How Much Presidential Authority Is Too Much?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

BLAZER PROPHET

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,725
Likes
191
Points
63
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47138446/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

I, for one, generally do not oppose a President usurping a little authority- so long as it's legal to do so. It's politics. If you have the power and feel blocked by the other side, then flex your muscles if you can. But to be an effective President, it's best to try and work with Congress and to compromise rather than just pouting because you don't get your way and then changing the rules. I think this will all come to a head in Obama's second term. Stay tuned.
 
Well I think the democrats have been trying to compromise with the republicans, but I don't think the republicans have compromised. I think in general the republicans have gotten everything they have wanted and given up extremely little. But I could be biased.
 
Well I think the democrats have been trying to compromise with the republicans, but I don't think the republicans have compromised. I think in general the republicans have gotten everything they have wanted and given up extremely little.

Exactly.

Repubs created a giveaway to the uber-wealthy which created a depression and have stonewalled all attempts to correct it.
 
Well I think the democrats have been trying to compromise with the republicans, but I don't think the republicans have compromised. I think in general the republicans have gotten everything they have wanted and given up extremely little. But I could be biased.

OK, whether they have or not, how do you feel about a President (not Obama, but any one) trying to work around Congress to the point they are stretching the bounds of what may be legal?
 
Well I think the democrats have been trying to compromise with the republicans, but I don't think the republicans have compromised. I think in general the republicans have gotten everything they have wanted and given up extremely little. But I could be biased.

LOL

You do realize that the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the Sentate and a strong majority in the House after the 2008 election, right? Obama's idea of compromise was to say "I won" to the GOP. In 2010, Americans voted the Dems out of the House, and took away their huge majority in the Senate. If Obama wants to bypass Congress, well, that's what dictators do.
 
NYT had a similar article yesterday. Apparently for liberals, broadening executive power is a bad thing when Bush did it, but a great thing when Obama builds on it via czars and agencies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/u...ecutive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html

April 22, 2012
Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.

“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”

Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to prevent him from having White House “czars” on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture.

“Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.”

The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.

In the following months, the administration increased efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through environmental regulations, gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls, and refocused deportation policy in a way that in effect granted relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Each step substituted for a faltered legislative proposal.

But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration’s broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course.
 
JerryNYNYT Pick

"If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

These words should terrify any American, whether said by George W. Bush or Barack H. Obama.
 
OK, whether they have or not, how do you feel about a President (not Obama, but any one) trying to work around Congress to the point they are stretching the bounds of what may be legal?

I think all officials should always follow the law except bizarre unrealistic extreme situations. (aliens, congress dies of a plague, you get the idea) But I think they should be able to reform the law. With that said, "stretching the bounds" to me implies not illegal but frowned upon. This 60 filibuster proof business is an example of not illegal but frowned upon. It has only been used this much since 2006 (I believe). Before that it was very rarely used.

edit: so it's not good, but I won't cry foul.
 
Republican hypocrisy. Bush had no 60% obstructionism from the other party, yet issued many secret Presidential orders involving spying on us all, torture, FBI secret arrests of Muslims in this country, etc. Imagine how far Republican presidential power would have gone had he faced 60% obstructionism.
 
Republican hypocrisy. Bush had no 60% obstructionism from the other party, yet issued many secret Presidential orders involving spying on us all, torture, FBI secret arrests of Muslims in this country, etc. Imagine how far Republican presidential power would have gone had he faced 60% obstructionism.

Seems Democrats like what he did, otherwise they'd have obstructed.

Duh.
 
Republican hypocrisy. Bush had no 60% obstructionism from the other party, yet issued many secret Presidential orders involving spying on us all, torture, FBI secret arrests of Muslims in this country, etc. Imagine how far Republican presidential power would have gone had he faced 60% obstructionism.

You're missing the point. It's not about any individual President or political party. It's about how much and what type of power a President can usurp to be too much. Almost every President has skirted Congress to get what they want. Obama seems to be very aggressive about it. Is it too much? Do you want a President taking such initiative?
 
The more years this Republican 60% gridlock goes on, the more dictatorial presidents will become--Republican presidents, because now they can get away with it, and Democratic presidents, in order to get anything done.
 
The republican house has passed numerous Bills, only to see the obstructionists in the Senate refuse to bring them to a vote.
 
Democrats often made the same charge when Republicans bulldozed over their requests when Republicans ran Congress. Revenge time.
 
Gridlock is fine by me. The progressives spent over $1T on their agenda and unemployment hit 10%. Since the House went Republican and the progressives' nonsense stopped, unemployment has dropped to 8.2%.

You figure that out yet?
 
OK, whether they have or not, how do you feel about a President (not Obama, but any one) trying to work around Congress to the point they are stretching the bounds of what may be legal?

They should be prosecuted for treason.
 
Gridlock is fine by me. The progressives spent over $1T on their agenda and unemployment hit 10%. Since the House went Republican and the progressives' nonsense stopped, unemployment has dropped to 8.2%.

You figure that out yet?

How's Europe doing with austerity cuts over there?
 
How's Europe doing with austerity cuts over there?

"Austerity" is a loaded term. Opinion poll tested by the DNC, no doubt.

Ask people if they'd be happy to go back to Clinton era spending levels, adjusted for inflation. That wasn't austerity.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ounding-in-face-of-crisis-institutes-say.html

Germany Rebounding in Face of Crisis, Institutes Say: Economy

Germany is experiencing an upswing that will help drive down unemployment and narrow the budget deficit even as the European debt crisis continues to pose the biggest threat to growth, the leading economic institutes said.

Europe’s biggest economy will expand 0.9 percent this year, up from a prior estimate of 0.8 percent, the four groups including Munich-based Ifo said today in their twice-yearly economic outlook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government. The economy will grow 2 percent in 2013, they said.

“Growth impulses in the German economy will win the upper hand” from mid-year after showing weaker expansion in the first half, said the institutes, citing low interest rates, falling unemployment and steady growth in demand for its products. Germany will exploit its attractiveness as a “safe investment harbor” as doubts over the crisis prevail.

The report underscores the growing disparity between Germany and the rest of Europe as the debt crisis resurfaces to buffet Spain and Italy. Merkel’s Cabinet approved budget projections yesterday that showed Germany will effectively eliminate its deficit in 2014, two years ahead of a deadline set in the constitution. That contrasts with Italy, which pushed back its balanced-budget goal by a year the same day.
 
Okay, let's hear about Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal.
 
Those countries got into their mess the same way we did and how we're making it worse. Excessive borrowing.

It's better to deal with the pain ASAP rather than let it get to the point it did in, say, Greece.

And the gridlock in congress has led to no budget increases, no new reckless spending of enormous sums, a declining unemployment rate, increase in home sales, and GDP growth (sluggish as they are).
 
Don't confuse them with facts and logic Denny....
 
Very interesting article by Sheila Bair in Fortune magazine. If you don't know who she is, look her up on WikiPedia.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/23/federal-reserve-rates-bubble/?iid=SF_F_Lead

Watch out! Is the Fed pushing us into another bubble?

April 23, 2012: 5:00 AM ET
The economy is getting back on track, so maybe it's time for policy makers to loosen their grip on interest rates.

By Sheila Bair, contributor

FORTUNE -- In a recent series of college lectures, Ben Bernanke sounded a positive note, extolling the Fed's low-interest-rate policy and predicting sustainable economic growth. I want to believe him, but his words echo the confidence exuded by the Fed in late 2006 when it missed the housing bubble. Is it missing the bond bubble now?

The Fed has maintained interest rates at or near zero for four years running, even though the financial system has been relatively stable since 2009. The Fed's actions have kept Treasury bond prices high (while keeping the government's interest costs low), but the fundamentals do not support the high valuations, given the fiscal mess we are in. Sooner or later, the bond bubble will burst. History has shown that a structurally weak economy combined with a fiscally irresponsible government propped up by accommodative central-bank lending always ends badly. Absent a change in policies, a toxic brew of volatile interest rates and uncontrollable inflation could define our future.

As we saw in the years leading up to the subprime crisis, yield-hungry investors are taking on more and more risk. Pension managers are investing in hedge funds, and gullible investors are buying up junk bonds. Meanwhile, low-yielding assets pile up on the balance sheets of more risk-averse banks. If interest rates suddenly spike, bankers may find that the paltry returns on their loans are insufficient to cover interest on their deposits. (Does anybody remember the S&L crisis?) Most important, retirees and others who want to keep their savings in supersafe liquid investments are earning returns of 1% to 2% (if they are lucky), while inflation creeps higher, now hovering around 3%.

And what are the benefits of ultralow rates? The stock market has experienced paper gains. Homeowners are refinancing their mortgages, giving them more to spend on goods and services (though much of that spending goes overseas to buy products, as our burgeoning trade deficit shows). These benefits may help in the short term, but they do not address the long-term problem with our economy: We consume too much and produce too little.

Some banks and investment funds benefit from low rates because they can take the cheap money and get higher yields with it overseas. Unfortunately, loan growth in the U.S. is moribund. Community banks that rely on domestic lending -- particularly small-business lending -- tell me they would lend more if they could get a higher rate on loans. But who wants to lend into an uncertain fiscal and economic environment for a few hundred basis points?

The biggest beneficiaries of loose money, are our profligate elected officials who refuse to come to grips with budget deficits and an exemption-laden tax code. As long as Treasury can borrow cheaply to paper over the real problems, politicians can demagogue about overspending (GOP) or undertaxing (Democrats) while dodging their responsibility to work together to fix our problems.

Fed defenders argue that Japan has kept rates low even while running up huge debts. But Japan enjoys a trade surplus, and its debt is held domestically. In contrast we run persistent trade deficits, and foreigners hold over half our public debt. To the extent foreigners keep buying Treasuries, it is because Europe's problems are worse. In short, we are the best-looking horse in the glue factory.

The economy is finally starting to recover, albeit modestly. The Fed should declare victory and not intervene if the market wants to push rates up a bit. Start deflating the bubble before it pops. This will help savers, and possibly make it easier for small businesses to get loans, while leaving plenty of room for mortgage refinancings. Who knows? We might see increased demand for homes as new buyers come into the market to lock in the low rates. Most important, higher rates will send a wake-up call to Congress and the administration to do their jobs. Excise special-interest tax breaks, and get entitlement and defense spending under control. We need more leadership from our politicians and less easy money from the Fed.
 
Very interesting article by Sheila Bair in Fortune magazine. If you don't know who she is, look her up on WikiPedia.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/23/federal-reserve-rates-bubble/?iid=SF_F_Lead

Watch out! Is the Fed pushing us into another bubble?

April 23, 2012: 5:00 AM ET
The economy is getting back on track, so maybe it's time for policy makers to loosen their grip on interest rates.

By Sheila Bair, contributor

FORTUNE -- In a recent series of college lectures, Ben Bernanke sounded a positive note, extolling the Fed's low-interest-rate policy and predicting sustainable economic growth. I want to believe him, but his words echo the confidence exuded by the Fed in late 2006 when it missed the housing bubble. Is it missing the bond bubble now?

The Fed has maintained interest rates at or near zero for four years running, even though the financial system has been relatively stable since 2009. The Fed's actions have kept Treasury bond prices high (while keeping the government's interest costs low), but the fundamentals do not support the high valuations, given the fiscal mess we are in. Sooner or later, the bond bubble will burst. History has shown that a structurally weak economy combined with a fiscally irresponsible government propped up by accommodative central-bank lending always ends badly. Absent a change in policies, a toxic brew of volatile interest rates and uncontrollable inflation could define our future.

As we saw in the years leading up to the subprime crisis, yield-hungry investors are taking on more and more risk. Pension managers are investing in hedge funds, and gullible investors are buying up junk bonds. Meanwhile, low-yielding assets pile up on the balance sheets of more risk-averse banks. If interest rates suddenly spike, bankers may find that the paltry returns on their loans are insufficient to cover interest on their deposits. (Does anybody remember the S&L crisis?) Most important, retirees and others who want to keep their savings in supersafe liquid investments are earning returns of 1% to 2% (if they are lucky), while inflation creeps higher, now hovering around 3%.

And what are the benefits of ultralow rates? The stock market has experienced paper gains. Homeowners are refinancing their mortgages, giving them more to spend on goods and services (though much of that spending goes overseas to buy products, as our burgeoning trade deficit shows). These benefits may help in the short term, but they do not address the long-term problem with our economy: We consume too much and produce too little.

Some banks and investment funds benefit from low rates because they can take the cheap money and get higher yields with it overseas. Unfortunately, loan growth in the U.S. is moribund. Community banks that rely on domestic lending -- particularly small-business lending -- tell me they would lend more if they could get a higher rate on loans. But who wants to lend into an uncertain fiscal and economic environment for a few hundred basis points?

The biggest beneficiaries of loose money, are our profligate elected officials who refuse to come to grips with budget deficits and an exemption-laden tax code. As long as Treasury can borrow cheaply to paper over the real problems, politicians can demagogue about overspending (GOP) or undertaxing (Democrats) while dodging their responsibility to work together to fix our problems.

Fed defenders argue that Japan has kept rates low even while running up huge debts. But Japan enjoys a trade surplus, and its debt is held domestically. In contrast we run persistent trade deficits, and foreigners hold over half our public debt. To the extent foreigners keep buying Treasuries, it is because Europe's problems are worse. In short, we are the best-looking horse in the glue factory.

The economy is finally starting to recover, albeit modestly. The Fed should declare victory and not intervene if the market wants to push rates up a bit. Start deflating the bubble before it pops. This will help savers, and possibly make it easier for small businesses to get loans, while leaving plenty of room for mortgage refinancings. Who knows? We might see increased demand for homes as new buyers come into the market to lock in the low rates. Most important, higher rates will send a wake-up call to Congress and the administration to do their jobs. Excise special-interest tax breaks, and get entitlement and defense spending under control. We need more leadership from our politicians and less easy money from the Fed.

There is no honest reason for the Fed to have rates so low, other than to try and create another bubble. It's kicking the can down the road again, but the downside is that other indicators aren't inflating the value of non-monetary assets.

Instead, we should focus on Mitt Romney's dog in a kennel on top of his car, and the President making jokes on late night TV.
 
Interest rates are low because the interest on each and every dollar of debt would swamp the other govt. expenses. It's true of the $1T added to the debt during the Reagan years as it is the $5T added the past 3+ years.
 
Awesome. When they charge up their cards to the max and can't pay the bills, issue them new cards!
 
Didn't you know Denny?

They get to spend as much as they want for as long as they want. They've invested poorly for decades, but they should keep investing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top