Clinton would use executive action to end tax loophole: USA Today

[applegrove]

Clinton would use executive action to end tax loophole: USA Today

Eric Beech at USA Today, Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-tax-idUSKCN0Z12F4

"SNIP..............


(Can't cut and paste, sorry)

..............SNIP"

[peacebird]

1. Inaccurate. she said she would ASK them to change it.

[Zynx]

3. That's semantics. Asking the Treasury Department to change it would result in it being changed.

Done and done.

[PoliticAverse]

2. "Clinton said that if Congress did not act" - why wait for Congress if it can be done by executive

action? If it can be done by executive action why not issue that order on Day 1?

[geek tragedy]

4. Because Congress can make it permanent and

is less restricted in its authority.

[Demsrule86]

5. Congress won't.

As we speak Congress is (Gop) is defending the right of terrorists to buy guns.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The exceutive order wouldn't prevent Congress from passing a bill at a later date. n/t

[peacebird]

6. Exactly.

[JoePhilly]

8. DADT ... DOMA ... there are 2 reasons.

Executive orders are (a) temporary, and (b) they let Congress off the hook.

Obama showed that.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Obama wanted the Supreme Court to make a finding on the law that Congress passed

already. Issuing an executive order would have interfered with the process.

[JoePhilly]

10. Exactly correct ... well sort of ...

For DOMA the courts ended it with Obama's help (his administration declined to defend it) ... for DADT, it was a combination ... Obama obtained an agreement with Congress on some basic conditions for full repeal, and at the same time, the courts also agreed with repeal.

Bottom line, as you note ... executive action would have interfered with the process in both cases.

Which is why any executive action needs to be considered before used.