And precisely what has happened? Nothing. No one is resigning from any of Obama's appointments. Even if this gets to the Supreme Court and they concur, who is going to get these guys out of their offices? Holder? Yeah, right.
The President may find that taking this action could put all Executive Orders at peril. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Lots of stuff coming out of the White House, and not just in this Administration, is of questionable legality. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles this one. If they allow it, then, like the "mandate is a tax" in Ocare, we could be in for a very fast ride down a very steep slope.
Two thoughts: 1) the $3000 per vehicle price rise in 2025 is in 2012 dollars; there is no way of knowing what the "current" price increase will be by 2025; and, 2) look for you new 2025 Ford [or any other manufacturer] to be built of composites, carbon fiber, and plastics to save weight. Back to the Trabant era!
The President has several objectives in mind in "going over the cliff." First, do as much damage as possible to the Republicans. Second, cut as much military spending as he can so that the difference can be "pocketed" and used for social and other spending. Third, invoke "Obama" tax cuts and dare the Republicans to vote them down. From the Obama vantage point, a total win situation. Next up, the debt ceiling.
Huummmm....I wonder if we are not about to see the birth of a new political party. "Conservative" may be in for a new definition to include people for smaller government, balanced budgets and individual freedom. What, you say, isn't that today's Republicans? No, I would say, because the "right wing social conservatives" of the Republican Party do not really believe in individual freedom. Perhaps it could become the new "Center Party." Among core beliefs might be cutting the size of the Federal government, reducing the debt, reducing entitlements while supporting the truly needy, promoting individual liberty, and maintaining a strong national defense. We do not need to be the world's policeman. We do need to be able to defend ourselves against all comers.
Since Congress is the budget authority, where does the White House get the money to pay for the potential fines and other litigation expenses which may occur as a result of violations of the WARN Act? An E.O. has the power of a law, but if the Congress does not supply the funds to implement the E.O., what happens? Also, while unlikely at the moment, the Congress could override an E.O. with a 2/3rds vote. A new President could also rescind a previous E.O.
Excellent post! You should try to place it as an op-ed in every newspaper in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.
The Administration has it's head in the sand, conveniently sticking to the stupid film on Mo's life as the reason for the attacks. What we are seeing is a carefully orchestrated and well coordinated series of attacks throughout the Islamic world. They are designed to embarrass the U.S. politically by demonstrating the total fecklessness of the Obama administration in the face of Islamic radicals. If their actions damage a few buildings and/or kill a few Americans, so much the better for them. The organizers in Tehran, Cairo, Benghazi,and elsewhere are surely celebrating their success.
Mitt Romney is right to stand up against this insanity.
Well, if Obama wins in November, Israel can't count on the U.S. for support. Thus, it would be a very good idea to make sure that the nation has all of the military supplies it might need for at least a 60 day battle. Israel certainly can't count on getting resupplied from the U.S. before January 2013, and, if 0 wins, not then either.
We need to get involved in a Muslim sectarian civil war because...? Alawites versus Sunnis versus Christians versus Druze versus Shias ...and we need to have American men and women die to preserve a dictator of the same ilk as our former good buddy, Saddam Hussein? Really? Add another trillion or so to the national debt? Really?