OT - Sequester lies

[Bruce S]

Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?

http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture

--
Bruce

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."

[Hank]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:12:59 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Wow! a chart from a blogger posted by Bruce. How unique! what's not to believe?

Hank

[nothermark]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>
>http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture

Great example of how to lie with graphs...

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:p1jon8dj22j50js2u...@4ax.com...

I suspect it's at least as credible as the Puffington post.

[Bruce S]

Do you know how to use Google? You could check the numbers for yourself
in about 15 seconds. Until you check and post some evidence that the
numbers are somehow wrong, I'm just going to continue to assume that you
are too stupid to look it up.

[Bruce S]

I could put ditto marks on the response I just sent to Hank, but if you
want to claim that the graph is a lie, post the real numbers.

How much did 0bama request as a budget for the FAA??

How much was the FAA budget after the sequester?

Where is the error in the graph?

Of course you won't bother to answer any of those questions, because you
lack the integrity to back up your lie with facts.

[nothermark]

Do you suppose I give either one much credibility rating?

[nothermark]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:17 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/27/2013 3:08 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>>
>> Great example of how to lie with graphs...
>
>I could put ditto marks on the response I just sent to Hank, but if you
>want to claim that the graph is a lie, post the real numbers.
>
>How much did 0bama request as a budget for the FAA??
>
>How much was the FAA budget after the sequester?
>
>Where is the error in the graph?
>
>Of course you won't bother to answer any of those questions, because you
>lack the integrity to back up your lie with facts.

We have no way of knowing why the change was made. It is more likely
some congressrat had the money added to support some payoff contract
in his home district than it was pre planning by Obama and his folks.
My complaint really was the way the graph was presented to make the
number look significant. If it was plotted from zero the difference
would be too small to see. What you presented was typical skewed data
with insuffcient background information to really know what it is but
baseless insinuation about what it could be. It's your data, you
justify it.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>
>http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture

A quick look by folks wanting to pick a nit can certainly see
something to howl about with this graph and what it might indicate.

But to keep things in perspective:

The FAA has a $15-Billion budget.

The graph while accurate actually exaggerates the magnitude of the
difference. Note that graph starts at $15-Billion. It the graph
would have started at ZERO the difference would be so minute (1.5%)
that it would have been hard to detect with the naked eye.

Also, keep in mind that the Obama budget may have taken money out of
the "Airport improvement Program" or other program that did not effect
salaries. I doubt that the Obama Administration had any idea
concerning what account to take the money out of even if they did
"budget" that number.

The point I am trying to make is that the FAA budget could have been
reduced at the beginning of the FY by the amount Obama had budgeted
and things could have run smoothly ....... IF the budget cuts could
have been made out of items like Airport Improvement Program funding.
It could also be achieved by closing those under utilized airport
towers........ which would have to be approved by Congress. But it
could have been done.

Personally, I do not like the politics either side is playing.
Cutting the fat out of budgets can be very difficult if Congress is
involved because they demand Agency managers leave most of the FAT
untouched. Thus Agency managers have little leeway to make the actual
cuts because there are so many sacred cows.

In all my time working with Federal (DOD) Budgets I never recall the
White House interfering...... however, Congress was constantly
involved in protecting all their "Pork"/"Sacred Cows".

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:ap9pn81j3rn6esvof...@4ax.com...

Actually that would be "they are your data, you justify them". Data is
actually the plural form of datum. Just sayin'.

[RMcBane]

On 4/27/2013 9:09 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 4/27/2013 3:08 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>>
>> Great example of how to lie with graphs...
>
> I could put ditto marks on the response I just sent to Hank, but if you
> want to claim that the graph is a lie, post the real numbers.
>
> How much did 0bama request as a budget for the FAA??
>
> How much was the FAA budget after the sequester?
>
> Where is the error in the graph?
>
> Of course you won't bother to answer any of those questions, because you
> lack the integrity to back up your lie with facts.

To me, the graph is lying because the difference in the two numbers is
pretty small $15,146 vs $15,371. Put the graph on a $0 to $15,500 scale
and the bars would be nearly the same size. The amount is about 1.5%
more. Yet at a quick glance, without reading the numbers, the red bar
is more twice the size of the red bar. Take away the scale and the
numbers and it looks like the FAA is getting double what Obama proposed.
While I know you would not make that mistake, there are a lot of
people who will.

I know your point is that the FAA is getting more under the sequester
than proposed, but IMO this graph is intended to make it look like they
are getting a lot more than the proposed budget and that is why I
consider it a misrepresentation.


--
Richard McBane

[nothermark]

If you say so.... ;-)

[Frank Howell]

I agree Mike. There must be a better way to run agencies like the FAA, when
it's clear that congress's tentacles increase the costs of running the
agency while at the same time decreasing it's effectiveness and all for
their benefit at our expense.

These tactics are similar to the ones that States use when facing a budget
crunch and they want more revenue, they find targets for cuts that will
produce the maximum of pain.

The only way to change this behavior is if enough fellow citizens start
electing officials that will work to restructure these agencies and give
more autonomy and flexibility to the agency managers, but I'm not holding my
breath.


--
Frank Howell

[Lone Haranguer]

Just because the White House didn't call YOU doesn't mean there
were no calls to Senators and House members.

The White House has a lot of leverage. Theparty leaders get a
call from the White House that tells them to cut funds to
someone's re-election campaign is all it takes to get the
member's vote.

LZ

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>
>http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture

-----------------------

I saw this quote in a "Huffington Post" article just now as I was
researching whistle blower FAA inflict as much pain:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/faa-furloughs_n_3156155.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Here is the quote:

"In addition to restoring full staffing by controllers, Senate
officials said the available funds should be ample enough to prevent
the closure of small airport towers around the country. The FAA has
said it will shut the facilities as it makes its share of $85 billion
in across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester that took
effect last month at numerous government agencies."

and

"Officials estimate it would cost slightly more than $200 million to
restore air traffic controllers to full staffing, and another $50
million to keep open smaller air traffic towers around the country
that the FAA has proposed closing."


This is the point I was trying to make about Congress Critters
actually tying the hands of Program Administrators by not allowing
them to make the "logical & rational" cost cutting decisions.
Congress is still the major source of the PORK problem.

I was Googling FAA whistle blower because I was watching George
Stephanopilis and the round table this morning when one of his guest
made the statement that FAA whistle blowers were saying Agency
Administrators were openly discussing inflicting as much pain as
possible. I was trying to find out more about this alligation because
for me that would be a game changer. I never witnessed anything like
that and the good Lord knows I dealt with some major budget reductions
at DOD after the Cold War came to an end. Never, ever was there any
talk about inflicting pain. We were always trying our dead level best
to get the mission done with the funding available. In the vast
majority of decisions ......( well into the upper 90% range ) were a
unanimous decision by all decision makers and advisors to the decision
makers. In my entire Federal Government career (All with Dept of the
Navy) I never did witness anything even remotely close to ...... make
the cuts painful. In my world it was all about getting the mission
done with the resources provided. One other thing I can say..... A
tremendous amount of thought and discussion went into each decision.
Point papers ad nauseum were produced outlining the pro's and con's of
each decision.

So, if indeed, FAA officials were discussing making these budget cuts
as painful as possible it is time to replace FAA top management. It
is beyond my comprehension that anyone from the White House told
anyone at the FAA to make things as painful as possible. If indeed
that did happen there will be a smoking gun and there will be all HELL
to pay.

------------------------

Here is another good link that discusses what FAA officials are trying
to do to live with the Sequester:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/22/sequester-faa-to-close-149-air-traffic-towers-that-all-have-this-one-thing-in-common/

Sequester! FAA to Close 149 Air Traffic Towers That All Have This One
Thing in Common

From what I am seeing the FAA is making a good faith effort at taking
a logical approach...... Closing 149 Air Traffic Towers.... that are
really, really lightly used..... and most of that is by non-commercial
traffic.

Why are they staying open?????? Congress!!!!!!!!!

[Bruce S]

On 4/27/2013 9:42 PM, nothermark wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:17 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2013 3:08 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>>>
>>> Great example of how to lie with graphs...
>>
>> I could put ditto marks on the response I just sent to Hank, but if you
>> want to claim that the graph is a lie, post the real numbers.
>>
>> How much did 0bama request as a budget for the FAA??
>>
>> How much was the FAA budget after the sequester?
>>
>> Where is the error in the graph?
>>
>> Of course you won't bother to answer any of those questions, because you
>> lack the integrity to back up your lie with facts.
>
> We have no way of knowing why the change was made. It is more likely
> some congressrat had the money added to support some payoff contract
> in his home district than it was pre planning by Obama and his folks.

Why the change was made is irrelevant. The point was that claiming that
the sequester caused the FAA to have less money and need to furlough
people is an obvious lie when they got more money after the sequester
than the budget asked for. You can't have it both ways, either the
amount that was asked for BY THE PRESIDENT was sufficient (in his
opinion) to do the job, or it was not. If it was, then giving the FAA
even more money is clearly enough to do the job, and claiming that the
FAA is somehow hurt by the sequester is an obvious lie.

> My complaint really was the way the graph was presented to make the
> number look significant. If it was plotted from zero the difference
> would be too small to see. What you presented was typical skewed data
> with insuffcient background information to really know what it is but
> baseless insinuation about what it could be. It's your data, you
> justify it.

The only thing I need to do to completely justify the numbers is ask the
simple question: Is $15.371 billion more or less than $15.146 billion?
If it is more, then every claim 0bama made about the effects of the
sequester on the FAA are lies. (By the way, for those people who have
difficulty with math, 15.3 is MORE than 15.1.)

[Bruce S]

On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>
> A quick look by folks wanting to pick a nit can certainly see
> something to howl about with this graph and what it might indicate.
>
> But to keep things in perspective:
>
> The FAA has a $15-Billion budget.
>
> The graph while accurate actually exaggerates the magnitude of the
> difference. Note that graph starts at $15-Billion. It the graph
> would have started at ZERO the difference would be so minute (1.5%)
> that it would have been hard to detect with the naked eye.
>

> mike
>

It is true that perspective was added to make the difference more
notable, but the reality is that the 15.3 billion that was actually
budgeted was MORE than the 15.1 billion that was asked for. What that
means is that every claim made about how the sequester is causing
hardships for the FAA is a LIE.

[bill horne]

Mike Hendrix wrote:

> So, if indeed, FAA officials were discussing making these budget cuts
> as painful as possible it is time to replace FAA top management. It
> is beyond my comprehension that anyone from the White House told
> anyone at the FAA to make things as painful as possible. If indeed
> that did happen there will be a smoking gun and there will be all HELL
> to pay.

Even if they found a smoking gun in a drawer in the oval office desk,
Obama would claim that a visiting Republican operative put it there -
and over half the country would believe him.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Bruce S]

Including Mike.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:55:23 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Please pay attention. As Mike, and many other sources, point out, the
Congress often adds money with a stipulation that it be used on some
special project. They could have doubled the budget and there still
would not be enough funds to cover the ATC and small tower budgets.
The key is allocation. We do not know what money is allocated and
what is available.

If you look at what the law appears to be it is not stopping the cut
in the FAA budget. It is allowing them to use money allocated for
something else to pay for ATC instead. What you are doing is falling
for one of the common ways political advertising lies.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:59:35 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>>
>> A quick look by folks wanting to pick a nit can certainly see
>> something to howl about with this graph and what it might indicate.
>>
>> But to keep things in perspective:
>>
>> The FAA has a $15-Billion budget.
>>
>> The graph while accurate actually exaggerates the magnitude of the
>> difference. Note that graph starts at $15-Billion. It the graph
>> would have started at ZERO the difference would be so minute (1.5%)
>> that it would have been hard to detect with the naked eye.
> >
> > mike
> >
>
>It is true that perspective was added to make the difference more
>notable, but the reality is that the 15.3 billion that was actually
>budgeted was MORE than the 15.1 billion that was asked for. What that
>means is that every claim made about how the sequester is causing
>hardships for the FAA is a LIE.

Or that Bruce does not know when he is being suckered....

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:59:35 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12:59 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be that 0bama lied about the problems caused by the sequester?
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/sequester-fraud-one-picture
>>
>> A quick look by folks wanting to pick a nit can certainly see
>> something to howl about with this graph and what it might indicate.
>>
>> But to keep things in perspective:
>>
>> The FAA has a $15-Billion budget.
>>
>> The graph while accurate actually exaggerates the magnitude of the
>> difference. Note that graph starts at $15-Billion. It the graph
>> would have started at ZERO the difference would be so minute (1.5%)
>> that it would have been hard to detect with the naked eye.
> >
> > mike
> >
>
>It is true that perspective was added to make the difference more
>notable, but the reality is that the 15.3 billion that was actually
>budgeted was MORE than the 15.1 billion that was asked for. What that
>means is that every claim made about how the sequester is causing
>hardships for the FAA is a LIE.

------------------------------

Not necessarily. IF.....the Obama budget was planning to put the full
15.1 billion into the operations account and take all the reduction
out of the Airport Improvement Program funding then there would have
been no problem with laying off Air Traffic Controllers.

Now do not get me wrong, I do NOT think this was the plan. In fact I
do not think the Obama Administration had a plan for the FAA other
than to cut "X" from their budget, which is more or less what
politicians do.....suggest.

Keep in mind that Romney had a plan...... remember that plan! He was
going to cut the Federal Spending, but never revealed where those cuts
were going to come from. Obama went so far with his "plan" to
actually indicate which agencies would get the cuts.

In any budget game........ and it is a game, cards have to be put on
the table.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:13:52 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
wrote:

---------------------

bill, I have searched for evidence of an FAA whistle blower saying
that FAA officials were discussing inflicting the most pain..... or
anything of that sort. Can you or anyone else provide a source or is
that just another Republican talking point that is not based in fact?

Actually, I think that the country would be livid if there was
evidence of someone in the White House involved in any way with the
FAA making the pain as bad as possible. I really do not think that
the American public would put up with it.

Let's see if this is just a normal Republican talking out his ass or
if there is a smoking gun.

Then and only then will we know.

[Bob Hatch]

On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:

> In all my time working with Federal (DOD) Budgets I never recall the
> White House interfering...... however, Congress was constantly
> involved in protecting all their "Pork"/"Sacred Cows".

That's not what you used to say.

--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:05:52 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> In all my time working with Federal (DOD) Budgets I never recall the
>> White House interfering...... however, Congress was constantly
>> involved in protecting all their "Pork"/"Sacred Cows".
>
>That's not what you used to say.

-----------------------
Bob, politely remind me & RORT what I used to say.

[Lone Haranguer]

When Clinton shut the government down in '94-'95 "because there
was no money to operate" government workers at the NationalParks
worked overtime hassling visitors and running them out of the
parks. The customers of concession resorts in the parks were
told they had to leave although there were no government funds
involved in their staying.

I personally visited with several rangers who were pissed off
about being used to hassle the public.

If you REALLY believe that Obama and his lickspittles aren't
trying to inflict maximum pain on the public so they can blame
the Republicans you must still be sucking on a pacifier.

LZ

[bill horne]

Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:13:52 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>
>>> So, if indeed, FAA officials were discussing making these budget cuts
>>> as painful as possible it is time to replace FAA top management. It
>>> is beyond my comprehension that anyone from the White House told
>>> anyone at the FAA to make things as painful as possible. If indeed
>>> that did happen there will be a smoking gun and there will be all HELL
>>> to pay.
>>
>> Even if they found a smoking gun in a drawer in the oval office desk,
>> Obama would claim that a visiting Republican operative put it there -
>> and over half the country would believe him.
>
> ---------------------
>
> bill, I have searched for evidence of an FAA whistle blower saying
> that FAA officials were discussing inflicting the most pain..... or
> anything of that sort. Can you or anyone else provide a source or is
> that just another Republican talking point that is not based in fact?

It's not my responsibility to provide a source for a claim I didn't make.

> Actually, I think that the country would be livid if there was
> evidence of someone in the White House involved in any way with the
> FAA making the pain as bad as possible. I really do not think that
> the American public would put up with it.
>
> Let's see if this is just a normal Republican talking out his ass or
> if there is a smoking gun.
>
> Then and only then will we know.
>
> mike
>


--

[Lone Haranguer]

EXPOSE’ — FAA is INTENTIONALLY causing massive airline flight
delays to punish taxpayers

http://sdrostra.com/?p=33523
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/privatization-is-the-best-response-to-the-faas-deliberate-attempt-to-inconvenience-air-passengers/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130419-911472.html
***************
No matter how much proof exists that deliberately inconveniencing
the public is on orders from the White House; liberals will
remain in denial.

LZ

[Hank]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:47:17 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:

> ***************
>
> No matter how much proof exists that deliberately inconveniencing
>
> the public is on orders from the White House; liberals will
>
> remain in denial.
>
>
>
> LZ

Are you saying the sky really is falling?

Hank <~~~don't care, hasn't flown for years

[nothermark]

Opinion pieces not even pretending to offer proof
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130419-911472.html

This one is about the suit the airlines filed - no proof of anything.

>***************
>No matter how much proof exists that deliberately inconveniencing
>the public is on orders from the White House; liberals will
>remain in denial.
>
>LZ

If there was any we would look at it. All you have is opinion.

[Carl A.]

LOL - Somebody had to fall on his sword... :-)

From the Wall Street Journal:

"President Barack Obama on Monday will name Charlotte, N.C., Mayor
Anthony Foxx to be the next secretary of the Department of
Transportation, an agency that has been under intense pressure in recent
weeks over flight delays caused by budget cuts. If confirmed, Mr. Foxx
would replace the current secretary, Ray LaHood."



--
Carl Ahlemeyer
Sigismund Freud "Everyone must be the same and have the same. Social
justice means we deny ourselves many things so that others may have to
do without them as well."

[Bob Hatch]

That the President was the Executive and did not have to spend all the
money that was allocated by congress, that he could pick and choose and
had done so in items in your budget allocation.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:14:17 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/28/2013 1:05 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:05:52 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> In all my time working with Federal (DOD) Budgets I never recall the
>>>> White House interfering...... however, Congress was constantly
>>>> involved in protecting all their "Pork"/"Sacred Cows".
>>>
>>> That's not what you used to say.
>> -----------------------
>> Bob, politely remind me & RORT what I used to say.
>>
>> mike
>>
>
>That the President was the Executive and did not have to spend all the
>money that was allocated by congress, that he could pick and choose and
>had done so in items in your budget allocation.

---------

Hey Bob, you are right. I have seen the executive side of government
just not use funds. That certainly has been done.

So, YES I have seen the Executive branch refuse to spend money
appropriated by Congress. You are correct.

Thinking back now when those things happened they happened at a level
so far above me that I am not even sure where they happened. (Where
the decision was made)...... but most certainly before the funds were
made available at our Headquarters level and way before base CO's got
involved.

[Bob Hatch]

We've been through this on 2 occasions, and I've proved to you it can't
happen. It's against Federal Law, except in rare circumstances, and must
be approved by Congress. You were wrong back then and you're wrong now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

" The Supreme Court in Train v. City of New York (1975)[1] ruled that
the impoundment power cannot be used to frustrate the will of Congress
under such circumstances.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed as Congress felt that
President Nixon was abusing his authority to impound the funding of
programs he opposed. The Act effectively removed the impoundment power
of the president and required him to obtain Congressional approval if he
wants to rescind specific government spending. President Nixon signed
the Act with little protest because the administration was then
embroiled in the Watergate scandal and unwilling to provoke Congress.[6]"

Read this article:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Impoundment

[Albert]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:19:34 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

Bob,
The money that Nixon's administration impounded if memory serves me
right, wasn't it Health Education & Welfare money that he deposited in
a newly chartered bank in California. I think the person that
chartered the new bank was a Nixon campaign contributor. They used the
impounded (something like 4 billion +$) to seed the new bank. I also
understand that Nixon put that bank charter on the fast-track for
him??? I also seem to remember that was the only reason for the
impoundment?

[Bob Hatch]

It was for several things, on several occasions. Nixon was trying to do
a runaround congress, and congress got PO'd. As the first article says,
things came to a head in the weeks before he resigned and he signed the
bill rather than make waves. A President can't just decide he doesn't
want to spend money on something he doesn't like, after the dollars have
been allocated by congress. Congress controls the purse, not the
President. :-)

[Albert]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:22:42 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

As it should be.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:19:34 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

Bob, I said nothing about impoundment. That is all you.

All that an agency or Dept. like DOD has to do is NOT spend the money
Appropriated. It happens all the time.

Money that is appropriated by Congress has to be spent or obligated
within a certain time frame. All an agency has to do is not let a
contract and the pot of money dies. Sometimes that is done willfully,
other times it happens because of contract disputes or
non-availability.

You have lost all of your marbles if you think every penny that is
appropriated every year has to be spent.

[Bob Hatch]

You said: "Hey Bob, you are right. I have seen the executive side of

government just not use funds. That certainly has been done.
>>>
So, YES I have seen the Executive branch refuse to spend money
appropriated by Congress. You are correct."

If the Executive Branch does that, it's called "impoundment of
appropriated funds".

I said nothing about what might be done by a department or agency. Time
to quit the tap dance, Mike.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:45:59 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

--------------------------------------
No tap dancing Bob. Virtually every year, in every agency they do not
spend all the money appropriated. I happens every year in virtually
every account.

There are myriad reasons why appropriated money is not spent in the
allocated time frame. Sometimes enough manpower is not allocated to
even give the contracts to a contractor.

Congress is appropriating money for border security, at least I think
they are, yet the executive branch is not spending all that money on
what congress wants. That is just an example of what you say is not
going on. No matter what Congress wants the executive branch does not
seem to be doing it or are you seeing something different?

[Bob Hatch]

I never said it didn't.

>
> There are myriad reasons why appropriated money is not spent in the
> allocated time frame. Sometimes enough manpower is not allocated to
> even give the contracts to a contractor.

I understand that.

>
> Congress is appropriating money for border security, at least I think
> they are, yet the executive branch is not spending all that money on
> what congress wants.

It is not the executive branch that is not spending the money.

That is just an example of what you say is not
> going on. No matter what Congress wants the executive branch does not
> seem to be doing it or are you seeing something different?
>
>

I see what is really happening, you don't seem to be able to do that. If
it was as easy as you claim, Zero could tell Congress to go ahead and
fund the additional tanks, we just won't build them, or DOD could do
that, but the can't. Or maybe you think they can, but just don't want to.

Which is it?

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:18:33 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

I think what we have is a semantics issue. I agree the Obama Clan can
not just refuse to do anything with those tanks. They have to make
some sort of effort. Which they will no doubt do. However, I suspect
they will assign minimal manpower and resources to accomplishing the
mission which will result much less spending than what Congress wants
them to spend. Of course, if a new election puts a Republican in the
White House they probably will pull resources off some other project
and go to spending like crazy on those Abrams tanks. That is just the
way things work.

What will happen is like assigning one of those "bad" union workers to
the job......... they will do the bare minimum to get by.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <7453o8919snhpfn4g...@4ax.com>,

Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:


>
> I think what we have is a semantics issue. I agree the Obama Clan can
> not just refuse to do anything with those tanks. They have to make
> some sort of effort. Which they will no doubt do. However, I suspect
> they will assign minimal manpower and resources to accomplishing the
> mission which will result much less spending than what Congress wants
> them to spend. Of course, if a new election puts a Republican in the
> White House they probably will pull resources off some other project
> and go to spending like crazy on those Abrams tanks. That is just the
> way things work.
>
> What will happen is like assigning one of those "bad" union workers to
> the job......... they will do the bare minimum to get by.
>
> mike

Actually, as I recall it will not matter who is elected, well, at least
some, as the DoD is planning to start ordering tanks again about then

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv