Posted by
Republiservative on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:31:46 PM
The Constitution lays out that any USA President will work for the Congress directly, as well as State goevrnments, and never, ever for the People directly, like say a mere Mayor or alderman. The office of President may be occupied by someone in any year who agrees with or has whatever reservation(s) about this or that passed by Congress, but the Constitution leaves any President only the options of sign bills and do as directed, sign bills and withhold action(s) based on integral operational or Constitutional flaws any White House perceives and thus risk impeachment, or veto or fail to sign any bill and risk the wrath of Congress, which IS a collection of representatives contemplated for election by the People.
Most often in modern times, representing the People of their jurisdictions has meant to most in Congress that they should do so in the nature of lawyers on the People's behalf; that is, that they should represent the interests of the People abstractly, so that nation building as those who elect the President favor (States) is the prime Constitutional imperative, the People then of each State to vote as their laws proclaim and effect change at the local level, even if States don't favor spending say one dollar per person to ensure return to accountability in voting machines.
It's that kind of distance, pretending each member of Congress is unto a mini-President accountable only to State and local government leaders and to make every convenience for them, that starts many questions, and Democrats and non-Conservatives seem to keep piling it on, putting their own feet into their mouths, as it were, while attempting to diffuse continuing status quo with litmus test hearings and proposals which have no tether to the direction of the nation but seem to say "hey, I'm good personally, don't blame me, it's the only job of Congress to write checks and of the Presidency to pay them".
Well, those in Congress who say things like "Bush wants money for some dumb ol' war even Democrats wanted under Clinton, but wants to keep THE CHILLLDDDRRREEEENNNNNNNNN without healthcare at a measely $35 billion" don't help the matter; no sooner does Bush veto dubiously funded SCHIP which would have knocked 77% of people who DO pay for health insurance out of purpose for having paid premiums, and extended benefits to persons over the age of 18 and even $62K a year income all with Democrat adamacy NO accountability as in public record of poor children getting the aid, then the House fail to override veto, than subprime home builders announce bankruptcies, local governments scale back mental health and jail staff expansions as well as hefty raises for themselves, and a number of similar curiosities occur. On this one, it seemed originally Congress wanted to use defense money in toto just to fund SCHIP instead, as they promise less American trade and jobs will be a green way to peace and prosperity, but once the Congress raised the national debt ceiling again, MoveOn was condemned even by Democrats....I don't create ideas, just recite them, and wish only to say even if local budget cuts and homebuilder woes are just coincidental, how does it look, and why create a public panic if none exists since Congress sees no need for such specific bailouts? That may sour some on the GOP, but surely Democrats and Independents in some areas, for no constructive purpose to boot...unless Congress feels it's in the States' and localities' best interests to accept their current card of bills, so States and Cities as applicable should stop working with Bush.
Now we have Democrats and others saying DREAM must be passed to invite more people to the USA and not need to bother with more than instant citizenship, which is quizzical not on racial issues but on grounds what are they being swept in to? Ipse dixit, even Democrat leaders say there are or will be all these people who need subsidized or government-owned housing and government-only healthcare presently, and we already are quite a diverse population where relaxed enforcement was not met with Congressional fund withholdings or demands for greater accountability despite requests of nationals and immigrants together (which is understandable, if the prime directive of Congress is to give States and localities what they want on theory locals know better than Congress what localized voters want)...is the actual intent of DREAM just to give States and localities more immediate persons which accelerates need for Socialized healthcare and housing?
Now we're back to war and general defense funding being cut in toto, and the USA caving in to LOST, unless President Bush goes along with SCHIP as vetoed, including refusal to have public record of poor children who'd be served (by the way, are such voices ensuring current poor, not affected by vetoed SCHIP EXPANSION, being cared for, are they left to list all of a sudden?).
I agree with President Bush that some should stop using Iraq progress, the war on terror, national security, sovereign rights of ALL nations generally, and related as mere flyswatters to get their own pet projects funded without regard to global security and global economics...as based on real events, not egregious transmogrifications of terms masquerading as elite minimal information problems only the truly gifted can understand...such as: global warming is a science which will bring global peace without stopping vehicle use but stopping all USA commerce (even emission tech research to keep current jobs rolling) to appease people somewhere as will giving away homes and things to people from somewhere to drain whoever of recruits.
I remain unconvinced President Bush doesn't know what he's doing re the Mid-East, and I support his Iraq request as ordinary and usual for the progress nature. The rest I find to be issues for 2008 campaign seasons.