Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The State of the Union

President Obama gave his constitutionally mandated Congressional talking-to last night. According to Richard Neustadt, a political scientist noted for his study of the American presidency, Obama was exercising his power of persuasion. Neustadt believes that the president's ability to persuade Congress, other political operators, and the American public is the president's most important and useful power.

True, the president is required to meet with Congress "from time to time", but last night's speech wasn't really to Congress. Granted, they were sitting in the room, looking mildly interested (except you, Boehner), but Obama was speaking to the American public. From the bully pulpit, the president can attempt to persuade the public to pressure their representatives to support his initiatives. Depending on the political setting, this can be more effective than trying to persuade the legislators themselves.

I think Obama did a fair job of exercising his power of persuasion last night. It wasn't Obama's greatest speech, but it was good, and he said quite a few things that needed to be said. Given the lost Democratic majority in Congress, Obama needed to make an opening for some teamwork, which was nonexistent in the last Congress. By stating his willingness to compromise and interest in pursuing issues of concern to Republicans, he put the ball in their court. This step, however ineffective it may turn out to be, was very important. Obama is going to have to run for election, and since thus far he hasn't been able to change the political tone of Washington, he's going to need to be able to point to the Republicans and say "Hey, I tried. Those guys are just assholes." In fact, Obama has demonstrated his willingness to compromise many times in the last few years, much to the chagrin of some on the left, but Republicans have been much more effective playing the PR game, stirring up incoherent, irrational anti-government sentiment in Fox News viewers across the country.

I'll go through his main objectives, and discuss how he might be able to achieve them through formal or informal means.

Energy and Climate Change
While carefully not mentioning cap-and-trade, Obama asked Congress to pass a climate and energy bill addressing offshore drilling and beginning the construction of new nuclear power plants. These objectives are essentially relegated to Obama's informal powers, since he obviously cannot make the legislation himself. Although some of his energy/climate goals may be able to be addressed by various government agencies, his most important power will be his power to persuade to garner support for the legislation. Obama also stated his intent to invest in research in areas that would create jobs for America and protect the environment, as well as introducing two goals: become the first country with 1 million electric cars by 2015, and get 80% of our energy from clean sources by 2035. These proposals are huge, and are largely an encouragement to the various industries involved, but they could also be helped along by regulatory agencies (formal power) and tax credits/laws (informal - persuasion).

Tax Cuts
Obama touted the tax relief given to 95% of working families, including the recent reduction in the payroll tax. He proposed a tax on big banks and allowing tax cuts for oil companies and those making more than $250,000 a year to expire. As with his proposed energy bill, Obama relies upon his informal powers to make this happen, since Congress controls the purse.

The Deficit
In addressing the growing budget deficit, Obama announced an upcoming proposal to reorganize the federal government in an effort to save money and increase efficiency. He also called for Congress to simplify the tax code, removing loopholes in the complex rules that allow many corporations to avoid paying sizable amounts of taxes. Instead of raising taxes, he argued, we should actually make corporations pay the ones that are already in place. Obama called for a 5 year freeze on discretionary, non-defense spending. He also pledged to veto any bill that came to his desk with pork attached. This pledge was pretty great. It's all fine and good for politicians on both sides of the aisle to rail against pork, but this is the first real stand anyone's taken against it. His veto pledge can be enforced through the former power of the veto, but the others rely on informal powers.

Healthcare
The president joked that he had heard rumors that some people weren't happy with the health care law. That said, he told Congress that repealing the bill wasn't the right way to address problems with it. He stated that he was willing to work with critics of the bill to improve it, playing the "be a bigger man" card again by making the House's repeal vote look like a petty temper tantrum. The legislation is safe, thanks to the President's veto power. Even if the Senate were to vote to repeal the bill, which they won't, a supermajority in both houses (needed to override the veto) is extraordinarily unlikely.

Education
Obama outlined his vision for bringing the American education system up to speed with the rest of the world. His goals are to train 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next 10 years and attain the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. He has some formal power over these goals through the department of education, but Obama was directly asking people in the United States to become teachers. "Your country needs you," he said - a direct use of his power to persuade. He also asked Congress to make the tuition tax credit permanent, again, informal.










Wednesday, January 19, 2011

an assignment that demands arrogance

Luckily, I had some laying around. I, Corin Chellberg, a sophomore political science major, will put forth my thoughts on possible revisions or alterations to the Constitution of the United States. I'm going to take one of the most important, successful political documents in history and just, you know, make it better. No problem.

So, the balance of power is one of my top priorities. Luckily, I think the balance of power is very close to ideal. The president is not a figurehead, nor is he a despot. When the president is up to the task, he is capable of leading the nation, but his power is neatly checked to prevent him from controlling the country. This is the most remarkable aspect of the Constitution, to me. The system of checks and balances—which seems almost chanced-upon, after hearing about the intense negotiation that created it—is not only elegant in principle, but effective in action.

The one balance tweak I can think of concerns the presidential pardon. Although the controversial abuses in the past haven't been particularly damaging to the nation as far as I know (the same can't be said for Ford's reelection campaign), I think making the pardon subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court makes sense. Granted, this wouldn't be judicial review in the traditional sense, since the pardons wouldn't be checked for constitutionality. The check would be in place simply to prevent the use of the pardon to commit political crimes harmful to the country.

On it's face, the presidential pardon is a power without a check, and could allow, as the anti-Federalists feared, the president to commit crimes of any sort via proxy, then pardon the offender. While such gross misconduct would hopefully result in an impeachment/removal, those pardons would stand, if I understand correctly. The unilateral power to forgive is nice on paper, but the potential abuses unsettle me.

Next is the electoral college. I'm done with it. I'd dissolve it in a heartbeat. Arguments for it are unconvincing to me. It seems to be extremely black and white. If the majority of Americans vote for one candidate, no arbitrary, unnecessary bureaucratic structure should stand in the way. Cable news networks could still have their pretty red and blue maps and talk about who's going to win Florida, but the 49.99% of the state who voted for the other guy wouldn't have to be so completely disenfranchised. In addition, as Michele Boulais articulates here,
"The electoral college gives unfair weight to smaller states. Under this system, not all votes are created equal. Yes, the number of electoral votes states receive are divided sorta kinda on population numbers, but look at this comparison*:
Wyoming: population- 544,270 electoral votes- 3
California: population- 36,961,664 electoral votes- 55
One Wyoming vote: 5.512 e^-6 One California vote: 1.488 e^-6"
Elections are already complicated enough without indirect presidential elections in which "one man one vote" isn't just politically incorrect.

Finally, signing statements are absurd. Separation of powers exists for a reason. The president shouldn't be able to sign a bill, then add an asterisk that potentially changes the effect of the entire law. Essentially, through signing statements, the president can legislate, and the actual legislature can't do anything about it. George W. Bush issued over 1000 signing statements during his presidency. That's roughly 1000 too many. The legislature can't do the president's job, so he shouldn't be able to do theirs.

Since this power obviously isn't among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, I would add the following clause to Article I, Section 7, after the second line of the second paragraph:
"The President may not redact, amend, or otherwise alter the content of any Bill."
That's all I've got, and not for lack of trying. The system of checks and balances satisfies me. I've tried to think of other powers the president should have, and I really can't. He has all the powers he requires to fulfill his role in the government, and none that would allow him to encroach on the role of others.

Corin Chellberg