FISA Bill Immunities

After a long battle, the Senate passed an update of the nation's spying laws. However, the House has passed a slightly different Bill. The Senate's version allows immunities to the telecommunication companies for their previous eavesdropping on customers, the House's version doesn't. This immunity issue arises as a result of over 40 lawsuits that have been filed against the telecommunication companies. The Senate rejected a bill that would have let the lawsuits go forward with the government as the defendant instead of the telecommunication companies.

Personally, I think this is a good move on the side of the government (not the Senate part). After all, they asked the telecommunication companies to invade people's privacy, they should be the ones to take the responsibility, not the companies that helped them. Of course, there's the argument that they should have disobeyed the order, but realistically, what company is going to ignore an order from the government? I don't see the telecommunication companies as having done anything terribly wrong, and I hope they can either get the immunities clause passed, or the defendant changed to the government.

What are your opinions?

FISA Bill Article

Bushy on Vacation

Did Bush shoot himself in the foot vetoing a military policy? Bush vetoed the bill because "of an obscure provision that could expose the new Iraqi government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule." Bush is now being accused of supporting troops in the past, and now not. But, is it fair? We learned in class how little provisions sneak into bills. This veto does not reflect Bush vetoing the entire bill, he is just upset at congress for trying to slide in a certain provision and therefore was forced to veto the entire bill.

The main question: How often are politicians misrepresented for voting against a bill because of one little provision? And how badly does it effect their profile? From this, it seems pretty bad to upset not just your opposing party but members of your own party as well!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/africa/veto.php

Bill Demanding Troops Out by December Passed!

The Congress passed a war-funding bill with a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq and substantially less funds to conduct the war. The bill was passed with a very close 218-203 vote. The bill states that the primary purpose of the funding is "to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment." It demands Bush to begin withdrawing the troops within 30 days of passage. Goal: withdraw the troops by December 15, 2008.

This bill requests $50 billion. Compared to hundred billions of dollars requested to help fund the war, it's not that much.

In the past, President Bush threatened to veto this type of bills. If the President does veto it, the Congress probably would not be able to override it, looking at the close 218-203 vote.


What do you guys think about this bill? Do you guys think it's too soon to withdraw the troops from Iraq? Do you guys think that President Bush will veto this bill?

Bush Vetoes a $600 Billion Spending Bill

Today, President Bush vetoed a $600 billion spending bill. In this spending bill, around $150 billion was to be used to run departments such as departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. But in this $150 billion, around $10 billion would have funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese. The other $450 billion was to be used specifically for Medicare and Medicaid. If you guys didn't know, Medicare and Medicaid are federal health care programs for the elderly and poor.

So, why did President Bush veto this bill which would ultimately help the much needed health care programs in the United States?

President Bush blames the Democratic leaders in Congress for attempting to waste money and to increase taxes. Bush made an analogy comparing the Democratic Congress to "a teenager with a new credit card." President Bush also called the $10 billion that would funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese as "pork." He told the Congress to cut the "pork," and reduce the spending if it wants the bill to get signed.


Did the President do the right thing to veto this spending bill? Was the Congress really trying to waste money and to increase taxes by adding the "pork?" What do you guys think the President/the Congress should have done?