The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Curiousity: Is there anything that requires the president to spend earmarked money as directed in legislative history? I'm not talking about actual statutory provisions for the research of butterflies at mississippi state university. But if there's just a long leg. history saying build a bridge to nowhere, what legally prevents the president from telling DOT spend the money on any old highway, not that bridge? And I'm not asking whether it would be politically savvy.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Curiousity: Is there anything that requires the president to spend earmarked money as directed in legislative history? I'm not talking about actual statutory provisions for the research of butterflies at mississippi state university. But if there's just a long leg. history saying build a bridge to nowhere, what legally prevents the president from telling DOT spend the money on any old highway, not that bridge? And I'm not asking whether it would be politically savvy.

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

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").

[sgtclub]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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").

Why aren't earmarks in the bill?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why aren't earmarks in the bill?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

The concern is with creeping socialism?

eta: This sounds right to me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The concern is with creeping socialism?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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....

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.



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

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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?

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 .