posted
Army orders commanders to detail spending cuts forced by budget gridlockBy Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press November 28, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Army commanders have been ordered to begin calculating budget and personnel cuts as a result of the congressional gridlock over the war spending bill, according to a new memo. The four-page directive, issued by Gen. Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, tells top officers at all Army bases to develop plans to use troops to replace civilians and contractors who may have to be laid off around Feb. 23. The detailed plans are due next Tuesday, according to the memo obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. Because the war funding bill has not been approved, the military is using operations and maintenance money from its 2008 budget for war-related costs. For the Army, those funds will run out in mid-February unless Congress acts. Cody said all military personnel other than those preparing to go to the war zone should be considered available as the civilian substitutes. The memo, issued late Monday night, tells commanders to calculate the weekly costs of the minimum essential operations that could continue under emergency procedures if all money for operations is exhausted. Those essential costs could include activities: to protect national security,to protect the lives and health of Army soldiers and their families at all installations,to prepare and train forces for deployment. Cody also told commanders they should plan to suspend all maintenance that is not necessary to support warfighting. And he said they should expect the Pentagon to send layoff notices that would be effective on Feb. 23. Cody's memo comes as Defense Secretary Robert Gates renewed his call for Congress to approve the war funding bill. During a speech Monday night to the Killeen, Texas, Chamber of Commerce, Gates said that the department has to start planning now to be ready in case the money is not approved by early next year. "The Defense Department is like the world's biggest supertanker. It cannot turn on a dime, and I cannot steer it like a skiff," said Gates. "I do not want to create anxiety among our employees, but we must plan and prepare." Gates has said that many of the union contracts require that employees be notified of an impending layoff 60 days in advance. Thus notices would have to start going out in mid-December. He warned that layoffs could affect 100,000 civilian employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. The Democratic-led House has passed a $50 billion war spending bill that would keep operations going for several more months, but it sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. President Bush threatened to veto it, and the measure was blocked in the Senate. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i say forget playing games with the money and implement impeachment proceedings..
i believe it's the only situation where the Senate cannot block a vote with this stupid 60 senator rule..
if the Dems don't have the guts to lay all the cards on the table and play the hand? then they'll end up getting voted out, not next year but in the election cycle after that...
i really want to know why so many whistleblowers got fired and reprimanded. and i want to know where all the money went.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bet you can make a reasonable guess where the money went and bat well over .500 doing it, but I don't think there will be any impeachment out of the House before the 2008 elections are over and maybe not thereafter.
(I think some may come then, when some of the things declared "secret and classified" by the Administration come to the knowledge of the new Congress and they get the details that will make impeachment charges provable. Although, I wouldn't put it past dubya to declare midnight blanket pardons for his entire crew.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only thin you are missing is that the republicans will try and blame the democrats no matter what they do. Like Rove out trying to pass off the BS that the democrats insisted on passing the resolution to give dubya authority forcing the invasion of Iraq, when the Administration was trying to avoid that resolution to give more time to negotiate with Saddam and work out help in that from other nations.
He'll lay pardons for any actions that may be brought, such as has been done before by presidents.
I worry that Obama will solidify the anti-black groups, just like Hillary will have blocks of votes against her because of gender. I don't mean to cheer for them, I just find voting on the basis of gender and race to be ultra vulgar and really stupid. At the same time, I find things said by Clinton recently to pawn for pro female votes on that basis and things said by Romney proving he is the "flip flop" champ and his racial bigotry disheartening. We deserve better for ANY presidential candidate.
I agree that Edwards probably would be unbeatable in this climate.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's own people may very well have found the issue that would preclude a blank check pardon, but apparently it is untested:
* Can a Presidential pardon be reversed?
No. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution there are no grounds for reversal provided, and no authority identified that could accomplish a legal reversal (although Congress might theoretically pass a resolution condemning a Presidential clemency order, as was done for the first time in the wake of President Clinton's 1999 commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN Puerto Rican nationalists). Early in the 2001 pardons controversy, certain lawyers in the Bush administration suggested that, under a line of 19th century cases, signed pardons, like warrants, might require delivery to be valid, but this argument was not officially pursued in the wake of President George W. Bush's subsequent statement that he would allow President Clinton's pardons to stand.
Murphy v. Ford 390 F. Supp. 372 (U.S. District Court, W. District of Michigan, 1975)
Murphy, a Michigan attorney, brought suit for a declaratory judgment against President Gerald Ford invalidating the pardon on grounds that a pardon could not be legally granted to an individual who had not first been indicted or convicted of a crime. Chief Judge Fox said: "The fact that Mr. Nixon had been neither indicted nor convicted of an offense against the United States does not affect the validity of the pardon. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 333. In that case the Supreme Court considered the nature of the President's Pardoning Power, and the effect of a Presidential pardon. Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, said that the Pardoning Power is 'unlimited,' except in cases of impeachment."
posted
damn..."Clair E. George, former CIA Deputy Director for Operations during the Iran-Contra Affair, sought reimbursement from the government for approximately $1.3 million in attorney's fees pursuant to Section 593(f)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as amended, 28 U.S.C. ''591-599. That act authorizes the court to award the "subject" of an independent counsel investigation attorney's fees incurred during the investigation, but only if no indictment is brought against the person. Although George was indicted, he was pardoned by President Bush.
so? lemmeesee here... does thatmean Clinton coulda recouped his attorney fees if he hadn't lied under oath?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
