Dumb and mean, to the bitter end
Now that the election is behind us and they don't need to help McCain any more, the Bush bureaucrats will be delivering their farewell shots in the form of nasty new regulations. Poor people, bend over.
| Posted at 3:15 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
It will be very interesting to see who the idiot grants pardons to.
Posted by realdon | November 8, 2008 4:49 AM
Pardons for himself and Dick Cheney, for a start.
(From the title of this entry, I thought it was going to be about Sarah Palin.)
Posted by none | November 8, 2008 8:25 AM
"current ambiguity had allowed states to claim excessive payments.
“This rule represents a new initiative to preserve the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program,”
How do you know that it is really "dumb and mean? Did you just assume it is?
Posted by Ben | November 8, 2008 8:55 AM
Perhaps he read the article, Ben. I did and came to the same conclusion.
And also consider the timing of the announcement. I'm sure the changes have been in the works for a while - you don't just think of these sort of things overnight. If they were truly just intended to preserve fiscal integrity, why not release the changes before the elections? That should, after all, play well to the Republican base.
Posted by john rettig | November 8, 2008 11:16 AM
and who did Clinton pardon????hmmmm...
Posted by whig | November 8, 2008 11:28 AM
and who did Clinton pardon????hmmmm...
And the answer to this question is relevant (to anything whatever) because . . . .?
Posted by Allan L. | November 8, 2008 12:19 PM
Jack, as a lawyer, I'm curious to hear your take on the idea of preemptive pardons (a la Nixon). I just can't get my mind around the idea that you can be pardoned for unspecified crimes that haven't even been named. How can the pardon even apply to acts that weren't even in the mind of the person issuing the pardon?
I read stories about Bush being asked to pardon criminals like Yoo and CIA torturers by issuing blanket pardons before we even know all their crimes. How is this possible?
Even if we agreed that these preemptive pardons are constitutional (in a country where we are supposedly governed by laws and not men) shouldn't we require that the pardoner list, in detail, what crimes are being pardoned? Don't the victims of torture deserve an accounting? Doesn't America deserve to know what helped propel the next 50 years of anti-American terrorism?
Posted by George Seldes | November 8, 2008 12:38 PM
In the case of Ted Stevens, it wouldn't be preemptive.
But here's a thought: Bush gets scared of further poisoning the waters and doesn't intervene, Stevens loses his appeal, and Sarah Palin takes his seat by gubernatorial fiat or whatever, followed by her immediate declaration of candidacy for the 2012 presidential campaign. She wins the nomination and faces an extremely popular incumbent President Obama running for reelection, triggering a nationwide repeat of the 2006 and 2008 legislative races, causing scores more of traditional Republican House and Senate seats to fall to upstart Democratic challengers. The deep South and Mountain time zone states are no longer red; they are peppered with blue inroads. Obama's got a 65/35 advantage in the Senate, and manages to push through the legislation that hasd effectively been filibustered during his first term.
Just a dream.
Posted by john rettig | November 8, 2008 9:30 PM
Stevens's seat won't be filled by appointment -- Alaskans plugged that hole right after Murkowski got the prior Gov to appoint Murkowski to his seat.
Posted by George Seldes | November 8, 2008 11:21 PM
It looks like W already slipped one past as part of the bailout bill, and it's a stunner.
"A Quiet Windfall For U.S. Banks: With Attention on Bailout Debate, Treasury Made Change to Tax Policy"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155_pf.html
Paulson needs to be gone asap.
Posted by Audaciously Hopeful | November 9, 2008 10:37 PM