RNC members seek tighter money controls

I can understand how some Republicans could be disappointed with the job that Michael Steele has done since being given the lead of the National Committee. He has already lost the one key race in New York and does not seem to have much of a plan for attack on Democrats in the 2010 election. However, I do not see the point of restricting his ability to spend money and allocate resources from the Committee without the approval of the Executive Board. To me, it is Steele's job to do what he thinks is best for the party moving forward and he needs to be able to lead the party in the way that he sees fit. If members of the National Committee are so upset about how Steele has been using money then they should have either asked him to reign in on the spending or to resign. What it looks like to me is that there are individuals who are mad about not seeing their top choice for the position get the job and so now they are trying to gain back some of Steele's power solely for their own benefit and to reduce the appeal of the job for Steele. Although I am for fiscal responsibility, it just seems really tedious to me that Steele now would have to run by any expenditure over $100,000 and things like this cause disruption to the party.