Bush threatens veto

President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that blocks the deal with Dubai Ports World to take control of operations of six sea ports on the East Coast.

Who else thinks Congress ought to do it just to see if he can actually find his pen?

After all, it has been 5 years and he hasn't yet.

Party On!

Who's spending big now? The 'party of small government' Tue Feb 21, 7:19 AM ET

Say you're in a financial hole. You're spending more money than you're taking in - $4,000 this year alone. After much effort, you figure out ways to save $400 in the next five years. Would you then turn around, spend double that amount and put yourself deeper in debt?

Probably not - unless, that is, you were a member of Congress running for re-election this year and you get to spend other people's money. Add eight zeros to the numbers in the example above, and you'll get an idea of the shell game going on in Washington.

The federal budget deficit will be in the range of $400 billion this year. That means roughly $1 in every $6 spent by the government will be borrowed money. So a few weeks ago, with great self-congratulatory fanfare, Congress passed and the president signed what was billed as a $40 billion, five-year deficit reduction. Now Congress is weighing tax-cut packages that would wipe out those projected savings almost twice over.

The House of Representatives already has passed a five-year, $70 billion package of goodies that focuses on extending reduced rates for those taxpayers who have dividend and capital-gain income. The Senate pushed through a similarly unaffordable plan. President Bush is seeking to make permanent all of his 2001 tax cuts, some of which are set to expire.

In truth, Uncle Sam doesn't have the money to do any of this...Full text

Following the logic of the example at the beginning of this article you would then be $19,600 in debt after five years assuming that your income neither increases nor decreases.

Regardless, of your opinions about where government money should be spent and how much the point of this is that you either spend borrowed money like a drunken sailor or you don't. You can't claim to be the party of small government and fiscal conservancy and spend money like this.

I think it is time we bring back some good old fashioned gridlock to Washington. Bill Clinton gets a lot of credit for running a balanced budget during his tenure. But some of that credit goes to the fact that he had a Republican Congress for the last 6 years. Everyone was forced to make choices. We don't need a Constitutionally questionable line item veto to balance the budget. We need Congress and the President to actually not be so in love with one another that everything is rubbered stamped and damn the cost.

People think that gridlock in Washington is bad. They are wrong. Red tape is bad. But gridlock is not red tape. Gridlock means the next President might not have to raise taxes.

Sen. Mike DeWine, said what?

I found this over at Think Progress.

The White House stated today that it is backing a legislative proposal by Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine to exclude Bush’s NSA wiretapping program from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ThinkProgress has previously reported why the proposal is a bad idea. Tonight, on Fox News, DeWine himself explained his motivations behind the proposal:

"You know, there’s been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal. I think we need to get beyond that. And the vast majority of American people believe these calls need to be listened to. But we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional. So I think we need to put that beyond us." Full post

Further reading.

Excuse me Senator but this is exactly the kind of thing we should be having a National debate about. That means Congress, the President, the Supreme Court and the American people. And to think, I would have had an opportunity to support a candidate who had a chance of defeating DeWine in Ohio - until this week.

How come we got treated to semen stains on Monica's dress for 3 months but we can't have a debate about the constitutionality of a government spy agency violating its charter by order of the President who was possibly abusing powers that possibly shouldn't have been granted to him in the first place? Oh, right. Semen is better television.

House GOP Won't Revisit Flawed Budget Bill

WASHINGTON - A clerk's mistake could mean a budget bill
President Bush signed isn't technically law, but congressional Republicans said again Wednesday they have no plans to try to fix the problem.

Even though Alabama attorney Jim Zeigler has filed a lawsuit charging the $39 billion deficit-cutting legislation Bush signed is unconstitutional because the House and Senate failed to pass identical versions, House GOP leaders insist there's no problem.

"I believe that it's law," said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Not so, says Zeigler, a Republican activist.

"An eighth-grader in civics class knows that a bill cannot become law unless the identical bill passes the House and Senate and is signed by the president," Zeigler said.

Okay as usual these days the guys in Congress are having a little bit of trouble reading the Constitution. Just because you meant to pass the same bill doesn't mean you did.

If the Supreme Court even has to hear this one as it should not get out of the Federal Court in Mobile, AL(read the article) everyone should be beyond upset. You know, because Congress is actually considering violating the Constitution. Maybe when they figure this out they can go back and fix their other violation. The one that granted President Bush wartime powers but Congress never declared war.

May the people who did this

be eviscerated in print and talk radio.

Paul Hackett is ending his candidacy for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

Apparently, behind the scenes players in his own party, the Democrats, hounded him to drop out. May those that did this rot. It would have been nice if they would have actually let the primary process start.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

More opinion: Paul Rieckhoff, Gary Hart

Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information - National Journal

Hey, yeah, I'm still alive, and yes, I actually post to blogs once in a blue moon.

All kidding aside, this sounds like it's pretty damning. Is Dick Cheney the new Spiro Agnew?

National Journal - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been 'authorized' by Cheney and other White House 'superiors' in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

Heeeerrre's Tommy!

Yes, folks he is back! Although he has a court date pending with regard to corruption charges for his PAC in Texas and he still could get in some more hot water depending on what Jack Abramoff says when he spills the beans(pun intended), the House Republicans have given Tom DeLay a seat on the House Appropriations Committee. In addition, he scored a seat on the House Justice sub-committee. Yes, the committee that helps oversee the Justice Department. The one that is investigating Jack Abramoff.

DeLay Lands Coveted Appropriations Spot
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.Full tex

In an odd twist, DeLay is taking the spot of fellow Republican Randy Cunningham of California. Mr. Cunningham resigned from his seat because he is currently awaiting sentencing for bribery and tax evasion.

The Primaries are coming! The Primaries are coming!

Sorry, not trying to scare you.  Those primaries are still 2 years away.  Which means people will start throwing their hats in next year.  In the meantime...

There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives up for election in 2006.  Is your district one of them?

Don't know which district you live in?  Well, you can try here or looking on your voter registration card may help.

Maybe among these we can find 5 or 6 that are worthy of endorsement.

If you find someone that is worthy of us taking a look at please email us.

Senators Question Gonzales on NSA Wiretaps

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Senators raised doubts about the legal rationale for the Bush administration's eavesdropping program Monday, forcing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to provide a lengthy defense of the operations he called a vital "early warning system" for terrorists.

A handful of Republicans joined Democrats in raising questions about whether
President Bush went too far in ordering the National Security Agency's monitoring operations. The senators were particularly troubled by the administration's argument that a September 2001 congressional resolution approving use of military force covered the surveillance of some domestic communications.

"The president does not have a blank check,(emphasis mine)" said Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who wants the administration to ask the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the program.

"You think you're right, but there are a lot of people who think you're wrong," Specter told Gonzales. "What do you have to lose if you're right?"

Well, Senator if you think the administrative branch of government might be abusing its powers, do something about it. For starters you can renig the "war time" like powers Congress illegally gave him in the first place.

I am calling upon Congress to stop playing around in committee and take back some of their Constitutional resposponsibility. However, this is an election year. No way, it happens.

Um, It's Unconstitutional Too

This isn't really a post-mortem on the SOTU from last night. This is more a point of order from last night's speech. Which I didn't watch. I know how irresponsible of me. But I can hardly listen to the President for 5 minutes let alone listen to him butcher the English language for nearly 2 hours.

Then there's the spending issue.

The president said, "I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform," a comment which caused Sen. John McCain to clap and bounce his head like Goofy on crack. "And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.

No, Mr. President. We can tackle this problem if you would just use the veto power you ALREADY possess. You have yet to veto a single spending bill, including that earmark-loaded Porkapalooza highway bill last summer. You didn't need a line-item veto to erase the Bridge to Nowhere. All you needed was a Bic pen. You could have borrowed mine.More from Human Events

First I will tackle the quote. Mr. President, The United States Supreme Court already declared the line item veto to be unconsitutional. Bill Clinton had use of the line item veto from 1997 - 98 until the Justices got a chance to rule. The majority, 6 - 3, opinion stated: "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes". In other words, if Congress passes a law or bill you, Mr. President, have to sign all of it or veto it.

Which leads us to the second point in the article snippet above, from a self-proclaimed Conservative publication by the way, President George W. Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill in 5 years. Mr. President I appreciate the fact that you don't, or at last say you don't, want bills loaded up with pork for special interests - like bridges to islands in Alaska that have 50 people living on them - so do your job. Veto the bill. Make Congress rewrite it without the pork.

I know lots of people who wish they could only pay taxes or have their federal income taxes used for certain things - mine would go to arts, education, roads and job training - however that is not the way the laws are written. We pay taxes. Congress decides how to spend them.

So, Mr. President here is The Constitution of The United States of America which you have sworn to uphold. Read it. Love it. Careful though, there might be some stuff in there about wiretapping that you might not like.