George W. Bush received a lot of criticism from a lot of people. That is an understatement. Much of the criticism echoed a sentiment that his administration repeatedly operated with a great deal of hubris. One area where this hubris was evident in his use of Presidential signing statements.
Signing statements have been used by Presidents for a long time. However, it has been recent administrations which have begun to push the envelope. A signing statement is authored to accompany the passage of legislation. Presidents have used them to challenge the constitutionality of legislation as well as indicate the administrations’ plans to downright ignore certain provisions therein. This has been viewed by many as an attempt by the Executive Branch to ignore the divisions of power vested in the Constitution.
The Senate will vote today on whether or not to allow concealed carry permit holders to take their guns to another state:
Gun control and gun rights advocates are heading for another clash with a Senate vote on a measure that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons into other states.
Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.
The Senate has scheduled a vote Wednesday on the measure, which Thune offered as an amendment to a major defense policy bill. Under an agreement reached among Senate leaders, 60 votes will be needed to approve the amendment.
I caught this over at the Heritage Foundation:
So far this year the most popular edition of Road to Serfdom has sold 11,366 copies. That compares with 3,131 copies at the same point last year. That’s a 263 percent increase for those of you keeping score at home.
Reason.tv explains why all that “buy American” talk doesn’t make much sense:
A critical House committee vote on health care has been postponed:
The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee has canceled its Tuesday debate and vote on healthcare legislation but has kept a Wednesday meeting on its schedule.
The Democratic-led committee has been struggling to keep a group of fiscally conservative Democrats on board with the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year healthcare overhaul. The group, known as the Blue Dog Democrats, has said they cannot support legislation that would increase the massive federal budget deficit.
A new study from Jeffery Anderson at the Pacific Research Institute shows that government-run programs already in place, such as Medicare and Medicaid, spend more per patient than private health insurance:
Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid’s combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.
Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that’s even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)
Given the exotic nature of Barack Obama, an Obama victory was logically in question during the 2008 election cycle. In retrospect, however, with the economy then cratering under a Republican administration and a Republican opponent appearing too old and incoherent to be able to confront America’s problems, Barack Obama’s electoral victory makes sense.
“Who could have even imagined new government commitments of $24 trillion in mere months? These promises could make the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac look like a lemonade stand closing.” - David Boaz
We’re not only facing $49 trillion in unfunded liabilities (p. 28) due to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, Americans could be on the hook for another $23.7 trillion due to government-funded bailouts:
The total price tag for federal support stemming from the financial crisis could reach $23.7 trillion in the long run, the government’s top bailout watchdog says in a new report to Congress.
In what can only be taken to be a reflection of his declining approval numbers, a new Rasmussen poll shows that President Obama would face quite a challenge in seeking re-election three years from now:
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.