Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FAA Shutdown to End After Obama Official Waives GOP Provision (Dictator Obama writes own law)
Fox News ^ | 8/4/2011 | fox news

Posted on 08/04/2011 3:56:34 PM PDT by tobyhill

After all the pleading and partisan accusations over funding the Federal Aviation Administration, Democratic lawmakers and Obama officials found the answer to ending a two-week shutdown of the agency literally right under their noses.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is sending a letter Thursday, saying a bill that the GOP-led House passed extending the FAA's operating authority through mid-September gives him the power to waive a provision Democrats opposed that cuts $16.5 million in air service subsides to rural communities.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: faa; lahood; raylahood; transportation

1 posted on 08/04/2011 3:56:38 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty kewl eh.


2 posted on 08/04/2011 3:59:51 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The Law !?

We no need no stinkin` law !

The law is what we say it is !


3 posted on 08/04/2011 4:00:29 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

I guess from here out, if his excellency thinks of a new law, it is officially a law.


4 posted on 08/04/2011 4:01:00 PM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Murtha airport is open for business


5 posted on 08/04/2011 4:02:00 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

So it was unconstitutional for Nixon to “impound” (decline to spend) money appropriated by Congress that Nixon deemed excessive,

but it’s okay for Obama to spend money NOT ONLY that “isn’t authorized” BUT ALSO is EXPRESSLY RULED OUT by statute?

Huh? Impeachment anyone?


6 posted on 08/04/2011 4:02:29 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood”

An Illinois RINO-Rat of the Illinois thugaucracy class.


7 posted on 08/04/2011 4:02:44 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

It must be nice to be a democrat and just make sh*t
up as you go along. I think it comes from their
schooling, no need to color inside the lines,
express yourself however.


8 posted on 08/04/2011 4:03:28 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

He is following Hitler’s and Stalin’s playbooks. Dictators and tyrants seize on the weakest of ‘justifications’ to do what they damn well please. After a while they don’t even pretend to need a justification. Ask the Jews, the German Polish and Russian Jews who were sent to oblivion on the flimsiest of excuses. We now have only an Executive Branch with a little judiciary standing by in the wings to rubber stamp the Dictators actions. The congress is defunct!


9 posted on 08/04/2011 4:05:24 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Didn’t we settle this line item veto business the last time there was a democrat president?


10 posted on 08/04/2011 4:06:23 PM PDT by Jagermonster (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
My suggestion for the GOP is just do nothing for here on out and tell Obama to do it himself since he thinks he's allowed to.
11 posted on 08/04/2011 4:07:29 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Rush went on a tirade against LaHood last week, when the latter suggested that what was needed in Washington was a politician like Robert Michel.


12 posted on 08/04/2011 4:08:00 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/01...NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

If I was a member of the House GOP I would immediately put this in the courts and get it blocked.


13 posted on 08/04/2011 4:09:24 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Ruling from the bench?


14 posted on 08/04/2011 4:14:26 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jagermonster; tet68; Para-Ord.45; Mouton; pogo101
From the column:

“That bill states that the transportation secretary can waive the provision eliminating air-service subsidies to rural communities in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico “if the secretary determines that the geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport.”

15 posted on 08/04/2011 4:18:22 PM PDT by Jacquerie (The Declaration of Independence is our Magna Carta. John Taylor 1823.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
My suggestion for the GOP is just do nothing for here on out and tell Obama to do it himself since he thinks he's allowed to.

Either that, or quit giving The Won bills with, "never mind" provisions in them.

Of course it's hard to tell from the story if the House GOPers agree with this interpretation of their bill.

16 posted on 08/04/2011 4:18:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

If Barry doesn’t have a line item veto, I don’t think Ray Lahood does either.


17 posted on 08/04/2011 4:19:58 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
The MSM and Justice Department will be right on top of this lawless fiat.
18 posted on 08/04/2011 4:23:12 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Holy flippin' crap, Sarah rocks the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

So, getting in a car or hopping a bus and driving to a larger hub is undue difficulty.

Gotcha`


19 posted on 08/04/2011 4:24:16 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
If I was a member of the House GOP I would immediately put this in the courts and get it blocked.

The Courts aren't the proper venue. If this waiver is truly counter to the law, then the Republican House MUST impeach LaHood. Let there be a real trial this time in the Senate, and let the Democratic Senators defend this nonsense nightly on national television.

ML/NJ

20 posted on 08/04/2011 4:25:04 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Hey pal, I didn’t write the bill. Unlike you, I read the article.


21 posted on 08/04/2011 4:28:04 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Some people never learn.


22 posted on 08/04/2011 4:28:26 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Give it a try. The USSC already ruled that line-item vetoes are unconstitutional.
23 posted on 08/04/2011 4:30:48 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
The article left me more confused than informed (or irate), does anyone here have a good summary?

The article says the waiver is limited to three states - will LsHood's action affect only those three?
The article says the (Republican) House has already passed the bill. That fits my understanding that Dems were the ones holding it up, but, if there is a waiver in it, it does not match my understanding of the 'pubbies intent.
And so on, and so on, etc.

24 posted on 08/04/2011 4:34:19 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Call me stupid. But I though a bill had to be PASSED by both houses before it could become law. Maybe my degree in political science was all for naught and a waste of time.


25 posted on 08/04/2011 4:35:03 PM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer (Don't tread on us...or you'll pay the price in the next election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I understand, but the FAA has a set, limited budget. If the Secretary waives the GEOGRAPHIC cuts, how is he going to pay for the (effectively) added services? Unicorn farts?


26 posted on 08/04/2011 4:35:03 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The bill gives the Transportation Secretary the authority to do this. All the Freeper knee-jerk reaction is really shocking.

READ THE STORY. Read and comprehend what it says. This isnt’ Obama waving his magic hand, it’s LaHood reading what’s in the House bill.


27 posted on 08/04/2011 4:37:26 PM PDT by Big Giant Head (Two years no AV, no viruses, computer runs great!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head

Read the conditions for the waivers.


28 posted on 08/04/2011 4:44:23 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Unconstitutional.


29 posted on 08/04/2011 4:49:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Yeah, but you aren’t and they won’t. It would be racist.

They are too cowardly.


30 posted on 08/04/2011 4:51:21 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“If I was a member of the House GOP I would immediately put this in the courts and get it blocked.”

Good idea, but we need someone with stones to do it. How about Allen West?
Oh wait, never mind.


31 posted on 08/04/2011 4:57:37 PM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I’ve taken “the dog” from Bozeman to Billings to hook up with a cheaper airfare. The good folks in Lewistown can just drive to Billings, Bozeman, Great Falls, or Helena.


32 posted on 08/04/2011 5:04:52 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

All of this grandstanding, thousands of people out of work, and NOW they decide to read the bill?


33 posted on 08/04/2011 5:06:05 PM PDT by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head
“That bill states that the transportation secretary can waive the provision eliminating air-service subsidies to rural communities in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico “if the secretary determines that the geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport.”

I didn't here of any planes not getting to or from their destination. It may cost more but it sure doesn't change “geographic characteristics” and it doesn't restrict access or “result in undue difficulty”.
LaHood didn't just come up with the waiver theory on his own or he would had already done it.

34 posted on 08/04/2011 5:16:37 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Any air travel cum legalese experts here LOL!

current law:
49 USC 41731 - Sec. 41731.
(a) General. - In this subchapter - (1) “eligible place” means a place in the United States that - (A)(i) was an eligible point under section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 before October 1, 1988; (ii) received scheduled air transportation at any time after January 1, 1990; and (iii) is not listed in Department of Transportation Orders 89-9-37 and 89-12-52 as a place ineligible for compensation under this subchapter; or (B) determined,(!1) on or after October 1, 1988, and before the date of the enactment of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, under this subchapter by the Secretary to be eligible to receive subsidized small community air service under section 41736(a). (2) “enhanced essential air service” means scheduled air transportation to an eligible place of a higher level or quality than basic essential air service described in section 41732 of this title. (3) “hub airport” means an airport that each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in the United States. (4) “nonhub airport” means an airport that each year has less than .05 percent of the total annual boardings in the United States. (5) “small hub airport” means an airport that each year has at least .05 percent, but less than .25 percent, of the total annual boardings in the United States. (b) Limitation on Authority To Decide a Place Not an Eligible Place. - The Secretary of Transportation may not decide that a place described in subsection (a)(1) of this section is not an eligible place on the basis of a passenger subsidy at that place or on another basis that is not specifically stated in this subchapter.


New law:

SEC. 6. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE REFORM.

(a) In General- Section 41731(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated) by inserting `(A)’ before `(i)(I)’;
(4) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)—
(A) by striking `determined’ and inserting `was determined’;
(B) by striking `Secretary’ and inserting `Secretary of Transportation’; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) is located not less than 90 miles from the nearest medium or large hub airport; and
`(C) had an average subsidy per passenger of less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary.’.
(b) Limitation on Authority To Decide a Place Not an Eligible Place- Section 41731(b) of such title is amended—
(1) by striking `Secretary of Transportation’ and inserting `Secretary’; and
(2) by striking `on the basis of a passenger subsidy at that place or on another basis’ and inserting `on any basis’.
(c) Exceptions and Waivers- Section 41731 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Exceptions for Locations in Alaska- Subsections (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C) shall not apply with respect to a location in the State of Alaska.
`(d) Waivers- The Secretary may waive subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to a location if the Secretary determines that the geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport.’.
Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2011.


So LaHood can waive it for airports qualifying under subsection (a)(1)(B).. alright I figured that out.
But does it matter that HE CAN’T WAIVE the requirement for those qualifying under (a)(1)(A)?

Anyway kudos to John Mica for his fight. I hope the funding authorized- $3,380,178,082 for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on September 16, 2011.’- is a cut.


35 posted on 08/04/2011 5:25:57 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Did the GOP really expect this narcissist in chief to honor any provisions of the bills they pass?

Next time he wants a debt increase - stroke of the pen.
If he can figure out a way to raise taxes the same way- stroke of the pen.


36 posted on 08/04/2011 5:33:38 PM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Nope, I’m totally confused...


37 posted on 08/04/2011 5:34:32 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


38 posted on 08/04/2011 5:35:42 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton

“does anyone here have a good summary?”

The House bill contained $16.5 million cuts in air service subsidies to 13 rural communities. The subsidy program was created after airlines were deregulated in 1978 to ensure continued service on less profitable routes to remote communities. But critics say some communities receiving subsidies are within a reasonable driving distance of a hub airport.

The 13 cities targeted for air service subsidy cuts are Athens, Ga.; Morgantown, W.Va.; Glendive, Mont.; Alamogordo, N.M.; Ely, Nev.; Jamestown, N.Y.; Bradford, Pa.; Hagerstown, Md.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Johnstown, Pa.; Franklin/Oil City, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa., and Jackson, Tenn.

Evidently, the House exempted the three towns where it would truly be a hardship to drive to the nearest airport and the Senate has agreed to the cuts for the towns that are within a reasonable driving distance.


39 posted on 08/04/2011 5:35:50 PM PDT by rwa265 (Christ my Cornerstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
“That bill states that the transportation secretary can waive the provision eliminating air-service subsidies to rural communities in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico “if the secretary determines that the geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport.”

Who is the brain-dead Republican in the House who put this line in it?

Is the section which changed the voting procedure on airline unions back to what it was pre-Obama still in there or was that voided too?

40 posted on 08/04/2011 5:59:50 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (The Repubs and Dems are arguing whether to pour 9 or 10 buckets of gasoline on a burning house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

The congress is defunct!


And may end up dissolved if they don’t pull their heads out. Don’t they know any history?


41 posted on 08/04/2011 6:00:47 PM PDT by TwoSwords (The Lord is a man of war, Exodus 15:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The stupid party allows an unelected bureaucrat to screw the country... again.


42 posted on 08/04/2011 6:11:29 PM PDT by edge10 (Obama lied, babies died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I wish ill will on all socialist politicians.


43 posted on 08/04/2011 6:16:02 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Right. Give a Democrat a loophole, he’ll take it.


44 posted on 08/04/2011 6:25:22 PM PDT by Big Giant Head (Two years no AV, no viruses, computer runs great!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

We don’t like what the House says, so we’ll just ignore it.

Now why don’t you little people make yourselves useful and pay your taxes? Your government is broke. :)

/sarc(?)


45 posted on 08/04/2011 9:08:08 PM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
All you guys. The major Republican part of this bill was to REJECT card check for unionizing. The waiver part was obviously the minor compromise in this bill.

Lost a toe, but saved the leg.

46 posted on 08/04/2011 10:11:08 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

It is disappointing to read these comments. Now, I sometimes post without reading the article, but in those cases at least I know what the article is about.

Neither Obama nor LaHood are claiming the right to ignore the law (or what will become the law when the Senate passes the House-approved bill and the President signs it). This is not a line-item veto. LaHood is merely invoking a clause *that was put into the bill by the Republican House* that allows the Secretary of Transportation to waive the prohibition on spending money on rural airports if it would imperil access to transportation or something like that, and LaHood will invoke the clause immediately upon the bill becoming law. Now, one can argue that LaHood hasn’t really shown that there won’t be access to rural transportation without spending that money, and perhaps we can get a court to step in and rule that LaHood hasn’t met the conditions to invoke the clause (although I doubt we’d win a court case, since the Transportation Secretary would be afforded great discretion by the courts), but that is something completely different from accusing the Obama Administration of unilaterally striking down a legal provision. Obama has done that before (e.g., by refusing to enforce DOMA), but in this case he would be acting pursuant to authority granted by the statute).

In any event, this $16 million is a trivialmissue compared to a clause of vital importance that I believe the GOP included in the FAA bill and which Obama wouldn’t be able to waive: the provisionnstriking down the regulation that would allow airline-worker unions to be created merely by the union obtaining a majority vote among workers who voted instead of a majority of all workers. That’s the real reason why the Democrat Senate refused to pass the House bill before; the fact that they’ll pass it now with the fig leaf of LaHood waiving the prohibition on spending $16 million onnrural airports makes me believe that the Democrats were afraid of getting tbe blame for the shutdown and capitulated.


47 posted on 08/04/2011 10:14:39 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Golly gee, FAA has been shut down for the past two weeks? If Bush were still pres that would have been screaming headline news.


48 posted on 08/05/2011 3:36:03 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
There is no hardship to these airports. No flights have been disrupted. The only thing that has been delayed is some airport upgrades and I very seriously doubt the GOP meant Lahood could waive the restrictions for upgrades.

This is pure circumventing the law. That part of the bill was put in to keep travelers flying and not to keep Gubermint Workers painting bathrooms.

49 posted on 08/05/2011 3:45:24 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

the governement was not collecting a 7% ticket tax.

in september all this can be resorted.

keep the unions out.

keep the tax cut.

dump the subsidy with the administrator authority.


50 posted on 08/05/2011 11:39:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson