[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Yep, and it's called a 'signing statement'. Unforunately he is not the first POTUS to do that, That last POTUS was famous for doing it and Republican-first-ers thought it was a brilliant leadership move by him evidently assuming Republicans could never lose another presidential election after him.

According to the article, Obama didn't even have to take the law into his own hands; LaHood already had the authority to "grant waivers to affected community airports, which would effectively exempt them from the subsidy cuts, according to the Senate Democratic leadership aide."

To me, the main issue boils down to old fashioned pork, which we should not have budgeted before, and we clearly can't afford now. There is also the card check issue. It's not clear to me whether the house bill tries to fix that problem.

[sickoflibs]

RE: "According to the article, Obama didn't even have to take the law into his own hands; LaHood already had the authority to "grant waivers to affected community airports, which would effectively exempt them from the subsidy cuts, according to the Senate Democratic leadership aide."

Yep, I read it about a half hour ago.

Of course this House FAA bill could have removed that power to grant exemptions for this specific bill funding, but it didnt. So once again, the Republicans take a symbolic stand. But their heart is in the right place, right?

On the positive side, didnt Dems get stuck with the union provisions?