« Happily Ever After | Main | Heh... »

October 18, 2009

Constitution? What Constitution?

Incroyable:

At the New Orleans town hall, 29-year-old Gabriel Bordenave complained about the slow pace of the recovery. “I expected as much from the Bush administration,” he told Obama. “But why are we still being nickel-and-dimed?”

The president gave a technocrat’s answer about the “complications between the state, the city and the feds in making assessments of the damages.”

“Now, I wish I could just write a check,” he added. When an audience member yelled “Why not?” he dryly noted, “There’s this whole thing about the Constitution.”

The president should remember, though, that when you’re cooking up a more perfect Union, sometimes you’ve got to break some eggs.

Posted by Cassandra at October 18, 2009 01:06 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3238

Comments

They've been writing checks since 2006.

There have been *billions* of dollars poured into NO in Hurricane Relief funds, and not only is there no one who knows how *many* billions have been poured in, but no one has any idea *where* it all went -- there has been zero accountability.

Two words.

Democratic. Administration.

Posted by: BillT at October 18, 2009 01:31 PM

That pesky Constitution. It didn't seem to affect the cramdown on the senior debt bond holders with GM and Chrysler (a takings, maybe?) last Spring, but darn it! It seems to be causing some problem getting money to New Orleans.

The Constitution is obviously the problem. If only we didn't have a some dumb Texas oilman as President but instead a Constitutional scholar.

Oh, but wait.....

Just wait until "Health Care Reform" actually "exists" as the "Law of the Land", and people begin to realize what they have actually lost and not gained. And then when the Federal Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court gets to examine this......monstrosity.

"Billions down the drain" will seem like chump change in comparison.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 18, 2009 05:23 PM

"The demotion of human rights by the common-ground presidency is absolutely incomprehensible. The common ground is not always the high ground. When it is without end, moreover, the search for common ground is bad for bargaining. It informs the other side that what you most desire is the deal — that you will never acknowledge the finality of the difference, and never be satisfied with the integrity of opposition. There is a reason that ‘uncompromising’ is a term of approbation.
*Harrumph* What he said.

Regarding writing checks... Ya know, as it is, we, in the aggregate, work for ≈100 days to feed the Federal Gub'ment's imbalance sheet. That’s 100 plus days if you do not count the Federal deficit, not debt, deficit. If you do count the deficit, it’s closer to 150 plus/minus days.

At the current rate of hopeychangementum, we’ll be feeding that sucker for 300 plus days by the time 2012 rolls around.

Or what Don said…

Posted by: bt_curmudgeon_hun at October 18, 2009 05:51 PM

Our Constitution is being compared to an omelet? Many of us took an oath to defend that omelet, I mean Consitution, to keep it from breaking. I'm not feeling the LOVE!

POTUS as Humpty-Dumpty.

Posted by: vet66 at October 18, 2009 06:57 PM

The common ground is not always the high ground.

Common ground (n., LibSpeak): 1. Lowest data point on the chart; 2. as a euphemism: "In my particular tank."

Posted by: BillT at October 19, 2009 12:40 AM

yup... sometimes liberals just have to 'break some laws' to wreck the Constitution.

Democrats have been writing checks and signing our names to them for generations. Time to throw 'em out.

Posted by: MAS1916 at October 19, 2009 10:15 AM

From NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113840363

But even in a friendly crowd, the frustrations four years after the storm were quickly evident. A man named Gabriel Bordenave stood up, asking why the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, takes so long to reimburse claims.

Mr. GABRIEL BORDENAVE: We've also been without a full service public hospital for the last four years because FEMA...

(Soundbite of applause)

Mr. BORDENAVE: We've been without a full service hospital for the last four years because FEMA is offering $350 million less than the true damage costs incurred. I mean, I expected as much from the Bush administration, but why are we still being nickeled and dimed in our recovery?

(Soundbite of applause)

GONYEA: Bordenave is 29 years old, a recent graduate of the Tulane Law School and unemployed.

Perhaps Bordenave should not have skipped so many Con law lectures.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 19, 2009 12:55 PM

Tell me my eyes are lying. Tell me that some pundit did not say that about the Constitution. The living, breathing document that they are trying to kill.

Posted by: Cricket at October 19, 2009 01:59 PM

"...I expected as much from the Bush administration, ..."
"Bordenave is 29 years old, a recent graduate of the Tulane Law School and unemployed."

Hmmmm.....sounds to me like he was *shopping himself* for a position in Xerxes' Separate But Unequal Justice Department.

Posted by: DL Sly at October 19, 2009 02:45 PM

"Bordenave is 29 years old, a recent graduate of the Tulane Law School..."

Seven years of post-grad and the only thing he learned was "I blame Bush"?

Posted by: BillT at October 19, 2009 02:51 PM

Three years of post grad, Bill. Just long enough to scare you to death, work you to death, and bore you to death, and do so at forty-thousand something bucks a death. This young man appears to have not yet appreciated that the value of his own slice of the pie is determined by other pie-holders. Hard lessons, hardly learned, are nevertheless hard to avoid.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 19, 2009 03:40 PM

Well, I had figgered he'd finished collitch by age 22 (giving him the benefit of the doubt), and, since he still sounds like a callow yout', I'll wager he went directly into the Paper Chase, with no job experience twixt grad and post-grad.

Twenty-nine minus twenty-two.

Of course, he may have been left back a couple of times in grade school...

Posted by: BillT at October 19, 2009 04:27 PM

Don't look now but there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution allowing for bankruptcy relief. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To establish ... uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; ... " But you already knew that.

Posted by: I Call BS at October 19, 2009 04:28 PM

What in the Hell does bankruptcy relief have to do with rebuilding New Orleans (the reference in the linked article)?

Posted by: Cassandra at October 19, 2009 04:32 PM

Also, ICBS:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power ...

Not the Executive branch. Congress.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 19, 2009 04:33 PM

“At the New Orleans town hall, 29-year-old Gabriel Bordenave complained about the slow pace of the recovery. ‘I expected as much from the Bush administration,’ he told Obama. ‘But why are we still being nickel-and-dimed?’

“The president gave a technocrat’s answer about the ‘complications between the state, the city and the feds in making assessments of the damages.’ M. Dowd. Fie, Fatal Flaw! "

"That pesky Constitution. It didn't seem to affect the cramdown on the senior debt bond holders with GM and Chrysler (a takings, maybe?) last Spring, but darn it! It seems to be causing some problem getting money to New Orleans." Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 18, 2009 05:23 PM

"What in the Hell does bankruptcy relief have to do with rebuilding New Orleans (the reference in the linked article)? Posted by: Cassandra at October 19, 2009 04:32 PM"

The comment was directed at Don Brouhaha, not at thee.

Posted by: I Call BS at October 19, 2009 04:52 PM

Ah! Sorry. Didn't see that!

Posted by: Cassandra at October 19, 2009 05:02 PM

"scribo vobis filioli quoniam remittuntur vobis peccata propter nomen eius"

See Mark 2:5

Posted by: I Call BS at October 19, 2009 05:13 PM

Point of clarification:

Exactly how "uniform" were the BK laws with regard to GM/Chrysler compared to, say, Kmart?

My recollection was that they were not handled under then existing law, but rather as an ad hoc special case (i.e. we'll do whatever we darn well please, and you can stick it if you don't like it), but I could be wrong.

*If* it was handled as a special case, I'm not exactly sure I would call that "...uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies..."

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 19, 2009 05:35 PM

If I were to guess, I'd say the following:

I presume that if the plans in the GM, Chrysler and/or Kmart cases did not conform with existing Bankruptcy law, the senior secured debt would have screamed bloody murder about it. It may be that the senior secured debt agreed to their treatment in exchange for some concessions, and in fact the senior secured debt may even have been involved in negotiating their treatment from day 1 of the cases (if not from before, as these big cases are usually no surprise to the parties involved).

That's IF I were to guess.

Posted by: I Call BS at October 19, 2009 06:23 PM

the senior secured debt would have screamed bloody murder about it.

That's why I'm unsure that GM/Chrysler were handled consistant with previous bankruptcies (such as Kmart). That were, I seem to recall (Bloody murder) arguments of the type "Why does Congress need to get involved at all, the courts already handle stuff like this".

Which seems like a not unreasonable position. The only reason for congress to get involved was to circumvent the "uniform process". If the senior debt holders were willing to trade for some consessions they could have done that through the courthouse already. They need not involve congress.

To me the only reason would be of the type "Never let a crisis go to waste. How can we structure the BK to benefit *us*? Who cares if it's skirting a violation of ConLaw, can't make an omelet w/o breaking a few eggs".

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 19, 2009 06:41 PM

BTW, is anyone else a little surprised at the recent openly favorable quotations of communist tyrants by Democrats?

First Mao and now Stalin?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 19, 2009 06:45 PM

//BTW, is anyone else a little surprised at the recent openly favorable quotations of communist tyrants by Democrats? [¶] First Mao and now Stalin?//

say what?

Posted by: I Call BS at October 19, 2009 06:55 PM

Mao: Anita Dunn, the (interim) White House Communications Director mentioned that she considered Mao one of her favorite philisophers (And I don't buy the "joke" argument in the least)

Stalin: "If you are going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs" is a quote from the Stalin Regime to international critics as a way of excusing the gulags, the forced famines, and executions, which led to the deaths of 15-20 million people whom Stalin killed as a way to maintain control over the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 20, 2009 10:13 AM

Mao considered himself a philosopher. Anybody who quotes him for anything they wish to promote, other than the need for eternal vigilance against totalitarian, murderous, fascist, phony "populist" regimes, is a dangerously ignorant delusional. An (interim) White House Communications Director who quotes him this way deserves to be scraping the congealed grease out of filth-encrusted drains on hot, humid days, in alleys behind lousy Chinese restaurants in bad parts of town. What an ignorame-ass.

Posted by: I Call BS at October 20, 2009 10:30 AM

Mao was a sociopath, and he didn't try to hide that.

Anyone who considers Mao an "inspirational political philosopher" is either so naive she heeds adult supervision just to cross a street or deems Mao a kindred spirit.

ICBS and I are in violent agreement on this one.

Posted by: BillT at October 20, 2009 01:39 PM

"Anyone who considers Mao an "inspirational political philosopher" is either so naive she heeds adult supervision just to cross a street or deems Mao a kindred spirit."

I'll stick with ignorame-ass. MTT killed more people than that vegetarian psychotic failed artist with the stupid-looking mustache.

Posted by: I Call BS at October 20, 2009 09:12 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)