We have a small handful of Republican anti-earmark Quixotes, but not a single Democrat so motivated. Anything we can do to urge Democrats to embrace an anti-waste perspective can only help. Note that some of our leftist friends above cite the need to “feed at the trough,” to ensure Georgia does not set the standard for ethical politics!)
By getalife
January 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Glenn,
It is all about hope for unity. Don’t you listen to Obama? I witnessed unity on C Span 2 yesterday. The Dems used it to block illegal spying with immunity.
Unity does work, when the Dems vote together to stop w from breaking the law.
Anyhoo, the corporate media has been attacking the Clintons because rudy attacks himself when he can’t keep his little willy in his pants and bills taxpayers for his affairs.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
get, puh-leeeez! There are a lot more than two GOP who eschew earmarks. And there is no point in carving a partisan divide on this one, as the game doesn’t work at all unless it’s bipartisan. (Otherwise the one side simply blows the cover of the other side’s pork—-a form of extortion that’s been known to land freshmen in leadership; that’s how sensitive the Hill is to derailing the bipartisan gravy train.)
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
PoFo 10:15
Sorry, fellow, but Jim Wooten is the Intellectual of the Day. He used “eschewing” which is a blue ribbon indicator. You can hear the diplomas rattling in the background.
If he had said “get rid of those things” or “axe ‘em” or “whittle down” he’d be on the same level as RedNeck, a most motley level.
So…Jim wins. You lose. Ha!
By getalife
January 29, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Glenn,
I watched C Span during the gop spending spree. Name some gop that wanted to stop spending when the gop had the rubber stamp Congress.
I named two because they were the only two.
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Thanks Glenn @ 10:31. You are correct in all you argue, but I suspect Bush’s incrementalism on spending control is the best we can hope for.
Sudden thought, perhaps all of our leftist friends will take a vow – to prove their sincerity on the issue - to vote against any candidate who will not embrace President Bush’s directive to the agencies? If Hillary refuses to rein in earmarks, vote against her. If Obama refuses to rein in earmarks, vote against him. What do you say, guys?
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Artie Sammish@10:36
Now, Artie, don’t be bashful. Please tell us the name of the Congressman who only did detective work against Democrats. Was it after the War of 1812 or the Spanish American War?
Strange you didn’t mention his name. Who was he?
By getalife
January 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
It is time for my friends on the right to shake themselves into the real world.
The gop had their chance to govern but destroyed our country instead.
Time for some humility and confession for your souls, then stay home for the general to let the Clintons clean up your mess again.
By Disgusted
January 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Only in a Dubya administration would people be expressing support for a president’s blatantly disregarding the will of Congress, as that will is expressed in a bill signed by the President. Signing statements, anybody?
Why don’t we just name this feckless incompetent King of the USA and be done with it?
By Dennis
January 29, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
By jbmlaw January 29, 2008 8:08 AM “Good morning all. I cannot imagine any conservative objecting to any president declining to enforce Congressional statements not enrolled into the bills.”
jbmlaw, maybe you need a STRONG second cup of coffee :)
If I recall correctly, by running a tight budget Bill Clinton left a hugh surplus in the treasury and it took Republicans only a short time to squander that.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Peter
January 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Gosh who’s time is Dusty wasting already…….Imagine if she worked for you……typical Wrong stuff.
Yes making up a WAR protects us all.
Imagine if we actually went after Bin Laden, and let sanctions do more talking, and the US less killing….
We wouldn’t be SO far in debt we could actually create jobs here in the US, and the 18 billion of ear marks could create jobs…..
Wow what a concept….. and then we would actually be responsible fiscally……. can you imagine a world without Bin Laden ?
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw@10:48
Surely you jest! Liberal lawmakers take a vow to eschew earmarks in any way or any time?
The goal is to make Bush look bad, not to get rid of earmarks.
I watched Democrats sitting on their hands during Bush’s last state-of-the-union address. Then they want to talk about “unity”? They don’t even have enough common consideration for a man who has served this country through hard times. They showed their “unity” right there. No consideration whatsoever for anyone not a Democrat. I have no use for their narrow viewpoint on “cooperation”, or “change” as they would call it.
By Truthifier
January 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
The Congressional Accountability and Line-item Veto Act, S. 1186, introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) would create a line-item veto to target wasteful earmarks, improve congressional accountability, and deter lawmakers from inserting frivolous spending into future bills. The bill avoids constitutional problems with previous line item veto legislation by requiring both the House and Senate to vote to approve a President’s decision to eliminate earmarks.
I don’t think Senator Feingold is in favor of completey eschewing (see Dusty, I used it to so I guess I’m an intellectual now!) but he is a Democrat who is working to rein in wasteful spending.
By Truthifier
January 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Disgusted @ 11:01 makes a very good point. What is the difference between a Conference Report (where earmarks are typically found) and a presidential signing statement? With regard to the Conference Reports, they are intended to express the will of the Congress on how the funding they have provided in an appropriation bill should be spent. In the case of the signing statement, the president is expressing his intent to enforce the portions of the bill he agrees with. Not sure if the president can have it both ways.
By Joe D
January 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Dusty, were you out there complaining about earmarks from the GOP the first six years of the GWB presidency? Were you complaining when the GOP was responsible for 2/3 of the earmarks, and the identities of the earmarkers were protected? Were you out there complaining that our Beloved Leader was not striking earmarks or limiting earmarks the first six years of his presidency? No, of course not. So your comments on Democratic motives hold no water. The squandering of the surplus and the increase in the deficit and the national debt are the fault of GWB and the GOP, not this $16.9 Billion in the last budget.
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Truthifier@11:08
I am “chewing” on your “eschewing” but its a tough one to swallow.
So Sen Feingold slipped up working with a Republican and almost got a bite out of earmarks? Poor guy. Did he actually get re-elected? Hasn’t decided to “spend more time with his family”?
You know libs don’t like their folks to have an “eschewing” streak. Its against their principles i.e. living off the fat of the land.
By Truthifier
January 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Yes Dusty, Senator Feingold was reelected in 1998 and 2004, putting him into his third term in the Senate. He is up for reelection in 2010 and to my knowledge has not indicated that he will not run. I believe you are confused. He had considered a run for the presidency this cycle but chose to not do so.
As far are your snide remarks about his having slipped up and working with a Republican, isn’t that exactly what they are supposed to be doing? Working together to govern the country? Or would you prefer that everyone just choose sides and never work together to get anything done. Frankly, people like you are what is wrong with the political process. You have ruined it with your venomous partisanship.
Now, would a rational adult (that would be someone besides Dusty) of either political persuasion like to chime in on today’s topic?
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
Poor ol’ Peter and Joe D.,
I’ve got big news for you. We have a war going in Iraq and we did not create terrorism. Remember! A WAR!! TERRORISM!! Defeating terrorism before it gets a greater hold on the Middle East and uses it as a launch pad against US. The USA!
Earmarks are expensive. Now…do you care about earmarks and forget our fight against terrorism? We can cut expensive earmarks but we cannot fail our troops in their battle for Iraq’s freedom and our own protection. It takes money and we cut where we can.But we do not cut funds for our troops fighting for us.
I’m sorry if that is too much for you to understand. but I will never sit around like a liberal saying “Fiddly dee and whoopee…what war?? I’m interested in earmarks.”
By Carl
January 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
I really thought that when Giuliani kept that 3rd plane from hitting the White House he had paved his way to the presidency. Guess America don’t want a real hero.
By rd
January 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
ron,
It is never too late for anyone in Federal office to become fiscally conservative. Frankly, we can’t afford earmarks. We can’t afford the war. We can’t afford the current Social Security or Medicare system. We already own $30,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. We cannot afford any new wars or any new social programs (ahem… no national health care) until we reverse the mess we are in.
By Joe D
January 29, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Dusty, please go back and read my post. There is not a word in there about war or terrorism. My point was that you have not complained about GWB’s failure to hold down earmarks, of which 2/3 came from the GOP, during his first six years in office. A plain, simple point that has nothing to with war or terrorism and everything to do with your attempts to impugn Democrats for having earmarks in this year’s budget. You read what you wanted it to say, not what it said. Did you care as passionately about earmarks from January, 2001 to December, 2006, or not? And believe me, I’ve never said “Fiddly dee” or “what war”, though I admit to an occasional “Whoopee”, like at the end of the Giants-Packers game two weeks or so ago.
By deegee
January 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Dusty is still basking in the afterglow of her Bushing last night. Let her come down gently.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Yes, get, Obama’s all about Unity. Unity and Change. And Hope. And also the People, and Victory. So, Obama’s all about Unity and Change and Hope and the People and Victory.
“This campaign is not about ____. It’s about ____. It’s not about ____. It’s about ____, and ____, and ____. That’s what this campaign’s about!”
[This game is called Schroeder Sudoku. Barbara Boxer is the current champion. To play, focus on tone over bone, and keep it emotive. Fill in the planks with whatever terms push your buttons. Extra points for using rhetorical sets of three.]
As to the earmarking, for one thing you left out Senator McCain, and William Proxmire of old. And there are several members who habitually go home to their constituents boasting that they refrain from the game. Did you not know this? Your partisanship is far off-base here, and an utter waste of time, this baiting from the Kosbots.
By Redneck Convert
January 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Well, I reckon Sister Dusty is back on the sauce. She done slammed me oncet and my trailer oncet. Its a pity what booze will do to a good Christian conservative.
Makes these chicken weenies not taste so good.
By Artie Sammish
January 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
That would be Bob Badham, 48CD, 1977-86.
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Dear getalife @ 10:47, you named only two because you were not paying attention. Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn defined the issue, not that you really care. But if you are intellectually honest, perhaps you would name one democrat at any level who challenged his leadership on earmarks (as did many Republicans?)
Dear Dennis @ 11:02, you correctly note that in the last year of the Clinton administration, when both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans, the country had a balanced budget. And you correctly note that when the Democrats seized the senate the next year, the balanced budget was gone. In your usual dishonest manner you substitute “republican” where I clearly used “conservative.” I acknowledge that there are republicans as wasteful as your democrats. Just for the sake of intellectual honesty, perhaps you would name one democrat spending-cutter? You don’t have to be a conservative to see it, just honest. Perhaps you will prove me wrong and become the first leftist to take the vow, to vote against any presidential candidate who will not promise to honor President Bush’s directive to the agencies? Of course conservatives have no reservations about such a vow.
Dear Truthifier @ 11:08, I hope you are right about Sen. Feingold’s intentions, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Sen. Feingold’s law, to restrict the president’s inherent authority to ignore unlegislated spending, is a power grab; it realigns all final spending power to the Congress. A better course would be to reverse the Watergate era law that mandated the president spend all monies allocated.
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Joe D.,
Earmarks cost money. That’s why we want to get rid of them.
The war, our fight against terrorism, costs money, but we must continue to fight. We cannot cut there.
That is why I mentioned those costly items together.
Americans have not hesitated to “do without” in previous wars. Earmarks are just one bonus we can do without NOW.
By AmVet
January 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Seven years later and the beat goes on. But mercifully, that was W’s final SOTA.
And though it is not in the least bit surprising, as so many others here have cogently noted, the trail of mangled governance left by this (worst ever?) administration begs the question, how in the name of Sam Hill can anyone believe this president or his proxies anymore?
This in spite of the fact that a few dwindling, irrelevant and intransigent fools never realized their childish mistake that noting the painfully obvious is not reducible to simple slogans like “making the president look bad”. As if he needed any additional help in that matter?!
Yet these non-conservative conservatives appear eager and willing (though almost certainly unable to reproduce) this abysmally failed experiment.
And for doing so, IMHO, unless McCain wins the nomination they will certainly cede the White House and more of Congress to their political adversaries, Democrat or Republican.
By Ace Mulholland
January 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Looks like we blew it bigtime with the Dem response to last night’s bloodfest and circuses from Bush. Just when we were riding high from pulling off the “Bush Lies” project, our people had to go and get that Sibelius fool to get all bilious and libelus. What a damned amateur, standing up there like a schoolteacher scolding the POTUS! Telling him what he “needed” to do, and how it was time for him to “get to work”! And she’s supposed to be our next big star? God help us.
Sh!t, now they’re going to pull us off McCain and Romney and make us run interference for this female jerk in Kansas! Think of the man hours we’ll have to spend explaining why she’s been blowing money the Kansans don’t have. How stupid! Bob and I told them we’d take care of it, that we had plenty of allies in the press corps who’d leak us the text before it was distributed to our leadership, so that with the right red team we could match her response to Bush’s BS and get in some real zingers, instead of just copping ‘tude.
Damn it, we’ve got spadework to do, and this Prairie fool is wasting OUR time?!
By Political Foreskin
January 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
If you reality-checked Bush’s speech, then you would prove that every word he said is a total lie. All his numbers are either wrong or misleading. He doesn’t speak for himself. He is reading what someone higher-up approved, and Bush is too big a coward to tell us one word of truth. All presidents are. If a president ever told the truth, it is said, then our country would fold in 5 minutes. We ARE the great satan, but that’s a good thing. It takes the devil to keep order in the world. It’s all folks understand.
The state of the union is bushed. Obama will only get one term because he will preside over the economic hangover that’s dead ahead, as well as any terror attack being allowed to come to fruition now because our entire focus is in the wrong country.
So, we will have a very short lived camelot in ‘09 and the GOP will be back on top in ‘12.
By Peter
January 29, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Poor Dusty wasting her EMPLOYERs TIME….Being so gullible…….
Yes we have a Made UP WAR, and now we CANNOT let our soldiers hang out to dry….
Earmarks create jobs here at home……also after 7 ears of doing a budget we finally have a guy who is going to stand up and CUT spending…..
Sure he is HA HA HA….Big Government GOP!
Family Values? Extra $300 million for kids all of a sudden out of the Blue…..
Wow you had to love the stuttering, and smiling like the clown last night…..
Finally the signing of Autographs…..what is he a ball player now ?
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
RedNeck 12:00
Woohoo, I did get some “sauce” for my birthday. Cute little bottle of Manichevitz but no fruitcake. Aww, and my family all had samples and now its gone. Well, maybe I’ll celebrate the fourth of July and get another bottle to give a toast to the next Republican president we’re gonna get.
I’m a gourmet cook!!Put some chili, onions, mustard, hot sauce, ketchup and deviled eggs on those chicken weiners and the are better than eating at the Ritz. Always glad to help.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
Truthifier & jbm, et al,
What do you make of the constitutionality of the Feingold bill, vis-a-vis separation of powers?
Also, Truthifier & Disgusted,
To me signing statements are what political junkies might call spin, but what a practitioner of Constitutional or Administrative Law would understand as the Presidential directive to begin the promulgation process (of policies and guidelines from implementation by the Executive Agencies) in accordance with the Executive’s priorities.
They often involve cherry-picking of the enrolled legislation. That’s very relevant to today’s discussion, because the cherry-picking can, in artful instances, be tantamount to a sort of micro- line-item veto.
[Rudy 08, or 12, or whenever]
By Joe D
January 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
And what about from 2001 to 2006, or 2003 to 2006, when we were also at war? Did you complain about earmarks then, did you write to President Bush or your Congressman or either of our Senators and tell them to cut the pork out of those budgets? Do you not have a clue that Bush is only doing this now because 1) the Democrats control Congress; 2) he wants to polish his legacy; and 3) by making it prospective, he will only have to worry about earmarks that pop up in the few election year bills that will be passed during his mercifully short remaining time in office?
By Curious Observer
January 29, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Dusty @12:27,
The next Republican president you are going to get will be in 2028 or so. By that time, that bottle will be an expensive vintage.
By Truthifier
January 29, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
I’m certainly no expert, but in my humble opinion the Feingold bill edges on violating the separation of powers by involving the President in the legislative process. That’s just a layman’s opinion of course, as I am not an attorney or constitutional scholar. But I guess I always thought the role of the President is to approve legislation, not help to craft it (in any offical sense at least). Just as it is not the role of Congress to interfere with the specific duties laid out in the Constitution for the President.
I agree with Glenn that the signing statements are more or less line item vetos. The promulgation of the President’s priorities should be within the bounds of public law, no? If the President’s disagreement with some portion of a bill is so strong that he feels it should not be enforced, then he should veto the legislation. That is what the veto power is for.
By Peter
January 29, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Yes the next GOP President who knows when……Dusty do you get WORK done during the day, or play all day.
So tell me what is SO great about Bush…..do any of the current GOP candidates even use his name when they campaign?
I don’t think they use his name, I think they are afraid to actually cozy up to the guy, or mention him in their speeches!
NOW That would really be the epitome of ” LAME DUCK ” !
By Peter
January 29, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
By the way did you hear Bush state that the teachers and students had to up hold the law?
Wasn’t he saying something about no kid left behind, or giving teachers and students what they need to succeed…….
I guess cut the Education spending More and we will really give them what they need….
What law were they suppose to UP HOLD ?
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Dear JoeD @ 12:33, will you become the first leftist to take the vow, to vote against any presidential candidate who will not promise to honor President Bush’s directive to the agencies? Of course conservatives have no reservations about such a vow. If, hypothetically, conservatives were too stupid to recognize the problems arising from earmarks, but now realize the risk to the republic, would you argue against the opposition? More to the point, do you share the conservative concern, or are you merely trying to justify “business as usual?”
Dear Glenn @ 12:30, as I was drafting my 12:09 note to our friend Truthifier, I wrote a long-winded argument about separation of powers defects in the legislation. Then I wrote a sarcastic note about comparable constitutional defects in McCain-Feingold, and then I erased the whole bit because I think Truthifier writes in good faith on the matter. I think Constitutional powers override any legislative efforts, but I think the core flaw with the Feingold legislation is that it masks the problem, without curing the core Constitutional issue. The real problem is that Congress wants to be the final decider on how much spending should go on, and the Executive wants to rein in Congressional excess. (I think all agree that Presidents cannot exceed Congressionally authorized spending levels; the only issue is whether they should be able to reduce such authorized spending, to avoid waste. For now, the law says no, that waste is required as a matter of law. Thank goodness for leftist activist judges, who preserve prerogatives of big spenders.)
By Political Foreskin
January 29, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
A reporter asked Romney, “boxers or briefs” and Romney answered, “Fubu”.
What a hip candidate that Romney be!
By profit
January 29, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Dusty, since when do idiot lab techs count as intellectuals? Last I heard, you only held a BA in biology. Why do you have so much time to spend blogging? Surely their is lab work that you are being paid to perform, no? I just be you are being paid on a federal research grant to do lab work, and that is why you have so much time to waste. Tell us, Dusty, tell us true: are you being paid with federal tax dollars filtered thru a research grant? Did you indeed apply for medical school once upon a time, and get your ugle buttt rejected. Just curious….
By Joe D
January 29, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
I recognize the problem with earmarks, and have for some time. I have sent emails to my congressman, Tom Price, about this problem. I think I am just trying to point out Jim and Dusty’s hypocrisy in coming to the table now, when the Democrats control Congress, rather than seven or six or four years ago when the GOP had control. Having said that, I am going to base my vote on issues I deem, IMHO, to be more important, including immigration, Iraq, the war on terror and more pressing economic issues. Having lived through “Read my lips” and the current Democratic leadership’s promise to do away with earmarks, I don’t put much stock in campaign promises on this point.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Truthifier & jbm,
Yeah, that’s what I was afraid of: that it’s a Constitutional contest that will drag on forever, barring some grand magisterial move by the Supreme Court—-as likely as AGW.
This issue could fit well onto the front burners of several parties, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian. The Democrats, in particular, would do well to push sunshine and public process, not in the name of populism but rather of democracy itself. Unfortunately that party made a conscious decision, over more than two years, not to put the promotion of democratic process at the center of its agenda. My gut sez it’s too late to change now.
I still think that some true-believing conservative sh1t-disturbers need to gain office and show some radical approaches to making service delivery both more effective and more efficient and economical. Not one of these; all or nothing. Everyone would benefit from this. And it would seem, ex post facto, a real no-brainer, as though a glass ceiling lay shattered.
The easiest cure is congressional self-discipline, which again is as farfetched as the Governor Pixie Dust’s promise of last night that the congressional “majority” will “reduce Global Warming”.
Regardless of what one may think of him as a person, Gingrich would have enlightening things to say about congressional overspending, I should think.
By Lance
January 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Peter -
To continue our discussion from yesterday about SAT scores, would you please tell me which five of the top ten states, ranked by SAT score, voted for Kerry? Notice I said SIX OF THE TOP TEN voted for Bush. You claim that I didn’t know what I was talking about and that five of the top ten voted for Kerry. Would you like a chance to correct that error?
I also notice that you never commented on the fact that the original assertion made by TW, that the bottom ten states all voted for Bush, is indeed false. Be a man and admit to your mistakes as I did to mine. And indeed I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you made an HONEST mistake. I gave TW no such chance because he had posted that same information before, and was told he was wrong.
To make matters worse for your cause, not only did six of the top ten vote for Bush in 2004, but twenty out of the top twenty four states ranked by SAT scores voted for Bush. These twenty states accounted for almost half of his electoral votes.
I will admit that the two biggest electoral gains for Bush, Florida and Texas, ranked 47th and 48th - the bottom of the barrel. GA voted for Bush and was 49th, as did S.C., whish was 50th. See, I can be HONEST about the facts, even when they don’t support my side.
However, over half of Kerry’s electoral votes came from states ranked from 37th to 46th. California was his largest electoral gain and ranked 37th. Kerry’s total also includes the worst performer on the SAT - Washington D.C..
By Abomi Nation
January 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Cost of the Iraq War: 1 trillion dollars.
Cost of the Socialist Medicare Drug Plan: Billions and Billions
Cost of Republican Earmarks signed into law by Bush: Billions
Listening to the Rip Van Winkles on this blog blasting Democrat spending at the same time praising President Bush’s “War on Earmarks”?
Priceless.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Peter,
I for one don’t recall the President’s having said that teachers and students are to uphold the law, but is there some law in particular that you feel they should not uphold?
I don’t know what assumption you’re making when you refer to cutting education funding “more”. When was it ever reduced? Where? Who/whom?
By the way, Bush’s remarks on NCLB were, to my way of thinking, brain dead. His Pell Grants for Private Schools idea is DOA, though it is near to a promising approach. Better we should get flawed ideas for restructuring than no ideas except More! More! More!
“Caw! Caw! Caw!” went the NEA, from the beaks of Hillary and Huckabee.
By Craig
January 29, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
jbm says “conservatives were too stupid to recognize the problems arising from earmarks, but now realize the risk to the republic”
Hypothetically, of course.
Even you, Counselor, are not that dimwitted. You think that the Republicans, including your Dear Leader, all of a sudden came to Jesus in 2006, and it was just coincidence that the timing matched the Dem takeover of Congress?
Right….
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Abomoriginal,
Did you know that DNA research shows that the Aussie Abbos really were the aboriginal humans? Yep. All of us. (Sorry, Creationists, and you too, white racists.)
Um, I don’t see the earmark issue as descriptive of Dem spending per se, but of Congressional spending per se. Dem spending is a different and special pathology all its own. The issue is earmarks, a necessarily bipartisan phenomenon. As I’ve said, the people who here are trying to color the issue with partisanship simply are babes in the woods. I recommend that you ignore them. I will.
And I’ll salute anyone, from either party, who eschews it. Vivre la Senator Feingold!
See?
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Profit@1:11
Dear heart, you are such a busy body. The answer to ALL your questions is NO.(BS not BA)Now tell us about your line of work if you work. Any education?
Actually I have no interest in your statistics. You’re just another blogger with a chip on your shoulder. So what’s new?
Now tell us about your edicational “experience”. Your line of work?
By Ace Mulholland
January 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
I guess Bob and I should just be glad that Hill’s keeping her cool through all this crap with Bill’s Obameruptions. At least her husband finally screwed her.
By Peter
January 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Glen,
Than you missed it…… it was all during the same time he spoke about the grades being better than ever, the test scores better than ever…….of course he never mentioned how we truly lag behind the rest of the educated world in those scores!
He was implying his no kids left behind was working , and in his final thought he said both the teachers and students had to “UP HOLD THE LAW”.
It was basically a slip up….goof up….. common for the guy.
I really want Dusty to tell us what she does for a living that all day at work she blogs…..
What would her employer think ?
Also I want to hear how GREAT George is…… that ALL the current GOP candidates never use his name or policies in their speeches.
Why is that….any GOP supporter have the answer ?
By profit
January 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I have a BS in Industrial Engineering, a Masters of Science in Engineering, plus I completed all the course work for undergrad degree’s in chemistry and biology while earning the BSIE, so I have notations on my diploma indicating such. I long ago completed all the course work for a PhD in engineering, but I never had the time to do the necessary research, as I have been working full time since I was 22. I am retired now, so I now have the time, but I no longer have an interest in earning the terminal degree in engineering. Your turn….
By Dusty
January 29, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Dear Profit,2:19
Delightful resume but I’m not hiring. My husband has a degree in civil engineering. Maybe I should ask him.
Now where did you get your BB degree? Busy Body, that is.
I shall be leaving shortly. Have fun. I’ll do the same. Cheers!!
By profit
January 29, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Dusty, don’t let the server hit you on the way out….
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Dear Profit @ 1:11, since when will epithets pass as intellectual discourse? Physician, heal thyself. You clearly did not gain anything from your many degrees.
Dear Craig @ 1:52, do you share the conservative concern, or do you argue in bad faith, merely trying to justify “business as usual?”
By profit
January 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - unlike you wormtongued lawyers, we engineers tell the unvarnished truth…Being polite was never part of the equation….
By Disgusted
January 29, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Hey, Profit,
Haven’t you learned that Dusty went to Boston University, which US News & World Reports rates the 174th best four-year college in the country? And here she avoids your question with a “tee-hee” worthy of Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale.
By Jackie
January 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
News reports today indicates the depth of the problem with our troops in Iraq and their return home for medical treatment. Soldier HID HIS VOICE AND HIS IDENTITY to articulate the problems he and other troops were experiencing with health care at the military facilities. He indicated the military/VA counseled him not to seek medical treatment as “his injuries were not too severe.” He further stated that he wanted to leave the military and the y put a stop-loss on his DEROS(leaving the military). Second story indicates that Dubya has decided that he is making a long-term agreement with “our ally Iraq” to provide security and assistance against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It further states the USA plans to stay as long as it takes and does not regard cost as a mitigating factor. Injury added to insult, Dubya says that he does not require the approval of the Constitutional Congress to make these decisions as this is only an agreement, not a treaty. Constitution says the Congress has responsibility for approving such treaties with foreign governments. Dubya’s speech last night indicates that he will issue a signing statement to all government departments to ignore any part of spending bills that was not openly debated in Congress, i.e., earmarks. What happens when items have to go to Congressional conference to work out differences between the House and Senate? Where is the impeachment stick?
By profit
January 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Oh, BU, Ah’m just so a scared of her intellectual superiority…ah may have to go back to grammer school.
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Dear Profit @ 3:01, your degrees did not help your reading comprehension. I did not accuse you of lying, I accused you of irrelevance. You fling a string of epithets as if that is argument? A worthy post should always answer “why?,” just as this post by me answers why your argument was defective. Failure to answer “why” converts any argument to what PoFo correctly disparages as “myspace.”
By profit
January 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Quack lawyer: unlike lesser majors, engineers do not ask rhetorical questions.
By OneForTheRoad
January 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
How come all the neat “discussions” happen while I’m away. It’s a conspiracy. I’m being censored. The pain.
Did you hear about the study that shows that high levels of carbon dioxide desensitizes mammals. That’s right. The more fossil fuel we burn, the less we care.
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Dear profit @ 3:29, nor, seemingly, deal with relevance in life.
By OneForTheRoad
January 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw at 3:51,
Now you’re getting personal Bub.
profit at 3:29,
As one engineer to another, Can’t we all just get along.
By getalife
January 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Jim still thinks w follows laws or the Constitution
Come on Jim, it is beyond pathetic.
By profit
January 29, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Quack Lawyer: I read that there is a growing glut of lawyers, deeply impoverished lawyers who owe more than 100K for their law school debts, yet have no jobs or very low paying jobs. I also read that top New York law firms (you know, the ones that would not even look at your resume, let along give you an interview) are laying off lawyers in droves: not just any lawyers, but first tier law school grads; so I ask, how does a third tier law school grad like you, our quack lawyer, JMB by name, find the time and energy to surf the internet all day long, posing pseudo legal opinions? Surely you have clients paying you good money to be researching their cases, exploring all the options as it were. I come to the conclusion that you are either a do-nothing government lawyer stealing time from the taxpayers, or you are a failed lawyer being supported by a working wife, or you are a total fake just pretending to be a lawyer. So choose amoung the three options, and let us all know, sooner rather than later….
By GaVoter
January 29, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
My daughter asked to get her ears pierced. I said all right but it’ll leave earmarks when you aren’t wearing you’re earrings. She said that was OK. She said she never wanted to be seen with earmarks again. I looked at her with a big grin and said “That’s my little conservative”.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
jbm,
It’s a pity these good bloggers can’t recognize how extensive and erudite is your jurisprudential mastery. Reminds me of Sibelius telling the President how he needs to wake up and obey her commands to “get to work” on her hare-brained list of errands. Who asked her? The DNC did. What makes these fools think they are competent to second-guess your Constitutional construction? Kos and CNN and MSNBC and Radio Free Radicals.
Garbage in, garbage out, my friend.
Peter,
I didn’t miss his school stuff, as you might have noted from my summary. I just missed the phrase about upholding the law. Again, what law do you think should not be upheld?
And he didn’t merely imply that NCLB is working; he exclaimed that it is. His sole evidence, the test scores you mention. To a scientist, by the way, no evidence at all (of anything other than a student’s skill at test-taking).
The national exams to which he referred, which comprise the National Assessment of Educational Progress* (NAEP), are not comparable to those of other nations. UNESCO tries to run a rough equivalency, but it’s total BS, and UNESCO is made up exclusively of tendentious neo-Marxists with something like Hugo’s axe to grind. (I adore a couple of their psychometrists, but still they’re adorable Pinko’s who despise the U.S. in a smiley kind of way.)
The whole thing boils down to a kind of postmod phrenology—-or else to something involving feathers and chicken blood—-that serves only the administrators and politicians who feed off a system that in turn eats children and belches pay raises for NEA members. I don’t know who it was who hoodwinked Clinton on this hoodoo back in his DLC days, but I do know (only too well) who was hoodwinking Governor Bush: Sonya Hernandez, his former Commissioner of Education. The Ed biz is hugger-mugger with people like Sonya, each of them doing the Devil’s work all the way to the bank, and to privileged feedings of accolades from their lieges. Most of them believe their own mumbo-jumbo. They’re like Creation Scientists that way.
Bush is One of THEM. Coming to a drive-in near you. Wooten is another, unawares.
By @@
January 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
Now there’s a good reason not to vote for any of the Democrats’ presidential candidates—THEY’RE ALL LAWYERS.
Sorry jbmlaw.
Feel free to call mine an a*******toot observation.
By profit
January 29, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
jmb cannot respond, he is commuting from his government job to his home in his 1997 Ford crown victoria. Its all he can afford on a GS-12 salary.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
Jackie,
The more I thought about and discussed with others my discussions with you these past few months and some ideas for improving bets services, the more it seemed to my friends and advisors that it would be best to work back through the DD 214, figuratively speaking, to active duty personnel before, or at least while, problems, including casualty-related problems, are developing that will plague the veteran in later civilian life.
To the extent that some or most of the problems can be conceived as falling under the rubric of medical issues (including psychological distress and injury), it’s actually a fairly straightforward trajectory for DoD.
That’s because, as you know, some of the good things to come out of this ugly Iraq campaign are significant advances in telemedicine and even in telemedical field surgery. So it’s not at all farfetched for, say, the Army Research Board to gin up on a short timeline a demonstration of a wider array of services provided to serving personnel (esp. in theatre) as either early intervention or even prophylactic services. These of course could be combined with medical units and chaplaincies on the ground. So, virtual + actual, before the VA even gets its fingers on anyone.
Does that seem like a good bet to knock down the number of vets in need, and thus to keep them out of the hands of the quacks?
P.S. Hey, the Prez announced last night that he wants to take one of my old pieces national: transferability and portability of benefits for surviving spouses and children, and thence to the families of living vets. I thought the feds had succeeded in implementing that more than seven years ago, after we did it, but it turns out I was mistaken. Evidently Congress got sticker shock.)
By profit
January 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Glenn, I am not a lawyer, but I do slap lawyers around a lot: GI education benefits must be used within ten years of seperation from service, or they are lost forever. That should cut down greatly on the sticker shock for our little piggies in Congress…..
By GaVoter
January 29, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
The house has approved the stimulus plan. Now we need to add on the senate layers and shoot this sucker over to the white house. Just look for the bill entitled No Pork Left Behind. Let me just take this moment to congratulate our hardly working politicians: We’ll be forever indebted — thanks to you. Now get on out there and campaign on us.
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
profit,
That’s true, although several states extend their contributions (of various value) beyond the ten years. I gathered that POnTUS was referring primarily to healthcare, which of course is not subject to the sunset. For orphans, neither are the core benefits transferable after the death or remarriage of the surviving parent, the vet’s spouse. This, too, needs another look, and it may be that the Administration’s proposal encompasses a review of this aspect. I’ll make a point of finding out.
Incidentally, for some reason I had you tentatively pegged as biomedical (and I hope you’re at least making good money off of investments in same). I doubt that Dusty realizes that your undergrad work is equivalent of what would have been for her Masters-level work, and that in your field your Masters constitutes a specialized professional license, irrespective of your doctoral work.
I’ve noticed that engineers more often than others are not especially interested in completion of terminal degrees. “Close enough for all practical purposes”, as goes the old joke about the mathematician, the co-ed and the engineer.
As you’ve probably gathered I want to see immediately currently available, cutting-edge technology used to do an end-run on current service delivery in vets services and in secondary ed. Tom Ridge, of all people, as Governor was, with the Pennsylvania Democrats, on his way to achieving the second objective. Then, 9/11, and the call from his prayerful friend in the White House. John Edwards looked at it for awhile four years ago, but dropped it.
Feels like the one that got away.
By Jackie
January 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this
@Glenn,
I concur with your conclusions. ANYTHING that can be done to offer help to those folks on active duty is needed immediately. The big item they are worried about is the PTSD and the number of recognized troops with the problem. They are aware their estimate is quite low. If you remember a few years back, their were a handful of military wives killed by their returning husbands. They worked very hard to keep this information from the public because the repeated deployments caused/is causing major stress. What could be worse for the public than to have a trained infantry soldier that thinks he is in a hot LZ and is determined not to be captured?
By Jackie
January 29, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
The AJC reported today bankruptcies rose by 24% in GA in 2007. The state has a budget deficit of more than $4 billion dollars and the city of Atlanta is under a federal mandate to upgrade their sewer/water system. Dubya states that he was able to stop drinking and is not an alcoholic or drug addict. I was under the impression that once addicted to any foreign substance, always addicted?
By Glenn
January 29, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the feedback, Jackie. And I know this sounds over-the-top cocksure and arrogant, but I’ve been working with some guys out of Harvard Med and MIT (one of their countless consortia) who are convinced that PTSD is the easiest combat pathology of all to treat, PROVIDED it can be got to directly enough and quickly enough.
The other cool thing is that we don’t even have to—-though we conceivably could—-tap into ARPA’s declassification pipeline to get the tech that would enable us to do it, vividly, instantly, effectively, harmlessly, lastingly. Two of the people are super-experienced in PTSD, one of them even with former POW’s and political prisoners with horrid PTSD. (I have no special expertise other than to know which trees to shake & how.)
What you’re saying makes one heck of a lot of sense. I’m going to go for it, from this end. Will keep you posted.
By jbmlaw
January 29, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this
Dear @@ @ 4:54, and all plaintiff’s attorneys - tort bar types. Not at all like us decent ones. No offense taken, you are talking about a different breed.
Dear Glenn @ 4:40, thanks for the kind words. Ye shall know them by their acts.
Dear profit @ 4:10, your deep interest in my personal life would be unsettling if I did not realize it was merely to conceal the total irrelevance of your posts on this board. To ease your mind, my law school debts were all paid within 18 months of graduation, and I am a corporate attorney. I am embarrassed to admit that I do not drive myself home - I am a truly dangerous driver, and if I had any conscience I would renounce the activity - but I have a great security guy who has been with me at my last two corporate jobs, who delivers me from traffic daily. Enough about me. We’ll give you a second chance to post relevantly tomorrow.
By OneForTheRoad
January 29, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this
I thought the cost analysis for the Atlanta water/sewer system showed that it was more cost effective to pay the fines to the Fed rather than attempt an upgrade. Just plug them leaks as they pop up — or undermine — as the case may be. Watch out for those saggy parking lots, etc. Weren’t some places starting to use the geotextiles to help prevent some of those types of catastrophic failures. Give those poor souls a chance to run for it. I’m glad I don’t work, live, play in Atlanta.