Two events give us the Bush agenda in a nutshell

[Pindar]

Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process.

C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.

The President does not control Congress. He is part of a distinct Branch. He can veto bills, but cannot determine what comes to his desk. This does not mean he cannot show support or condemn some work in process, but that is not control. It is rhetoric that has more or less force depending on the popularity of the President at the time. Now the President clearly supported the bankruptcy bill, and rightly fully so. If you wish to criticise that support fine, but that doesn't really fit into the second point you tried to connect it to. The United ruling was Judicial and as I already stated referred to removing a standard duty to pensions. This duty is part of standing law. This is not connected to the President. He cannot control Judicial rulings or create a law or create some other provision that anticipates and counteracts a Judges ruling on a particular bankruptcy case.

Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?

Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]

The Executive and the Executive Branch is not the same thing. Your comments have been directed to the President. The President does not execute law or create it. Now there are elements within the Executive Branch that serve an executing function. A simple example would be the Attorney General. This post is nominated by the President and it is a Cabinet Position, but the position is distinct from the Presidency. The Attorney General is the highest ranking officer of the Court and his job is to enforce the law, even when that involves the Presidency itself. This is why the President also has a Chief Legal Council.

Anyway, lets put that behind us. We both agree that in the interests of fairness, if nothing else, individuals and corporations should be treated alike. Pindar and PJ seem to disagree. Perhaps we should let them respond?

I don't think you have understood the thrust of my posts. My central point has been directed at your second criticism: the Court ruling. I have been pointing out that the President does not have control over a Judicial ruling to overturn pension duties. Without control condemnation seems difficult to maintain unless it is criticism that he didn't complain. This means your central criticism of a Bush agenda fails. This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy. I believe in the Market and would rather see weak companies go down.