AP-
WASHINGTON – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would make about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.
Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Clinton’s nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.
An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job’s pay was increased during the lawmaker’s current term.
In other words, Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been ineligible to serve in the post because she was serving in Congress when Rice’s salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So late Wednesday, the House and Senate quietly rolled the secretary of state’s salary back to $186,600, its level in January 2007 when Clinton began her second Senate term.

I couldn’t pass the disinformation without debunking it, off topic or not. Shhhh, I hear footsteps. Better get out before net-nanny arrives?

Just ducked back in to say I watched it, and will be picking my jaw up off the floor any moment now. I’m not sure what’s more shocking, that it’s as bad as he describes, or that he found humor to be the only vehicle to convey that to us. It’s like telling jokes at a funeral about how funny it all is. “Hah! You thing THIS is bad? You should be married to my wife?”

Somehow, the fact that no one would listen if he just said it straight out instead of going stand-up on us seems to be as much a part of the problem as the demise of our nation. You, know, like the Emo Philips style humor that goes something like… “Remember when I shot me dad, and we all went out for icecream?”

Fred Thompson had some good thoughts on the economy:

“The same people who got us into this mess are going to try and fix it?”

…says [i paraphrase] ‘The people responsible for the financial crisis say they aren’t responsible, so they’re not. Nyaa!”

Now there’s front page news for ya. HOLD THE PRESSES!

…AND DON’T PAY NO ATTENTION TO NO STINKIN FACTS, NEITHER!

http://www.thenextright.com/blue-collar-muse/cra-acorn-democrats-obama-and-the-housing-market-crisis

http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2008/09/26/govt-dems-caused-housing-crisis-including-obama/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

road warrior, you might want to read the earlier comments in this thread; the “roll back the pay” fix has been used by Democratic and Republican Administrations alike. It doesn’t make it right–although I would argue that, should it ever be tested in court, it does meet the intent of the Emoluments Clause–but it’s definitely a two-edged sword.

Munitions? Did someone say munitions? *grin* I’m a former 12B/12E (yeah, back before the Army changed the MOS structure), and it’s ALWAYS good to work with one’s hands in such fashion. [*chuckle*] In fact, I think I still have a few of those…um…more interesting manuals.

A bunch of Ace o Spade Morons are getting together for a therapy session, drinking binge, pool game and hobo hunt.
Would love to have you come out to meet some of your locals.

PS Some of us know our way around a motorbike and have a fair bit of military background and there is a local blogger and a history professor as well.

I think you can get my email from this site.

Doesn’t matter… I’d still want you to have my back. BTW… you do have munitions knowledge that’s better than the average bear. Where did you acquire that? Dad? ROTC?

You will also have to remember that Bob Rubin… who is now holding his hand out on behalf of Citibank… was Clinton’s Treasury Secy. He had the “authority” to rewrite the compliance regulations for CRA rules… all without the approval of Congress. Teflon Bill did this expressly because he did not want to battle the new incoming GOP majority Congress by approving new rules for compliance. It has become a tool to.. in some ways… usurp Congress.

In effect, this rewriting of adminstrative rules without Congressional oversight isn’t much different than an EO in effect. There are many ways those in power manage to get what they want. And the R or D behind their name seems to make no difference when they are on a quest. They all bypass the oversight/approval channels at every given chance.

But I have to wonder if EO’s have morphed out of their authority when they are addressing budget allocation (i.e. salaries)

I’ve come to the conclusions that EOs have morphed into a composite beast that would make the Founders shudder. I believe we had a discussion here (some months ago) about President Bush’s EO that effectively rewrote the Presidential Records Act to give Presidential spouses AND THEIR HEIRS veto power over the release of Presidential records. That one boggled my mind, but Clinton did his share of “legislating from the Oval Office” with his EOs on ergonomic regulation, new roads on Federal land, and the like. Reagan amended the UCMJ (which is an Act of Congress) via EO.

My personal opinion is that many of the EOs issued from Carter onward come dangerously close to violating the ’separation of powers’ created by the Constitution, but I don’t believe that any have been challenged on such grounds.

With the tool in such common use, we might as well use it in this case, since it’s been done in the past. It leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth, but many of our other governmental machinations do as well. *sigh*

blast, I tend to think that conversations with different people in the US is just like learning another language. Some of us are especially adept at expressing our thoughts via words. Others understand what is being expressed, but cannot necessarily (or don’t have the patience to…) express their disagreement verbally.

sounds like a family too…

No one can know what is in another person’s heart without knowing them, and even then it is difficult. The medium we use here today does not account for passion coming across as anger or an inarticulate phrase accidentally being misconstrued (outright name calling is pretty easy to pick up on though). My purpose is truly honorable here and comes from the heart. If I did not want honest dialogue I would just ignore those who have said things I take as insulting. I am not saying I am perfect at responding to “turning the cheek” to a personal snipe, but do try.

Hard Rightm

Those sandals better not be Birkenstocks…

we better add that to the slang definition huh. No, I have never owned a pair and my feet are too big for flip-floppish sandals anyhow. I live in Texas and wear ropers when out and about… too many critters to nibble on unprotected feet here.

BTW, my previous post is awaiting moderation for an edit. I was in brass knuckle mode whe I wrote it so keep that in mind.

Now maybe you aren’t a moonbat blast and I’m wrong about you

well, I wanted to be sure what you meant by “moonbat” so I googled the definition and had a good laugh, you might get a chuckle as well – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat

my favorite part of a the definition was “”These people wear winter clothes in the summer”.
Characterized by men in ponytails, sandals with socks” haha… for the record, my hair has never touched my collar or covered my ears since I was 17 and I wear sandals sans socks.

Anyway, I hope we can agree to disagree when the time comes and not be too personal. No doubt you have strong convictions and I don’t fault you for those and when we disagree I don’t intend to try to change your mind, but to offer my personal opinion where I feel it is warranted.