What can the President do?

As we prepare for another presidential debate here in the US, I wonder “What control and power does the US President actually have?”

People treat the US President as if they have absolute power; power over the economy, power over taxes, power to cure cancer?  Our democracy is a shared power, with checks and balances between the Executive (President), Judicial (Courts), and Legislative (Congress) branches of government.  So what can the president do in office:

• Appoint heads of state departments, heads of federal agencies, and White House staff
• Manage Foreign Affairs: appoint ambassadors, ministers, and public officials.  The President can also offer diplomatic recognize another country.  The President can sign treaties on foreign affairs, but they must be ratified by the Congress.
• Nominate Judges:  for any of the 9 Federal Judge positions which become vacant during the presidential term, and then the Senate approves each appointment.
• Power of Clemency: to grant pardons and blanket amnesty of criminal punishment.
• Limited power to sends troops abroad for hostile reasons:  Congress holds the power to declare war.
  

  Seal of the Executive Office of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• Propose Legislation:  The President can make suggestions to Congress for new legislation, but cannot force the legislation into law.
• Veto Legislation:  Laws and policy approved by Congress can be vetoed by the President.
• Taxes:  The President makes recommendations and negotiates taxes with the House of Representatives.
• Budgets:  Again, it’s a suggestion to Congress and a negotiation of ideals between the groups.
• Change Roe v. Wade:  The President cannot change the ruling on rulings made by the Judicial Branch, but may have the opportunity to nominate judges who will.

As we saw under the George W. Bush administration, with expanded powers due to the state of war, if it’s not specifically disallowed, then the President may have the power to do ____.  Since the controversy over torture tactics (Boston Globe article) during the George W. Bush administration, Barack Obama created an executive order to define the list of nonabusive interrogation tactics (NYTimes article).

So it appears that the US President is more influential rather than powerful.  But it’s easy to blame one person in office, rather than the 100 or 400+ in Congress who can easily blame the resistance of each other for their failures.  So what do all those commercials really mean during this election cycle?

Additional Information:

• Myths about the Presidential Power
• Freakonomics discusses the President’s limited influence over the economy
• Washington Post reviews the President’s influence over gasoline prices
• What a President can and cannot do by the Harry S. Truman Library
• Wikipedia covers more detailed information
• Wiki Answers to What can the President do without Congress’ approval

That was a debate?

I couldn’t listen to the Presidential debate between Romney and Obama for longer than 3 minutes before I decided the whole conversation was not going to help me understand what these two candidates really intend to do as President.  I was not surprised either.

Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since I don’t have the keenest political mind either, I wouldn’t trust myself to follow their conversation and know which statements are true, are misleading, or completely wrong.  So today I read the rather insightful review on FactCheck.org.  I like how the first part of the review gives a quick summary of the main points, and then goes on to explain the detail and background behind each point.  Both candidates exaggerated the past statements of the candidate and the view represented.   Which also seems to be true of all the TV commercials.  I hope people don’t really listen to the candidates to decide who is the better candidate and what each one is really proposing for new policy; better listen to the expert analysts instead.

Want a puppy for your Birthday? An idea to reduce unwanted children.

If you want my real opinion; Yes, I think people should pass a test before they have children.  My practical answer is that how we decide what should be on the test and who should score the results is not as easy to determine.

So here is a possible solution:  If I was President, I would give everyone a puppy for their 17th birthday.  They can pick out the type of dog they want, but it must be between 8 weeks and 8 months old.  No you cannot choose a cat instead, not even a Siamese that acts like a dog.  Everyone is responsible for feeding, cleaning, walking, and training their puppy. 

People would learn what it’s like to care for another creature.  Sure they’re cute and funny, but they are demanding, messy, disobedient, disruptive…   It’s just like having a kid, so maybe this would be a good evaluation experience for people who are likely to have children in the future. 

Yes I would feel sorry for the puppies in this experiment as many of them would not receive the necessary treatment.  But I would prefer this occurs with puppy which are then given to another person for their Birthday, or returned to the supply waiting for adoption.  I hope this experiment would teach people how to evaluate when they are ready to have children, and we might avoid similar treatment children who are born unwanted or to unprepared parents.  We could offer voluntary education courses for parenting after these experiences for anyone who wants to have children and wants to get prepared for that responsibility.

After each person has their puppy for a few months, I would automatically send them a regular supply of condoms, for life.  And although it would be detrimental to our economy, maybe this would also help stem the population growth.

Any Worthy candidates?

It’s an interesting time for politics.  I’m not old enough to know how often this situation may have occurred, but it seems as though we struggle to find a respectable candidate to support in this election season.  The flip-flopping, pandering, and general spinelessness is making the decision a hopeless one.   I want a candidate who is firm in their beliefs, and can present a clear vision of their impact as US President.  We need a visionary, and a fighter.  The Congress who makes policy, is too divided for real impact to the common good.  Obama’s technique of compromise with the Republican control of Congress has been ineffective.  We need to the Martin Luther King of politicians to DEMAND what is right for progress and prosperity.   Maybe that candidate is out there but has not gained enough popularity to make it onto my radar.  That’s the sad part, good people are crowded out (On Point discussion of What it Takes to Become President).

The bipartisan division in US politics right now is revolting.  The politicians sound like a mortgage broker selling a sub-prime mortgage for a million dollar house to someone without a job.  “The best way to create more jobs is to lower taxes,” as if the rich people who don’t even pay their fair share will be convinced to share their wealth with the rest of us.

They really think that a majority of people care about the sanctity of marriage (limited to a man and woman relationship)… a recent report in my local NPR station shows that fewer young people are getting married, and more people are living together and having children without marriage.  Couple that with the trend of more states allowing marriage for same sex couples, I think the times are a changin’.  Besides, can’t we create a new term “Domestic Partnership” or something similar to use for same sex couples and grant the same rights as marriage.  So the uber (defined as best, above all, nothing better than) conservatives can keep their sanctions.  And the diversion from real issues continues.

Anyone who thinks our politicians want to end illegal immigration, or that our country will function as well, is simply misguided.

But I suppose the continual reduction of education and the numerous mindless entertainment options on TV, we can’t expect a change anytime soon.

Other References:

• On Point discusses  US relies on Obama to be a Leader and His Characteristics as President so far

Who will you vote for – Do you really know which candidate shares your views?

I found an interesting page on USA Today where you answer some basic political questions, rank the importance of each of the issues, and they compare your ideals to the candidates running for President.

Obama prioritizes Jobs (Corporate Profits) over Clean Air and Public Health

The U.S. President (Obama) is so fearful of being responsible for not doing enough to promote job growth, he is willing to forgo EPA recommended restrictions on ozone pollution limits.  This article in the New York Times describes the EPA’s basis for the ozone limit and the decision by Obama to retract support the proposed regulation.

His public statement indicates that he is promoting jobs over the environment and our nations health.  “At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.”  This is obviously a political move.  Obama was elected during the recession to make the tough decisions for our country in a time of need.  The economy has balanced out, although it will be a long time before we see a recovery, and we need his leadership to make the tough sacrifices in order to promote public health and protect the environment.

If you wish to take a stance in support of this regulation and ask President Obama to change his decision, visit this Green Peace website.

Congratulations to You

Thanks to all of you, our politicians have reached a consensus.  It appears that both sides of the isle agree that the needed fix to our economy is JOBS.  Yes everyone needs a job and that will make all our problems go away (except the real problem of corruption, deceit, foreign invasion, and other problems we don’t really care about).

Years of outsourcing, and insourcing (Wikipedia definition), allowing corporations to reap higher profits, resulting in a decrease of the quality of living for the working and middle classes and widened the income gap.  Well who let them do that?

We all did, anyone with the voting rights in the US allowed this to happen.  We allow government and corporations to keep wages and benefits low while the cost of living increases.  We sit on the sidelines complaining about life’s difficulties instead of participating in change and contributing what we can for our communities.  What kind of example is set of the upcoming generations?  How will they know how to get exercise their democratic rights?  The baby boomers fought the government during the Vietnam War, why are subsequent generations standing by and allowing their power to disappear?  You can bet there will be fierce opposition if social security benefits are threatened (again the baby boomers will not allow that to happen).   Why is my generation allowing our benefits to effectively be cut?   My generation can barely pay for health care, buy a home, rely on social security or other retirement programs.  What we are asking for is to be able to maintain the same standard of living for the same effort as previous generations.

We need meaningful jobs that will help our economy grow and develop a sustainable lifestyle in our country.  We need to increase the minimum wage and level of benefits to allow hardworking people to earn a decent standard of living.  We need to reward hard work with an adequate means.  And we need to stop rewarding substandard work without consequence.

Let’s help define the political discussion on jobs and the economic recovery.

The Loss of Education – Why Politicians are Confused and Corporations/Wall Street have run Amok

If you are paying attention to the US political debates and the Republican Primary presidential campaign, it’s clear that few politicians have a clue how to fix our economy or how to meets their constituents’ wishes.  Obama campaigned on the promise of “Change in Washington.”  The promise of “Change” is extremely vague.  What kind of change was he offering and what kind of change were people hoping for?

Now the key word is “Jobs.”  Many discussions are emphasizing the idea that an increase the number of jobs available will fix (= return to pre-recession glory?) our economy.  Well just how we go about increasing jobs is the real debate.  Republicans are striving for reduced taxes and less government oversight and deceiving voters to think that giving more money and power to the wealthy will result in them wanting to help the little guy and create jobs.  Since when does anyone sit down and say “I have enough money for myself and my family to live a comfort lifestyle, I’m going to create jobs for others to be able to earn a decent living as well.”  And second, isn’t that how we got into this mess to begin with?  Deregulation and lack of regulatory development to keep up with modern financial products, and lessening government oversight of risks to our economy, in large part created this recession.

Democrats are not much clearer in their suggestions for change.  Increasing taxes to maintain government support programs is not a long term solution.  So what are the experts saying is the path to create meaningful jobs and push us back to the pre-recession glory?  Well that is another topic entirely than the message of this post.

The message here is that we, the public, are not clearly voicing our opinion for the politicians.   “Change” and “Jobs” is not enough direction.  Our current education (in the classroom and through life experiences) is not providing us the tools we need to evaluate political decisions, or to participate in a meaningful way in current politics.  We are easily distracted by less important conversations and we are unable to get to the heart of an issue.

I wonder if it’s a lack of science in our everyday lives that results in our inability to have a meaningful impact; but we blame it on a lack of control over the politicians (we could gain control if we used our voice and voting power in unison).  Granted this takes effort and commitment to research the discussion topics and find the truth.  We are our biggest obstacles, not wanting to take control because of our laziness, or the fear we have of responsibility.

So what is important to you?  What should the government be focused on?  And what do you think is the answer to fixing that priority?

The Role of the US President, is it overinflated?

A basic political science lesson:

• The Legislative Branch (Creates Laws) represented by the House and Senate
• The Executive Branch (Executes the Laws) represented by the President and Secretaries
• The Judicial Branch (Interprets the Laws) represented by the Supreme and Federal Courts

from USA for Kids

However, I believe the general public has been misrepresenting the powers of the President.   The discussions about the role of the President suggest he/she has absolute power to create policy.  This certainly has been the discussion when trying to place blame for policy problems plaguing our country.  The President does have tremendous influence over policy decisions and limited power, but in general they cannot create policy.

The Legislators create policy, and so the House and Senate representatives are just as important to accomplish our desires as the President.  Our elected representatives are a direct line to policy decisions, and we have more influence over these people compared to the President.  But are voters as cautious about voting for these representatives compared to the dramatic evaluation of the President?

The role of the President has many important responsibilities including Commander in Chief and International Diplomacy.  But when it comes to actions that directly affect ourselves, we should hold the legislators more accountable.