Obama fights adviser ban

For 15 years, the Democrats' modus operandi has been to cave to Republicans at a daily clip - when the Democrats aren't stinking up the joint on their own by being too right-wing. But in recent days, President Obama seems to have found an issue where he wants to be a winner.

Last Friday, Obama quite rightly announced he's going to ignore parts of the new spending package that would ban certain presidential advisory posts - advisers that the pop-up media so ignorantly refers to as "czars." Good for him. (Does the media even know what a czar was?)

Congressional Republicans had added language to the bill that would abolish advisers for health care, climate change, urban affairs, and manufacturing. But Obama stood up and said he's not complying with the ban. So tough toilets, Congress.

The 3 branches of government are supposed to be coequal. The legislative branch does not get to run roughshod over the White House's power to enforce the law - especially when legislators bargain in bad faith. Separation of powers means what it says.

Given the Constitution's framers' wariness about demagoguery, do you really think they'd give the legislative branch more power than any other branch? In aggregate, the legislative branch has seen more corruption since 1995 than each of the other 2 branches - and that's even with 8 years of Bush (perhaps the king of corruption) in the executive branch. Congress has one duty that's just as important as lawmaking: It has the duty to hold its tongue - and let the rest of our representatives do their jobs.

Congress has no business calling itself the sole arbiter of what's in the public interest.

(Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53342.html)