Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-08/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The White House agrees to give Congress classified drone documents. The Justice Department sues Standard and Poor’s. And the Post Office announces plans to end Saturday delivery. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Manu Raju
senior congressional reporter at Politico.
Ruth Marcus
columnist and editorial writer for The Washington Post.
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor for The Economist and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Friday News Roundup Video
A caller to the show asked whether the Obama administration's secret memo authorizing the targeted killing of American citizens is an impeachable offense. The caller also questioned why the drone strike policy has not sparked a national debate. Ruth Marcus, columnist for The Washington Post, said the executive and legislative branches have always engaged in a tug of war for accountability and access to information. "I remind everybody again, it is not--it should not--be a surprise that the U.S. government targeted American citizens for killing," Marcus said. Marcus added that the John Brennan confirmation hearings have been useful in shedding light on counterterrorism operations.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Republicans are interested to know how tenuous the connection between Independent voters and Democrats really is, and how many concessions they will have to make before they have any real shot at the next election."
http://22oftheday.blogspot.com/2013/02/conservatives-all-together-now.html
ES wrote:
"Dear clifffromparma:
Aside from the fact that the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish post offices, I don't see how it's relevant. Congress is under no obligation to do so. The Constitution merely grants the power should Congress choose to use it.
P.S. - Aside from that, I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote."
Then he wrote:
"What! No "pithy" comeback to my question about the Constitution? I'm truly hurt."
Then you said,
"Are you referring to my question to him, or the question to you?
If the question to him, what "premise" was false, and how so?"
What was the "question to him"? There was no question to him. There was a statement. A question has one of these at the end, "?".
You want to continue to argue this losing position? Have at it.
There was no "question about the Constitution".
Should a,would a,could a...??? Most of the Federal Interstate Commerce clause is based on that mandate.The fact the post office has been around for 200+ years should be sufficient. The question should be,under what authority did Republicans use to destroy this treasure?
Since when do you care what the Constitution says? When liberals agree with the Constitution it's usually because of coincidence or they think they can beat republicans over the head with it. When one of their liberal big government types gets in, out comes the hypocrisy. What was so important to get rid of in a republican administration and labeled as a "Constitutional crisis" becomes just fine, in fact it's made worse but that's OK now.
You need to take stock Cliff, you attack the NRA and ignore the second amendment on almost a daily basis. You do this because basically you are dishonest person.
"Most of the Federal Interstate Commerce clause is based on that mandate."
No it isn't!
Where do you even get this stuff?!
The fact that the post office has been around for 200+ years does not make it a "treasure". When you account for all its costs, it is a MONEY LOSER. And not taking retirement costs into account does not give an accurate picture of financial position. It's a liability. It's like a company saying, "we're not going to count any accounts payable more than six months out". Ridiculous and dishonest. Now that, when taken in total the fact that the USPS loses money is fine, if, as a people, we decide we want to fund mail service. I have no problem with that. It's a Constitutional provision. Just don't pretend that "it's a treasure."
I too must object to the casual way the discussants go along with blowing up US citizens merely because some secret Committee of Public Safety says they are "bad" or might be "bad". I suppose the discussants think that it'll only happen to "other people" who have funny names and don't go to their church. This is very short-sighted! Around the world, it's usually journalists who get assassinated or "disappeared."
I was also curious about Ruth’s comments regarding Social Security. The emailer’s general trust was that Social Security is not a driver of our national debt or deficit. I did a little digging, and concluded that the emailer was correct and should not have been treated as a partisan hack as Ms. Kay most impolitely did. Here are two definitive websites: Historical Payroll Tax Rates from the Brookings Institution, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=45 and Data on Receipts and Expenditures from the Official Website of the Social Security Administration, http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html.
No mention was made that the US has had a payroll tax holiday for 2011 and 2012. Thus, only 10.4 of the normal 12.4 percent of payroll taxes were collected, about 84%. Though there were reimbursements from the general fund for these years, by my calculation, these were less than the receipts that would have been collected using normal rates. The payroll tax holiday is over and, barring economic disruption by Congress, collections should again exceed expenditures in 2013 forward.
twocents68 wrote:
"barring economic disruption by Congress, collections should again exceed expenditures in 2013 forward."
In most years collections have exceeded expenditures. What you need to look at is the recent trend. Especially since the recession. It ain't pretty. Income exceeds expenditures by less than 7% in 2012. And the restoration of the 2% payroll tax will help a little but would not have and will not change the downward trend. The economy is stagnant - and in fact last quarter it shrank. That also bodes ill for the surplus. When expenditures exceed income the money has to come from the GF. So the statement "The emailer’s general trust was that Social Security is not a driver of our national debt or deficit" is utterly ridiculous.
ecgberht2, on February 9, 2013 @ 10:26 am wrote: “What was the ‘question to him’? There was no question to him. There was a statement.”
My, aren’t we being literalistic, obtuse, or disingenuous on this page? (Possibly, all three.)
The question was implied in my remark that I didn’t see how the Constitution was relevant. By citing its provision on the Post Office, and stating how Congress was under no obligation to create or maintain the system, I was clearly calling into question clifffromparma’s invocation of it.
Sorry you feel a need to create an “argument” over what was merely a joke. But I guess that can qualify as a “pithy comeback”.
Thanks, I feel so much better now.
;-)
clifffromparma, on February 9, 2013 @ 10:42 am wrote: “Should a,would a,could a...??? Most of the Federal Interstate Commerce clause is based on that mandate”
That makes no sense either. The authority to create and maintain a Post Office system has nothing to do with the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3). The authority to do so comes from an entirely different provision of the Constitution. (Specifically, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7)
Now, while it’s true both Clauses derive from similar concerns (the Founders wanted, in a sense, to establish a “common market” throughout the U.S.), Congress’ authority under each Clause is independent of the other.
And for the literal (or weak) minded among us, although I am clearly questioning clifffromparma’s assertion, and inviting an explanation, let me be express about it. Please explain?
P.S. - Oh, and as for the authority used to establish the “crazy scheme” you complain about, I believe it derives from the same authority which allows Congress to create the Post Office system in the first place, from the fact Congress has “the power of the purse”, and it’s part of the legislative powers vested in Congress at the start of the Constitution! (See, among other provisions, Article 1, especially Section 1, and Section 8, Paragraphs 1 and 7.)
Dan D., on February 9, 2013 @ 12:16 pm, wrote: “Since when do you care what the Constitution says? When liberals agree with the Constitution it's usually because of coincidence or they think they can beat republicans over the head with it.”
Unlike, for example, conservatives who never railed against laws about heathcare, medicine, or medical insurance, since none of those things are “in the Constitution”, and claimed that such laws can’t be supported by the Commerce Clause, when they previously supported the ban on so-called “partial birth abortion”, even though that ban was expressly based on the Commerce Clause!
Unlike, for example, conservatives who never demanded that judges employ “strict construction” of the Constitution, and apply it as it’s written, but then (by invoking the “magic word” prefatory) erased the first 13 words of the Second Amendment.
Unlike, for example, conservatives who never insisted the “original intent” of the Founders must be followed, but then refused to follow those same “prefatory” words, even though the very meaning of “prefatory” (or preface) is a statement of (wait for it) purpose or intent!
And, finally, unlike, for example, conservatives who never screamed “impeachment” against Democratic politicians and officeholders, or “liberal” judges, and accused them of trashing the Constitution, simply because the conservatives didn’t like the policies being pursued, or the decisions being rendered, and wanted to turn a political dispute into a charge of treason!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Nope, only liberals ever did anything like that. And they never insisted that when the Constitution says there shall be “no” law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press (etc.), it actually did mean NO law!
(Oh, wait, that’s backwards, isn’t it.)
I’d be careful before accusing someone of dishonesty if I were you, sir.
We know which party has nothing but contempt for the Constitution. No one claimed republicans are pure, but democrats come out on a regular basis and tell us how irrelevant and outdated it is. NO conservative justice has come out and said these things either like Ruth Ginsburg did. Get real, we just had some dufus liberal professor telling us to get rid of it. The "living Constitution", when a liberal justice even mentions this sewage they should be removed from the court, they are not upholding anything except their personal agendas.
"Unlike, for example, conservatives who never railed against laws about heathcare, medicine, or medical insurance, since none of those things are “in the Constitution”, and claimed that such laws can’t be supported by the Commerce Clause"
Progressives, liberal and republican are indeed a cancer upon our Constitution, so it's agreed.
"I’d be careful before accusing someone of dishonesty if I were you, sir.'
If you can find one thing I have been "dishonest" or inconsistent about let me know.
Speaking of dishonest, you have on more than one occasion brought up "the general welfare" as a reason justifying all manner of social welfare schemes. You and Clifford are two of a kind, liars.
"The question was implied in my remark that I didn’t see how the Constitution was relevant."
"I was clearly calling into question clifffromparma’s invocation of it."
"Calling into question" is different than "asking a question". See? A half dozen "questions could have been implied" from what you wrote. Will Rogers said, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". Better to do a little "oops" and drop the subject, than to keep calling attention to it - or better yet, an "oops, here's what I meant" and move ahead. But it appears that your ego just won't let you do that.
"Sorry you feel a need to create an “argument” over what was merely a joke. "
You're starting to sound like samcot who tried to claim that "lining his birdcage with the Constitution" was a joke as well. Like I said, for future reference ... do an "oops" and drop the subject, clarify and move on, or just drop it entirely, ES.
Oh, and just to be clear ... neither I (nor any other poster) is obligated to respond to anything you post ... question or not.
"And for the literal (or weak) minded among us, although I am clearly questioning clifffromparma’s assertion, and inviting an explanation, let me be express about it."
By that standard, I guess I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question to twocents68. Snide comments like this one of yours just confirm that this has gotten under your skin. Thanks.