$152 billion is the total tally in government loans that insurance giant American International Group (AIG) accumulated over the past eight months and 90% the tax that a congressional bill proposes levying on bonuses for employees whose companies received more than $5 billion in federal bailout money.

328-93 was the final vote on that measure in the House of Representatives last Monday, and December 10th was the date that the bill’s catalyst—the story about continued AIG bonuses—broke. Fifteen is the number of weeks that President Obama allowed populist anger at Wall St. spending to mature before he forced Congress into action, and 15% is the amount his national approval rating dropped over that period.

Rick Wagoner is the name of the former General Motors (GM) CEO who was asked to resign by Mr Obama’s automobile task-force during a meeting last Friday—the same day that Mr Obama met with chief-executives from Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley, criticizing them for failing to grasp the financial crisis’ magnitude. That day, March 28th—when Mr Obama decidedly took the reins of Detroit and downtown Manhattan—will mark the president’s shift in policy toward bailed-out American companies from financially interventionist to outwardly managerial.

Presidents from Monroe to Obama have used Signing Statements.

For my last article I explored the issue of Executive Orders and the Executive Branch.  The bookend to this subject is something a bit more controversial: Signing Statements.  According to The American Presidency Project, Signing Statements are:

“Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs.  The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional.”

Just as Executive Orders have not always been known as such, the same is true with Signing Statements.  In 1822 President James Monroe issued what we today call a Signing Statement saying that “he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority.”

Pretty nifty graphic there, eh? I figured with all the talk about “isms” and their misuses and abuses in the media, government, and the blogosphere,  I would cover them here.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, they are capitalism, communism, fascism, marxism, and socialism. Please note, these are in alphabetical order - so as not to imply favoritism to any of these philosophies.  While everyone I have come across seems to understand the basic principles behind capitalism (whether they agree or disagree) the primary confusion seems to be between the other four.  There are some similarities, but they are distinct philosophies.

The “isms” will be presented in alphabetical order as well.  The way I will lay this out is to first give you the actual definition of the term and I will follow that up with a brief discussion regarding the origins and the individuals instrumental for advancing these philosophies.

I will give you fair warning - this is a fairly lengthy post.  However, it is well worth your time to read it.  I guarantee you will learn more about these “isms” than you ever thought you knew.  I guarantee you will have a clearer understanding of the “isms” and will be able to use them in a more scholarly manner and will have the tools necessary to correct those who only think they understand them.

Capitalism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s is:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Last weekend, over 5,000 people gathered in Cincinnati to protest the bailouts and multi-trillion dollar spending in Washington in a Modern Day Boston Tea Party. Michelle Malkin reports that this is the beginning of a growing revolutionary movement. “The tax-paying rebels are not going away. In Green Bay, Wisconsin, March 7, an estimated 500 protesters gathered for a Tea Party at Titletown Brewing. Similar Tea Parties have been held in Seattle, Denver, Mesa, Arizona, Olathe, Kansas and in other cities around the country but the Cincinnati protest is by far the largest one yet.

The Tea Party concept, of course, gets its name from the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 when colonial Americans said to George III of England that the colonists would not accept any further taxes imposed by the Crown unless they had representation in Parliament and were able to speak on and vote on all issues. The colonists just wanted a seat at the decision table. When George III denied the colonists that seat, revolution was all but assured.

Strangely, as citizens of the United States with elected representatives in Congress, we find ourselves in a position very similar to colonial Americans almost 250 years ago. While we elect our representatives and senators and technically their votes reflect our wishes, increasingly they pass legislation and increase taxes without checking with their constituents.

In a Representative Democracy such as the United States, most people are familiar with what a law is, many people know how a bill differs from a law, but most probably do not understand what an Executive Order is.  Surely a week does not pass that it is not reported someplace that the President of the United States either signed an Executive Order to put into place a new policy or to rescind a previous one.  The situation can be confusing because the President of the United States is generally not understood to be someone who makes law.

The President of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch and he or she has some explicit powers and some gray ones.  The president can, for example, lead the country in making decisions regarding foreign affairs, nominate individuals for the Supreme Court, or in the role as “commander-in-chief ” lead the military.  But the president’s authority is not absolute as any treaty he or she negotiates with a foreign power must still be approved by Congress, nominees to the Supreme Court must be confirmed by the Senate, and any troop deployments over 60 days must be authorized by Congress due to the War Powers Resolution.  So, while the power of the president seems great it is, like virtually every other area of the U.S. government, subject to checks and balances.  One area in which the president can have a great deal of power is in the area of the Executive Order.