Three steps back, two steps forward
 

Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to appropriate money ("earmark" is a term of art meaning something a little more specific), and that it would be a radical change from the way that power has always been understood to say that once Congress decides that some sum of money is going to be spent, the President gets to decide on what.

Three steps back, two steps forward
 

I think Nixon tried this and was told by the Supreme Court to spend the money as Congress told him.

Three steps back, two steps forward
 

Research reveals lower court.

But this is a different question. That related to actual legislation appropriating, say, $100m for an agency to spend. Nixon wanted to spend only $96m.

My quesiton is different. The transportation bill says spend $42 billion. The leg. history says we think that $3b (or something) should be spent on the following specific roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.. But nothing in the bill says that. Those are the earmarks. What if the president said okay I'll spend that $3b but how I see fit?

Earmarks are perniciious for two reasons, one is that they increase spending. Second is that they direct spending to less valuable projects (because if they were the most valuable there would be no need for an earmark). My question solves only the second pat of the problem, although in the long run perhaps the first as well. (Imagine Bush said "this is the course of action I will take").

Port (not wine) Issue
 

So what's the consensus on this one? This sounds like Bush fucked up majorly by immediately threatening the veto. Sounds like there are enough votes to override and now he's going to look stupid once again.

I don't know who has been advising him the last few years, but whomever it is should tarred and feathered. They also need to bring back Ari - McClellon doesn't make matters any better.

Three steps back, two steps forward
 

Why aren't earmarks in the bill?

Three steps back, two steps forward
 

to make them less visible, presumably. And because it allows passage of a bill while the conferees hammer out the legislative history that directs the spending.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I tend to agree with Bush on the substance. If you're OK with ports being run by private companies, and you're OK with the private companies being foreign, then by the time you start complaining about Arabian companies running ports, I'm sorry, but that ship has sailed.

That said, it's delightful to see all these conservatives who were falling all over themselves last week explaining how Bush can wiretap people people regardless of the laws Congress passed this week explaining that they're going to pass a law because they don't like a national-security decision that the President made.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I think the issue here is that it really isn't a private company, but rather, is state owned.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

The concern is with creeping socialism?

eta: This sounds right to me.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

The concern is that it is owned by Dubai, which has a questionable record on terrorism, and that it will be handling ports, which is one of the US's greatest areas of vulnerability.*

Also, I believe that the law requires a heightened level of scrutiny and investigation because this is a state-owned or controlled company. Shockingly, Bush has decided that he doesn't need to comply with that law.

Bush has been consistently willing to sacrifice individual rights in the Eternal War on Terror. But not so willing to do anything that will affect business interests. Anyone know how much CSX donated to the Bush campaign?



*Bush has been too busy conducting wiretaps and keeping prisoners in Guantanamo to do anything about things like port security. Priorities, priorities.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I quote from Dan Drezner (see the link I added to the post you responded to after you started writing your response):

• [A]ll the facts were reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) earlier in the month. People aren't upset that there's been a review -- they're upset because there's been a review and the outcome is one they disagree with on a gut level....

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I quote from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Under that review, officials from the departments of Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problem that would warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final determination.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the connection to the UAE, but they could not say why the 45-day formal investigation did not take place.



eta: I saw the link but he doesn't discuss the relevant statute. Not that I can say offhand what it is.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

As a matter of procedure, you appear to have caught something that Drezner missed. As a matter of substance, if people from Defense, State, Commerce (whatever), Transportation, and other agencies looked at this and were satisfied, then what's the problem?

Port (not wine) Issue
 

Don't let me rain on the SF Chronicle's most assuredly unbiased reporting, but isn't the company securing the ports British? I thought Dubai was just buying the British company which secures the ports. Am I wrong? And if I'm not, why would we have an isssue with what a Britich subsidiary of a Dubai company does here? Have you researched how many buildings and businesses the Saudis own here? The Saudis own a huge cunk of Citigroup.

Now, if you can point to one piece of evidence showing me where a citizen of Dubai will be hands-on actively involved in securing our ports, I echo your concerns. But surely, as astute legal counsel, all of you pointing fingers about this Dubai Port Scandal realize that companies buy other companies all the time, with absolutely no intention of being intimately involved in the running of the purchased company's hard operations. But you knew that already. So I'm sure you've done your homework to ensure that this deal would involve Dubai citizens watching our ports before spouting off about the issue.

Carry on.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

You are correct. However, the British government did not own the company; the UAE does own (or control) the acquiring company.

It seems like Bush, surprisingly, is the lone non-xenophobe (hi Sebby!) in the debate .

Port (not wine) Issue
 

So? Whats the relevance of that distinction? Would you be more comfortable with a private Dubai contractor buying that British firm?

If anything, that the purchasing entity is state controlled augurs in favor of Bush's position.

But don't let me stop a good scandal. Carry on, by all means. And cite some bloggers for support. I'm really interested to hear what Kos has to say about it.

ETA: I will give you this... This GOP and Dem hand wringing over a non-issue shows the parties can unite when it comes to making asses of themselves.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I have a hard time seeing a distinction that matters, but I suppose the thinking is that with more direct government control, they could directly infiltrate the company with their supposed terrorist program and implement it in US ports, whereas a privately held company would resist those efforts. Considering how compliant (or complicit) the telcos have been in assisting NSA's unlawful domestic surveillance program, I'm not sure it matters a whit whether a company is government owned.

ETA: And if anyone things a privately owned company will impose adequate security to the point that government oversight and security is obviated, well, go ahead and let the airlines run security like they did pre-9/11.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I don't know that is, but "thinking" is not the noun I'd choose.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Is this inconsistency akin to the liberals being against the port deal on the basis of "racial profiling"?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

No.

eta:

But thanks for asking.

And if it is, I don't really care about whether liberals (?) are being hypocritical here -- I care much more about the separation of powers and whether previously supine Republicans in the House and Senate are going to let Bush get away with announcing that he can violate the law if he asserts a national-security angle.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

2

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

No, of course not.

Hypocrite.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I'll "admit" that liberals are hypocritically exploiting an issue with a national-security angle to beat up on an unpopular president in an election year, and I gather you admit that the Republicans who were backing the president on the wiretapping thing were selling out the Constitution.

I'm not sure why it's an "admission" coming from me, since I was the first person on this board to back the President, but whatever.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

Because maybe a 45-day investigation might reveal some information that they didn't have when they decided they were satisfied? It's not a procedural waiting period -- it's a substantive investigation.

And also because I trust the executive branch of the federal gov't a little less than you do these days, particularly when they ignore "procedure" and then claim it's not really that important.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

And Apple, too. Yet I'm less worried about finding bombs in my iPod or my credit card statement than about finding them in one of the zillion containers coming into the ports of NYC.

This leaves aside the obvious distinction between "the Saudis" owning a huge "cunk" of a corporation's stock and the gov't of Dubai actually controlling a company.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

I don't have an awful lot of confidence in the security of our ports, but I also don't think the sale of P&O will make that much difference on the margin.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

And I'm backing Frist. Weird day all around.

I don't see what's so revolutionary about suggesting that the administration ought to comply with the law.*




*man, I crack me up.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

The liberals are consistently anti-Bush per talking points directives at du. Isnt that the memo Ty?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Would someone explain this sock to me? If there's a joke, it's lost on me.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I have a hard time imagining what's going to come up in the further investigation (DoD: "Oh, you mean that government of the United Arab Emirates!"), but I'm all for it if it presents continued political trouble for Bush.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

a silent protest for enforcement of the property rights of the oppressed. I don't see what's so revolutionary about suggesting that the board administration ought to comply with the law.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to smack down the UAE and jeopardize their cooperation in the WOT (which, apparently, has been pretty good of late). On the other hand, there is something instinctually disconcerting about a foreign government owning a company that controls our ports. If nothing else, I don't see why an investigation into this matter is problematic. If the deal does not adversely affect security, that will be proven in the investigation process.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Why would I admit that backing the legal (and necessary) wiretapping is selling out the Constitution?

And yes, anyone in either party that is against the port sale because of "Arab" concerns is just plain wrong.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

"legal"

Are you suggesting that FISA does not apply, that the AUMF somehow amended FISA, or that FISA does apply but that Article II somehow gives the President the power to ignore federal statutes?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Ty -

You do realize that the proper response to Slave calling liberals hypocrites is:

"Yes, all partisans are hypocrites."

There is no way to take a side and not wind up a hyopcrite on some issue, somewhere, someday. Its inevitable.

What riles people like me about the Left is that you all just can't admit you're hypocrites like the rest of us. The Right at least has the ability to laugh at its hypocrisy and/or the nerve to tell those tho'd call it hypocritical "So what? Go fuck yourself." People may not like that, but they can realte to such a human, flawed response.

The Left is super-annoying because it has this absurd belief that it is always 100% right, and is always telling everyon how it has the market cornered on morality. No one likes a Hall Monitor. Concede the moral superiority, stop being so damned perfect and your message will go a lot further.

SD

PS: And it'd do you a bit of good to stop having ninnies like Paul Begala or John Kerry pleading your case. The party needs more Carvilles - flawed, fucked up streetballers.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Jesus Christ. I can't imagine you could even type this with a straight face if you really thought about it before you did.

Port (not wine) Issue
 

How was the sale of the British company to the Dubai entity structured? (I'm not setting you up: I honestly don't know.)

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Um, whatever.

Or are you annoyed that I'm defending Bush on this one instead of hypocritically attacking him, which would show that I'm really a hypocrite?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I can and I did. The Right is annoying, but its so bad at attempting to take the moral high road that its feeble attempts in that direction become self-parody.

The Left actually believes it has the moral high road, and it couches its arguments in professor-speak, which is not funny.

I try to laught at Maureen Dowd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Paul Krugman, Hillary, but they're just not that funny. I don't get the sense I could elbow any of them in the side and say "Hey, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? You're so full of shit it hurts," and get a laugh the way I would from a Republican (with the exception of scary freaks like Brownback and Frist, who seem to be 'true believers'). There's something refereshing about people who play the game without pretension.

Both parties are about nothing but money. I respect the GOP for at least admitting it, directly and through sheer buffoonery in attempts to hide the fact.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

so, you end up nailing the wife last night?