So I felt I owed it to myself to offer President Bush the courtesy of watching his final State of the Union address last night.  I figured it was probably one of the last, if not the last time, that any substantial portion of the country would pay any significant attention to him before he rides off into the sunset to be commissioner of Major League Baseball.

A friend emailed me earlier in the day to say that she would not be able to watch as she has no TV and wasn't able to load the video properly on her computer.  My projection of his speech consisting of a variation on the standard themes of "war, tax cuts, war, strong economy, tax cuts, war, "I have built a great legacy," tax cuts, tax cuts, Saddam had WMD even if we haven't found them yet" proved to be somewhat close, though not quite right, unfortunately.

The one thing that did catch my attention was the President's reference to the extensive use of earmarks by Congress to fund their "pet projects."

So, Bush is back with the old and moldy call for a line-item veto.  Reagan used to ask for it regularly and the issue hasn't been around for awhile.

What makes the call for it so nuts is that the Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional.  It was passed by the 104th Congress, the one after Republicans took the House in the 1994 election.  It was signed by President Clinton, who didn't mind having more executive power of its own.

And then the Supreme Court overturned it.  http://www.cnn.com/...

Why is it unconstitutional?  Because the Constitution says that the president can veto a bill, not part of a bill.

Someone in the White House must know this...which makes this an even more transparent political ploy than you thought it was!!!

The Wall Street Journal prints a long letter from George Bush to Congress this morning - where he is as defiant as ever.

The short version:

• get ready to take the blame for Iraq and everything else I did
• the mid-term elections were about earmarks, so you should no longer do these (yeah, he really writes this - and he wants a line item veto)
• I'll do my thing on Iraq. You can support me or take the blame for dividing us
• tax cuts are good. Don't even think of touching these. Don't even think of implementing any kind of policy I don't like.

This is an article about Bush doing a signing statement regarding who he can hire for a position at FEMA.  I know that everyone has been talking about these lately but I'm wondering how these signing statements are different then line item vetoes of yesteryear.

President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

By signing these bills and turning them into law he sets himself up as breaking the law but there have been no challenges to these signing statements the way there was to the line item veto.  Why?

"Please do not bother replying to me in particular; however, it is essential that the remaining grownups in DC oppose the maddness of BushCo.

Didn't the Supreme Court earlier reject the notion of a Presidential line item veto? And isn't Bush's use of signing statements an attempt to create, unilaterally, an even stronger line item veto? A line item veto THAT CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN BY CONGRESS."

I continued my email to Sensenbrenner, pasting into it the following from this morning's Thinkprogress...

Reagan's wet dream, the line-item veto, PASSED CONGRESS TODAY!??

http://www.congress.org/...

So that's what all this crap about gay bashing and flag burning is all about... a distraction from the real agenda: the abolishment of Congress, and a Dictatorship!

This  is a very dangerous bill that is moving stealthily through Congress this summer. Among other things, the SOS bill would give President Bush even more power by providing him with a line-item veto over future healthcare and other domestic spending increases. By up-ending the congresssional budget process, this bill could also bring about drastic cuts to virtually all entitlement programs--or even their elimination--with little congressional debate.

If you just can't wait to take action, here's a link to our action alert. Otherwise, make the jump.

It's time for an all-new Scotty Show with Tony Snow, and this one is shorter than usual because, frankly, Tony Snow didn't know a hell of a lot this time around.  The man just seemed to know jack shit in response to every question.  "I don't know... I don't have that with me... ask me tomorrow... I'll try to get back with you on that..."

Well, either way, Tony, get the fuck with it because your vacation is over.  Someone in Customs/Immigration let me back in the country, so my eyes are back on you.  And as usual...

Press comments and questions are italicized for her pleasure.
Scotty's Snow's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
Bullshit detector comments are in plain text, which I'm sure signifies something suitably profound.

an excerpt of a SEARING speech by Representative George Miller on the line item vetofrom C-SPAN today if you missed it-- A real keeper!
Have rarely heard this tone & personally, can't hear enough!

[Link] When the Republican Congress granted the president a line-item veto in the mid-1990s, it was a recognition of their own lack of budgetary self control. A similar sense is building in Congress now.  "For Congress to offer a line-veto is much like giving your car keys to a friend and saying don't let me drive, I plan to be out of control," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan body that advises Congress.

The limited line-item veto is being presented as a way for the President to cut down on pork and waste. Both are out of control in a Republican Congress giddy after a five year spending binge, which have left the deficit in ruins and the idea of conservative fiscal restraint a running joke.

Still, one has to wonder if Congress has been paying attention to national events. When Tim Taylor gets the jet powered ice-cream scooper started up, he only breaks a few dishes and gets a bruise or two. Bush's blunders have contributed to the destruction of thousands of military families and entire cities. And given the choice to knock out sorely needed projects in favor of funding the concerns of those who demonstrate utter fealty to the King, does anyone think George Bush will put politics aside and do what's best for the nation?

So IMHO Bush is asking Congress to pass a law that's unconstitutional, though he said he "thought" it was re-written now so that it would pass the court and be constitutional.  So who wrote this law?  Gonzales, Cheney, Rove?    I heard one discussion saying it would have to be made an amendment to the Constitution - and would take 2/3 votes by Congress and states.

What are you THINKING???

You told Raw Story today you planned to introduce legislation to give President Bush the line item veto. Hey, I get that YOUR motivation is to stop graft. But you can't SERIOUSLY think that's Bush's motivation for asking for a line item veto!

President Bush's goal is to destroy government altogether. He wants to open up priceless public lands to private drilling interests. He wants to defund Social Security. He wants to be able to break the law with impunity. And you want to give THIS man a line-item veto? What are you THINKING???

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

More below.

Questions on the flip:

President George W. Bush will soon make a formal request to Congress for a line-item veto -- authority that would give him power to cancel specific spending items in budget bills, an administration official said on Sunday.

More after the flip.