Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (10336)	7/25/2006 1:09:25 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

it would be hard to make this stuff up, lol gw is rewarded on a daily basis for endorsing specter in the primary, lol Sen. Specter Readies Bill to Sue Bush - By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006 Click to View (07-25) 04:19 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action. Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds. "That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers." Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined. Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws. But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security. Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law. "A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'" Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees. Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (10336)	7/25/2006 4:04:26 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You have covered both sides of the problem. The essential problems facing the US economy is the excessive taxation and the excessive spending at all levels of government. Elimination of capital gains taxes, and eliminating all other forms of double taxation address the tax side of the problem. (Dividends and Death taxes as well as SS and MCare are examples of double taxation.) The spending side of the problem is equally vexing. I am even willing to consider something radical like allocating each Congress Person a percentage of the budget, and they can spend it on anything they want, but for instance (1/438) / 2 is all they can spend on anything. Today Rush Limbaugh made a dismissive comment about people who recognize the risk of America's economy falling from prominence. I wanted to call and ask him how much over his unrestrained income his spending was. Bankruptcy of the nation is a possibility.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (10336)	8/3/2006 12:56:11 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Will Senate liberals kill another estate-tax compromise? Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT This week the Senate will vote on a political compromise that combines an increase in the minimum wage with a cut in the federal death tax. The bill needs 60 votes to defeat a liberal filibuster, and nearly all of the 55 Republicans are in favor. So we are about to find out if Senate Democrats are more interested in achieving the policy goals they claim to want, or merely in blow-everything-up obstruction. The same bill passed the House last week by 230 to 180, with 34 Democrats in favor. But in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid professes to be outraged that the GOP would wrap these two issues together, and he's leaning hard on Democrats to vote no. This is the same Harry Reid who complains that the GOP never compromises, and the same Democrats who've been demanding a vote to raise the minimum wage. We'll concede that this Senate sausage is far from ideal. The increase in the minimum wage--to $7.25 from $5.15 over three years--will cost many of the young and unskilled their jobs. Young black men who lack a high school diploma will be hit especially hard. But frightened GOP "moderates" in the House were already going to surrender on the minimum wage, so at least this package bids to get something good for the economy in return. The sausage also contains far too many special-interest tax and other breaks--notably a tax rate reduction on certain timber sales, and a provision for mine cleanup and miner health care. But most of these freebies are designed specifically to attract Democratic Senators to finally vote yes. The mining free lunch is for Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and the timber giveaway is for Washington liberal Maria Cantwell. If Democrats had kept their previous campaign pledges, none of these additional bribes would be necessary. At least a dozen Democrats have campaigned in the past for reform or repeal of the estate tax, including New York's Hillary Rodham Clinton. But somehow when it comes time to be counted, they always find an excuse to vote no. Earlier this year, all but four Democrats voted to defeat repeal, saying they preferred a more modest cut. But when a compromise was offered to a top rate of 30% from today's 46%, they opposed that too. Now that the GOP has compromised one more time, Democrats are again saying no even if it means killing their allegedly prized goal of raising the minimum wage. The latest compromise is already more than we'd prefer to see. The estate tax would survive, rather than dying for good, meaning that death would continue to be a taxable event. Income already taxed once or twice would be taxed again merely because of the inevitable accident of death. While the top death tax rate would fall to 30% by 2016, if you die in the interim you'd pay as much as 40% if your estate is worth more than $25 million because the cut is phased in. The death-tax-evasion industry--lawyers and insurance companies--will also live on. On the plus side, estates under $10 million would be exempt from tax beginning in 2016. And estates between $10 million and $25 million would pay a 15% rate. This would help a great many middle-class savers and entrepreneurs who've managed to sock away a nest egg or build a small business over their lifetimes. It would also spare many family businesses from dissolution because heirs must now literally sell the farm to pay the tax. Opponents claim that only "the rich" pay the estate tax, but many of those people are "rich" only on the occasion of their Earthly demise. These lower rates and higher exemption amounts would also be indexed for inflation under the Senate bill, so the death tax wouldn't creep back to snare the middle class as it did before. Another good provision would repeal the federal deduction for state death taxes, which would put pressure on the liberal states to repeal theirs or lose residents to Florida and other states without one. Federal law shouldn't subsidize punitive state tax policy. Among the Democrats who should see the wisdom of all this is Hawaii's Daniel Akaka, who faces a tough primary against Democrat Ed Case, who favors estate-tax reform. Soaring land prices on Oahu, as in parts of California and New York, have turned many middle-income Hawaiians into death-tax millionaires. These voters understandably feel that it is unjust and immoral to have to sell their homes or businesses to pay a death tax merely because of where they happen to live. If Mr. Akaka dances to Harry Reid's tune and votes no, he will deserve to lose his seat. All in all, the Senate proposal would help about 90% of the family-owned businesses in America that would otherwise get clobbered by the IRS upon the death of a loved one. As Senator Clinton put it when she was running in 2000, "you ought to be able to leave your land and the bulk of your fortunes to your children and not the government." We'll soon see if she and other Democrats meant it. opinionjournal.com