Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

On Friday, President Obama signed a new war spending bill into law, but "not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation," the Hill reports.

 

Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.

 

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.

 

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

 

 

The full text of Obama's statement is below, and available on the White House website here.

 

* * * * *

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009." This Act provides the necessary resources for our troops while supporting ongoing diplomatic and development efforts around the world.

 

We face a security situation abroad that demands urgent attention. The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda is increasing its attacks from its safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The funding provided in this Act will ensure that the full force of the United States is engaged in an overall effort to defeat al Qaeda and uproot this safe haven.

 

At the same time, funding contained in this Act will provide resources to help create political and economic stability in post-conflict areas. These funds will assist Afghans and Iraqis in protecting and sustaining their infrastructure and building their capacity for more responsive and transparent governance. The Act also provides critical support for continued U.S. diplomatic and development activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

 

In addition, this Act includes funding for other domestic and international issues, including nearly $8 billion to enhance our Nation's capability to respond to the potential spread of the H1N1 flu outbreak. It also expands the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by allowing it to boost its lending ability. Many developing countries are experiencing severe economic decline and a massive withdrawal of capital, and the IMF needs to make sure it has the resources necessary to effectively respond to the current financial crisis.

 

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

 

 

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.

 

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

 

Remember candidate Obama?

 

"t is a clear abuse of power to use such [Presidential signing] statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

 

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

 

- Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007 (Boston Globe)

 

 

 

Plus, bet you didn't know about this tidbit over the Climate Bill either:

 

Objecting to the fact that 300 pages were added to the bill at 3 a.m., Minority leader John Boehner attempted a brief filibuster, giving time for colleagues and aides to scan the unread extra passages and present certain excerpts on the floor.

 

What the hell happened to Obama's promise to publish online bills 5 days before they came up for a vote?

 

This. Administration. Stinks. To. High. Heaven.

 

Suddenly, Obama is morphing into bush and it makes me absolutely furious, ignoring laws and procedure, except when he doesn't.

 

"Transparency/Change/Ad Nauseam" my @ss!

  • Author

From the Miami Herald....typically a left-leaning paper even realizes how bad the climate bill is as well!

 

 

CBO: Climate bill costs to be modest.

Related Content

Congressional Budget Office

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

 

WASHINGTON -- A nonpartisan congressional study projects only modest household cost increases as a result of a Democratic proposal to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contradicting claims by many Republican lawmakers that the climate legislation amounts to a huge energy tax on average Americans.

 

The Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the proposed limits on greenhouse gases required by the House bill would produce a net additional cost to the economy of $22 billion a year by 2020, or an average cost per household of $175 after various cost-saving measures included in the bill are taken into account.

 

The poorest households actually would save $40 a year while those in the highest income category would face a net increase of $245 a year, the report estimates.

 

The findings contrast sharply with cost projections - some as high as $3,100 per household - use by many Republicans including House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio who repeatedly has blasted the Democrat's climate legislation as economically devastating to average Americans.

 

"This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and affordable," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the climate bill's chief sponsors, said Monday.

 

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also a leading co-sponsor, compared the cost to "a postage stamp a day" and not the economic catastrophe suggested by the bill's opponents.

 

The CBO study was released as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., struggled to get broader support for the bill from farm-state Democrats, who have been trying to get changes in the legislation to ease the cost burden on farmers and people in rural areas of the country who under the bill may face higher electricity costs than those in urban centers.

 

These essential compromises have yet to be worked out, leaving in doubt Pelosi's goal to bring the climate legislation up for a vote by week's end before lawmakers depart for the July 4 holiday recess.

 

The bill, covering nearly 1,000 pages, calls for a 17 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels, and an 83 percent reduction by mid-century. Carbon dioxide, produced from burning fossil fuels, especially coal, is the leading manmade greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

 

The reductions would be made by capping emissions on key polluting sources - coal burning power plants, refineries, factories and from motor vehicles, forcing a shift to cleaner energy and more conservation. The polluters would be provided emission permits with the cap declining each year. Some 85 percent of the permits would be given away, especially to energy intensive sectors of the economy. But others would be sold by the government and proceeds used to help people meet higher energy costs.

 

The CBO study focuses on costs that would occur in 2020 when the economy would be expected to have adjusted to the change imposed by putting a price on carbon pollution.

 

Republicans, responding to the study, said the report acknowledges that people will face higher energy costs.

 

"This analysis shows average American household would pay $770 more per year with costs reaching as high as $1,380 per year," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee who had requested the report. He referred in a statement to "gross" cost figures in the report that do not take into account what the CBO analysis said the bill provides for cost savings and offsets.

 

Camp's spokesman, Sage Eastman, said the report also "ignores the transitional costs, the negative impact of jobs and earnings during the transitional period" before 2020.

 

The CBO study said the aggregate most of the costs of the cap on greenhouse gases "would be offset by income and other benefits provided to households" under the bill.

 

The overall annual cost of compliance with the emissions reductions before any offsets, credits or rebates was projected by CBO to be $110 billion in 2020, or about $890 per household. But the report said $85 billion "would flow back to U.S. households in the form of direct relief and indirectly through allocations to businesses and governments" with an additional net benefit of $2.7 billion as a result of other provisions.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...