I don't think tolls are a good idea for paying for roads. Toll booths do horrible things to traffic and are a huge pain to deal with (you have to bring every single person on the road to a complete stop every time they cross it). On top of that, it costs extra money to build the booths and maintain them, and even add the cost of an attendant if they're completely automated.
There are no longer toll booths. It's all done through Electronic Pass systems in order to prevent stops and accidents. What @semiticgod is saying was a huge problem in the 80s and 90s, but has been solved by technology.
@booinyoureyes "This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads." What about the people who have an hour+ commute to work because they can find nothing closer, and regularly have to choose between paying rent this month, or eating for the next 2 weeks? A toll could easily ruin what little income they get. I have personally worked with people like this. Having a blanket requirement for people to maintain something privately only works when income and standard of living is equivalent, or near equivalent for everyone.
You're assuming I want tolls to be the sole form of funding for road maintenance. As with most government funding, it would come from multiple sources. Tolls should make up the more than half the maintenance funding, but there can be other income sources that are earmarked for road upkeep.
Even so, they still don't come anywhere near alleviating bottlenecks at toll booths. You'll always have some folks who don't want to use them, or visitors from outside the area who don't know about them.
Well, here on the East Coast you can use your electronic pass from any state. So, for example, if you have the NY EZ Pass it works in Pennsylvania and Maryland. You actually get a discount for having the in-state pass, so it often makes sense for people to have multiple. Maybe that's why bottlenecking is less of an issue here.
It's not just a question of your own use of roads, but the wider benefit you get. For instance you might run a day nursery from your home with all the traffic that entails or get regular shopping deliveries by large vans causing far more wear & tear than the neighbor's SUV. Then there's ancillary services like drainage and street-lighting to consider ...
@Grond0 Yes, it is true that almost everyone benefits from roads. But not everyone benefits equally.
This is why tolls are still the best form of financing for the building and upkeep of public roads. The increase in toll cost to delivery vans will be in part passed on to the consumers of delivery services. Thus, the cost of the public good is still born by those who burden it most. Even if we must have a public good, having a market-oriented payment method is still beneficial.
@booinyoureyes the discussion about road financing started on the basis that small communities could fund and manage their own road. This type of tolling system doesn't work well for that purpose as, even using electronic methods, the cost of administering tolls is high. The largest road toll scheme in the UK is the London congestion charge and that works because of the large area covered, high charges and high traffic volumes. The government tried a few years ago to promote congestion charges by offering grants to other cities to follow the same pattern, but no-one took it up. We did have a look at the possibilities in my city, but concluded it wouldn't offer value for money.
I agree there is a possibility in the future that all road taxes could be replaced by an electronic nationwide tolling system and I wouldn't personally object to that as the privacy issues don't bother me and at such a large scale the collection costs should be less of an issue. There would be winners and losers compared to the current system of charging, but I don't think road tolls would be inherently less fair (after all current charges are largely based on fuel tax and therefore already reflect usage).
@booinyoureyes My point wasn't that tolls couldn't be used to fund a road. My point was that it could easily prevent low income and fixed income families from being able to use the roads at all. We would essentially have a class system that prevents the poor/disabled from using a necessary resource.
@booinyoureyes My point wasn't that tolls couldn't be used to fund a road. My point was that it could easily prevent low income and fixed income families from being able to use the roads at all. We would essentially have a class system that prevents the poor/disabled from using a necessary resource.
There are other modes of transportation (public transit) that lower class (or any class) can use to get around their city if the cost of owning a car is too expensive.
But that might be showing my ignorance, as I live in a city that use to have the top rated public transit in North America (other cities have caught up and overtaken us however), but a well planned public transit system negates this issue.
If your job requires you to have a car, your employer should also be responsible for any charges (gas, tolls, repairs) you need while on the job.
A lot of jobs require a car. It was one of the obstacles faced by the members at the homeless shelter.
Unless you somehow manage to snag a job within blocks of your home, MOST jobs require a car. Sure, you can take the bus (or an Uber). But the first is a scheduling nightmare at best and, at worst, the bus doesn't run anywhere near where you work. The later is far cheaper than a taxi, but not everyone can afford it on a daily basis.
Worse yet, a city with a low-quality public transportation system can make the commute unnaturally long. Depending on where they live, where they work, and what time they need to get there, some people can spend several hours every day just waiting to get to and from work, since they need to board multiple buses whose arrival and departure times don't sync up at the right places.
If your job requires you to have a car, your employer should also be responsible for any charges (gas, tolls, repairs) you need while on the job.
That depends upon whether or not the car belongs to you or the company. If the vehicle is yours then you pay for the gas, the tolls, upkeep, etc. but you may be able to file your expense report at the end of the month for reimbursement and/or whatever mileage they may pay you. If the car belongs to the company...in some cases you are *still* responsible for things like fuel (again, you can file for reimbursement at the end of the month) unless the company has also furnished you a fuel card or credit card which is supposed to be used for the vehicle only.
Back in 2006--not all that long ago time-wise but it feels like a lifetime ago because my situation was so different at that time--we had only one car and my job was in downtown Dallas. I bought a bicycle, would head out of the house at 6am with my work clothes and lunch in a backpack, ride for an hour--no, I am not kidding--to get to the bus station, then catch the bus to work; every evening I made that return trip back. I lost a little weight, toned up my leg muscles, and would frequently curse my situation. Still...I did it even though it wasn't easy because I couldn't afford to leave that job--I made enough to keep our heads above water but that was about it.
Worse yet, a city with a low-quality public transportation system can make the commute unnaturally long. Depending on where they live, where they work, and what time they need to get there, some people can spend several hours every day just waiting to get to and from work, since they need to board multiple buses whose arrival and departure times don't sync up at the right places.
I wrote about this a long while back in this very thread, but since people seem to have forgotten, I'll quote myself here.
Public transportation is great in cities. It is not so great in rural communities that need to service a large distance between towns to be effective.
An example from my life: I work two jobs in two neighboring towns to mine. Both rural. It takes me about 20-30 minutes to drive to either job.
But if I were to use the bus (which I've had to do a lot until recently), my 30 minute commute becomes a lot longer. For Job A, it takes about 30-40 minutes to arrive to work by bus. In order to catch the bus on time, I need to leave my house and walk to the station about 20 minutes early. To allow enough wiggle-room between the time it takes the bus to arrive and the start time of my shift, I typically need to leave an hour early before my shift actually begins, which means I arrive--at the latest--a half-hour early. And that's on a weekday; if I work on a Saturday or Sunday, when service is greatly reduced, that down-time could be even longer.
That's almost 2 hours of my day already gone before my job even starts.
That was Job A.
Job B is even worse. To reach Job B in time before my shift begins, I have to leave my house 20 minutes before the bus leaves. The time slot I'm hoping to catch leaves town a full three hours before my shift. I have to do this because I need to bus into the city--a one-hour route by itself--then take another bus back into the town my Job B resides in.
But unlike my other job, which drops me off right in front of Job A, neither of the to busses I've used so far to get to Job B service anywhere near its location. So I have to take a third bus to the specific neighborhood it belongs. The down-time for that third bus can be anywhere from ten minutes to an hour, depending on when I got off the second bus. Finally, I take the third bus, about a ten-fifteen minute route, and get off in front of the elementary school, and then walk another ten minutes the rest of the way.
Remember: a drive to Job B takes 30 minutes max. What should be a 30 minute commute instead becomes three hours on public transportation.
And good luck getting back. Some nights I work so late, I can't get home via public transportation even if I wanted to. The buses stop running after nine o'clock.
Disclaimer: I don't work either of these two jobs anymore, so this example is dated. But I did have an experience last summer when my car broke down and I had to get to work through public transport again. It wasn't as long--two hours instead of three, after adding up all the walking and bus-hopping--but still far from ideal or reasonable. My normal commute is 25-30 minutes by car. I literally could not hold that job if I had to rely on the bus, at least from where I currently live.
Worse yet, a city with a low-quality public transportation system can make the commute unnaturally long. Depending on where they live, where they work, and what time they need to get there, some people can spend several hours every day just waiting to get to and from work, since they need to board multiple buses whose arrival and departure times don't sync up at the right places.
@semiticgod Tell me about it... my current commute is bus -> metro -> tram, a little over an hour in one direction. As fast as 25 min without traffic by car.
Seems like Trump expects to get his $50BN for the wall as part of the Dreamers negotiation to a crisis that he made when he decided he wanted to cancel the DREAM act.
In addition to lawsuits from environmental group and religious groups from the article, "The DHS has also opened itself up to lawsuits from cultural activist groups with this move. Secretary Nielsen has also waived the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act."
Seems like Trump expects to get his $50BN for the wall as part of the Dreamers negotiation to a crisis that he made when he decided he wanted to cancel the DREAM act.
In addition to lawsuits from environmental group and religious groups from the article, "The DHS has also opened itself up to lawsuits from cultural activist groups with this move. Secretary Nielsen has also waived the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act."
There isn't a single thing this country is better at than screwing over Native Americans. If any large-scale project is planned in a state where their land is, you can set your clock by the fact that their land will be the FIRST place to get exploited. Many of you probably heard about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests here in North Dakota about a year ago. What you may not know is that the pipeline was originally supposed to go through the outskirts of Bismarck. But of course, the mostly white residents of that city would never have to be subjected to that kind of intrusion. Instead, they stuck it straight through the middle of the water supply of an Indian Reservation. And then the majority of white residents of this state had the nerve to bitch about the protests.
And guess what?? Everyone against the pipeline was 100% correct in what the result would be. Because this is ALWAYS the what happens with pipelines:
I heard something similar from Ukraine. I'm afraid that we are going to see a lot more of this in the future. Nationalism is on the rise again, the last Holocaust survivors won't be around for much longer and the way we talk about the Holocaust already seems to be changing for the worse. Which is exactly what many of these survivors have predicted for decades.
Seems like Trump expects to get his $50BN for the wall as part of the Dreamers negotiation to a crisis that he made when he decided he wanted to cancel the DREAM act.
Again, as much as I love the idea of the DREAM Act... It. Never. Passed. There was never a DREAM Act to begin with. Let's be clear about facts. Some provisions of the DREAM Act were enacted through a dubious executive order under President Obama, but we see how easily that can be reversed. Unfortunately, this means that actual compromise has to be made. Unfortunately, that means a bunch of money wasted on a stupid wall.
Seems like Trump expects to get his $50BN for the wall as part of the Dreamers negotiation to a crisis that he made when he decided he wanted to cancel the DREAM act.
Again, as much as I love the idea of the DREAM Act... It. Never. Passed. There was never a DREAM Act to begin with. Let's be clear about facts. Some provisions of the DREAM Act were enacted through a dubious executive order under President Obama, but we see how easily that can be reversed. Unfortunately, this means that actual compromise has to be made. Unfortunately, that means a bunch of money wasted on a stupid wall.
No, it was never passed by Congress (the Republican Congress). Yes, it was an Executive Order (though much more akin to setting Federal Immigration priorities). There was no way in hell Republicans were going to work with Obama on immigration. They wouldn't even work with their OWN President (George W. Bush) on the subject in his second term.
I hear ALOT about Obama's Executive Orders. But as long as we're talking facts, let's talk facts. Obama issued less Executive Orders per year than any President since....James A. Garfield. Who left office in 1881. Trump, meanwhile, is on pace to issue more than anyone since Jimmy Carter. If you view Executive Orders as tyrannical and undemocratic (which they may be depending on the order), Barack Obama was the least offensive American President on this issue in the last 150 years.
On the other hand, Executive Order 1. The State Department began numbering executive orders in 1907 and they retroactively started with this one, whose title is "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana" (hence the name).
I know Obama liked to state that he had "a pen and a phone", meaning that if Congress could not or would not act on something then he would. The problem with that philosophy of governing is that the other side may do exactly the same thing.
I have always been of the opinion that overuse of executive orders is a Very Bad Thing and it should be avoided. Although Congress can overrule an executive order by adding, editing, or repealing a law the President can veto their action, forcing them to have to have a supermajority to overrule the veto. Federal Courts can issue stays against executive orders but another court above them can negate the lower court stay. It is far too easy for the Executive to overreach its authority by use of EOs.
On the other hand, Executive Order 1. The State Department began numbering executive orders in 1907 and they retroactively started with this one, whose title is "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana" (hence the name).
I know Obama liked to state that he had "a pen and a phone", meaning that if Congress could not or would not act on something then he would. The problem with that philosophy of governing is that the other side may do exactly the same thing.
I have always been of the opinion that overuse of executive orders is a Very Bad Thing and it should be avoided. Although Congress can overrule an executive order by adding, editing, or repealing a law the President can veto their action, forcing them to have to have a supermajority to overrule the veto. Federal Courts can issue stays against executive orders but another court above them can negate the lower court stay. It is far too easy for the Executive to overreach its authority by use of EOs.
I'm not really arguing for or against Executive Orders. I'm simply stating that Barack Obama actually used Executive Orders far less than any President in the lifetime of anyone who still draws breath, yet he is one most closely associated with them. When I looked up the numbers, I was expecting to see a situation where he had maybe used them less than anyone since the '80s. I wasn't even remotely considering that it would be the 1880s. Yet the first President who pops into anyone's head when the issue is brought up is Obama. The reality is, in regards to nearly any other US President of the 20th and 21st centuries, he was the definition of restraint. I would argue that the DEGREE to which Executive Orders are used would have to be of some importance to those that feel strongly about this issue. Personally, I'm more interested in WHAT the orders do, since, as the numbers show, Presidents have been wantonly engaging in this practice since our great-grandparents were in diapers.
Edit: I have to amend the claim above. Obama didn't have less than anyone since James Garfield. It is actually Grover Cleveland. In 1885. In any case, Garfield would not be a good example because of his extremely short time in office. Since March 4th, 1889, there hasn't been a single President who used Executive Orders less than Barack Obama. Obviously, we have to use the average number, since not all Presidents served a full two-terms.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
And saying the DACA recipients were here illegally, while technically true, leaves out nearly every other important fact about the situation. They were brought here as young children, and as anyone who has ever been a child knows, kids don't have agency. They didn't make a conscious decision to come to this country (the only one they have ever known) and they sure as hell couldn't have been expected to run away from home and high-tail it back to the border to fall within the letter of the law at 10 years old. So the decision was to either leave them twisting in the wind in legal limbo, or do something. And, since as we've been arguing, Executive Orders are as American as apple pie since the turn of the 20th century, it was the decision that was made given the purposeful paralysis the Republican Congress was engaging in from 2010-2016. Is this ideal?? No, it's not. But in the political reality we have, executive orders are a way of life. And he decision about this particular issue was that Obama wanted to give them protection, and Trump took it away.
I have always been of the opinion that overuse of executive orders is a Very Bad Thing and it should be avoided. Although Congress can overrule an executive order by adding, editing, or repealing a law the President can veto their action, forcing them to have to have a supermajority to overrule the veto. Federal Courts can issue stays against executive orders but another court above them can negate the lower court stay. It is far too easy for the Executive to overreach its authority by use of EOs.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective. Beyond that, unless we are going to go page by page through all 15,331 Executive Orders that have been enacted or signed by US Presidents as of this morning, I maintain that the volume is still a pretty good baseline for an opening discussion on them.
Furthermore, some of the most important events in US history, which could be construed as massive government overreach at the time, were Executive Orders. The Emancipation Proclamation, The Works Progress Administration, the desegregation of the military. On the flip-side, as @Mathsorcerer pointed out, you have heinous acts like Japanese internment.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
Well, the memo has been released. We should be able to read the text of it for ourselves shortly as news agencies transcribe it. Trump also took the opportunity to criticize top officials at the FBI--officials *he* put into place--proving once again that he will throw anyone under the bus on a whim if he thinks they aren't toeing his line.
The Austin City Council voted 10 - 1 to divest the city from investments in, or doing business with, companies obtaining contracts for any projected border wall project.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
Well, the memo has been released. We should be able to read the text of it for ourselves shortly as news agencies transcribe it. Trump also took the opportunity to criticize top officials at the FBI--officials *he* put into place--proving once again that he will throw anyone under the bus on a whim if he thinks they aren't toeing his line.
The Austin City Council voted 10 - 1 to divest the city from investments in, or doing business with, companies obtaining contracts for any projected border wall project.
I've known what's in the memo for days, and the basics of it are there for anyone who wanted to know. It's about the re-authorization of the FISA warrant against Carter Page. Surveillance that started LONG before the Trump campaign even existed. You can feel however you want about FISA and how it gets abused or doesn't. But the fact is that every time a FISA warrant has to be renewed, a judge has to sign off on it. So not only would the FBI have to be part of this conspiracy that Republicans are no doubt going to push in the memo, but whatever judges approved the re-authorization of the warrant as well.
And again, I know some people don't care about the in's and out's of this Russia stuff the way I do, but deciding that Carter Page, one of the most bizarre characters I have ever seen, is going to be the sympathetic figure in all this....well, let's just say it's an odd hill to die on. Watch any interview this guy has ever given.
I've now read part of the memo. It's basically exactly what I would hear if I turned on Sean Hannity's radio show in 2 hours. This is Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault. I mean, on top of everything else, it doesn't even do the job it's supposed to do WELL. This probably didn't need to be classified, because it's just a partisan press release masquerading as a earth-shattering revelation. Or as someone just called it on Twitter, "The Pentagon Papers for morons".
So the GOP MEMO is out. It states like four people renewed the search warrants on Carter Page. Yeah, and? I don't see the big deal. Page was investigated because there was reasons to do so which are conveniently not mentioned in the memo.
It blames Steele for not wanting Trump to be elected. Why would he want that? The memo doesn't say but implies the reason is because he was funded by Hillary. But perhaps it was another reason like because he had intelligence that Trump was a Russian pawn susceptible to blackmail. And he was. He paid off Stormy Daniels. What's that if not blackmail for her silence.
It also attempts to paint Strok as some mastermind. Yeah he criticized Hillary too but this partisan memo makes it seem like he was Hillarys mole.
Trump apparently has used this to say he wants to fire rosenstein which let's him control the toady who will control Mueller.
Comments
I agree there is a possibility in the future that all road taxes could be replaced by an electronic nationwide tolling system and I wouldn't personally object to that as the privacy issues don't bother me and at such a large scale the collection costs should be less of an issue. There would be winners and losers compared to the current system of charging, but I don't think road tolls would be inherently less fair (after all current charges are largely based on fuel tax and therefore already reflect usage).
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/poland-s-senate-backs-holocaust-speech-law-n843581
But that might be showing my ignorance, as I live in a city that use to have the top rated public transit in North America (other cities have caught up and overtaken us however), but a well planned public transit system negates this issue.
If your job requires you to have a car, your employer should also be responsible for any charges (gas, tolls, repairs) you need while on the job.
Back in 2006--not all that long ago time-wise but it feels like a lifetime ago because my situation was so different at that time--we had only one car and my job was in downtown Dallas. I bought a bicycle, would head out of the house at 6am with my work clothes and lunch in a backpack, ride for an hour--no, I am not kidding--to get to the bus station, then catch the bus to work; every evening I made that return trip back. I lost a little weight, toned up my leg muscles, and would frequently curse my situation. Still...I did it even though it wasn't easy because I couldn't afford to leave that job--I made enough to keep our heads above water but that was about it.
https://archpaper.com/2018/01/trump-administration-waives-laws-jumpstart-border-wall/
Seems like Trump expects to get his $50BN for the wall as part of the Dreamers negotiation to a crisis that he made when he decided he wanted to cancel the DREAM act.
In addition to lawsuits from environmental group and religious groups from the article,
"The DHS has also opened itself up to lawsuits from cultural activist groups with this move. Secretary Nielsen has also waived the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act."
And guess what?? Everyone against the pipeline was 100% correct in what the result would be. Because this is ALWAYS the what happens with pipelines:
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dakota-access-pipeline-leak-energy-transfer-partners/
Some provisions of the DREAM Act were enacted through a dubious executive order under President Obama, but we see how easily that can be reversed.
Unfortunately, this means that actual compromise has to be made. Unfortunately, that means a bunch of money wasted on a stupid wall.
I hear ALOT about Obama's Executive Orders. But as long as we're talking facts, let's talk facts. Obama issued less Executive Orders per year than any President since....James A. Garfield. Who left office in 1881. Trump, meanwhile, is on pace to issue more than anyone since Jimmy Carter. If you view Executive Orders as tyrannical and undemocratic (which they may be depending on the order), Barack Obama was the least offensive American President on this issue in the last 150 years.
On the other hand, Executive Order 1. The State Department began numbering executive orders in 1907 and they retroactively started with this one, whose title is "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana" (hence the name).
I know Obama liked to state that he had "a pen and a phone", meaning that if Congress could not or would not act on something then he would. The problem with that philosophy of governing is that the other side may do exactly the same thing.
I have always been of the opinion that overuse of executive orders is a Very Bad Thing and it should be avoided. Although Congress can overrule an executive order by adding, editing, or repealing a law the President can veto their action, forcing them to have to have a supermajority to overrule the veto. Federal Courts can issue stays against executive orders but another court above them can negate the lower court stay. It is far too easy for the Executive to overreach its authority by use of EOs.
Edit: I have to amend the claim above. Obama didn't have less than anyone since James Garfield. It is actually Grover Cleveland. In 1885. In any case, Garfield would not be a good example because of his extremely short time in office. Since March 4th, 1889, there hasn't been a single President who used Executive Orders less than Barack Obama. Obviously, we have to use the average number, since not all Presidents served a full two-terms.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
And saying the DACA recipients were here illegally, while technically true, leaves out nearly every other important fact about the situation. They were brought here as young children, and as anyone who has ever been a child knows, kids don't have agency. They didn't make a conscious decision to come to this country (the only one they have ever known) and they sure as hell couldn't have been expected to run away from home and high-tail it back to the border to fall within the letter of the law at 10 years old. So the decision was to either leave them twisting in the wind in legal limbo, or do something. And, since as we've been arguing, Executive Orders are as American as apple pie since the turn of the 20th century, it was the decision that was made given the purposeful paralysis the Republican Congress was engaging in from 2010-2016. Is this ideal?? No, it's not. But in the political reality we have, executive orders are a way of life. And he decision about this particular issue was that Obama wanted to give them protection, and Trump took it away.
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Furthermore, some of the most important events in US history, which could be construed as massive government overreach at the time, were Executive Orders. The Emancipation Proclamation, The Works Progress Administration, the desegregation of the military. On the flip-side, as @Mathsorcerer pointed out, you have heinous acts like Japanese internment.
edit: ninjaed by @jjstraka34
*************
Well, the memo has been released. We should be able to read the text of it for ourselves shortly as news agencies transcribe it. Trump also took the opportunity to criticize top officials at the FBI--officials *he* put into place--proving once again that he will throw anyone under the bus on a whim if he thinks they aren't toeing his line.
The Austin City Council voted 10 - 1 to divest the city from investments in, or doing business with, companies obtaining contracts for any projected border wall project.
And again, I know some people don't care about the in's and out's of this Russia stuff the way I do, but deciding that Carter Page, one of the most bizarre characters I have ever seen, is going to be the sympathetic figure in all this....well, let's just say it's an odd hill to die on. Watch any interview this guy has ever given.
I've now read part of the memo. It's basically exactly what I would hear if I turned on Sean Hannity's radio show in 2 hours. This is Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault. I mean, on top of everything else, it doesn't even do the job it's supposed to do WELL. This probably didn't need to be classified, because it's just a partisan press release masquerading as a earth-shattering revelation. Or as someone just called it on Twitter, "The Pentagon Papers for morons".
It blames Steele for not wanting Trump to be elected. Why would he want that? The memo doesn't say but implies the reason is because he was funded by Hillary. But perhaps it was another reason like because he had intelligence that Trump was a Russian pawn susceptible to blackmail. And he was. He paid off Stormy Daniels. What's that if not blackmail for her silence.
It also attempts to paint Strok as some mastermind. Yeah he criticized Hillary too but this partisan memo makes it seem like he was Hillarys mole.
Trump apparently has used this to say he wants to fire rosenstein which let's him control the toady who will control Mueller.