Caligula made a horse a Senator. Maybe he was on to something.
19
Don't worry, I strongly suspect that when the USA elects another white, anglo saxon Christian, male POTUS, all of his powers will be restored. That is, if democrats are again lazy enough not to turn out in large numbers and vote. and, in so doing, elect another white, anglo saxon, Christian, male, republican POTUS. You know, someone akin to Rick Perry.
31
I am a Democrat. I will not vote again for any Democrat disloyal to this president. I hope you hear that Sen. Menendez. I have voted for you twice but even if you stay out prison and have the temerity to run again, you have forfeited my vote and trust me sir, trust me, I am sure I speak for tens and tens and tens of thousands of New Jersey Democrats repulsed by your disloyalty to the president and your myopic opposition to him on a new Cuba policy and above all on the pending, developing agreement with Iran.
And that goes and should go for any Senate Democrat who has done and is doing the same.
Hear that Shumer?
And that goes and should go for any Senate Democrat who has done and is doing the same.
Hear that Shumer?
36
Free the President. Yeah, let him leave now!
10
Just to keep things accurate, the U.S. Congress passed a budget on 18 December 2013, and sent it on to the president. The last one BEFORE that was in 2009.
12
Hail Caesar? If George Washington didn't have the authority, why would we give it to 0bama and those following?
8
"But the last two Congresses have passed fewer than 300 laws each, the fewest in modern history. By comparison, the famous “do-nothing” Congress of 1947-48 passed 906 laws."
Anyone know how many laws a Congress is supposed to pass, in order to be considered to be doing a good job?
Anyone know how many laws a Congress is supposed to pass, in order to be considered to be doing a good job?
9
Would Rattner have written this if the President were a Republican? Would he refer to Congress as "dysfunctional" if they were blocking a Republican President? No, and no.
14
Congress could if we didn't have a dictator for president.
5
This article gave me a good laugh. So, Obama is supposed to be able to take even more unilateral actions than the ones the courts are dealing with right now?
9
How did the Presidential line item veto got into Rattner's otherwise thoughtful column? The passage was written in crayon; a clue to the NYT editor. Visualize the architectural wonder that would house a line-item veto staff. How high its dome?
2
So...Mr. Rattler wants an emperor.
If Obama wasn't an arrogant man who insists on doing things his way and insulting those who disagree with him he might get more of what he wants without so much contention.
If Obama wasn't an arrogant man who insists on doing things his way and insulting those who disagree with him he might get more of what he wants without so much contention.
12
"Over the past four decades, Congress — with an occasional assist from the courts — has gradually, and regrettably, eroded the powers of the presidency."
That is hilarious. After the example of the Obama administration time after time being slapped down for executive overreach by the courts perhaps the power of the presidency should be eroded further.
That is hilarious. After the example of the Obama administration time after time being slapped down for executive overreach by the courts perhaps the power of the presidency should be eroded further.
9
No. Free the country from this president.
10
Re: “And I hope I'm around long enough to see a Democratic Congress do to a Republican President what this Congress has done to this President.”
Mr. Rattner is naïve. While Democrats are now just as dependent on campaign contributions from anonymous billionaires as Republicans, they are not the ones who have destroyed the American democracy, and there remains the hope that they can restore it.
Mr. Rattner is naïve. While Democrats are now just as dependent on campaign contributions from anonymous billionaires as Republicans, they are not the ones who have destroyed the American democracy, and there remains the hope that they can restore it.
6
Well, we already know that Obama's "Dream Act" allowed 75,000 "illegal alien" children into the USA and NOW we find out he's flying their parents in at no cost to them - just the American taxpayer.
Consequently, I'd say the President has too much "Executive Power" and, if you believe the polls, so do most U.S. citizens not to mention our Founders.
Consequently, I'd say the President has too much "Executive Power" and, if you believe the polls, so do most U.S. citizens not to mention our Founders.
7
I would suggest people read the history of the constitutional convention. No participant in that convention, other than the few who favored a monarchy, envisioned the power resting in the office of the president today. If Obama is truly a constitution expert he must know this.
I see Nixon cited as the reason congress chose to rein in the presidency. FDR is the one who expanded it and then chose to occupy the office for four terms, the fourth of course cut very short. Washington, the man who truly could have been king, had the wisdom to leave after two terms. We had to amend the constitution to ensure the occupant would leave after two terms.
I see Nixon cited as the reason congress chose to rein in the presidency. FDR is the one who expanded it and then chose to occupy the office for four terms, the fourth of course cut very short. Washington, the man who truly could have been king, had the wisdom to leave after two terms. We had to amend the constitution to ensure the occupant would leave after two terms.
3
"But the last two Congresses have passed fewer than 300 laws each, the fewest in modern history. By comparison, the famous 'do-nothing' Congress of 1947-49 passed 906 laws."
The number of laws passed may correlate with the activeness of a Congress, but it does not correlate with the quality of a Congress: just because a Congress passes a lot of laws doesn't mean that it's "good." In a democratic society, the best government is the government that rules as least as possible (of course, after all the laws that are absolutely necessary are passed).
The number of laws passed may correlate with the activeness of a Congress, but it does not correlate with the quality of a Congress: just because a Congress passes a lot of laws doesn't mean that it's "good." In a democratic society, the best government is the government that rules as least as possible (of course, after all the laws that are absolutely necessary are passed).
4
The republican party no longer responds to the idea of democracy. They have thwarted the last two popularly elected democrats to win the White House in ways unprecedented.
Had democrats opposed any of the last republican presidents in the manner republicans have they would have been branded treasonous by more powerful people than I.
Our form of democracy really stopped evolving in 1789 whereas the parliamentary forms of government have been allowed to continue to evolve. I sometimes long for a parliament myself.
Had democrats opposed any of the last republican presidents in the manner republicans have they would have been branded treasonous by more powerful people than I.
Our form of democracy really stopped evolving in 1789 whereas the parliamentary forms of government have been allowed to continue to evolve. I sometimes long for a parliament myself.
3
Line item veto? that would operate only in one direction - to cut programs and the funding they require. Not only would that defeat Congressional compromises necessary to democracy, but would allow the President alone to punish constituencies that didn't vote for them. How undemocratic. Conservatives wouldn't stand for the suggestions that Presidents should have "line item" increases.
1
Commentators as astute as Rattner need to radically alter the coverage models for reporting on today's politics and government. The outright theft of politics and government has reached astonishing, gargantuan proportions.
The profoundly dark and impenetrable opacity of who does what to whom for how much money has never been covered as widely as it will take to use sunshine to shame a Congress and their buyer-funders. Rattner and his fraternity need to go beyond uncovering the latest scandal. They must daily indict the system and its effect on this limping, whimpering country.
The profoundly dark and impenetrable opacity of who does what to whom for how much money has never been covered as widely as it will take to use sunshine to shame a Congress and their buyer-funders. Rattner and his fraternity need to go beyond uncovering the latest scandal. They must daily indict the system and its effect on this limping, whimpering country.
3
The Constitution is supposed to limit the possibility of tyranny by limiting federal powers to only the defined set enumerated in the Constitution, with added specific exclusions to federal powers listed in the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately the whole scheme falls apart when nobody can even enforce "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" on a Congress using religion as a wedge issue to destroy the Union.
Unfortunately the whole scheme falls apart when nobody can even enforce "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" on a Congress using religion as a wedge issue to destroy the Union.
13
Republicans talk about impeaching Obama. What I would like to see won't happen. But it would be nice to impeach every Republican in the House of Representatives. There are GOP Senators that we could lump into the mix. Ok, that idea is lalaland. Why not pick one of the 5 Republican Supreme Court justices. Impeaching Scalia would be a great move. He has done things that could be targets for charges that he should have recused himself and did not. I know of only one attempt to impeach a Supreme Court justice. Jefferson tried to get Samuel Chase, who had a nasty habit of adopting ugly mongrel dogs in Washington and calling them all "Mad Tom." Chase survived.
9
President Obama came into office with as strong a Presidential mandate as any in recent memory. A single party controlled both houses and the country was in crisis and he had the ability to push through any reasonable legislation. He chose to take his moment and use all of his political capital for healthcare. He sacrificed the control of the House and his political power for this one legislative victory. It empowered the Republicans and launched a war. His circumstances are of his own doing.
8
I think that correct translation of many of the posted opinions is: The executive branch needs authority to do what we think must be done but we are perfectly justified in denying that same branch of government authority to do what we think is wrong. The few limitations we have on presidential power came in response to abuse of power. To this day, the President of the United States is the only leader of a major or middle power who could order an attack on any nation he wished without Congressional consent and he could wage that war for ninety days. Not in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and Beijing and probably not in Moscow could the nation's chief executive exercise such authority.
3
The way to make sure that the President and congress are in concert is simply to have the chief executive elected by and serving at the pleasure of congress. Throw in a weekly session in which he is grilled by the congressmen in open questioning (Joe Wilson X 100) and you pretty much have a parliamentary democracy.
Is that really what you want? A simple constitutional admendment would implement it.
Is that really what you want? A simple constitutional admendment would implement it.
1
As usual a "progressive" using deceptive statistics. The number of executive orders is far less important than their impact. For example an executive order Providing An Order of Succession Within the Department of Transportation is far less impactful than an executive order legalizing the population equivalent of a European country.
7
The constitution set up the three branches of government as a protection from the government exceeding its limits. The purpose was to counterbalance and slowdown all actions so that the government did not overreach.
And wise the foundering fathers were. All politicians, Presidents, Congressmen, Jurists, and government bureaucrats tend to overreach because they want to exercise power over people.
This ob/ed piece merely represents another statement, by a Presidential surrogate, expressing the frustrations of those constrained by a brilliant constitution.
It is an attack on the protections the people must have against a government that can and will do them harm if permitted to do so.
And wise the foundering fathers were. All politicians, Presidents, Congressmen, Jurists, and government bureaucrats tend to overreach because they want to exercise power over people.
This ob/ed piece merely represents another statement, by a Presidential surrogate, expressing the frustrations of those constrained by a brilliant constitution.
It is an attack on the protections the people must have against a government that can and will do them harm if permitted to do so.
6
"We need a stronger presidency..."
In so many words, Rattner is supporting some sort of constitutional dictatorship - not a form of govt. with proper checks and balances. Hilariously, this is what the American armed forces have fought to destroy the world over for over a century, from Germany to Afghanistan and Iraq. Isn't it a bit odd that a columnist who supports the presidency is suggesting that the position be replaced by something that the president himself, and his predecessors, have sought so hard to dismantle across the globe?
In so many words, Rattner is supporting some sort of constitutional dictatorship - not a form of govt. with proper checks and balances. Hilariously, this is what the American armed forces have fought to destroy the world over for over a century, from Germany to Afghanistan and Iraq. Isn't it a bit odd that a columnist who supports the presidency is suggesting that the position be replaced by something that the president himself, and his predecessors, have sought so hard to dismantle across the globe?
5
In recent decades, Congress's record is one of damming, not of flow.
Additionally, few Congress members have ever been much more than (wo)men of broad reach nor of practicality, save in trying to look good to voters. What little practicality their predecessors had, has been laid aside.
So Rattner's analysis is right as far as it goes. But because Congress is so dysfunctionally ideological, is no reason to assume the President is on top of matters.
No matter who is next President, future pile-ups will dwarf today's.
Additionally, few Congress members have ever been much more than (wo)men of broad reach nor of practicality, save in trying to look good to voters. What little practicality their predecessors had, has been laid aside.
So Rattner's analysis is right as far as it goes. But because Congress is so dysfunctionally ideological, is no reason to assume the President is on top of matters.
No matter who is next President, future pile-ups will dwarf today's.
1
Much as I detest this Congress and the Republicans who have made it so, this article is the wrong approach.
DeGaul in France, and Romans with their one-year dictators, and many in between, took this strong man approach to get around government political disfunction. It didn't solve anything, and created a new problem.
We need to clean out Congress. It can be done, more easily than creating an even stronger President, and without the new problems.
Campaign finance reform, voting rights reform, districting reform, media reform to call out liars and remember their lies, all these things can be done, and can be done in at least partial and useful ways on a local level. Let's get doing them.
DeGaul in France, and Romans with their one-year dictators, and many in between, took this strong man approach to get around government political disfunction. It didn't solve anything, and created a new problem.
We need to clean out Congress. It can be done, more easily than creating an even stronger President, and without the new problems.
Campaign finance reform, voting rights reform, districting reform, media reform to call out liars and remember their lies, all these things can be done, and can be done in at least partial and useful ways on a local level. Let's get doing them.
10
"The British example also shows that our system of checks and balances is not required to safeguard against a runaway leader."
Really? Why was it ever implemented, then?
"And let's restore the line-item veto..."
So he can deny as he likes to people and organizations he does not like.
Really? Why was it ever implemented, then?
"And let's restore the line-item veto..."
So he can deny as he likes to people and organizations he does not like.
7
It was implemented at the time because then the British King had real executive authority and our framers wanted to prevent the president from acting like a king. The current parliamentary system in Britain reflects nearly all authority moved to parliament. But the author here is not talking about scrapping Congress, but rather suggesting that in not tie the hands of the executive unduly.
5
Britain's experience of Blair suggests that they do not have the answer. He abused his control of the House of Commons and disregarded the Cabinet in government enough to be a real problem, especially with his added calculated lies and media manipulation. We wouldn't find a solution there. We'd have a President gone wild.
2
The Prime Minister is the creature of the majority coaltiion in Parlement and serves esentially at their will. He can find himself out of office at any time. Furthermore, he must present himself for open questioning from the floor weekly duing which time he is challenged in a manner that no US President has ever tolerated. In the British Parlement there is no danger of major abuse of power by the Prime Minister opposed by Parlement.
THere are only two structural paths to avoiding gridlock. Let the exective appoint the legislature as in communist countiries or the legislature appoint the executive.
I prefer occasional gridlock.
THere are only two structural paths to avoiding gridlock. Let the exective appoint the legislature as in communist countiries or the legislature appoint the executive.
I prefer occasional gridlock.
1
Your misperception that stopping this president from making a bad deal just so he can say he made a deal, would affect future presidents abilities to make deals shows your liberal bias without further wasting your ink and my time. We the people must fight bad deals and those of you who would allow any president to enter us into one should be ashamed!
13
As if the decisions -- and inaction -- of the Congress are not to be questioned! I think not. This is a reasonable article about good administrative practices.
8
"Nearly four years ago, with bipartisan support, a bill was passed by the House that would work around the legal problem and restore the line-item veto. It has yet to reach the Senate floor."
Darned dysfunctional Senate! You can bet if the Democrats had controlled the Senate four years ago then we'd have the line-item veto now!
Darned dysfunctional Senate! You can bet if the Democrats had controlled the Senate four years ago then we'd have the line-item veto now!
13
@ CapitalistRoader - "You can bet if the Democrats had controlled the Senate four years ago then we'd have the line-item veto now!"
I see what you did there. Wonder if anyone else will.
I see what you did there. Wonder if anyone else will.
1
What we are_ supposed_ to have learned from President Obama's presidency is that only old white guys are fit to be president.
No form of parliament or congress can override the complete incompetency and ignorance our bicameral congress has demonstrated these past 6 years. It is not a matter of changing the format of government, it's about electing people whose only agenda is WE, the People and not THEM, the oligarchs.
The last set of tax breaks sent forward by the House has underscored the reality that these guys do not give a whit about the citizens, the infrastructure, or the well-being of this nation. They are only the front to higher dollar$ in their pockets.
Yes, to the line item veto, for sure, but even that won't begin to fix what's wrong. The only people who can do that are We, the People....and we can do it in the voting booth.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
No form of parliament or congress can override the complete incompetency and ignorance our bicameral congress has demonstrated these past 6 years. It is not a matter of changing the format of government, it's about electing people whose only agenda is WE, the People and not THEM, the oligarchs.
The last set of tax breaks sent forward by the House has underscored the reality that these guys do not give a whit about the citizens, the infrastructure, or the well-being of this nation. They are only the front to higher dollar$ in their pockets.
Yes, to the line item veto, for sure, but even that won't begin to fix what's wrong. The only people who can do that are We, the People....and we can do it in the voting booth.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
16
One can but wonder at the color of the sky in Rattner's deluded universe. Both the current tyrant and his predecessor have abused their "authority" in egregious and execrable fashion. Illegal wars? Check! Murdering our own citizens without due process? Double check. We need to be limiting the office, not expanding it
10
Uh huh and tell that to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and FDR, the three indispensable presidents. They understood and used executive power to establish, keep and maintain the presidency and they used a lot more of it each in his own way than this president has.
If I were a very wealthy and powerful individual, after having purchased all the seats in Congress, I would either try to purchase the Executive or use my seats in Congress to erode the power of the Executive to achieve the same results. Just thinking out loud !
4
When you act hostile to the opposing party as Obama has done, they are also hostile to him. Obama has no interest or respect for the Republicans, and has done nothing to partner with them. Bill Clinton understood the need to work with the opposition and got things done.
Unfortunately, the "chickens are coming home to roost" with our Imperial president. That is, ignore them, act imperious with the Republicans and they will do the same for him.
Too bad Obama never learned bipartisanship or a lot of things such as a finely tuned health care bill, could have been implemented instead the one we have not.
I hope that the Congress continues to try to reach bipartisan agreements, to at least show that it can function. And, hopefully, the Democrats have had enough of Obama's arrogance and can garner the votes to override anythnig HE does not like, regardless of the views of the people he "rules".
Unfortunately, the "chickens are coming home to roost" with our Imperial president. That is, ignore them, act imperious with the Republicans and they will do the same for him.
Too bad Obama never learned bipartisanship or a lot of things such as a finely tuned health care bill, could have been implemented instead the one we have not.
I hope that the Congress continues to try to reach bipartisan agreements, to at least show that it can function. And, hopefully, the Democrats have had enough of Obama's arrogance and can garner the votes to override anythnig HE does not like, regardless of the views of the people he "rules".
17
You think it's all Obama's fault. Republican's are simply reacting to being dissed. How about a more complex notion: maybe both share some responsibility for our current dysfunction though I think Republicans are by and large responsible and they will reap what they sow and you and I will suffer the consequences.
2
You've got the cart before the horse, dude.
Curious that the author seems unaware that the Congress is Constitutionally bound to vote on such treaties. Further curious that anyone would cede to surrender their rights to an office to rule via dictate as opposed to through those they elected to represent them.
9
Curious that this comment seems unaware this is not a treaty, and that such deals have been made as executive agreements by such luminaries as Reagan and Nixon.
5
Nuclear proliferation is an existential threat. The consequences to mistakes in this matter are much more serious than those of a botched roll out of a national health care system. Perhaps that is why there is a bipartisan lack of confidence in the administration's ability to negotiate an effective agreement.
10
We have way too many laws as it is. Congress should return to its primary function of government oversight. Currently we have runaway government spending and excessive regulation that has depressed the economy. The Obama era has been a gigantic failure in that regard.
5
Have you read Article 1 of the Constitution, which starts out with "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
Congress's primary function is legislative powers, meaning passing laws. I have no idea where you got the idea that it should act as a national ombudsman.
Congress's primary function is legislative powers, meaning passing laws. I have no idea where you got the idea that it should act as a national ombudsman.
1
The problem is that the Executive Branch has too much power, not too little.
Since this President took office there have been 21,000 regulations added to the Federal Register - with another 2,375 planned for 2015. These are laws and powers that none of our elected representatives have a voice in.
"Comprehensive" laws, like the AHCA and the proposed immigration reforms, run thousands of pages and are voted on blindly because no one - including the cheerleaders in the media - have the slighest idea what's in them. Which allowed Mr. Obama to lie through his teeth about its effects.
Since this President took office there have been 21,000 regulations added to the Federal Register - with another 2,375 planned for 2015. These are laws and powers that none of our elected representatives have a voice in.
"Comprehensive" laws, like the AHCA and the proposed immigration reforms, run thousands of pages and are voted on blindly because no one - including the cheerleaders in the media - have the slighest idea what's in them. Which allowed Mr. Obama to lie through his teeth about its effects.
9
That is just totally untrue. When Congress passes a law that says in effect that some executive agency must determine the best way to achieve something using the best assessments now available Congress requires a regulation so that we understand how that agency will implement the law. When Congress says that the EPA should adopt standards for clean air, guess what? Regulations.
2
The Constitution does not grant the President the prerogative to enter into binding personal agreements with foreign nations. The only international agreements the Constitution enforces as the law of the land are treaties. Article II grants the president the power to negotiate treaties and the Senate the power to consent to them before they become law.
Our president is not a dictator.
Our president is not a dictator.
13
There used to be an understanding among the political parties that kept the routine functions of the federal government working while politicians hashed-out their differences over more contentious issues. But that was back in the day before Republicans became a party of quasi-insurrection that had no respect for the government, its traditions, fairness, decency or common sense. Now Republicans appear to thwart routine matters that should not even be controversial -- Like Loretta Lynch's confirmation as AG -- simply because holding the nation hostage to capricious political extremism while persecuting their political enemies transcends all else. It's fine to make high-minded appeals to civility and efficiency and tradition, but Republicans don't really care what you think, and they will do what they do because they can. Unfortunately, many of the voters have apparently bought into their scorched-earth nihilism, making any improvement in the current situation highly unlikely.
14
Unfortunately our political system has become too corrupted to achieve what Mr. Rattner is advocating here. It started with the passage in 1974 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which may have had the intention of limiting the money contributions of wealthy donors, corporations, and various groups and organizations in influencing the outcome of elections but opened the pandora's box of "soft money". The Democrats can take the credit of this poorly crafted legislation. Then the final nail in the coffin came with the Citizens United SCOTUS decision in 2010, a conservative Republican fiasco.
So unless we first fix our corrupted political campaign financing system how can we expect to have political candidates run for office who are not at least initially corrupted by the system that we now have in place that allows them to abuse the president, the "ordinary Americans" and do nothing in congress. We have at a minimum two branches of our government working in collusion to prevent such reform and two parties that refuse to even discuss it.
So unless we first fix our corrupted political campaign financing system how can we expect to have political candidates run for office who are not at least initially corrupted by the system that we now have in place that allows them to abuse the president, the "ordinary Americans" and do nothing in congress. We have at a minimum two branches of our government working in collusion to prevent such reform and two parties that refuse to even discuss it.
30
Legalizing 5 million illegal aliens by executive order is pretty powerful - TOO powerful in light of that annoying document, the US Constitution.
13
A minor technical detail: they weren't "legalized," their deportation status was simply put on hold, in large part to allow Congress time to get its act together.
if one may suggest, articulating your objections to the policy based on facts would serve a lot better than yelling and waving the Constitution like a bloody sheet.
if one may suggest, articulating your objections to the policy based on facts would serve a lot better than yelling and waving the Constitution like a bloody sheet.
9
Their deportation merely put on hold, for eternity
1
Oh but that the American people, as well as the media, would focus on the real problem of why our government is frozen and the Office of the President is having its teeth ground down. Take a look at the polls and how many people exercise their privilege (dare I say, civic obligation?) to vote. Under 40% of REGISTERED voters bothered to show up as the Tea Party and radical right wing prated our government. WE, THE PEOPLE, allowed the travesty of the current residents of the House and Senate. WE, THE PEOPLE, either responded to the faux patriotic frenzy manufactured by PR firms and the "invisible" oligarchs (aided by SCOTUS) who bought representation for their own interests. And despite the fact that the uber-rich and market driven wealthy have benefited to an enormous degree under Obama, the idea that he must be stopped at all cost still survives.
Until, WE, THE PEOPLE, come to our senses and stop blaming "them" and start using the brains we have to educate ourselves about candidates and policies, turn a deaf ear to rabble-rousing rhetoric based on lies, and use our legs to get to the polls, we will continue to destroy the very Republic that REAL patriots want to preserve....and the three-branches form of government will totally belong to the rich and special interests. And the US Media could assist by not giving as much air/press time to the antics of the fringe who now occupy the mainstream. Ooops, I forgot --- the media is owned by oligarchs.
Until, WE, THE PEOPLE, come to our senses and stop blaming "them" and start using the brains we have to educate ourselves about candidates and policies, turn a deaf ear to rabble-rousing rhetoric based on lies, and use our legs to get to the polls, we will continue to destroy the very Republic that REAL patriots want to preserve....and the three-branches form of government will totally belong to the rich and special interests. And the US Media could assist by not giving as much air/press time to the antics of the fringe who now occupy the mainstream. Ooops, I forgot --- the media is owned by oligarchs.
12
Free the President? Seriously? The Voters had that chance in 2012...and not a month goes by when I don't wonder how much better this country would be if we had elected Romney. Free the President? We had the chance to free the country....but the voters blew it.
15
I thought this article was from TheOnion. Obama is exercising too LITTLE authority? He's assumed the power of the legislative branch in changing laws (e.g. Obamacare). He's assumed the power of the judicial branch, strong-arming settlements from BP (w/o any trial or finding of guilt) and GM (acting as liberal activist judge re-writing bankruptcy laws). And he's failed to enforce the laws of the land (immigration), the ONE thing the executive IS supposed to do.
The man is a walking disaster area.
The man is a walking disaster area.
16
You're actually complaining about the Administration legally pushing BP to clean up the giant mess their negligence caused, and indemnify the, what, 17 oil workers they killed as well as everybody whose livelihoods they destroyed.
good grief.
good grief.
8
Now that Hillary has made her announcement to run for president .. Obama's time is up....
1
There is an old saw:
A committee is a creature with sixteen legs and no brain.
I give you the United State Congress.
A committee is a creature with sixteen legs and no brain.
I give you the United State Congress.
4
If Pro is the opposite of Con, than what is the opposite of Progress? Congress.
Good God! Liberalism really is a neurological disorder. We would all come to dearly regret an increasingly autocratic chief executive.
12
What alternative universe do you live in, Mr. Rattner, where the Congress has expanded it's powers?
Have you read the Constitution? The Senate has the responsibility to approve treaties. In the case of Iran, this Senate has given that power away.
Have you read the Constitution? The Senate has the responsibility to approve treaties. In the case of Iran, this Senate has given that power away.
14
It's probably the universe in which agreements such as the one ending the Vietnam War and treaties are two different things.
By the way--any thoughts on why a) Republicans have refused to take up the resolutions on going after ISIS that have been sitting in the Senate floor for a while, or b) blocked the international treaty on the disabled that we wrote, with Bob Dole sitting there in a wheelchair and begging for its approval?
By the way--any thoughts on why a) Republicans have refused to take up the resolutions on going after ISIS that have been sitting in the Senate floor for a while, or b) blocked the international treaty on the disabled that we wrote, with Bob Dole sitting there in a wheelchair and begging for its approval?
4
a) The authority the President asked for is actually less than the authority he currently has under current resolutions. The Congress does not wish to limit U.S. options.
b) The Treaty will not benefit U.S. citizens with disabilities as we have far stronger laws protecting their rights. USAID and other organizations concede "there is no correlation between U.S. ratification of human rights treaties and the advancement of human rights in foreign countries". The Treaty would create new U.N. Commissions that would impinge on U.S. sovereignty much as the CERD Treaty resulted in recommendations restoring voting rights to convicted felons.
b) The Treaty will not benefit U.S. citizens with disabilities as we have far stronger laws protecting their rights. USAID and other organizations concede "there is no correlation between U.S. ratification of human rights treaties and the advancement of human rights in foreign countries". The Treaty would create new U.N. Commissions that would impinge on U.S. sovereignty much as the CERD Treaty resulted in recommendations restoring voting rights to convicted felons.
1
"We need a stronger presidency, regardless of whether he is a Democrat or a Republican." And, I say, regardless of whether he is Black or White.
3
Let me guess... Mr. Rattner also has an op-ed in waiting that will support Congressional oversight of a future Republican president?
12
Steven - I don't want Obama to accomplish anything . Unfortunately that is the next best thing to having him removed from office .
13
I'm sure we all send our condolences for there having been an election, and your side getting their tails kicked.
and on what basis would he be removed from office, Frank? He has managed not to bed any white house interns so the congress has no opportunity to impeach, as they did with Bill Clinton, a truly successful president whose efforts were marred by the same right wing conspiracy we see in action now, only more so.
"But the last two Congresses have passed fewer than 300 laws each, the fewest in modern history. By comparison, the famous “do-nothing” Congress of 1947-48 passed 906 laws."
This is an incredible statement. In Mr. Rattner's view a Congress should be judged by the number of laws it passes. The quality of those laws, the harmful unintended consequences which often result, the burden on our freedoms (such as the right to keep our doctors and health plans as promised by Mr. Obama) - apparently none are worth mentioning in Mr. Rattner's worldview.
This is an incredible statement. In Mr. Rattner's view a Congress should be judged by the number of laws it passes. The quality of those laws, the harmful unintended consequences which often result, the burden on our freedoms (such as the right to keep our doctors and health plans as promised by Mr. Obama) - apparently none are worth mentioning in Mr. Rattner's worldview.
12
Perhaps you'd care to explain why you feel it is so unimportant, and so damaging, to create an infrastructure bank at a time in which record low interest rates mean that we would rebuild and develop our country more cheaply than will ever again be possible.
Robert-
I think you're missing the point. To oppose judging Congress merely by the sheer quantity of laws it passes is not the same thing as opposing any particular law. The latter doesn't follow from the former.
I think you're missing the point. To oppose judging Congress merely by the sheer quantity of laws it passes is not the same thing as opposing any particular law. The latter doesn't follow from the former.
1
You are wishing for a king Mr Rattner. I prefer our constitutional checks and balances even though our current President seems to reject them.
14
Apparently, Mr Rattner fails to understand the concept of "checks and balances."
12
Look, Obama thinks he's a king and Rattner wants to give him even more power? Maybe the people are sick of a president who is more concerned with his "legacy" than in protecting this country. Could that be it?
15
Face it. The office of the presidency is shrinking to fit this tiny little man.
11
This is the second piece I've noticed in the Times lately (the other was by David Brooks) calling for a first step towards dismantling our democracy. Yes, the current Congress is loathsome and dysfunctional, but do we really want to create a more imperial presidency, knowing it would someday be occupied by some moral and intellectual twin of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell?
6
The Congress could have helped this President regardless of any laws. But they didn't. They have fought him, stonewalled, and blocked everything. They have treated him and the office with the uttermost disrespect. It has been blatant and downright disgusting. Now I have lost all respect for them, The congress for the last six years has been a joke and everyone knows it. I have my problems with Obama but when I think of all he has done and what he was left with, It is quite something he has accomplished anything at all with the clowns on the hill.
They did the same thing with Clinton but he knew how to work them and he was also .... White. But we still had to hear about Monica Lewinsky for nearly three years anyway. Obama should have fought them harder right from the jump, Instead of trying to play nice.
They did the same thing with Clinton but he knew how to work them and he was also .... White. But we still had to hear about Monica Lewinsky for nearly three years anyway. Obama should have fought them harder right from the jump, Instead of trying to play nice.
7
"They did the same thing with Clinton but he knew how to work them....."
Bill Clinton knew how to work WITH Congress - with Democrats and Republicans alike. (Yes, there are always Members of Congress who do not march in lock step with the President who is the head of their party.)
President Obama often ignores Members of Congress - not just Republicans but Democrats as well:
"House Democrats are frustrated with what they say is a lack of election-year communication from the White House.
"The lawmakers say it’s difficult to defend President Obama from GOP attacks, when he doesn't confer with his allies about his strategy and intentions.
"Some are scratching their heads why, after nearly six years in office and a reshuffling of his legislative affairs team, Obama's working relationship with Congress remains prickly.
“It's hard for us to fathom; I mean, is it just lack of full staffing and resources? [Is it] professional commitment? Is it a disdain for the legislative branch? I mean, what is it?” asked Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “People like me want to be allies — I mean, I am an ally. So work with us, reach out to us; you know, we're not the enemy.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/215082-house-dems-cant-figure-out-why-...
Bill Clinton knew how to work WITH Congress - with Democrats and Republicans alike. (Yes, there are always Members of Congress who do not march in lock step with the President who is the head of their party.)
President Obama often ignores Members of Congress - not just Republicans but Democrats as well:
"House Democrats are frustrated with what they say is a lack of election-year communication from the White House.
"The lawmakers say it’s difficult to defend President Obama from GOP attacks, when he doesn't confer with his allies about his strategy and intentions.
"Some are scratching their heads why, after nearly six years in office and a reshuffling of his legislative affairs team, Obama's working relationship with Congress remains prickly.
“It's hard for us to fathom; I mean, is it just lack of full staffing and resources? [Is it] professional commitment? Is it a disdain for the legislative branch? I mean, what is it?” asked Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “People like me want to be allies — I mean, I am an ally. So work with us, reach out to us; you know, we're not the enemy.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/215082-house-dems-cant-figure-out-why-...
3
This president has taken "presidential power" to a new level by writing laws and ignoring laws he does not like. To suggest that the power of the presidency is in decline is ridiculous. Mr.Rattner needs to consider when a President he doesn't agree with is in office will he feel the same. When Bush was going into Iraq did the dems say not problem, you don't need congress. No, there was a cry for congress to vote on the war powers, as there should have been. If you cannot convince congress then you need to work on your idea a little more, evidence Obamacare.
Mr.Rattner needs to read the constitution. Congress writes laws and the President needs to enforce the laws as congress intended, all the laws.
Mr.Rattner needs to read the constitution. Congress writes laws and the President needs to enforce the laws as congress intended, all the laws.
12
Americans have never dealt well with monarchs and dictators. Giving the president more power is not the answer. In fact, simply replacing the office with a prime minister would cut right through the gridlock without creating a god-king in the process. Let the house pass domestic laws, let the senate provide oversight and foreign relations, and SCOTUS can keep everything in check.
3
While I would like to see an end to the mindless obstructionism in Congress, Rattner is so wrong about some key points that it discredits his argument: the British system holds the Prime Minister directly accountable via votes of No Confidence, and we can't restore a line item veto that never was.
2
What is particulary galling to me, is that the Senate is too timid and too afraid to even vote on the President's resolution to fight ISIS, a war that is being waged right now, in real time.
And yet when it comes to an imaginery, future threat from Iran, which may or may not happen, our Senate wants to be all muscular and wants no part in the President's diplomacy.
Someone, please explain this to me.
And yet when it comes to an imaginery, future threat from Iran, which may or may not happen, our Senate wants to be all muscular and wants no part in the President's diplomacy.
Someone, please explain this to me.
3
Thank God for Congress, which has performed well as the brake that has prevented the country from being totally wrecked. Millions have died and were injured to stop this country from being a ruled by an imperial leader.
11
Yes, we need a president with the power of Castro and Jung. Too bad we have that pesky Constitution that was written to prevent just such power.
10
"That’s unfortunate. I wish the president had had the votes to hang tough on this important right, in part because of the precedent it sets for future executive agreements and the pall it casts over his fight for the legality of his recent executive orders on immigration, climate change and other matters."
Obama has also set a precedent for lying in order to reach political goals. How does Mr. Rattner feel about that? Will he sing the praises of an imperial presidency should a Republican win in 2016?
Obama has also set a precedent for lying in order to reach political goals. How does Mr. Rattner feel about that? Will he sing the praises of an imperial presidency should a Republican win in 2016?
9
The same writer that said "Thanks to decades of accumulated federal budget deficits and, more significantly, imprudent Medicare and Social Security policies, we've stolen almost $60 trillion from our children" now says that the current president - who, by the way will leave office with a federal debt that will be almost double the amount that it was when he took office - needs to "be freed" (not only hypocritical, but borders on racism...)
8
While I agree, in part, with the general point that this will affect future Presidents, make no mistake this is primarily an assault on this President by Republicans in Congress. If a Republican manages to win the Presidency in 2016 (or maybe 2020) and has majorities in Congress, you can be sure that that President, with assurances from a compliant Congress, will reverse these current imbalances and do so in the name of the Constitutional argument you make. I would also remind you just how much the power of the Presidency has grown in post-WWII America, never mind since the Civil War.
2
Mr. Rattner writes: "Mr. Obama’s sensible proposal in 2012 to consolidate several departments and agencies into a new cabinet department that would manage trade and business-related functions. Until 1984, a president could have implemented this type of reorganization on his own authority, just as private sector chief executives routinely do."
The sole owner of a business can make such decisions on his/her own. I expect Mr. Rattner is referring to corporations with a CEO, COO, CFO, and other 'chiefs'. I'll address that common corporate structure:
Private sector chief executives don't make these plans or these decisions on their own. Boards of directors have oversight and must sign off on the reorganization.
Mr. Rattner is well aware of this practice. An interesting billionaire who made his fortune in the financial industry, he's been there and done that, providing plans and recommendations to groups of O's in corporation after corporation. (O's = CEO, COO, CFO, etc.)
The sole owner of a business can make such decisions on his/her own. I expect Mr. Rattner is referring to corporations with a CEO, COO, CFO, and other 'chiefs'. I'll address that common corporate structure:
Private sector chief executives don't make these plans or these decisions on their own. Boards of directors have oversight and must sign off on the reorganization.
Mr. Rattner is well aware of this practice. An interesting billionaire who made his fortune in the financial industry, he's been there and done that, providing plans and recommendations to groups of O's in corporation after corporation. (O's = CEO, COO, CFO, etc.)
6
The headline is grossly misleading. It is the working middle class citizen of the United States that need to be free. Congress. cronies and generationally rich are attempting to create another feudal society, just as in Europe.
Economic slavery in the guise of "equality" is just the installation of an invisible but rigid caste system as the monarchy or a totalitarian regime.
Economic slavery in the guise of "equality" is just the installation of an invisible but rigid caste system as the monarchy or a totalitarian regime.
5
Mr. Rattner:
So the president doesn't get to push through his left wing ideas unchecked, and that bothers you.
What are we the people to think when his statements re. the Iranian deal are called untruths by Iran? Obama continues to lose the trust of more of the American people. The balance of powers says Congress should have a part. No imperial presidency or monarchy here. There is an open question as to whether his actions are legal. Legality is the domain of courts, not Congress.
Climate change? Democrats used to call the problem "man made global warming," but had to abandon that term. Of course there is climate change. But phony figures, such as falsifying the base figures, fabricating data, cast many doubts. Even Republicans in Congress said there is climate change. Has been for millenia.
His recent orders on immigration have raised the ire of Americans.
You can blame the failure of Congress to pass laws (as if that were a good thing) squarely on Democrat Harry Reid. He blocked over 350 bills just last year by refusing to even bring the House passed bills to the Senate floor for consideration. Over 100 of those bills had bipartisan support.
Obama skirted regular bankruptcy laws when he also gave money to GM. The initial save was by Bush.
Fannie and Freddie? The Senate asked for investigation (E Dole,Chuck Hagel 2003;They plus J McCain 2005), but were stiffed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Presidents have long sought more power. Biggest examples: Wilson and FDR.
So the president doesn't get to push through his left wing ideas unchecked, and that bothers you.
What are we the people to think when his statements re. the Iranian deal are called untruths by Iran? Obama continues to lose the trust of more of the American people. The balance of powers says Congress should have a part. No imperial presidency or monarchy here. There is an open question as to whether his actions are legal. Legality is the domain of courts, not Congress.
Climate change? Democrats used to call the problem "man made global warming," but had to abandon that term. Of course there is climate change. But phony figures, such as falsifying the base figures, fabricating data, cast many doubts. Even Republicans in Congress said there is climate change. Has been for millenia.
His recent orders on immigration have raised the ire of Americans.
You can blame the failure of Congress to pass laws (as if that were a good thing) squarely on Democrat Harry Reid. He blocked over 350 bills just last year by refusing to even bring the House passed bills to the Senate floor for consideration. Over 100 of those bills had bipartisan support.
Obama skirted regular bankruptcy laws when he also gave money to GM. The initial save was by Bush.
Fannie and Freddie? The Senate asked for investigation (E Dole,Chuck Hagel 2003;They plus J McCain 2005), but were stiffed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Presidents have long sought more power. Biggest examples: Wilson and FDR.
8
Rather writes, "Take, as one small example, Mr. Obama’s sensible proposal in 2012 to consolidate several departments and agencies into a new cabinet department that would manage trade and business-related functions. Until 1984, a president could have implemented this type of reorganization on his own authority, just as private sector chief executives routinely do."
I'm not sure what he means. The Department of Homeland Security was created by an act of Congress. Nixon could not unilaterally reorganize the various departments relating to natural resources and wound up with the EPA, also created by an act of Congress. I'd be interested to know what Depression-era law allowed the President to reorganize his Cabinet and agencies without legislation. And an example of a President actually doing so would be good.
I'm not sure what he means. The Department of Homeland Security was created by an act of Congress. Nixon could not unilaterally reorganize the various departments relating to natural resources and wound up with the EPA, also created by an act of Congress. I'd be interested to know what Depression-era law allowed the President to reorganize his Cabinet and agencies without legislation. And an example of a President actually doing so would be good.
2
I don't know Rattner's political leanings, but he's no doubt a liberal. Liberals think more government is better. The whole thrust of his article is that Congress isn't passing enough laws. Liberals just assume any expansion of government power is a good thing.
The voters do not agree. If they did, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would still be in power. Instead, they lead the Democratic party to get its butt kicked in blowouts the last two off-year elections.
These days (meaning since the 1950's), little of what our elected officials do is aimed at protecting our country from enemies abroad and promoting the general welfare (where "general welfare" means helping the public at large, not catering to narrowly defined interest groups which most people don't belong to). No, their focus these days is on redistribution - taking from those who have earned and giving to those who haven't.
I know liberals don't understand or don't want to accept this, but our nation has been a remarkably prosperous one since its founding. One reason is that during much of that time, more than most other governments around the world, our government has been a relatively constrained one, with those checks and balances that liberals find so vexing.
It might be in the interest of this group or that one for the president to have unchecked powers. But it's not in the interest of the country.
The voters do not agree. If they did, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would still be in power. Instead, they lead the Democratic party to get its butt kicked in blowouts the last two off-year elections.
These days (meaning since the 1950's), little of what our elected officials do is aimed at protecting our country from enemies abroad and promoting the general welfare (where "general welfare" means helping the public at large, not catering to narrowly defined interest groups which most people don't belong to). No, their focus these days is on redistribution - taking from those who have earned and giving to those who haven't.
I know liberals don't understand or don't want to accept this, but our nation has been a remarkably prosperous one since its founding. One reason is that during much of that time, more than most other governments around the world, our government has been a relatively constrained one, with those checks and balances that liberals find so vexing.
It might be in the interest of this group or that one for the president to have unchecked powers. But it's not in the interest of the country.
9
"Liberals just assume any expansion of government power is a good thing."
Liberal / progressives worship their great god government and can never have to much of it. In their ideal world everyone would work for the government, or a non-profit, not an evil for-profit entity. We all saw how well this worked out in the old Soviet Union.
Liberal / progressives worship their great god government and can never have to much of it. In their ideal world everyone would work for the government, or a non-profit, not an evil for-profit entity. We all saw how well this worked out in the old Soviet Union.
3
Steven, I believe this is the reason we had that little revolution thing all those years ago. Remember, we do not want too much power in the hands of one king or dictator.
10
Steve, he's free to leave any time. With my blessing, I might add.
9
The Queen of England and the Queen of the U.S. (Hillary) may have more in common in future years if things keep going this way -- and that's the good news.
The bad news is the erosion of rapid response to crisis. And it is unfair that a Party controlling Congress, Senate and White House would have the power equal to a Dictatorship. Good Bye, America.
The bad news is the erosion of rapid response to crisis. And it is unfair that a Party controlling Congress, Senate and White House would have the power equal to a Dictatorship. Good Bye, America.
3
Given Citizens United, clever use of gerrymandering, Tea Party zealots in the House and the expansive use of the filibuster in the Senate, the First Branch is nearly incapable of acting on ordinary measures much less meeting the new challenges of the 21st Century. As The Times points out elsewhere, the bitter divisions in our government are causing the loss of American economic influence in world forums where we always were the leader.
It is no accident that our system of government has ground to a near halt as that serves the purposes of the double handful of mega-donors who control what happens in the Congress (Leader Reid puts the number at 15.)
Whatever Boehner and McConnell say about Republicans ''governing,'' it was agents of the Koch brothers who ensured that the first matter up in the House after the 2014 elections was another vote on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Similarly, it in the interest of the mega-wealthy to keep the tax dodges and subsidies they have as they try to saw away at programs that support middle and working class people. If nothing much gets done, they are just fine, thank you.
The sorts of things Mr. Ratner calls for are probably unnecessary and highly unlikely.
We do need, however, a few amendments to the Constitution that would allow reasonable regulation of campaign finance and protection of every citizen's right to vote. Without those protections in the Constitution, there is nothing that can change the balance of power as we see today.
It is no accident that our system of government has ground to a near halt as that serves the purposes of the double handful of mega-donors who control what happens in the Congress (Leader Reid puts the number at 15.)
Whatever Boehner and McConnell say about Republicans ''governing,'' it was agents of the Koch brothers who ensured that the first matter up in the House after the 2014 elections was another vote on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Similarly, it in the interest of the mega-wealthy to keep the tax dodges and subsidies they have as they try to saw away at programs that support middle and working class people. If nothing much gets done, they are just fine, thank you.
The sorts of things Mr. Ratner calls for are probably unnecessary and highly unlikely.
We do need, however, a few amendments to the Constitution that would allow reasonable regulation of campaign finance and protection of every citizen's right to vote. Without those protections in the Constitution, there is nothing that can change the balance of power as we see today.
6
The Congress has been a useless snd gutless group. It appears as though the egos of its members take precedence over what is good for the country. Of course, the Republicans have done nothing but block any initiative this President has tried to push forward.. their racism and hatred for President Obama have stopped all progress in this country... This is very sad and indicates the depth of racism in the USA
5
The parliamentary system also has the advantage of not having to wait years for the next election after the people realize the last election was a disaster.
4
He'll be free in 19 months, and so will we. In terms of American politics and history Obama is a "black swan" event. His arrival was unpredictable and the consequences of his leadership is also unknowable even now near the end of his term. His objective to withdraw Americas heavy footprint in the world is still unrealized and the chaos we see is the consequence of his telegraphed intentions. His latest musing on lifting Iranian sanctions shows his determination to capitulate to Iran at almost any cost. He will surrender even if they refuse to accept victory. The ayatollah must think Obama is deranged and like Charlie Brown fears the ball will be pulled just as he tries to kick it.
7
"Over the past four decades, Congress — with an occasional assist from the courts — has gradually, and regrettably, eroded the powers of the presidency."
Really?
Whether it's health care, immigration policy, or the nuclear talks with Iran, President Obama prefers to govern by executive fiat (although occasionally, the legislative branch forces him to recognize its proper role and his own...we saw that this week when bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate compelled the President to change course in allowing Congress a voice in approving any "deal" Obama cobbles together through "creative negotiations" with Iran).
Mr. Rattner has it completely backwards...as does "the constitutional lawyer in the White House".
Really?
Whether it's health care, immigration policy, or the nuclear talks with Iran, President Obama prefers to govern by executive fiat (although occasionally, the legislative branch forces him to recognize its proper role and his own...we saw that this week when bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate compelled the President to change course in allowing Congress a voice in approving any "deal" Obama cobbles together through "creative negotiations" with Iran).
Mr. Rattner has it completely backwards...as does "the constitutional lawyer in the White House".
8
Raconteur
It is curious when one thinks of it that the word 'Bipartisan' has popped up again these last few weeks. It disappeared the day after President Obama was elected although I distinctly remember his telling us that he would need our help in rebuilding this Nation with two wars raging, our brave troops overseas, and an inherited Recession, a state of political affairs unprecedented in American history.
Whether 'Mr. Rattner has it completely backwards', I will leave it up to others to determine but there is nothing backwards in his writing.
It is curious when one thinks of it that the word 'Bipartisan' has popped up again these last few weeks. It disappeared the day after President Obama was elected although I distinctly remember his telling us that he would need our help in rebuilding this Nation with two wars raging, our brave troops overseas, and an inherited Recession, a state of political affairs unprecedented in American history.
Whether 'Mr. Rattner has it completely backwards', I will leave it up to others to determine but there is nothing backwards in his writing.
1
This Congress seems to be moving things along at a decent pace. There have been several examples of bi-partisan bills recently, which is refreshing. The fact that Harry Reid isn't bottling up legislation, using arcane Senate rules, may have something to do with that. Let's see what plays out for this session, before we start changing the process
4
Congress is getting a few things done now because Democrats respect their role in a responsible and responsive democracy. That would be compromise and consensus rather than pure irresponsible obstruction. The GOP attitude toward the president and anything that might benefit the "99%" is the reason the last Congress failed so badly -- and is still failing.
1
The fact that Constitution gave Congress their power first is no mistake. Our founding fathers feared putting too much power into the hands of one person. They were right and you are wrong Mr. Rattner. If you want to live in a world controlled by the executive branch and maybe even a dictator move just about anywhere else in the world. A strong executive weakens liberties and freedoms of the people. Just ask the Germans of the 1930's and 40's.
6
I'm afraid the words "executive agreement" are nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, which is the source of all Presidential authority. In fact, the Constitution is clear in that agreements with foreign nations require Senate as well as Presidential approval.
As for the charge of the "do-nothing" Congress, the laws passed by the first four sitting Congresses fit in a nice 3 volume set of under 500 pages; the Constitution, Treaty of Paris and Declaration of Independence included; see
http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/united-states-congress/laws-of...
I'll grant that we no longer live in the 18th century. But our Founding Fathers would never have allowed the creations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, deeply flawed institutions that should have been dissolved, not rescued. A busybody Federal government, building monstrosities such as these, is exactly what we DON'T need. And if you think Europe has a better model with Parliamentary-style government, you haven't read your history OR the headlines recently.
As for the charge of the "do-nothing" Congress, the laws passed by the first four sitting Congresses fit in a nice 3 volume set of under 500 pages; the Constitution, Treaty of Paris and Declaration of Independence included; see
http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/united-states-congress/laws-of...
I'll grant that we no longer live in the 18th century. But our Founding Fathers would never have allowed the creations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, deeply flawed institutions that should have been dissolved, not rescued. A busybody Federal government, building monstrosities such as these, is exactly what we DON'T need. And if you think Europe has a better model with Parliamentary-style government, you haven't read your history OR the headlines recently.
6
Not exactly. We need a functional umpire (i.e. - Congress), as Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned. With corruptive influence diminished, lawmakers call the strike zone more equitably, as ordinary citizens go about the pursuit of happiness.
Truth be told, it is the key to competing our great unfinished business.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-would-washington-d...
Truth be told, it is the key to competing our great unfinished business.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-would-washington-d...
2
The U.S. has some very unfortunate history about the effects of creating mega-departments in the Executive Dept. Once we had separate Secretaries of "War" and Navy. We created a USAF and melded the services into a Defense Department which is so huge that it cannot even be audited. After 9/11 Congress acceded to George Bush's request and merged numerous agencies into what is beyond question the most dysfunctional calbinet position in history -- the Dept of Homeland Security. It may be that the SEC, Freddie Mac and Fannie May, and the Treasury Dept should be merged into a single dept, but history tells us to study extremely carefully the likely effects of doing so. It's the duty of Congress to do due diligence before knuckling under to presidents, no matter what party they subscribe to.
3
The system is certainly dysfunctional currently, but the solution is not a dictator. The President's power of waging war has actually increased tremendously - Congress has ceded almost all authority in that, despite the clear intent of the Constitution to make this a decision of Congress.
A great deal could be accomplished by some simple reforms in Congress. Many measures are favored by a majority of members, but blocked by the majority of Republicans. Measures often have to be tacked on to unrelated bills to get any consideration. The rules should be changed to allow matters to come to a vote, each considered separately on its merits. The Senate has too many archaic and absurd rules giving blocking power to individual Senators, and obviously the filibuster rules should be changed. Basically there are too many checks within Congress thwarting majority rule. These rules were not intended by the Founders.
A great deal could be accomplished by some simple reforms in Congress. Many measures are favored by a majority of members, but blocked by the majority of Republicans. Measures often have to be tacked on to unrelated bills to get any consideration. The rules should be changed to allow matters to come to a vote, each considered separately on its merits. The Senate has too many archaic and absurd rules giving blocking power to individual Senators, and obviously the filibuster rules should be changed. Basically there are too many checks within Congress thwarting majority rule. These rules were not intended by the Founders.
2
Rattner would never say "Free the President" if the president were a Republican.
So, Rattner should really say, "Free my policies from the other party."
So, Rattner should really say, "Free my policies from the other party."
11
Read the last line r.r. Sheesh.
The nation would be better served if the economy was freed from the job-crushing regulatory millstone Obama has unilaterally placed around its neck and if Americans were freed from the debt-busting orgy of taxing and spending Obama has imposed
11
Right. Slash regulations so there aren't any. No EPA regs, FDA regs ,no Wall Street regs. None at all. Unleash full-blown capitalism.
Tax cuts always solve every problem we, as a nation, face.
Perhaps some specific examples would serve to illustrate the issues.
Tax cuts always solve every problem we, as a nation, face.
Perhaps some specific examples would serve to illustrate the issues.
1
Total rubbish, completely divorced from reality.
1
Larry,
Perhaps to highlight your point, it is time for the Leader of the House and some other powers in authority to shut down the Government again. Put some hard-working people who were just standing up again, out of business permanently.
Perhaps to highlight your point, it is time for the Leader of the House and some other powers in authority to shut down the Government again. Put some hard-working people who were just standing up again, out of business permanently.
Do you notice how all the Obama haters keep using the words 'lawless' and 'unconstitutional' - yet no proof is ever cited? That's because it is nonsense. This President has done what every modern President before him has done: issue Executive Orders relating to Executive functions. This 'lawless' meme is central to the longterm Republican game of de-legitimizing not just this President but the Presidency, given their gerrymandering. Rattner is right on.
13
You seen to have forgotten the screams from the leftists, and their media enablers, when the Bushes or Reagan did the same.
2
If Obama is such a devotee of the law, why has the Supreme Court ruled against him more than any other president? They even had to tell him 9-0 that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session, a fact blatantly obvious to even the most unsophisticated simpleton
1
We need to get money out of our system stop gerrymandering of districts and elect candidates to the House, Senate and Presidency who believe in diplomacy and working together to improve the lives of the American People.
The benevolent dictator or Imperial Presidency is nothing more than a quick fix to disaster. We need to effect change from the bottom up not the top down.
The benevolent dictator or Imperial Presidency is nothing more than a quick fix to disaster. We need to effect change from the bottom up not the top down.
3
Why would we measure any branch of government by how many laws or decisions they make, rather than the quality of their decisions? I sure don't want the government shut down; but maybe NOT passing a particular law is the right decision.
Why would we want a leader who makes dramatic decisions if he or she cannot bring majority opinion along? A good leader pulls support with him; a bad leader is a dictator.
Beware the imperial Presidency, regardless of party. You make like one President, but despise the next.
Why would we want a leader who makes dramatic decisions if he or she cannot bring majority opinion along? A good leader pulls support with him; a bad leader is a dictator.
Beware the imperial Presidency, regardless of party. You make like one President, but despise the next.
7
Agree that the number of laws passed is a useless statistic. Still, how many of the large serious problems has our congress tackled in the last 5-10 years?
And come to some sort of resolution.
Immigration reform?
Education reform?
Infrastructure?
SSI reform?
Medicare reform?
Debt/deficit?
Tax code?
Not to even point at DOD funding. And war powers.
Oops I did.
And come to some sort of resolution.
Immigration reform?
Education reform?
Infrastructure?
SSI reform?
Medicare reform?
Debt/deficit?
Tax code?
Not to even point at DOD funding. And war powers.
Oops I did.
There are some low-information voters who fall for the shift in focus you attempt, DR, but they are not among the readers of Mr. Rattner’s column. Let’s face it, a majority of Republicans in the Senate and House wake up every morning and remind themselves not to do anything good for America, if there is even the slightest chance that partial credit might be given to President Obama.
1
Perhaps the parliamentary system of government is just a better system than our constitutional system of divided government for actually getting things accomplished. As you think we should "free" the executive branch--because that is actually what you are suggesting, let's just take the current occupant out of the equation --there are other equally valid points that our legislative branch has already ceded to much power. I'm still sorting it all out; all I know for sure at this point is that what we have is not working so well.
1
The notion that the power of the presidency has eroded in recent decades is sort of startling at first, but Rattner supports it with examples. The problem is that any legislation or other policy move which is premised on the need to restore balance between the Congressional and Presidential power is guaranteed DOA.
Take a look at the comments here, Steve. I doubt you could get Joe and Mika to understand these sophisticated policy-oriented arguments. You'll never get everyday Americans to buy in.
Take a look at the comments here, Steve. I doubt you could get Joe and Mika to understand these sophisticated policy-oriented arguments. You'll never get everyday Americans to buy in.
What a poorly conceived idea. A suggestion for the author: if the system ensures that the whims of one person cannot be immediately implemented, that does not mean that the system is flawed.
I'm hopeful that the sensible action taken by the Congress with respect to the Iran deal helps to break the Democrats' fever regarding their reactionary anti-Republican nonsense. It has been proven to be a loser politically, and it hurts the country.
I'm hopeful that the sensible action taken by the Congress with respect to the Iran deal helps to break the Democrats' fever regarding their reactionary anti-Republican nonsense. It has been proven to be a loser politically, and it hurts the country.
4
We do not need a stronger presidency, where one man or woman runs everyone like they were a monarch, while the people's representatives are reduced to a chattering rubber stamp for one person's "agenda". Proclaiming "I won" does not change the constitutional balance of power one iota. Yes, the presidency should be strong in places the constitution permits, but the evolution of the celebrity presidency where they, their spouses and families are fawned over like royals or movie stars, and people view the president as the national mommy and daddy (for example expecting them to make a personal appearance at a natural disaster to dry away their tears) is distasteful and anti-democratic.
One cannot help think that many commenters in here who champion this "strong", i.e., virtually unchecked presidency, would/will sing a different tune were/when a member of the opposition is next in office.
One cannot help think that many commenters in here who champion this "strong", i.e., virtually unchecked presidency, would/will sing a different tune were/when a member of the opposition is next in office.
3
They did when Bush was in office. Remember being anti-Bush was seen as being "patriotic" by the left and their media cohorts.
2
Obama has proven himself incapable of handling even the simplest aspects of his (first-ever!) job. Why would any sane patriotic American grant him even more power?
6
All evidence suggests that you are opining rather than giving an informed response.
Let's stick with the system of checks and balances we learned about in civics class. The constitution is working just fine and as I recall Mr Obama stood in front of the people and swore an oath to support it. Thank you for your thoughts Mr Rattner.
5
Our government gets little done because of the "deadbeats" in Congress, namely the Republicans there, elected officials who do not want to do any constructive work to advance the public good and want to keep those willing to work, e.g., President Obama, from doing any work for the common good.
3
Somehow reason, rationality and compromise have become radioactive terms. Political Paties have become so set and unable to consider issuesb logically. Optionion seems more valuable than fact. We must be able work toward a common goal. Instead of blaming each other. For Congress to change voters need to change.
1
"For Congress to change voters need to change."
Well that's the problem. And it can be traced back to the dumbing down of the electorate. People by the millions vote against their own interests. We have sown the whirlwind (with ignorance) and now we are reaping the results.
Well that's the problem. And it can be traced back to the dumbing down of the electorate. People by the millions vote against their own interests. We have sown the whirlwind (with ignorance) and now we are reaping the results.
1
Why is passing lots of bills the mark of a successful congress? That's how we end up with gigantic tax codes, Obamacare and a myriad of job choking regulations. The vast majority of Americans support the congress in their efforts to check this lawless president and that's what they should continue to focus on. In general, the fewer billed passed, the better off American taxpayers are.
3
Mr. Ratner laments the lack of the current presidents power. Such is the fate of a lame duck with his party out of control . Witness Congress working in true bi-partisan unaminity.Why is this called "dysfunctional"? In 1984 Reagan was re-elected with a 49 state mandate and 525 electoral votes. Yet the democratic congress with which he had to work with was not in the mood to extend his presidential power. In 2010 Obama and the Dem congress shoved ACA down the throat of the American people w/o one vote from the other side. Witness a president as bully.His executive orders on immigration is being disputed in the court as is the ACA. Congress has asserted its role in having a voice on the Iran Nuke deal. Obama lost the House in 2010 and Senate in 2014. The people have spoken. The term "Imperial Presidency" was coined for Nixon. If Mr. Ratner admires the parliamentary system of government he is free to relocate to Canada, the UK or Israel. Democrats yearn for a stronger president when he/she is a Democrat. Perhaps if the GOP takes the next presidency they will certainly advocate for a stronger president. Hillarious.
2
Bad behavior on the part of Congress is not reason to change the balance of powers. Good leaders get things done; poor leaders will not get a good result no matter the organization.
What is needed is Free the Congress - from gerrymandered districts; from undisclosed Citizen United type funding; from former congressional and vested interest, including outside U.S., influence peddlers ...
It starts with a better informed citizenry - not found on Twitter and other silly instant communications.
What is needed is Free the Congress - from gerrymandered districts; from undisclosed Citizen United type funding; from former congressional and vested interest, including outside U.S., influence peddlers ...
It starts with a better informed citizenry - not found on Twitter and other silly instant communications.
2
Either the agreement that the President is negotiating with Iran is a treaty or it isn't. If it's a treaty, then the law is superfluous, because the Constitution already gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties. If it's not a treaty, then the law is unconstitutional, because the Constitution gives the President the power to conduct such negotiations and execute such agreements. Only an amendment to the Constitution would make a law like this right.
I think the suggestion by Mr. Rattner sensible. The democratic institutions that Americans believe the best in the world is flawed since the birth of the country as the key people that created the constitution were not independent of Tudor tradition of politics. Though American style of the division of 3 governmental institutions has worked for the purpose of checks and balances, it often sabotaged the executive power to proceed promptly. It is very interesting that serious people like Mr. Rattner started talking sensible things.
1
What America needs is a government tgovernment that functions, period, What we have now is a political system that measures its effectiveness by proposals obstructed rather than by laws enacted. As a result, national development remains perpetually stillborn and the peoples' will foreclosed.
As Mr. Rattner suggests, nothing short of massive constitutional will get America back on-track. As he also implies, good luck with that.
As Mr. Rattner suggests, nothing short of massive constitutional will get America back on-track. As he also implies, good luck with that.
32
The editorial does not mention that the reason that those rules were put in place in the 1970s were due to the fact that Nixon (a Republican) abused his office. Similar things happened under Bush II with the same crew from the Nixon era revived.
The problem is not so much a general problem with Presidential power. The problem seems to be that GOP Presidents don't have the ability to recognize boundaries for themselves in office for matters of policy and execution. They seem to believe that if they are elected, they get to be king for 4 years.
The problem is not so much a general problem with Presidential power. The problem seems to be that GOP Presidents don't have the ability to recognize boundaries for themselves in office for matters of policy and execution. They seem to believe that if they are elected, they get to be king for 4 years.
2
Rattner: "The need to reverse the slide in presidential authority would perhaps be less urgent if Congress were actually doing anything."
Rattner gets to the heart of the matter with the above comment. The Republicans in Congress do not want to do any work, and they want to prevent others willing to work, such as the president, from doing any work.
They are interested in posing and pontificating about subjects that they know little about and are insufficiently docile to learn anything about.
They receive generous salaries and benefits funded by all of us taxpayers, but are unwilling to do any work. They are the poster children for "deadbeats"; they are little more than "slugs" on the dole.
Holding office in Congress has become little more than a ceremonial role; it certainly has nothing to do with any work that could advance the public good.
Rattner gets to the heart of the matter with the above comment. The Republicans in Congress do not want to do any work, and they want to prevent others willing to work, such as the president, from doing any work.
They are interested in posing and pontificating about subjects that they know little about and are insufficiently docile to learn anything about.
They receive generous salaries and benefits funded by all of us taxpayers, but are unwilling to do any work. They are the poster children for "deadbeats"; they are little more than "slugs" on the dole.
Holding office in Congress has become little more than a ceremonial role; it certainly has nothing to do with any work that could advance the public good.
6
The American people, in their remarkable wisdom, in the demonstration of their "exceptionalism," have precisely the governing bodies that work against them. Alas, this grievous situation is unlikely to change. The average citizen could probably not give the correct answer to this question: how many citizens make up one Congressional district? Entrenched and aggressive ignorance about vital civic matters is the currency that informs the disabling mechanism of governing. As another commenter has stated, resentment against this sitting president by elected senators and house members has enabled Mitch McConnell and John Boehner's recalcitrance and racism. Neither they, nor the people who sent them to Washington, understand that even though they represent a tiny electorate, their decisions and votes can impact the greater whole, which is indeed the sum of its parts.
3
If the President spent less time cultivating Jay-Z and more time cultivating congressional leaders, he would enjoy a more productive relationship with Congress. A complete 100% rout of the President before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is indicative of a President seriously out-of-touch.
Mr. Rattner refers to Congress as "dysfunctional" - without looking at the possibility that this adjective might be also attached to a President who goes golfing immediately after an American is beheaded.
This is not to suggest that Congress is perfect. But, possibly, perhaps, maybe, neither is the President. Writing a column that lays all of the blame at the doorstep of Congress is not particularly productive.
Mr. Rattner refers to Congress as "dysfunctional" - without looking at the possibility that this adjective might be also attached to a President who goes golfing immediately after an American is beheaded.
This is not to suggest that Congress is perfect. But, possibly, perhaps, maybe, neither is the President. Writing a column that lays all of the blame at the doorstep of Congress is not particularly productive.
2
The US Congress had to act in the early-to-mid 1970s to curb the abuses of power in at least the three prior presidencies, culminating in Nixon's term, which more resembled a criminal enterprise. The "Imperial Presidency" was a very real thing. Today's Republican leadership in Washington has tried to run out the clock on the Obama presidency almost since its first hour! The GOP will have no trouble returning to an energetic executive if it ever wins the White House in the near future. It will castigate Democrats for obstructionist tactics and most assuredly frivolous lawsuits over its EOs. The GOP has long been about power, fully lacking in principles.
5
We need a liberal tea party to fight against the neoconservative and progressive attempts to centralize power in DC and the bureaucracy, at the exclusion of the people.
I agree with the line item veto restoration on budget issues which would allow the President greater power over unnecessary legislative spending although take umbrage other points based on the Bush presidency debacle. Before the disastrous results of his presidency fade from collective memory & are whitewashed in textbooks & censured by corporate media, it's important to remember the overreach of power & devastation that occurred as a result. George Bush appeared to be a President who was duped by his right hand man, Dick Cheney. Apparently all 15 branches of US Intelligence cherry picked evidence to fit in neatly with Cheney, Karl Rove & Scooter Libby's agenda to invade Iraq in order for Halliburton & the US military industrial complex to profit from this endeavor. President Bush was more than willing to go along with the claims in order to avenge his ex-CIA father's mission to invade Iraq.
Even though there were voices informing the public of the evidence reflecting the errors in intelligence gathering, most prominently, Ambassador Wilson, any dissent was quickly silenced either by outing Plane's CIA status or by disseminating false assertions to the press allowing a full court misinformation campaign. The important lesson is that there were a few legislators willing to vote against the US invasion in Iraq, most distinguished being Barack Obama based on informed skepticism. Congress needs to have the power to question executive authority & debate the use of military force.
Even though there were voices informing the public of the evidence reflecting the errors in intelligence gathering, most prominently, Ambassador Wilson, any dissent was quickly silenced either by outing Plane's CIA status or by disseminating false assertions to the press allowing a full court misinformation campaign. The important lesson is that there were a few legislators willing to vote against the US invasion in Iraq, most distinguished being Barack Obama based on informed skepticism. Congress needs to have the power to question executive authority & debate the use of military force.
3
I am not sure that Mr. Rattner is lives in the same reality as the rest of the world. Despite the best protests of the President's supporters, who answer facts with insults, President Obama has gathered to himself considerable power that never belonged to the presidency before.
Mr. Rattner gives it away when he mentions that Congress has interfered in his making an executive agreement with Iran. What he calls an executive agreement is actually a treaty. And no, this president (nor any other) has the power to agree to a treaty without the approval of our legislature, who is answerable to us, the people.
How much easier if the president could just do it all himself, without having to heed, let alone explain, to the great unwashed who are just not worthy of his presidency.
Mr. Rattner gives it away when he mentions that Congress has interfered in his making an executive agreement with Iran. What he calls an executive agreement is actually a treaty. And no, this president (nor any other) has the power to agree to a treaty without the approval of our legislature, who is answerable to us, the people.
How much easier if the president could just do it all himself, without having to heed, let alone explain, to the great unwashed who are just not worthy of his presidency.
2
But if the neoconservative or progressive makes the trains come on time (i,e; gives me free contraception or tax cuts), then the people will be okay with the powerful president issuing executive actions at the bequest of the president's donors, err, I mean the president's wishes.
How is the agreement with Iran a "treaty"? In exchange for lifting sanctions, they agree to have their illegal nuclear program monitored. No alliance is implied, no war is being ended, no one is agreeing to come to anyones defense. In exchange for the right to buy and sell other goods, they have agreed not to "manufacture" nuclear devices; if anything, it's a trade agreement. This is WHY we have a president...
By the time some future Edward Gibbon writes the iconic tome " The History the Decline and Fall of the American Empire" it will be too late to fix things. And we know from history that every empire ultimately starts to rot from within due to it's own domestic practices and policies that contradict it's proclaimed values. Rhetoric is no substitute for action.
As long as we the people cower in fear from imaginary existential foreign demons, while casting a suspicious covetous selfish eye on our alien other fellows we are the barbarian threat. A socioeconomic political educational metastatic cancer with both an inherited genetic and life style genesis.
Our divided limited power democratic republic presumes and requires governing compromise by leaders based upon the "better angels of our nature." If not, then instead of being the heirs of flawed founders, bitter civil warriors and a not so greatest generation we must wonder " what rough beast it's hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
As long as we the people cower in fear from imaginary existential foreign demons, while casting a suspicious covetous selfish eye on our alien other fellows we are the barbarian threat. A socioeconomic political educational metastatic cancer with both an inherited genetic and life style genesis.
Our divided limited power democratic republic presumes and requires governing compromise by leaders based upon the "better angels of our nature." If not, then instead of being the heirs of flawed founders, bitter civil warriors and a not so greatest generation we must wonder " what rough beast it's hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
1
In Brazil, the opposition parties passed legislation in multiple forms to make actually getting anything done nearly impossible. Huge highway and other public works projects sit half finished, abandoned. One politician was quoted as saying, "We forget that we might be in power some day ourselves." That's a lesson that Republicans refuse to learn. There is too much to be gained, too much fun, from the blood sport of taking down this and any other Democrat in the White House.
Having observed Washington, DC, up close and from outside the Beltway for years, one occurrence that I have noticed is that most "reforms" backfire, like taking doing away with earmarks. Sounds good, right? Members of Congress can no longer attach favored home district projects to larger bills and see million pouring back to the home folks. Reform?
Well, what else are members of Congress supposed to do? If they can't "bring home the bacon", they are freed, full time, to try to destroy the authority and capacities of the president. Plus, this: without earmarks, what does the president or the party in power have to trade with members? No trades, no deals, no legislation and, eventually, no functioning govt. as things grind to a halt in an orgy of petulant, childlike protest. Sound like what we've had for 4 years?
Democracy requires compromise. The old systems that we reformed away kept the wheels greased and the govt. functioning. Is the current way actually better, overall? Probably not.
Having observed Washington, DC, up close and from outside the Beltway for years, one occurrence that I have noticed is that most "reforms" backfire, like taking doing away with earmarks. Sounds good, right? Members of Congress can no longer attach favored home district projects to larger bills and see million pouring back to the home folks. Reform?
Well, what else are members of Congress supposed to do? If they can't "bring home the bacon", they are freed, full time, to try to destroy the authority and capacities of the president. Plus, this: without earmarks, what does the president or the party in power have to trade with members? No trades, no deals, no legislation and, eventually, no functioning govt. as things grind to a halt in an orgy of petulant, childlike protest. Sound like what we've had for 4 years?
Democracy requires compromise. The old systems that we reformed away kept the wheels greased and the govt. functioning. Is the current way actually better, overall? Probably not.
41
McConnell and Boehner restored the earmarks
If what you indicate is correct, "Cgo-gorun", then we should have a more peaceful two years ahead. It should offer the president something with which he can trade with Republicans.
I guess Mr. Rattner prefers that we would have a parliamentary monarchy. His last line says it all. We can be most assured that if this were a republican president, he would be singing a much different tune, despite what he says. Total, unadulterated hypocracy. He should go back to Britain if he thinks it is such a marvel of functioning government. Pip-pip, cheerio, and all that, Mr. Rattner.
4
We need a strong presidency with its executive powers intact, including the capacity to issue executive orders. We do not need a totally dysfunctional Congress. If the president may not exercise his inherent constitutional authority and the Congress can't or won't act, then our system of government has failed. That's the lesson I think from recent history. Checks and balances as a principle of government no longer works. The Constitution, founded on this principle, also no longer works. Discarding it is out of the question. There are "repairs" that might make it functional again, but they are impossible until the Grand Old Tea Party loses its grip upon power. I should write "power", because in truth the GOTP hasn't any effective power, other than to block and obstruct. It too is stymied and can't do anything positive. It's difficult to see how all this can be salvaged, but I think we must start with the next Clinton presidency. Any other outcome will be disastrous.
1
This article blames congress but fails to say in last 8 years except for two years when Republicans controlled House Harry Reid and Pelosi controlled the congress and combined with Obama as President it has been disaster for America
4
Reid still controls the Senate it seems
Are you suggesting a dictatorship Mr. Rattner? It sure sounds that way. I have watched the political scene relatively closely after the age of reason over my 72 years and it seem to me that the opposite of what you are suggesting is actually occurring. It seems that the congress, consisting of duly elected representatives of the people, have been losing power over too many years now. It is time to return to a balance of power!
2
Congress consisting of "duly elected" elected representatives of the people? Not when they are elected in gerrymandered districts. The only "people" they represent are the rich and powerful. They are a joke.
Actually if you read the small print Obama didn't cede very much at all as some have pointed out. He's agreed to give congress the opportunity to vote on his agreement, made it very difficult to disagree, and left his hands free if they don't agree. Notionally if he ignored a disagreement I suppose congress could pass some sort of vote blocking the agreement but he could veto this and Republicans are unlikely to be able to round up 13 Democratic votes to over ride his veto. In reality the power of the presidency to conduct foreign policy is virtually untrammeled by congress or courts. In fact I think Rattner's entire thesis is wrong, almost hilariously so. Far from an erosion of the powers of the presidency over the last four decades we've seen a vast augmentation of them as was demonstrated in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and the 2008/9 economic crisis. Even the brakes that were put on presidential power in the post Watergate era have largely been neutralized. I think Rattner needs a reality check with some of the constitutional law experts and political scientists who have written extensively on this phenomenon.
37
"The assault on presidential authority dates from at least the early 1970s..."
That may be true but the assault went nuclear in 2008. Obama hating Republicans implemented a strategy that openly boasted "take no prisoners" and collateral damage to America is just fine.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Republicans to wise up to the damage they are doing to future presidencies of either party; the current Republicans holding the US congress and the American people hostage, are simply behaving like the juveniles they actually are.
That may be true but the assault went nuclear in 2008. Obama hating Republicans implemented a strategy that openly boasted "take no prisoners" and collateral damage to America is just fine.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Republicans to wise up to the damage they are doing to future presidencies of either party; the current Republicans holding the US congress and the American people hostage, are simply behaving like the juveniles they actually are.
19
These are not children misbehaving; they are part of well-thought out political coup. Fasten your seatbelts for the years ahead.
A solution would also be to establish a performance threshold on Congress before it is allowed to exercise some of the challenges it has been enjoying of late. It is especially galling that the only thing congress seems able to muster itself into doing is challenging the President, all the while, unable to do it's own work. This is how small children operate, If they can't have their way, they go off and pout while their room remains a mess or whatever other responsibility it's shirking. Just as that child won't be allowed to go out and play until the room is clean, table set or whatever, congress should have it's wings clipped until it comes up to par. As it is now, congress has turned pouting not just into the ordinary course, but as a leveraging point that is essentially holding every citizen hostage at the mercey of who is funding the obstruction. A way to break this up is to give congress targets that it must meet before it can have a say about anything else. This restors checks and balances on Congress in a way that also challenges the presidency that is put on notice when congress shows itself to be functioning well because it has truly earned the right to challenge. Pouting and petty squabbles cannot go on being rewarded as congress has maneuvered into being. We have become a nation ruled by kindergartners and it's embarrassing!
8
When we claim that we are the exceptional people, do we mean that we are the worst in the world?
We pushed the Europeans and the Russians into 7-decade-long cold war.
We pushed the North and South Koreans into 6-decade-long conflict.
We pushed Israel into 5-decade long occupation of the West Bank.
We pushed the Afghans into 4-decade-long bloodshed.
We pushed the Sunnis and the Shiites into 35-year-long conflict.
We defended multi-decade-long apartheid in South Africa.
We orchestrated the Iranian military coup and overthrow the democratically elected secular government thus creating a quarter-century-long Shah tyranny and 35-year long rule of the Ayatollahs.
We enabled and coached the wealthy Arabs into creation of the Al Qaeda and ISIS to undermine the communism and socialist Bath Party.
We pushed the Saudis into invasion of Bahrain and Yemen.
Domestically, we oppose the universal health care and let the global corporations extremely profit from our illness, pain and suffering.
We led the world in the arms race.
We want to spend excessively and we pushed the future generations into enormous debt.
We exported the jobs of neighbors overseas to benefit personally. We forced them to work longer and harder to maximize our profits.
We polarized America and created the dozens of media outlets to attack our fellow neighbors and create animosity.
We spend billions of dollars on negative campaign ads that distort the truth.
Are we proud of ourselves?
We pushed the Europeans and the Russians into 7-decade-long cold war.
We pushed the North and South Koreans into 6-decade-long conflict.
We pushed Israel into 5-decade long occupation of the West Bank.
We pushed the Afghans into 4-decade-long bloodshed.
We pushed the Sunnis and the Shiites into 35-year-long conflict.
We defended multi-decade-long apartheid in South Africa.
We orchestrated the Iranian military coup and overthrow the democratically elected secular government thus creating a quarter-century-long Shah tyranny and 35-year long rule of the Ayatollahs.
We enabled and coached the wealthy Arabs into creation of the Al Qaeda and ISIS to undermine the communism and socialist Bath Party.
We pushed the Saudis into invasion of Bahrain and Yemen.
Domestically, we oppose the universal health care and let the global corporations extremely profit from our illness, pain and suffering.
We led the world in the arms race.
We want to spend excessively and we pushed the future generations into enormous debt.
We exported the jobs of neighbors overseas to benefit personally. We forced them to work longer and harder to maximize our profits.
We polarized America and created the dozens of media outlets to attack our fellow neighbors and create animosity.
We spend billions of dollars on negative campaign ads that distort the truth.
Are we proud of ourselves?
56
Not really, we can not be proud of ourselves. Our country is so much divided. It is no more One nation under god. The toxic radio talk shows and some cable TV have polarized the country. Our congress can not pass a bill. Why we have DO NOTHING congress? Why we are paying them salary? Boehner is the worst speaker in our history who does not have back bone. Even our Supreme Court is playing like a political wing of Republican party. Our democracy is in decline. Where we are going? Forward or backward?
1
I'm proud of America and proud to be American. If it's so bad to you, go live in Yemen, Iran or North Korea
Yup...everything wrong in the world is the fault of America. So tiresome.
Passing laws should not be the only indicator of Congressional productivity. A never-ending increase in the number of laws does not necessarily equate with success nor make the country better.
If a salesperson makes 1000 cold calls just to look productive, is that good? Or is it better if the salesperson spends time making fewer calls on better leads that over time produce actual sales? Busyness alone does not correlate with good business.
I'm not suggesting we should be proud of Congressional output in recent years. But quality legislation signed into law that is evaluated by appropriate metrics is a better indicator than mere quantity.
If a salesperson makes 1000 cold calls just to look productive, is that good? Or is it better if the salesperson spends time making fewer calls on better leads that over time produce actual sales? Busyness alone does not correlate with good business.
I'm not suggesting we should be proud of Congressional output in recent years. But quality legislation signed into law that is evaluated by appropriate metrics is a better indicator than mere quantity.
4
". A never-ending increase in the number of laws does not necessarily equate with success nor make the country better. "
More useless, contradictory laws just require more useless, parasitic bureaucrats to enforce and interpret them, something that we are better off without.
More useless, contradictory laws just require more useless, parasitic bureaucrats to enforce and interpret them, something that we are better off without.
2
I agree 100%. I would perhaps take it once step further. Gridlock is the best possible condition the American people would hope for. Since most of the legislation Liberals propose actually result in less freedom and liberty--it is best that both sides stymie each other.
1
The beauty of doing 'politics' is, of course, the wisdom to seize the right moment to proceed, fill a need, advance worthwhile programs, stop harmful acts or processes, and recognize the circumstances needed so that proper actions will, in fact, be efficient, effective and fair. At present however, the U.S. government is fighting with itself, unable to have a unified vision, let alone, act on it, a fatal dysfunction we shall be paying for, for the foreseeable future. If this is called 'balance' of powers, we are in trouble.
33
Well, the track record of Congress is not spotless. On Thursday Congress voted to give President Obama fast-track authority to complete negotiation of the Trans-Pacific trade deal. That deal may be great for corporations, but it's lousy for everyday Americans.
This blemish on a near perfect record suggests that both wings of the Corporate Party of America can work together in support of their corporate sponsors.
This blemish on a near perfect record suggests that both wings of the Corporate Party of America can work together in support of their corporate sponsors.
8
No doubt the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be as good for corporate America as the North American Free Trade Agreement has proved to be.
As we've seen, NAFTA provided enormous help to corporate America's profits, while at the same time increasing the number of one-percenters in the USA. No doubt TPP will bring even greater increases in corporate America's profits and we can expect it to increase and solidify the income gains made at/near the top of one-percenters.
At the same time, we've seen stagnation and declines in income of working-class Americans.
NAFTA: Bill Clinton's proudest achievement. TPP: on track to be Barack Obama's proudest achievement.
My father, a skilled plasterer, told me Democrats were for the working man, so I registered as a Democrat.
Tell me again how Democrats are the champion of the working class?
As we've seen, NAFTA provided enormous help to corporate America's profits, while at the same time increasing the number of one-percenters in the USA. No doubt TPP will bring even greater increases in corporate America's profits and we can expect it to increase and solidify the income gains made at/near the top of one-percenters.
At the same time, we've seen stagnation and declines in income of working-class Americans.
NAFTA: Bill Clinton's proudest achievement. TPP: on track to be Barack Obama's proudest achievement.
My father, a skilled plasterer, told me Democrats were for the working man, so I registered as a Democrat.
Tell me again how Democrats are the champion of the working class?
2
Free the president?? The president has almost unlimited power: in foreign policy, to wage undeclared wars, to carry out extra-judicial killings of American citizens, as kill citizens of other countries that we are not at war with; to spy on us; to read our emails, listen to our phone calls; to negotiate free trade agreements (which sell out the American worker and the environment) in secret. Etc. Etc.
It is about time that congress exerts its power to reign in our imperial presidency, from Reagan on till the present.
The congress is the voice of the people. Not the president.
It is about time that congress exerts its power to reign in our imperial presidency, from Reagan on till the present.
The congress is the voice of the people. Not the president.
17
He has unlimited power only in the minds of right wing pundits that think ANYTHING this president does is too much. Baloney. This do nothing congress has made sure that NOTHING that is good for the country can possibly happen if proposed by this president.
129
Even would I not live in DC and, therefore, have no representation in Congress, I would not see it as my voice. I'll go with President Obama any day.
2
to begin with a legal system based on precedent is somewhat absurd. secondly, you people may bleat as much as you like but
the two party system we have in america is as corrupt as any system can be. try getting a third party candidate on a ballot in ct. the dems and reps make it almost impossible. they need to narrow down the money flow to two candidates...free the pres?
no, free the voter, institute a democratic form of government and ensure the right of candidates to participate in elections.
the two party system we have in america is as corrupt as any system can be. try getting a third party candidate on a ballot in ct. the dems and reps make it almost impossible. they need to narrow down the money flow to two candidates...free the pres?
no, free the voter, institute a democratic form of government and ensure the right of candidates to participate in elections.
19
Anne is that you? "You people"?????????
3
The last thing Obama needs is more power. He has abused the power he has, contravening congressional intent in the process. Just look at his recent executive orders. He is a lawless president.
11
WHAT power. This gerrymandered congress has allowed almost NOTHING. Fewest executive orders of any president in recent history. This power you think that Obama is exerting is all in your mind.
141
'The Failed President' and now 'The Lawless President' sounds more like an apt title for our own ineptitude to recognize ourselves with such labels, because there is only honor, compassion and nobility to be found in the constitution of Mr. Obama, while the power abusers among us continue to increase daily.
8
Obama has been on an Executive Order binge that is unprecedented in American history. His Executive Orders have exceeded those of other presidents in number and scope. You can't compare Bush's Order that the White a house cafe carry diet root beer to Obama's Order abolishing the borders and claim equality since each is one Executive Order
Defenders of the Constitution fail to realize that what made this country great is not in evidence now, in no small part due that the encumbrances built into the system were designed by reasonable men about 230 years ago. Reason no longer means much in Congress, and the hostage taking and inertia that began in 1994 with Newt Gingrich still goes on today, in a much more virulent form. The minority rules cantankerously, or at least it did in the GOP for a long time in the House from 1994-2000, and again from 2010-2014. As such, it's impossible for the system as designed to withstand the whims of the "losers" in an election. The other problem, of course, is the money being thrown at these people, and the SCOTUS complicity with Citizens United.
Wilson was correct about the Parliamentary system being better. What's also true about the parliamentary system is that it doesn't devolve into a "black and white" choice in many cases - alliances and compromise are much more a part of the system, as well as reason. Overall, this country could be well served by the discourse that occurs in a Parliamentary system, simply because it promotes civility and compromise to accomplish things. That seems impossible to envision now.
Bottom line, Congress is too badly broken, and it takes real legislation to provide the underpinnings necessary to fix many of our problems. Presidential authority went out with Nixon.
Wilson was correct about the Parliamentary system being better. What's also true about the parliamentary system is that it doesn't devolve into a "black and white" choice in many cases - alliances and compromise are much more a part of the system, as well as reason. Overall, this country could be well served by the discourse that occurs in a Parliamentary system, simply because it promotes civility and compromise to accomplish things. That seems impossible to envision now.
Bottom line, Congress is too badly broken, and it takes real legislation to provide the underpinnings necessary to fix many of our problems. Presidential authority went out with Nixon.
25
Obama has created a shambles of the Presidency.
His "My Way or the Highway" may work for CEOs but not for the Federal government where compromise,negotiations,and respect for others is essential.
His legacy is a dysfunctional Presidency.
His "My Way or the Highway" may work for CEOs but not for the Federal government where compromise,negotiations,and respect for others is essential.
His legacy is a dysfunctional Presidency.
14
The my way or the highway is completely coming from CONGRESS!!! Obama very rarely gets his way.
68
I'm not sure what lens you see history. The Republucans will go down in every history book as the most obstructionist of all time. Take me Cruz for example. Close the government instead of funding the government, refuse to confirm Loretta Lynch, 52 votes to end obAma care. The men and women of the right are a collection of billionaire voices of unreason.
2
spouting these Fox one liners is getting tiring
3
Mr. Rattner, even if this American voter has few brain cells, it was a blinding flash of the obvious that this self-defeating, self-destructive Congress was about to bring the Country down on its knees again. Changing this dangerous pattern is not going to happen and we are in for a war with not only Iran but within us. The President has known this all along and he is not going to waste any more time. He is going forth, our 'Last President', as I acknowledge him with appreciation, heart and spirit, and we are in for a rum time.
There is no purpose in wishing that we could understand that 'saving the President' is saving the Country, you and me. He is our last hope, a brilliant apolitical friend once told me when he was first elected, and I thought it unfair that one individual should be Atlas holding the American Globe. He is splendid and continues to grow tall in my view, encouraging me to follow and support his efforts as best as I can.
We need a President, and like you, I could not give a button whether the person is a Democrat or Republican, pink with purple spots, or born in the land of Honolulu. We are a depressed Nation of people, and when a bitter person whom both you and I know, forwarded an unfortunate and stupid news article my way on the Democrat hopeful with malicious glee, I remained ambiguous and replied that Politics are a dirty game.
It is not the President who needs saving, but us 'The Enemy Within'.
There is no purpose in wishing that we could understand that 'saving the President' is saving the Country, you and me. He is our last hope, a brilliant apolitical friend once told me when he was first elected, and I thought it unfair that one individual should be Atlas holding the American Globe. He is splendid and continues to grow tall in my view, encouraging me to follow and support his efforts as best as I can.
We need a President, and like you, I could not give a button whether the person is a Democrat or Republican, pink with purple spots, or born in the land of Honolulu. We are a depressed Nation of people, and when a bitter person whom both you and I know, forwarded an unfortunate and stupid news article my way on the Democrat hopeful with malicious glee, I remained ambiguous and replied that Politics are a dirty game.
It is not the President who needs saving, but us 'The Enemy Within'.
52
I object to Rattner's characterization of the President's foreign relations powers as a "right" -- one removed by the Congress.
Politically, Congress' action amounts to a smokescreen, and a political shield for individual members. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by passing a statute. To the extent that the War Powers Act, the Iran Contra Act, and this latest example attempt to alter constitutional powers, they are invalid. To the extent that they express a desire for an Executive-Legislative Branch synchronization of goals, they are in essence Congressional resolutions without legal meaning.
Much as I would like to say that the current Congress reflects a shocking ignorance of the Constitution, the reality is that there is a long history of congressional mining of public discontent by pushing impermissible constitutional boundaries.
Politically, Congress' action amounts to a smokescreen, and a political shield for individual members. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by passing a statute. To the extent that the War Powers Act, the Iran Contra Act, and this latest example attempt to alter constitutional powers, they are invalid. To the extent that they express a desire for an Executive-Legislative Branch synchronization of goals, they are in essence Congressional resolutions without legal meaning.
Much as I would like to say that the current Congress reflects a shocking ignorance of the Constitution, the reality is that there is a long history of congressional mining of public discontent by pushing impermissible constitutional boundaries.
15
>
Look the GOP realizes that the WH is going to be a tough nut to crack for them due to demographics and their backward ideas. Instead they plan to fight for power in the gerrymandered House and/or the Senate, where Idaho equals NY. If they should obtain the WH, the problem that you have outlined will be moot for THEM, if not they'll control the government from the House and/or Senate.
Wake up. This ain't the Morning Joe Show where non-reality and counterfactual banter passes as legitimate political discourse.
Look the GOP realizes that the WH is going to be a tough nut to crack for them due to demographics and their backward ideas. Instead they plan to fight for power in the gerrymandered House and/or the Senate, where Idaho equals NY. If they should obtain the WH, the problem that you have outlined will be moot for THEM, if not they'll control the government from the House and/or Senate.
Wake up. This ain't the Morning Joe Show where non-reality and counterfactual banter passes as legitimate political discourse.
35
How exactly is the Senate gerrymandered genius? It is absolutely an impossible proposition.
Dear Skeptic,
Please look at the structure of the sentence, where the clause is clearly attached to the "Senate" and not the House: "where Idaho equals NY." This clearly indicates a different form of shenanigans as to the Senate. Sorry for any confusion.
No, the Senate is not outrightly gerrymandered, but much has been written on the equal--but yet undemocratic--power sharing of say, Idaho, with its few people as to NY with its millions of people. In other words, Idaho has as much power as NY as to senatorial votes.
So for an extreme example to make a point of a REAL problem: if NY had 200 million people and all the other states each had 1 million people and say all these states maintained people of lower IQs (e.g., Fox News viewers; and studies empirically show this to be true), NY would be in a world of trouble, hence my point. One does not have to be a genius to recognize the problem here.
Thanks for the genius complement though.
“To live alone one must be a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both -- a philosopher[!]”
Nietzsche
I do so hope this clears up matters.
Cheers!
Please look at the structure of the sentence, where the clause is clearly attached to the "Senate" and not the House: "where Idaho equals NY." This clearly indicates a different form of shenanigans as to the Senate. Sorry for any confusion.
No, the Senate is not outrightly gerrymandered, but much has been written on the equal--but yet undemocratic--power sharing of say, Idaho, with its few people as to NY with its millions of people. In other words, Idaho has as much power as NY as to senatorial votes.
So for an extreme example to make a point of a REAL problem: if NY had 200 million people and all the other states each had 1 million people and say all these states maintained people of lower IQs (e.g., Fox News viewers; and studies empirically show this to be true), NY would be in a world of trouble, hence my point. One does not have to be a genius to recognize the problem here.
Thanks for the genius complement though.
“To live alone one must be a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both -- a philosopher[!]”
Nietzsche
I do so hope this clears up matters.
Cheers!
How ironic that one of Obama's rich friends that Obama appointed as an architect of the GM Bailout should now argue on behalf of "freeing" Obama.
Who will free the American people?
Nader just wrote: "U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has done a great disservice to justice by blocking victims and their families from having their rightful day in court to challenge GM’s corporate malfeasance.
This disturbing outcome could have been prevented had the Obama administration defended the rights of those injured by GM’s faulty vehicles. The federal government failed to responsibly exercise its majority stock ownership rights by establishing successorship liability for “New GM”."
See: https://blog.nader.org/2015/04/16/the-decision-in-the-general-motors-ban...
Somebody please tell us subscribers why the NY Times gives Rattner such a platform regularly but not Nader.
Who will free the American people?
Nader just wrote: "U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has done a great disservice to justice by blocking victims and their families from having their rightful day in court to challenge GM’s corporate malfeasance.
This disturbing outcome could have been prevented had the Obama administration defended the rights of those injured by GM’s faulty vehicles. The federal government failed to responsibly exercise its majority stock ownership rights by establishing successorship liability for “New GM”."
See: https://blog.nader.org/2015/04/16/the-decision-in-the-general-motors-ban...
Somebody please tell us subscribers why the NY Times gives Rattner such a platform regularly but not Nader.
9
The central emblem of representative government is its legitimacy: regardless of directions taken (or not), that taken by leaders in such governments presumes that the governed had their say, and must live with the consequences. With other forms of government, one might as well just exhume the fascist salute we still see among ancient Falangists in Spain.
We’re split down the middle as to wise directions forward, which normally would result (and does) in slow movement until leaders appear with political skills that can move the people marginally right or left. But slowness is legitimate now, while “freeing the president” to escape it simply imposes the will of one side despite its inability to secure the legitimacy to transform us, or even to decisively chart an American direction and confidently lead us.
Congress doesn’t work – according to Steve Rattner – so … let’s create a dictator so as to impose a liberal worldview that hasn’t earned the right to lead.
The only reason Congress doesn’t “work”, according to Mr. Rattner's assumptions, is that it’s not a liberal congress, just as a majority of our state legislatures aren’t liberal. So, because an ideology isn’t given play to express itself fully with legitimate power … let’s kinda forget who we are, the limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution on executive power, and make a dictator so those on the left can usurp the power to define our directions.
Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Rattner, but … decidedly no.
We’re split down the middle as to wise directions forward, which normally would result (and does) in slow movement until leaders appear with political skills that can move the people marginally right or left. But slowness is legitimate now, while “freeing the president” to escape it simply imposes the will of one side despite its inability to secure the legitimacy to transform us, or even to decisively chart an American direction and confidently lead us.
Congress doesn’t work – according to Steve Rattner – so … let’s create a dictator so as to impose a liberal worldview that hasn’t earned the right to lead.
The only reason Congress doesn’t “work”, according to Mr. Rattner's assumptions, is that it’s not a liberal congress, just as a majority of our state legislatures aren’t liberal. So, because an ideology isn’t given play to express itself fully with legitimate power … let’s kinda forget who we are, the limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution on executive power, and make a dictator so those on the left can usurp the power to define our directions.
Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Rattner, but … decidedly no.
8
When a Congress takes six months and still can neither approve nor nullify the appointment of an Attorney General of the United States, it doesn't work. When it votes dozens of time to overturn a law it passed, it doesn't work. When it can't pass a budget, it doesn't work.
1
Ray:
Let's not be innocents. The U.S. Senate hasn't confirmed Loretta Lynch as U.S, Attorney General because it's watched for over six years as an Obama atty. gen. imposed a federal will on the states, and an aggressively liberal one, with which they disagree; and they're hesitant about allowing the rest of the Obama Administration to be framed by the same aggressiveness. And one has to wonder about the choice, as well.
If you read me, you know my sympathies for women's reproductive rights and any advances we can scrounge for racial equality, not to mention class fairness. And nobody was surprised when Mr. Obama wished to make yet more history by appointing Eric Holder our first black U.S. Attorney General. But when blacks represent only 13.2% of the population, one has to wonder at appointing two in SUCCESSION. Were there no other women available, and is she the most qualified?
Did he make NO efforts to talk to Senate leaders before making this nomination, or did he, as usual, simply board-up the Oval Office and pretend like the rest of government just doesn't exist?
As to the House voting so many times to repeal the ACA, giveth me a break: it was a very different House that did that -- not the one that "passed" it. The one that just barely passed the ACA, led by a very brief Democratic majority, did it in the teeth of unanimous Republican rejection and on the basis of lies that had they been known would have caused failure of passage even in a Democratic House.
Let's not be innocents. The U.S. Senate hasn't confirmed Loretta Lynch as U.S, Attorney General because it's watched for over six years as an Obama atty. gen. imposed a federal will on the states, and an aggressively liberal one, with which they disagree; and they're hesitant about allowing the rest of the Obama Administration to be framed by the same aggressiveness. And one has to wonder about the choice, as well.
If you read me, you know my sympathies for women's reproductive rights and any advances we can scrounge for racial equality, not to mention class fairness. And nobody was surprised when Mr. Obama wished to make yet more history by appointing Eric Holder our first black U.S. Attorney General. But when blacks represent only 13.2% of the population, one has to wonder at appointing two in SUCCESSION. Were there no other women available, and is she the most qualified?
Did he make NO efforts to talk to Senate leaders before making this nomination, or did he, as usual, simply board-up the Oval Office and pretend like the rest of government just doesn't exist?
As to the House voting so many times to repeal the ACA, giveth me a break: it was a very different House that did that -- not the one that "passed" it. The one that just barely passed the ACA, led by a very brief Democratic majority, did it in the teeth of unanimous Republican rejection and on the basis of lies that had they been known would have caused failure of passage even in a Democratic House.
Yesterday's business article on the opinion of some US and international monetary officials that US primacy has "ebbed" due to political polarization was an eye-opener.
Clearly a country that can't agree on anything or move forward on anything is paralyzed. But the one area where Congress isn't paralyzed is in its largely partisan hatred of this president and their overriding unity to stop every single initiative he launches.
This article presents a reasoned approach and call to let up on the reins of obstruction. The problem is, this Congress--and yes, I place the blame largely on the right--isn't reasonable. In the least. It's abrogated powers unto itself that have rendered the Executive branch almost impotent. It's insulted the chief of state and shown to the world how dysfunctional and untrustworthy the US is when it comes to foreign policy.
Month by month, year by year, poisonous polarization is throwing away the world's first successful experiment in a new form of government and unity, one that turned the country into a model of attraction for the world.
Look at us now: the perfect example of a country in decline, caused by an out of control Congress whose only desire is to undermine and hamstring a President they hate for so many reasons, but largely because of his race.
Clearly a country that can't agree on anything or move forward on anything is paralyzed. But the one area where Congress isn't paralyzed is in its largely partisan hatred of this president and their overriding unity to stop every single initiative he launches.
This article presents a reasoned approach and call to let up on the reins of obstruction. The problem is, this Congress--and yes, I place the blame largely on the right--isn't reasonable. In the least. It's abrogated powers unto itself that have rendered the Executive branch almost impotent. It's insulted the chief of state and shown to the world how dysfunctional and untrustworthy the US is when it comes to foreign policy.
Month by month, year by year, poisonous polarization is throwing away the world's first successful experiment in a new form of government and unity, one that turned the country into a model of attraction for the world.
Look at us now: the perfect example of a country in decline, caused by an out of control Congress whose only desire is to undermine and hamstring a President they hate for so many reasons, but largely because of his race.
394
"... but largely because of his race."
Your last sentence perfectly captures the ultimate problem.
Your last sentence perfectly captures the ultimate problem.
2
I have the exact same frustration about our political system which you have spelled out so eloquently, Christine. The educated middle class is left ham stringed to do much more than watch our Democracy dissolve into a mere shadow of its former self. Without the money or influence to reach out to disinterested voters (or those who've given up on the political process entirely) we are relegated to being members of a tragic Greek chorus who collectively bemoan the death of Democracy as we once knew it. President Obama was hailed as the hope for the decline of America and everyday we watch as those who protect Corporate interests over the values of the Constitution and citizens rights do everything in their power to diminish his greatness on the world stage. What is most striking is that the same politicians who do everything in their power to undermine President Obama are jumping up and down about the TPP even though it is shrouded in secrecy. This action strikingly points out the fact that the GOP is in the deep pockets of corporate interests rather than siding with the interests of everyday Conservatives and Liberals alike who are genuinely representing the people who elected them to office.
4
I am saddened that this is a NY Times pick and is recommended by so many readers.
Playing the racism card on congress is intellectually lazy. Whenever an ad hominem attack is trotted out in place of a serious discussion, the debate has been lost.
It is especially shameful given the recent racial unrest due to wrongful deaths at the hands of police.
The voters have spoken and they elected a record number of Republican lawmakers at all levels of government all over the country. It is a repudiation of the ideas of the President & the Democratically controlled Senate. When congressmen, senators & governors all decide to distance themselves from a sitting president during an election cycle, it's bad ideas they are escaping, not the color of his skin.
Playing the racism card on congress is intellectually lazy. Whenever an ad hominem attack is trotted out in place of a serious discussion, the debate has been lost.
It is especially shameful given the recent racial unrest due to wrongful deaths at the hands of police.
The voters have spoken and they elected a record number of Republican lawmakers at all levels of government all over the country. It is a repudiation of the ideas of the President & the Democratically controlled Senate. When congressmen, senators & governors all decide to distance themselves from a sitting president during an election cycle, it's bad ideas they are escaping, not the color of his skin.
2
The good news: Congress is patriotic. The bad news: For Israel.
I'm afraid on the immigration executive action, and now the push for TPP, I have to prefer inaction. These are the globalist agenda, and the real problem is the huge money that backs them. Israel is also a big money issue for politicians, with any daring to oppose Israeli interests subject to powerful attack - ask former Senator Charles Percy.
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the spirit of the times, and today that is all about rich global corporations and the money they spread among the political class. So the Court finds that corporations are persons with the right of free speech in the form of unlimited money.
We need to somehow address the influence of money, and particularly that of foreign powers, which we're seeing surface in news of foreign donations to e.g. the Brooking Institute and the Clinton Foundation. China has enormous influence through the power of global corporations, dwarfing Israel's I believe. Not easy to solve...
I'm afraid on the immigration executive action, and now the push for TPP, I have to prefer inaction. These are the globalist agenda, and the real problem is the huge money that backs them. Israel is also a big money issue for politicians, with any daring to oppose Israeli interests subject to powerful attack - ask former Senator Charles Percy.
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the spirit of the times, and today that is all about rich global corporations and the money they spread among the political class. So the Court finds that corporations are persons with the right of free speech in the form of unlimited money.
We need to somehow address the influence of money, and particularly that of foreign powers, which we're seeing surface in news of foreign donations to e.g. the Brooking Institute and the Clinton Foundation. China has enormous influence through the power of global corporations, dwarfing Israel's I believe. Not easy to solve...
10
And the country's caught in another bind as too many (especially the Tea Party and Libertarian factions) see the fact that "the last two Congresses have passed fewer than 300 laws each, the fewest in modern history" as a good thing. People that do not believe in government want a powerless President, a do-nothing Congress, and a Supreme Court that makes only very narrow decisions. Well, with two out of three I'd say they're winning.
30
The quality, not the quantity, of laws should be a bigger concern to people.
1
There's never been a more concerted effort to limit a President's
function than now, and the reasons for this have been repeatedly
shown. High on the list is we have a black president -
hated by some, and disrespected by a money-grubbing congress
who allowed a foreign country to come to congress and create
mischief. The republicans are most repugnant but some
democrats , playing to the Israeli vote, big money, etc. showed
their cowardice and greed, walking away from backing the
President. Frankly, I have some admiration for the mailman
who gyrated onto the mall with those letters for congress.
I hope they get sent to the worst congress in history. I also
hope, Mr. Rattner, that you have a chance to express this
op-ed on that slanted tv program you guest, Morning Joe. The
panel there just sits mum to Obnoxious Joe's pontifications.
function than now, and the reasons for this have been repeatedly
shown. High on the list is we have a black president -
hated by some, and disrespected by a money-grubbing congress
who allowed a foreign country to come to congress and create
mischief. The republicans are most repugnant but some
democrats , playing to the Israeli vote, big money, etc. showed
their cowardice and greed, walking away from backing the
President. Frankly, I have some admiration for the mailman
who gyrated onto the mall with those letters for congress.
I hope they get sent to the worst congress in history. I also
hope, Mr. Rattner, that you have a chance to express this
op-ed on that slanted tv program you guest, Morning Joe. The
panel there just sits mum to Obnoxious Joe's pontifications.
38
Mr. Rattner could give us a discussion of the pros/cons of parliamentary systems, and of publicly financed elections, both used in most democracies. Contrast this with our billionaire controlled campaigns. Having only 2 parties and long campaigns makes investing in politics much easier for the US super rich.
Multi parties abroad are formed into coalitions after they debate a wider range of political solutions than are available to US voters. So the losing parties have some input in their govt policy making, as long as the've gotten a certain amount of votes. The British started their election campaign in March, and will vote in May--that's 2015, not 2016. And they have 7 parties debating on TV.
" The British example also shows that our system of checks and balances is not required to safeguard against a runaway leader." We were all taught in school these checks/balances were the basis for our freedoms and democracy. But it ain't necessarily so. Our system cannot check our 'runaway rw Gop congress' that has our govt in a choke hold. Our power distribution is way out of balance, with most of it in the hands of the 1 percent paying lawmakers to run for office.
Please write a column on why all the other democracies chose a parliamentary system, as did the new democracies emerging from colonialism. Our system is unique in the world, along with the world's most expensive, drawn out, and wasteful campaigns.
Multi parties abroad are formed into coalitions after they debate a wider range of political solutions than are available to US voters. So the losing parties have some input in their govt policy making, as long as the've gotten a certain amount of votes. The British started their election campaign in March, and will vote in May--that's 2015, not 2016. And they have 7 parties debating on TV.
" The British example also shows that our system of checks and balances is not required to safeguard against a runaway leader." We were all taught in school these checks/balances were the basis for our freedoms and democracy. But it ain't necessarily so. Our system cannot check our 'runaway rw Gop congress' that has our govt in a choke hold. Our power distribution is way out of balance, with most of it in the hands of the 1 percent paying lawmakers to run for office.
Please write a column on why all the other democracies chose a parliamentary system, as did the new democracies emerging from colonialism. Our system is unique in the world, along with the world's most expensive, drawn out, and wasteful campaigns.
134
Definitely our campaigns are far too long. It becomes an endurance test, rather than a campaign. The result is our "still wet behind the ears" current wannabes. The minimum age for president was set when many did not live as long as they do today. Perhaps it is time to increase that minimum age and increase the knowledge base requirement to include a firm grounding in a science.
I wonder if George III will take some of us back?
Move to London.
Mr. Rattner needs to reread his high school civics text. Contrary to his opinion, our system of checks and balances was not and is not intended solely to “safeguard us against a runaway leader”. The purpose is to prevent any one of the three Branches of Government from assuming control over the other two. Furthermore, comparing our political system with Britain’s parliamentary system is inapt. In Britain the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches are not separated. Rather the judiciary is granted independence by statute, such statute being subject to revocation by Parliament. The rise of the Imperial President referenced by Mr. Rattner (beginning with FDR) is indeed a continuing threat to our freedoms. Note, for example, the NSA spying on US citizens without Congressional oversight and the frequent global deployment of US troops without express congressional authority. Mr. Rattan is obviously quite content to maintain the cozy relationship the Financial Sector has had with every imperial president, especially with Clinton, Bush I and II, and Obama
9
Not sure what planet Mr. Rattner lives on but it is not this one. "Over the past four decades, Congress — with an occasional assist from the courts — has gradually, and regrettably, eroded the powers of the presidency."
In just six years, Obama has unilaterally changed the nation's immigration laws (which have now been stopped by the courts), granted waivers in both the NCLB and in relaxing the work requirement in the Welfare Reform Act (both of which were done illegally without Congress consent) and even filled government posts such as the NLRB without Senate consent (which was judged illegal by the Supreme Court).
Even TARP which Rattner describes as a "discretionary rescue fund" was not so discretionary. This law explicitly provided bailouts only for financial institutions leading some like Prof Metzger of Columbia Law to question when "the executive branch engages in aggressive interpretation of statutory authority in ways that Congress prohibited." The fact that Rattner led the auto bailout for the Obama administration does not make it legal.
And it's not just Congress. The Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment give broad powers to the States but intentionally limited powers to the Federal Government. Some recent Supreme Court cases (including those related to Obamacare) have finally said enough is enough.
Our President is the leader of the free world. But whether you agree with his politics or not, we should all agree that he is not a king.
In just six years, Obama has unilaterally changed the nation's immigration laws (which have now been stopped by the courts), granted waivers in both the NCLB and in relaxing the work requirement in the Welfare Reform Act (both of which were done illegally without Congress consent) and even filled government posts such as the NLRB without Senate consent (which was judged illegal by the Supreme Court).
Even TARP which Rattner describes as a "discretionary rescue fund" was not so discretionary. This law explicitly provided bailouts only for financial institutions leading some like Prof Metzger of Columbia Law to question when "the executive branch engages in aggressive interpretation of statutory authority in ways that Congress prohibited." The fact that Rattner led the auto bailout for the Obama administration does not make it legal.
And it's not just Congress. The Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment give broad powers to the States but intentionally limited powers to the Federal Government. Some recent Supreme Court cases (including those related to Obamacare) have finally said enough is enough.
Our President is the leader of the free world. But whether you agree with his politics or not, we should all agree that he is not a king.
11
Such a high minded brand campaign enabled by the NYT to give the president a fasces with the outer ax, proving that DC can do evil even withiut the crazy republicans. The weasel, snake tongued, democrat apparatchiks who find democracy a burden are also up to the task. And so well schooled though not educated.
2
The only way to 'Free the President' is to free all of us from the obscene gobs of cash that are adulterating the election process and establish strict term limits. All of the actors in the Washington dysfunction are acting disgracefully because of the incessant need to raise cash and be re-elected. The dictates of Israel are allowed to direct our foreign policy in the Middle East because of money from Sheldon Adelson and hopes to peel off the votes and money of American Jews from the Democratic Party by Republicans and hopes to keep the latter by the Democrats. Not much else and certainly not consideration of what is best for America. That would be foolish!
134
I cannot decide whether the Republicans -- the name now given to the party of the South which opposed a workable national government all through the nineteenth and much ofthe twentieth century -- really want a weak presidency -- which can be viewed as part of the Constitutional settlement -- or are just holding the fort against Mr. Obama until they can control all branches of government and can essentially wreck the post New Deal and WWII settlement. Although I would agree with Mr. Rattner in the abstract, at the moment with the GOP being what it is, I would say we need to keep the Presidency weak. One never knows what these people would do if fully in power in Washington although we can see good examples in many of the states where they control the legislatures and the governorships and it presages if not national ruin then at least a revolution of reaction
63
I live in one of the states that is under complete republican control. There has been no "some good" from the legislature or governor of the state. Republicans turned the state into a right to work state while at the same time it eliminated several very important business tax laws. The governor has set up a covert commission that reserves the right to eliminate, not help but destroy, underperforming school districts and replace education in those district with private operators that have no overt accountability to the public. The legislature refuses to fine funding to keep-up minimal maintenance of roads and highways. The republican legislature after repealing several important revenue streams proposes that the citizens impose a one percent sales tax on themselves through a referendum that doges the republican stand on "no new taxes". Gerrymandering and several other covert measures, such as a part time legislature, have all but insured that democrats have no voice in the affairs of the state. When the legislature convenes all legislation is set up for immediate passage for the simple reason that all discussion on the measures were settled in backroom deals in the weeks and months while the legislature was not in session. The state has been essentially turned into a one party state very similar to what the former Soviet Union called government. Do we really want that in the United States?
71
Alas: as a veteran Republican-watcher, I am quite sure they are just holding the fort against Mr. Obama until they can control all branches of government; so keeping the presidency weak won't do one bit of good as any sort of long-term strategy.
The thing is, Republicans are very big on insisting, noisily, angrily, fearfully, that you can't trust (fill in the blank: the Soviet Union; North Korea; Iran) to honor any treaty or obligation. This plays big with the Party's raging base.
But if there's one thing we've learned over the last few decades, it's that the people we really can't trust to honor a commitment of any kind are Republican politicians.
From John Roberts testifying under oath that as a justice of the United States Supreme Court he would respect precedent and stare decisis, to Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa blandly suggesting that if the president would only hold over the confirmation of AG nominee Loretta Lynch until the new Congress had been sworn in then everything would go swimmingly, we've seen again and again that Republicans simply cannot be trusted. An agreement with a Republican isn't worth the paper it's written on.
It's safe to assume that no matter what Byzantine tactics they use to hamper the presidency during the balance of Mr. Obama's term, the minute a Jeb Bush or (God help us) a Scott Walker is sworn in to office in the bleak winter of 2017 the GOP will junk the old agreements swiftly and shamelessly.
You really can't trust these people.
The thing is, Republicans are very big on insisting, noisily, angrily, fearfully, that you can't trust (fill in the blank: the Soviet Union; North Korea; Iran) to honor any treaty or obligation. This plays big with the Party's raging base.
But if there's one thing we've learned over the last few decades, it's that the people we really can't trust to honor a commitment of any kind are Republican politicians.
From John Roberts testifying under oath that as a justice of the United States Supreme Court he would respect precedent and stare decisis, to Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa blandly suggesting that if the president would only hold over the confirmation of AG nominee Loretta Lynch until the new Congress had been sworn in then everything would go swimmingly, we've seen again and again that Republicans simply cannot be trusted. An agreement with a Republican isn't worth the paper it's written on.
It's safe to assume that no matter what Byzantine tactics they use to hamper the presidency during the balance of Mr. Obama's term, the minute a Jeb Bush or (God help us) a Scott Walker is sworn in to office in the bleak winter of 2017 the GOP will junk the old agreements swiftly and shamelessly.
You really can't trust these people.
42
Can we not finally acknowledge that our system is a failure. While the institution of the presidency is a success, as is the supreme court, congress is a failure. Not just now, but over our long history, Congress has rarely been able to accomplish what many Americans wanted. So it took the civil war (and the absence of the South) to pass legislation supporting the transcontinental railroad, and the homestead act; it took the depression to push the first social legislation. Sadly, even a terrible rescission could not get this Congress to do more than tepid financial reform.
And the idea that a president's appointees become pawns in a game of chicken should be an embarrassment.
It is any wonder that no other modern constitution follows our bizarre and feckless model of divided power?
And the idea that a president's appointees become pawns in a game of chicken should be an embarrassment.
It is any wonder that no other modern constitution follows our bizarre and feckless model of divided power?
122
The President is a Phoenix among the pigeons and the greater majority of us who care for the future of our Country are running about like chickens expecting a bomb to land on our head.
Speaking of Washington players and actors, it was Marlon Brando whose teacher asked the class to pretend to be frightened dispersed chickens, and when he was the only one to remain still, he replied that he was a chicken and unaware of bombs.
An answer as good as any, and we have a lot of rotten eggs who have been hatching in our midst, making the political air poisonous and full of toxic ingredients.
When Mr. Obama leaves Office, we can expect a full-fledged war to break out of some kind, and we are in for a rough time, the likes of which are still hard to predict, and sometimes on a sunny Spring day one does not wish to know what the future holds, despite the fact that we have the most reasoned and self-contained President ever seen in a life time, a visionary, a humanitarian who many of us will never take seriously. Our loss, it is.
Speaking of Washington players and actors, it was Marlon Brando whose teacher asked the class to pretend to be frightened dispersed chickens, and when he was the only one to remain still, he replied that he was a chicken and unaware of bombs.
An answer as good as any, and we have a lot of rotten eggs who have been hatching in our midst, making the political air poisonous and full of toxic ingredients.
When Mr. Obama leaves Office, we can expect a full-fledged war to break out of some kind, and we are in for a rough time, the likes of which are still hard to predict, and sometimes on a sunny Spring day one does not wish to know what the future holds, despite the fact that we have the most reasoned and self-contained President ever seen in a life time, a visionary, a humanitarian who many of us will never take seriously. Our loss, it is.
18
I would argue that SCOTUS is an utter and complete failure, at least under the current right wing. Is there a turning point? Yes: Bush v. Gore. I blame Sandra Dao O'Connor who surely knew better, and I blame Gore for giving in. He should have gone to the American people and said:"this is not about ME-- this is about our democracy-- one man one vote. Let the recall continue." History will judge him as a court jester for his role in sinking our once powerful ship.
Maybe Steven Rattner didn't realize that the Republican Congress passed a long-over repeal of the Sustained Growth Rate (SGR) formula for Medicare Cuts (aka the "doc fix"). This is easily the most significant health care improvement in the last four years, and it was never fully addressed when the democrats controlled the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/a-rare-bipartisan-medicare-bil...
It's easy to blame republicans when you ignore the good that they do, but that is standard practice by the left these days...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/a-rare-bipartisan-medicare-bil...
It's easy to blame republicans when you ignore the good that they do, but that is standard practice by the left these days...
4
There are two equally important aspects of the recent interference by the Senate in the executive agreement negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran regarding its nuclear program.
First, there is the dangerous precedent of the attempts by Congress to manage the nation’s foreign policy instead of allowing the Executive Branch to perform that function as our Constitution contemplates. Steven Rattner correctly sees this as part of a Republican trend of routinely attacking presidential executive agreements on a wide variety of subjects. The congressional lust for power is particularly frustrating in view of the Republicans’ utter lack of will or ability to accomplish anything.
The second facet of the current challenge to the Iran agreement is the substantive risk of war to which the Republicans expose the United States unnecessarily by their unceasing effort to sabotage a really outstanding diplomatic achievement. It is this second factor – the vital need to avoid a crisis – which undoubtedly led President Obama to accede reluctantly to some of the Congressional demands.
Why many of the Democrats in the Senate have gone along with the Republicans, one supposes, could mean that their loyalty to the Senate exceeds their loyalty to America. Or, it may simply be a symptom of the chronic spinelessness which plagues Democrats on Capitol Hill.
First, there is the dangerous precedent of the attempts by Congress to manage the nation’s foreign policy instead of allowing the Executive Branch to perform that function as our Constitution contemplates. Steven Rattner correctly sees this as part of a Republican trend of routinely attacking presidential executive agreements on a wide variety of subjects. The congressional lust for power is particularly frustrating in view of the Republicans’ utter lack of will or ability to accomplish anything.
The second facet of the current challenge to the Iran agreement is the substantive risk of war to which the Republicans expose the United States unnecessarily by their unceasing effort to sabotage a really outstanding diplomatic achievement. It is this second factor – the vital need to avoid a crisis – which undoubtedly led President Obama to accede reluctantly to some of the Congressional demands.
Why many of the Democrats in the Senate have gone along with the Republicans, one supposes, could mean that their loyalty to the Senate exceeds their loyalty to America. Or, it may simply be a symptom of the chronic spinelessness which plagues Democrats on Capitol Hill.
96
Spineless, yes, apt description of the Democrats in Congress. But I suspect that AIPAC and the others continue to have their impact felt by Democrats. That money is surely more important than all other considerations by our politicians today. Even the future of America.
2
You may be right, Mimi. If you are, ironically, the collaboration by some Democrats with the Republicans attacking the Iran agreement risks serious harm to Israel. It’s The Law of Unintended Consequences.
"LAST week’s news from Washington: A dysfunctional Congress managed to function just long enough to bludgeon President Obama into ceding his prerogative to enter into an executive agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program."
Obama can enter into any agreement he wants. There's no guarantee the Congress and Senate will go along and can scuttle any agreement. The next president could also do so.
Everyone is acting all shocked that someone said a presidential agreement can be undone with the stroke of a legislative pen. It can and it didn't begin with a letter from some US senators.
Obama can enter into any agreement he wants. There's no guarantee the Congress and Senate will go along and can scuttle any agreement. The next president could also do so.
Everyone is acting all shocked that someone said a presidential agreement can be undone with the stroke of a legislative pen. It can and it didn't begin with a letter from some US senators.
2
"Mr. Obama was able to inject about $80 billion into the automobile industry without congressional approval because, in a panicked moment in the fall of 2008, .."
Pure pork. GM has no business existing today. And it's a shame Rattner played a part in the fraudulent (hiding potential liabilities) bankruptcy proceedings.
I would say the same about Chrysler, but then again it doesn't exist anymore.
Pure pork. GM has no business existing today. And it's a shame Rattner played a part in the fraudulent (hiding potential liabilities) bankruptcy proceedings.
I would say the same about Chrysler, but then again it doesn't exist anymore.
6
What is needed more: Everyone who is a citizen is automatically registered to vote, voting can be done very simply via the internet or mail, and votes are not gerrymandered into results like Democrats getting the majority votes in a state but the minority of representatives.
75
It would help if more Americans learned more about the issues from sources other than Fox pseudo-news. Our current dysfunction is due in large part to voters being easy to hoodwink. The republicans focus on getting voters to hate their opponents for the silly reasons. As long as they feed that anger, voters aren't doing considered research into the issues. They're acting like automatons.
5
That's close to how Oregon does it now. Works just fine. Voting by mail is wonderful. Read the election pamphlet outlining the candidates and/or issues, then vote in the comfort of your own home, when it is convenient for your busy schedule. Mail it in.
Free him from what, truth and trust? With O you get neither, and he is deserving of neither. . After the lawless immigration, climate change and other matters, the only freedom that is needed is to free him from office, and the quicker the better.
4
All democratic systems have their faults . Most governments try to correct their systems as they go along with a view to the country's future governability. Somewhere along the way the U S seems to have lost this ability . You cannot blame the president or the congress or the justices . Everyone's input is necessary to correct the system , this needs patience and tolerance......
3
Thus do empires wither away. Our Global reach shrinks back toward our borders as our leaders squabble among themselves, unable to govern effectively as they compete harder for smaller gains. At home not much is done for our citizens (the super rich always excepted) and interest in, respect for, and participation in the political process fades as we see government as an impediment to be worked around rather than a tool for potential improvement. The speed of our decline astounds, from absolute global dominance in 1945 to our current ineffective foreign and domestic efforts.
269
You seem to not mention the people. How do snake-oil salesmen end up in congress? The venal men and women who "represent" us are there because "We the people" allow them by their vote.
That's usually what happens when money is the only object.
1
Hey it helps if you twice elect as your leader a man who cannot tell the truth and has little regard and no affection for the nation he supposedly serves. Decline was the true Obama agenda and that is working perfectly.
You won't find a majority of Americans that think we need a "stronger presidency". That certainly wasn't true of Democrats when George Bush was president. The balance of power is what keeps America from going off the deep end. That has never been more true than now with Obama.
52
Donald you are greatly misguided. President Obama, contrary to the Republican's dogma, is center of what used to be a balanced political spectrum. All that has happened is that the Republican party has been steered much further to the right than at any time in history. The steering is not being done by the serious people but a band of loud mouths in gerrymandered districts that don't actually answer to the whole electorate. They fear not for their seats and the re-redistricting has formed lines that encapsulate like believers. The Country as a whole is center, it is not right center or left center, it is centered. The demographic growth in the country will move it to left of center, but the gerrymandering will delay this change in everything but Presidential elections. The Republicans have lost 5 of the last 6 elections and until they recognize they are on the wrong track, will continue to lose Presidential elections. This has caused the Republican party to want to weaken the Presidency. This is not good for the country and contrary to the will of the people overall. As legal rulings start coming down against the re-redistricting methods recently used, this will all fall apart for the Republicans. So don't be so sure about what the Country at large wants. Your echo chamber is already not listening......
7
When America was founded Louis XIV said it best "L'etat c'est moi." It is 2015 and in the greatest nation the world has ever known there is no balance. The is no functional government. There is no state. The USA was founded to be a secular nation with adults in charge. In 1954 under God was put into the pledge and She says different things to different people.
The constitution written in 1776 was a wonderful foundational document but in 2015 we have things like constitutional Monarchies where the Crown has no authority and democratic republics where ultimate authority rests in the ballot box. The constitution was meant to serve the people it was never meant to be a sacred object wherein rested our Deity. We need a new constitution that serves we the people, we have a pretty good foundation and its now the time to design the house we want to live in. When Wyoming has two more Senators than New York City it should be obvious we need new architecture.
The constitution written in 1776 was a wonderful foundational document but in 2015 we have things like constitutional Monarchies where the Crown has no authority and democratic republics where ultimate authority rests in the ballot box. The constitution was meant to serve the people it was never meant to be a sacred object wherein rested our Deity. We need a new constitution that serves we the people, we have a pretty good foundation and its now the time to design the house we want to live in. When Wyoming has two more Senators than New York City it should be obvious we need new architecture.
Nonetheless, the president’s authority to enter into executive agreements has remained in place and has been widely used in recent years: 2,058 times by Bill Clinton, 1,876 times by Mr. Bush and 791 times by Mr. Obama (as of 2012).
Slow, deliberate action (maybe even dysfunction or near-paralysis) requiring the compromises between political adversaries is a key strength of the Constitution. Forcing the government to act slowly is a feature, not a bug. In crafting the structure of the government, the Founders considered the experience of 2000 years of history and prudently noted that easy executive action usually leads to mischief. Smart as he may be, Mr. Rattner blithely dismisses the Founders' wisdom in favor of modern expedience, perhaps because ideas he personally favors are politically ascendant.
5
Mr. Rattner, a long time journalist and a seasoned successful economist, is a serious person who remains polite and rarely 'blithely' dismisses anything of importance, especially the value of accrued wisdom regardless of the times we live.
6
This is a sane and rational examination of the dynamic our President faces with the Republican Congress. Unfortunately, nothing indicates that they are sane or rational so we can expect more of the same. The president may have to rely on history to tell the unbiased account of his administration but history will be kinder than the Republicans are now.
17
There is already a treaty in place regarding Iran's nuclear program – it is called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Article II of the Constitution directs the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which in this case means enforcing the treaty. I doubt very much that such enforcement and administration of a treaty long ago ratified by the Senate requires continual Senate approval.
2
"We need a stronger presidency, regardless of whether the occupant is a Democrat or a Republican."
What you are meaning to say, of course, is providing he is President Obama, or someone just like him.
What you are meaning to say, of course, is providing he is President Obama, or someone just like him.
6
A. Stanton,
Believe this American if you will, we are never going to have a stronger or finer President than Mr. Obama, right for the times we live in and ahead of our times.
Believe this American if you will, we are never going to have a stronger or finer President than Mr. Obama, right for the times we live in and ahead of our times.
31
NO, we are probably never going to have a worse president than this one, who even makes Jimmy Carter look good.
1
"The need to reverse the slide in presidential authority would perhaps be less urgent if Congress were actually doing anything."
Absolutely spot on. This Congress is electing to butt into business where it has no role and elects to butt out of business for which we have elected them.
Absolutely spot on. This Congress is electing to butt into business where it has no role and elects to butt out of business for which we have elected them.
267
Congress has decided to suspend certain basic precepts of our government, checks and balances, when it suits them. While they blubber about "following the law," it would be refreshing if they ever did that themselves.
The Founders devised a system which would encourage gridlock. We have three co equal branches of government. That system has worked admirably for just over 225 years. If the legislature does not act there is no provision in the Constitution for the President to act ( read that as make law) on his own.
I applaud gridlock and wish that there were more of it. The incumbent President is a lawless despot and suffers from megalomania.
I applaud gridlock and wish that there were more of it. The incumbent President is a lawless despot and suffers from megalomania.
1
Passing bills is absolutely not a measure of success. "Doing nothing" is actually doing something - letting existing laws remain in place.
Let's see if, now that the GOP has both houses (although not with a 60-vote senate like the Dems had) if Obama vetoes legislation that comes his way. Will he then be a "do-nothing Pres?
Let's see if, now that the GOP has both houses (although not with a 60-vote senate like the Dems had) if Obama vetoes legislation that comes his way. Will he then be a "do-nothing Pres?
"The need to reverse the slide of presidential authority..." Really?! You are not really serious? This president has pushed presidential authority to its limits and has gone beyond those limits imposing is office on the prerogatives of the other branches of government. The president does not want oversight. This is clearly the least transparent administration since Richard Nixon. Sunshine would do this White House and the American people a world of good.
7
Oh, probably not. We have the most powerful bureaucracy and the most deadly military in the world. Do we really want a political appointee to have firm control of all that?
You don't even need a libertarian polity if you can have a completely dysfunctional government.
You don't even need a libertarian polity if you can have a completely dysfunctional government.
1
Let's do this; let's do that.
Who is going to do it? The Congress????
We need a complete political makeover if the US is going to avoid slow decline as its bridges, both physical and social, deteriorate.
We need a new political party to escape the rigor mortis of the Democratic and Republican parties and their thrall to wealthy zealots. Only wealthy zealots of constructive government can beat the PACs of the current parties. Where are you Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, Warren Buffet et al?
Who is going to do it? The Congress????
We need a complete political makeover if the US is going to avoid slow decline as its bridges, both physical and social, deteriorate.
We need a new political party to escape the rigor mortis of the Democratic and Republican parties and their thrall to wealthy zealots. Only wealthy zealots of constructive government can beat the PACs of the current parties. Where are you Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, Warren Buffet et al?
8
Ronald Randall
This week I had the pleasure of receiving three Americans to repair some infrastructure in my apartment, and these gentleman of a variety of cultures and I, all were at one that Mr. Warren Buffet is a source of inspiration to a great majority of us.
This week I had the pleasure of receiving three Americans to repair some infrastructure in my apartment, and these gentleman of a variety of cultures and I, all were at one that Mr. Warren Buffet is a source of inspiration to a great majority of us.
2
Ronald, I reluctantly agree with you.I am not usually in favor of business people moving straight to major political office-- two different worlds and goals. But, in an absolute vacuum of leadership in either party, a Bloomberg, Gates, someone-- might be a place to start. (not Ms Fiorina however, she is a destroyer of companies, to quote Romney, a taker not a maker)
This Congress is a disgrace to the nation. Republicans and many Democrats want to limit President Obama's ability to negotiate a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran and five other nations but want to give him fasttrack authority on the TPP, a trade pack that has been described as NAFTA on steroids. Such hypocrisy is disgusting - limit executive authority on national security issues and expand it on trade.
Congress seems perfectly content to allow the dictates of Israel to direct our foreign policy in the Middle East and to let lobbyists from major corporations write a trade package with no input from representatives of American workers who have been the big losers in every modern trade deal the US government signs.
Much of Congress acts against our national interest in order to satisfy special interests that make large donations to their reelection campaigns. With few exceptions, their votes have been bought and paid for by big money and they seem more interested in keeping their jobs than anything else.
Republicans are worse but many Democrats are not much better. Most Congress men and women have become nothing more than agents of what Bernie Sanders calls the "billionaire class" that showers obscene amounts of money on them to get what they want - more war in the Middle East and more war on the American worker.
Congress seems perfectly content to allow the dictates of Israel to direct our foreign policy in the Middle East and to let lobbyists from major corporations write a trade package with no input from representatives of American workers who have been the big losers in every modern trade deal the US government signs.
Much of Congress acts against our national interest in order to satisfy special interests that make large donations to their reelection campaigns. With few exceptions, their votes have been bought and paid for by big money and they seem more interested in keeping their jobs than anything else.
Republicans are worse but many Democrats are not much better. Most Congress men and women have become nothing more than agents of what Bernie Sanders calls the "billionaire class" that showers obscene amounts of money on them to get what they want - more war in the Middle East and more war on the American worker.
279
Open disrespect is the key
For a Black POTUS especially,
Add in kowtowing
To Bibi Dems bowing,
A sight nauseating to see!
For a Black POTUS especially,
Add in kowtowing
To Bibi Dems bowing,
A sight nauseating to see!
107
Says it all! Right on!!!
3
A president with the authority to implement routine reorganizations on his own can reorganize to reward his friends and hurt his opponents and do so in such a way that the reorganization is made to look routine. A routine reorganization might take regulatory authority from an agency that wants to use it and assign it to an agency that has no interest in rocking anyone's boat.
A president without such authority will have to watch as his reorganization proposals work their way through a Congress that is at present unable to agree on much of anything.
What we need to reinstate is the ability to live in the same universe, the ability to construct a moral and factual and theoretical universe that we all can belong to. Part of this universe would be a general agreement on what the President gets to do without congressional input or approval. Until we can reinstate this, we are condemned to skirmishes and fights to the death and taking the body politic or its economy hostage.
A president without such authority will have to watch as his reorganization proposals work their way through a Congress that is at present unable to agree on much of anything.
What we need to reinstate is the ability to live in the same universe, the ability to construct a moral and factual and theoretical universe that we all can belong to. Part of this universe would be a general agreement on what the President gets to do without congressional input or approval. Until we can reinstate this, we are condemned to skirmishes and fights to the death and taking the body politic or its economy hostage.
15
"Part of this universe would be a general agreement on what the President gets to do without congressional input or approval."
Aye, there's the rub. The majority of Americans do not want Obama's immigration diktat to be implemented. But he is tone deaf to that because he knows "he is right". Yup. Many similar diktats emanating from his Office.
How much input did Congress have in Obamacare? Almost none. As Ms. Pelosi famously said "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." That will go down as the insane quote of the century. Right up there with Jonathan Gruber's "we passed it because the American public is stupid." Almost nobody read the bill and it was railroaded thru a congress without a single Republican vote. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Yup.
Getting control of healthcare is the No. 1 tenant of the Saul Alinsky crowd, which Obama belongs to, and thus he needed to forget his promise on immigration as his No. 1 priority when he was elected to secure the first step in societal control.
I don't want the president to have more power. Obama has already taken too much of it. I want who ever is president to have less and Congress and the courts to have more.
Aye, there's the rub. The majority of Americans do not want Obama's immigration diktat to be implemented. But he is tone deaf to that because he knows "he is right". Yup. Many similar diktats emanating from his Office.
How much input did Congress have in Obamacare? Almost none. As Ms. Pelosi famously said "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." That will go down as the insane quote of the century. Right up there with Jonathan Gruber's "we passed it because the American public is stupid." Almost nobody read the bill and it was railroaded thru a congress without a single Republican vote. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Yup.
Getting control of healthcare is the No. 1 tenant of the Saul Alinsky crowd, which Obama belongs to, and thus he needed to forget his promise on immigration as his No. 1 priority when he was elected to secure the first step in societal control.
I don't want the president to have more power. Obama has already taken too much of it. I want who ever is president to have less and Congress and the courts to have more.
7
Paul, like most Republicans forgets about the months of negotiations that went into the ACA. He forgets about the "gang of 6." He forgets Obama took single payer off the table from the get go and gave up the public option. He forgets about the over 100 Republican amendments in the ACA.
And he has the nerve to say Congress had almost no input.
Then he flogs one of the Republicans pet myths about what Pelosi said. Here is what happened.:
"Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-he...
And he has the nerve to say Congress had almost no input.
Then he flogs one of the Republicans pet myths about what Pelosi said. Here is what happened.:
"Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.
“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-he...
7
"What goes around comes around." Precisely. And I hope I'm around long enough to see a Democratic Congress do to a Republican President what this Congress has done to this President. When minority-leader MCConnell declared that he and his caucus "aren't going to do business with this President" before Mr. Obama was even inaugurated he set a tone for divided government that may take generations to correct.
329
You have already seen it. The Democrat Congress, as led by Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi, did exactly the same things to Republican President George W. Bush throughout the 2000's.
This is recent history.
This is recent history.
1
As much as most share those sentiments, that would be(as it has been) an act of terrible ignorance of incalculable value, affecting the lives of 300 million people and the rest of the world. If a policy is just, deeply deliberated, and is supported by our best empirical evidence, then Democrats will generally support it. There's too much at stake, the magnitude incomprehensibly large. Democrats understand this. The damage is done. Things don't come around-which you know as well. And what would teaching them a lesson do? Can they learn? Will they suddenly become wise? No, you won't be around long enough for that. The people must vote them out.
6
Stu, While I also have the same feelings of revenge, it would just perpetuate a situation that will do disservice to all Americans. See also today's article on the ebbing primacy of the US due to infighting.
Not you - but those so eager to see US security threatened by the Iran deal do not see that it it OUR OWN congress that threatens our security by weakening any confidence that the US is still able to lead.
There is a German expression: Wenn zwei sich streiten freut sich der Dritte (When 2 are fighting, the 3rd person wins). Who will that 3rd 'person' be? China? ISIS? Climate?
So we better think as a nation - not as the hurt individuals we are.
Not you - but those so eager to see US security threatened by the Iran deal do not see that it it OUR OWN congress that threatens our security by weakening any confidence that the US is still able to lead.
There is a German expression: Wenn zwei sich streiten freut sich der Dritte (When 2 are fighting, the 3rd person wins). Who will that 3rd 'person' be? China? ISIS? Climate?
So we better think as a nation - not as the hurt individuals we are.
16