Recasting On

[legalmoose]

The SOTU was a good excuse to sit still and knit for a while - listen to the speech, but not watch the goings on. I got several rows done on a new swatch, all knit stitch (I’ve still not braved purl yet), and I’m happy with how evenly it’s coming out this time. It helps that I cast on only 30 stitches rather than 42 - the needles aren’t really big enough for 42 - so it’s nice and even this time. It’ll either be a scarf or a pot holder, we’ll see. Depends on how often I can sit down with it in the evenings, and how bored I get.

Still don’t have the whole “how to hold the thread in the right hand” thing down yet - I keep twisting it too tightly around my index finger. Will have to get my friend TH to show me how she holds the stuff. Or learn continental style. Who knows. I’ll get it eventually, I know.

Interesting speech for some of the stuff he addressed. The earmarks portion (the reason I watched, actually, since it has a bearing on my practice area) will be an interesting change, and is going to cause a lot of headaches with Congress (who will find a way to earmark funds, even outside the official committee reports, trust me). It’ll certainly keep my BGA’s government relations people busy. I suspect those same folks will be culling quotes from tonight’s speech for a letter we have to finalize tomorrow morning as well. Makes me glad I don’t have my work blackberry just yet.

It is, of course, too little too late. Earmarks rose precipitously under the last term of (R) control of the Congress, and while they’ve come down some, they’re still pretty high. Not that (R)s alone are to blame - (D)s earmark plenty, too. Not sure of the solution, past taking the measures he’s going to put into place - an executive order signed tomorrow to ignore these extra-legal set-asides is a good start. Weaning Congress completely off pork, however, is going to be an uphill battle.

Got my heel shot up this morning with cortizone, to counteract the plantar faciitis I’m dealing with off and on. The night brace is helping, but I got to a point where I finally agreed with the doctor that a shot was called for. We’ll see how that does. I want this stuff done with, it’s not comfortable at all.

View this post at the Glen.

Comments

[moderatio.livejournal.com]

That earmarks point in the SOTU confused me.

When you say "extra-legal set-asides" you mean earmarks outside the official committee reports? Also can the president unilaterally decide to ignore a congressional mandate? (I thought that was a no-no)

[legalmoose]

There are two types of earmarks - those found in the statutory text itself ("hard" earmarks) and those found in the committee reports accompanying the bills ("soft" earmarks). Hard earmarks are, because they are in statute, binding law. Soft earmarks are not found in law (hence my description as "extra-legal"), and therefore may be ignored by the Executive branch when it carries out the law (more on that below). Only by passing a law, either with the President's signature or over his veto, may Congress bind the Executive branch; that is the sole avenue for them to act under the constitution - passing legislation.

That said, the Executive agencies who ignore soft earmarks in the reports do so at their peril. Those agencies who do ignore them may find themselves with more hard earmarks, or reduced funding, or other nasty surprises in the following fiscal year. The appropriations committees don't brook a lot of nonsense from the agencies when it comes to their pet projects. As such, most agencies have a good understanding with their appropriations subcommittee(s) about how soft earmarks will be treated.

The Executive may also tweak the soft earmarks somewhat in carrying them out, depending on the particular agency's other statutory authorities and requirements. For example, my own BGA has statutory requirements for cost-sharing when we do R&D or other work with outside entities, as well as regulatory requirements for application for aid, etc. By strictly adhering to the cost-sharing statute and application requirement (not that we'd do otherwise), some of the soft earmarks disappear because the intended recipients don't want to go through the process of applying for the aid and then proving that they are living up to the cost sharing requirements prior to the BGA's release of funds.