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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (465982)	3/24/2009 10:46:12 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1575984

Obama breaks own signing rules Critics called mistaken on statements S.A. Miller and Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES Tuesday, March 24, 2009 President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law — breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them — and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst. In at least one case, lawmakers charge, Mr. Obama used his first signing statement, on the catch-all $410 billion spending bill, to go beyond the Bush and Clinton administrations in swatting away Congress' attempt to protect whistleblowers. "Not only is your signing statement contrary to your campaign statements, it also goes beyond the traditional broad signing statements authored by previous presidents," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a leader in pushing for whistleblower protections, who wrote a letter saying Mr. Obama goes after those who divulge classified information to Congress. White House spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged the administration didn't follow its rules this time on working with Congress, but disputed Mr. Grassley's stance, saying the administration is committed to whistleblower protections but the spending bill "goes too far." Mr. Burton said under the spending bill's language, administration officials who talk about classified or national security material or issues covered by executive privilege would be protected. He said the White House's more limited interpretation is consistent with how former President Bill Clinton construed whistleblower protections, and pointed to a signing statement Mr. Clinton issued Sept. 29, 1999, as evidence. "The president's signing statement does not purport to control or limit legitimate whistleblowing activities. Nor is it intended to break new ground on this issue," Mr. Burton said. Signing statements date back to the 1800s, but became a heated issue when critics accused former President George W. Bush of using them to carve out parts of laws he would ignore on policy grounds, rather than simply lay out separation-of-powers conflicts between the executive and legislature. President Obama On March 9, Mr. Obama issued new rules designed to cut down on statements. He promised to work with Congress in advance to work out objections and decrease the need for a signing statement, said he would be specific in his objections when he does issue a statement, and would "act with caution and restraint." Two days later, on March 11, Mr. Obama issued his first statement, listing objections to at least 10 provisions and citing five constitutional grounds. The objections ranged from very specific to fairly broad, including interfering with the chief executive's right to negotiate on foreign affairs; misconstruing the military chain of command by forcing him to get sign-off from military commanders for certain U.N. peacekeeping missions; and making some executive decisions subject to pre-approval by congressional committees or advisory boards with congressional members. Mr. Obama said that violated separation of powers. washingtontimes.com

To: bentway who wrote (465982)	3/24/2009 10:53:20 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575984

TAX TROUBLES ”Oh-oh, looks like more tax troubles for another Democrat in Washington,” Andrew Malcolm writes in a blog at latimes.com. ”California's Rep. Pete Stark, a senior House Democrat who helps write the nation's tax laws, has been claiming a $1.7 million Maryland home as his principal residence in recent years, although he represents the Golden State's 13th District on the east side of San Francisco Bay,” Mr. Malcolm said. ”The 77-year-old Stark has saved himself nearly $3,900 in state and county taxes by claiming the six-acre waterfront estate as his principal residence, according to an investigation by Bloomberg News. “Maryland law allows the tax break only to those residences used 'for the legal purposes of voting, obtaining a driver's license, and filing income-tax returns.' “Notified of the discovery, a state official said an investigation would be launched. “Stark tells Bloomberg, 'Insofar as I know, I'm obeying the law.' ”Now in his 19th congressional term, the liberal Democrat and one of several Californians in House leadership under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, confirmed that he and his wife Deborah are indeed not registered to vote in Maryland. “He said they use her parents' address in San Lorenzo to maintain their California voting eligibility. ”Stark would save another $3,770 under the same claim this year. He is the second-ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Members of Congress recently allowed their $4,700 pay raises for 2009 to take effect, a total spending increase of $2.5 million a year. They now each earn $174,000 annually. ”Although much recent congressional attention has focused on corporate bonuses in New York, taxes seem to be the problem de la saison for Washington Democrats this winter.” and Wexler has the same problem