Skip to comments.How the New Congress Can Roll Back Obama’s Agenda
Posted on 11/06/2010 5:35:45 AM PDT by DanMiller
There is lots of election analysis elsewhere, and I wont try to provide more of it here; suffice it to say that the people have spoken, loudly and effectively. Despite all spin, President Obama wont be able to get contentious new legislation through the Congress, and the House can prevent the funding of some Obama initiatives already passed; Yes he Cant. Lame-duck congress? Bad stuff may happen but there are cures.
Appropriations bills are initiated in the House, and it must provide separate and detailed appropriations bills. For example, if the separate EPA appropriations bill were to prohibit the use of any funds thereby appropriated for the promulgation, adoption, or enforcement of any rule or regulation limiting carbon dioxide emissions to less than some stated number of parts per million, the president could veto it. He would not, because that would in effect shut down the entire EPA; that would hardly serve his objectives and would visibly irritate mainly his remaining comrades. Indeed, it would have almost but not quite the same effect as abolishing the EPA outright, which the Congress without a veto proof majority could not do. Unlike the situation with a massive omnibus appropriations bill, a veto wont shut down the entire government and wont work because the inoffensive parts of the government could continue to function. Refusal of the Democratic Party-controlled Senate to approve the House bill wouldnt work either, for the same reason. Even lame-duck legislation can be effectively repealed by refusing to fund it.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
The new Congress will not be seated until January; the Republican members should not waste time between now and then. Instead, they should meet and plan an effective strategy for refusing funding to the various obnoxious agencies and departments while avoiding complete governmental collapse. They should not be the Party of No on everything; only on those initiatives rejected by the electorate.
There is no way you can pass even selected elimination of large blocks of the federal bureaucracy. But, apparently, you can prune back programs by prohibiting expenditure of funds on selected programs.
Unfortunately, I see two major problems.
First, what will Congress do when (not if) some of the more activist bureaucrats ignore Congressional direction?
Second, what will Congress do when (not if) Obama elects to divert funds to ensure survival of his key legislative triumphs?
Both eventualities need to be examined and contingency plans developed. Preferably contingency plans with some very heavy teeth in them.
Especially beginning with de-funding NPR and the EPA
It is called misappropriation of funds to use money outside of its budgeted purpose. I am fairly certain it is a felony when we’re talking about these amounts and carries a prison term.
EO’s are a powerful tool, stroke of the pen, law of the land. We have long memories.
Since when did libatards care if what they did was legal, if it justified their agenda?
Since when did libatards care if what they did was legal or Constitutional, if it justified their agenda?
yes, funding lines are very specific.
If you spend on things outside of those specific items/actions, it’s potential jail time.
Most of the folks in Ft. Leavenworth KS are there just for that reason. missappropriation of funds. and a lot of them are O6’s.....
Getting too big for their britches.........
We should be monitoring every spend and tax republicrat and targeting them for removal at the next election cycle. The tea party did not end on Tuesday.
Both of the alternatives would be unlawful; however, either or both may be tried and who might have standing to sue would have to be thought out very carefully; so would any decision about in which federal district court to sue. However, one way to diminish the possibility of such diversions would be the enactment of appropriations so tight that it would be extremely difficult to do.
How about just proving BOzo is an illegal prez and Pelosi committed a national crime. Then all he has signed is void.
Why do you suspect Pelosi wants to retain a leadership position in her party, despite the fact that the dems will be in the minority? Is it because she needs to keep them in line (and Obozo too) so that she will not be investigated for signing a certifitcate to the State of Hawaii that Obama met the consitutional requirements to be president?
Demand proof with arguments for ANY expansion of federal government..
Some can be logical..
1) like funding the BORDER WALL w/personnel to run it..
2) Allocating funds for Seal Teams to penetrate or "deal with" border smuggling operations.
3) An FBI team to investigate ALL suspected voter fraud violations.. i.e. Chicago, Calif., King County Wash...
Would it be advantageous if the House appropriated the federal budget in a piecemeal fashion?
They could first start with defense, then proceed down the line to entitlements etc. When most of the important aspects of government are funded (this will be a point of discussion among the House Republicans), the useless parts of government would then be up for consideration. The wasteful 3 E’s: EPA, energy, and education could provide a lot of leverage for the House Republicans. Then there is 0bamacare which would receive little if any funding.
Before reducing appropriations to individual sectors, it would be essential to have oversight hearings exposing the fraud and abuse in these departments. With the new media, we could get the video of embarrassing Hill testimony and then the best of it would be sent around to internet sites and eventually Fox news. The public would see the waste and the narrative for “shutting down the governmental” promoted by the Leftists media would collapse. I believe that this would be particularly effective for not appropriating 0bamacare. Just think of what fun it would be to see Sebelius and Berwick take the hot seat. And if they delay, or refuse to testify, even better and more reason not to appropriate.
With carefully targeted and conducted hearings, non-appropriation of many federal programs could gain public support.
The first thing we have to realize is that Dodd-Frank is far more dangerous to the economy than either QE2 or the tax hike that will occur if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.
We have time to neuter Obama care, Dodd-Frank must be dealt with NOW!
One can omly hope...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.