Getty Images
We'll know soon enough exactly what President Obama intends to propose as part of his State of the Union address, but it's a very safe bet that he'll talk quite a bit about the economy and his proposals to strengthen the recovery.
But Josh Green makes a point that bears repeating from time to time: in order to improve the economy, a president needs Congress.
Any stimulus measure to boost growth and create jobs must pass the Republican-controlled House, which is not only allergic to additional spending but primarily focused on imposing further cuts. Recognizing this reality, White House advisers told Bloomberg News that, rather than go through Congress, Obama will attempt to go around it -- to "circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power."
Okay, sounds promising. So are there executive actions that Obama can take that will meaningfully grow the economy and create new jobs? "No," says Robert Shapiro, chairman of the economic advisory firm Sonecon and a former Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration. "These are big problems, large obstacles, big challenges. I don't think there's anything within the executive powers of the president that doesn't require legislation and would have a measurable effect on jobs. He's got to go through Congress."
When Green asked Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, what the president can do, he replied, "Oh boy. There's nothing I can think of that would let the president meaningfully turn the dial on jobs by himself."
I imagine for many Americans, this is terribly unsatisfying. Obama is the president of the United States. He's the leader of the free world. He's arguably the most powerful individual on the planet. If he has a plan to create a stronger, more robust economy, then surely it is within his power to do so, right?
Wrong.
This is poses all kinds of problems for a White House, some substantive, some political.
Substantively, of course, a president may have all kinds of sound, credible ideas to create jobs and generate growth, endorsed by economists and backed by a record of success, but if Congress refuses to act, it won't make any difference. In Obama's case, he looks down Pennsylvania Avenue and sees a House majority that believes the economy will improve once we slash investments, lay off workers, and convince the Fed to tighten domestic monetary policy.
Sure, that's insane, but it also makes it literally impossible for a White House to even try to make things better.
Politically, it must be nearly as frustrating for a president -- many Americans say they're unsatisfied with Obama's economic agenda, unaware of the fact that we're no longer really trying Obama's economic agenda.
And with so much of the public unaware of the fact that a president must gain congressional approval to do anything of great economic significance, the White House gets blamed for Congress' dysfunction, radicalism, and neglect.
So when you watch the State of the Union tonight, and you see Obama present a vision for a stronger economy, don't look at it as an agenda so much as a request that Congress act responsibly. Alas, it's an appeal lawmakers are likely to ignore -- again.
Leave a Comment:
I thought that the EPA had the ability to impose fines on pollution and that it has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant.
This can have a tremendous effect on domestic jobs if CO2 pollution content of foreign produced products is fined. So for example, European goods would not have EPA "tarrifs" but those from China would.
My point is that providing trade incentives for domestic jobs, and to incentivize investment in domestic green manufacturing capacity requires no congresional action. EPA rule making and fine mechanism regulating and fining pollution standards is executive branch authority, relying on existing pollution laws stretching back to the seventies.
This is highly unconventional, and not the kind of policy that analysts like Zandi have grown to accept as the range of Presidential latitude. But as Chuck Hagel is fond of pointing out- oftentimes the boundaries of what we regard as the range of conventional responses become perceived degrees of freedom of action.
The range of the conventional is transformed by lazy mental habit into a self imposed fictional prison.
While Congress needs to act on an energy policy that includes an economic boost and the national defense justifications, that very same Congress believes to the last dollar of its campaign donations that Congress and its lobbyist know best.
It would be a fool's errand to point out those business interest groups, the energy industry, and the revenue cutters running the insane asylum have not realized 'actual' profits. The numbers show huge profits, so much profit, that you have stand way, way back to gasp that these profits are not showing up as investments. Yes, we see that profits are great, huge and look like a whole mountain range of profits, off in the distance these mountains majesty, make a pretty picture. Absent is the spring runoff, flowing to the fertile value, and renewing production, irrigating new sprouts.
How do I know this?
In macro-economic terms (means simple) 1) interest is paid for monies borrowed, 2) where those borrowed monies are 3) invested in real profit making ventures, 4) those profits go to pay the interest.
If there is 1) Zero interest charged for, 2) borrowing money, for 3) investments in profit free ventures, 4) there are no profits needed to pay Zero interest. What so compelling about that? Its free money, borrowed for no cost, invested nowhere for profit, and paid back by more free money.
'Actual' profits are not going to come from the few sane people locked in the asylum, while world goes nuts believing that a Zero interest rate is going to move money into the risk taking investments. (Zero interest = Zero risk)
How could you move money into the risk taking investments? Just sitting there as we are doing is not working. Only action like forcing banks to pay 5% interest on accounts would get the bankers attention to look for investments with a return of 5%, Zero % won't work. Or action like taxing profits that are not being used in profit making investment, business sitting on cash holdings could charge itself Zero % interest and shuffle paper, but if those profits were taxed at 5%, the paper shuffling would stop, getting the business attention to look for investments with a return of 5%, Zero % won't work.
In both cases made here is the process of 'getting the attention to look for investments with a return of 5%', is the essence of a banking and business system, where risk is assessed and money ventured and profits returned. You could look at giving the banker and businesses the Job of doing this; they should submit their resumes for review. You could look at giving the Senate and House the Job of doing this; they should submit their resumes for review.
The problem is that both groups refuse to take the Job, now think about the prospects of Congress refusing to do it's Job along with the Business sector refusing to do its Job.
Congress blocks Congress.
Bankers blocks Banking.
Business blocks Business.
Elaine Chao...bush years, ..deregulated oil and gas companys:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=elaine+chao+deregulated+oil+and+gas&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7SNNT_enUS431US431
How are these concerns relevant if Congress is unnecessary to implement the implementation I described? The only lobbying possible is within the regulatory regime attempting to manipulate EPA's rule making. This would be ineffective in the scenario of focused White House attention to the progress of the rule making.
laws, republicans have these laws to follow:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
"Cheney's Law".
Congress must approve funding for it.
What do you mean? Congress already has provided funding for EPA enforcement, and that is all the proposal entails: enforcement of EPA restrictions, using the mechanism of fines to bring companies into compliance regarding a substance it has already declared is a pollutant: CO2.
No new law is required. Congress is out of the loop. If you disagree, show me where I have erred.
Let the battle for our future be engaged!
Suggestion for all committed politicos out there:
Organize in 30 districts nation-wide where Republicans currently hold incumbency. Target the 30 least gerrymandered, and bring political pressure daily to these Reps.' districts in the form of questions, demands and clarifications regarding their obstructionist strategies holding us back from a more prosperous future!
Then, find credible candidates to run against them, that is if they survive their primaries! If the incumbents get primaried, their district will no doubt end up in the Democrat aisle, and that is what we need to win our future!
Go for a complete Republican turnover in the House in 2014, and target the Senate Republicans up for re-election too! -Kevo
Republican party + Keystone/Boehner connection:
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201180005
John boehner in the pockets of millionaires.
While the President is unable to enact or expand programs without Congressional approval, we might look to the wacky accounting and repurposing of TARP and other bailout mechanisms for a solution. The President could lean on the Fed to adjust policies that would help smaller financial entities and boost lending to small businesses, change the balance in its mandate of curtailing inflation at the expense of employment. Hell, opening up the lending window to better actors than Goldman and Bank of America would probably have a net positive effect on the economy.
It's hard to tell what credible enforcement by the SEC and Justice Department against financial fraud would mean for the economy, but confidence in our markets is certainly a long-term good that we should hope for.
It also seems like there are some accounts still chock full of unspent (or paid back) bailout funds that could conceivably be used to good purpose and still stay within the original congressional appropriations language.
Outside of everything else, the executive branch has the almost exclusive purview over foreign policy and trade. Addressing unfair trade practices and enforcing existing protections in trade agreements is something the President is expected to do without running to congress.
Just an observation, after reading all of today's blog posts I have come to the conclusion that the entire politico-economic elite in this nation is crazy, not mentally ill, but deliberately crazy. As economies collapse, as global climate change endangers the preservation of the species, as the American century starts crashing with a thud, the politico-economic elite plays word games and ego stroking. These are supposed to be our best and brightest yet their actions suggest they are all village idiots. Sorry, democracy cannot survive deliberate sabotage on top of greed, corruption, ignorance and incompetence.
Apparently creative thinking is in short supply in Washington.
It seems that the President can sent the nation into war without congressional approval. I suggest Obama declare a "War on Potholes", and send the 82nd Airborne into battle, armed with picks and shovels. Backed up by the SeaBees with heavy construction equipment, and the Air Force carpet bombing with asphalt.
As Good Will Hunting said, "How you like them apples?"
Econ 101 - the President while able to "represent US" abroad and make treaties in "our name" does NOT control the power of the purse! And because WE the people voted into office a bunch of over-grown 13 yr olds with limited attention spans, knowledge and understanding of basic government functionality - WE'RE screwed!
Oh great...
He's the leader of the free world.
True, whatever that means.
It's been a common refrain from the GOP that Obama won't lead, can't lead, he's a poor leader. But they don't want him to lead, and they won't let him, because every time Obama stakes out a position, the Right does something to try to undercut him. Boehner and the House really want to lead, but they can't because they can't get herd their own flock - Hence the disintegration of the Hastart Rule.
They can't lead, they won't follow, so the least they can do is get out of the way.
I've got to ask everyone here. What do we think Obama can really get done?
The 112th was the most do-nothing Congress in what? About 100 years? The balance of power in the 113th isn't any different.
So what can get done? We haven't even gotten immigration reform done yet, have we?
The executive branch of government has quite a lot of latitude in how it runs existing programs and departments. Congress occasionally tries to tightly circumscribe executive action through specific budget limits and closely worded enacting legislation, but that's fairly rare. For the most part, Congress tries to address executive actions that it doesn't like by passing further legislation, something that the current deadlock would work in the President's favor.
At a very micro scale, the President could simply order the relocation of a bunch of offices currently located in the very upscale Virginia 'burbs to relatively impoverished areas elsewhere- sudden economic stimulus through weird central planning.
There are two types of leaders. Those who direct actions based on their authority and those who lead by presenting a compelling vision that engages and inspires other to follow them in pursuit of that shared vision.
"I have a Dream... I believe that before the end of this decade.." are examples of this visionary leadership.
When our President goes out of Washington to engage the citizens in this country, he is engaging in that second and most effective type of leadership. That is why the GOP whines when he does it.
So when you watch the State of the Union tonight, and you see Obama present a vision for a stronger economy, don't look at it as an agenda so much as a request that Congress act responsibly. Alas, it's an appeal lawmakers are likely to ignore -- again.
So true Steve. The State of the Union speech is to me, just a glorified campaign speech. Most highlight past accomplishments and plans for grand things in the near future. And these comments are of course greeted with standing ovations many times, with a few hoots and hollers in the mix (which for some reason amuse me). And for the last couple of decades, the "invited guests" of the POTUS, First Lady, Congressmen, etc play much larger roles in the speech - as political props mostly.
The President will undoubtedly "hit it out of the ballpark" (LOVE that term in politics) like he usually does. But tommorrow it will be business as usual - the Republicans refusing to do anything the Democrats want and vice versa.
Ummmm....there is no "vice versa" about the" Republicans refusing to do anything the Democrats want and vice versa."
The "both sides do it" meme is getting rather tiresome and it is just not true. Republicans have refused to work with the President or the Democrats, and have even turned against the same policies that they were for because Obama agreed with them.
And if you think the state of the union is a "glorified campaign speech" perhaps you should do a bit of research:
http://www.thisnation.com/question/014.html
Donna,
There have been a few exceptions - as your link suggests, but in the past quarter of a century the speech really is to state your past accomplishments and proposed future legislation. Most times it is just that, as your link also suggests (see the second to last paragraph).
skippy,
There have been a few exceptions: that's all you got?
Come now, skipperz...surely you can do better than THAT after having been called out for yet another lie you posted...
With each act of obstructionism the Repubs garner more of the national scrutiny they can't withstand.
Keep going guys I'm more than willing to play out rope.
wait for it...
more shovel ready jobs!
Separate but equal right? The president is only limited by his political will.
Comcast has announced plans to buy out the remaining 49 percent of NBCUniversal currently owned by GE. It will pay $16.7 billion to assume full ownership of the media conglomerate. Furthermore, Comcast is tossing in another $1.4 billion to purchase properties currently operated by NBCUniversal at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City and CNBC’s headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
R. I. P. American Jobs Act of 2011.
While the president may not be able to raise Lazurus, he shouldn't attempt to knock him down.That's right, the president should take a type of Hippocrate's Oath. "First do no harm to the economy". Deficit spending, tax raisins, over regulation, crony capitalism and out of control social programs, well, they aren't helping.They're hurting economic recovery.Recent spikes in the market mean little after years of being a cellar dweller. Optimism is one thing, reality is yet another.
So tonight he will spin like a slick tire in a puddle, exaggerate, and hand off blame to the Opposition.He can rock on for a while thanks to his cohorts in the media (if you dare call them that).
Ladies, eventually a player is going to be exposed.The fancy threads and flashy smile, the silver tongue and romantic prose will end.The guy lives with his mommy and borrows his friends car and you my dear got flim-flammed and snookered. Oh the tangled web you weave!
I'm just elated that the good Lord gave me enough common sense to evacuate pee out of a boot with the blueprint on the sole, unlike my friends and neighbors on the other side of the aisle.
Sweetie, GWB han't been President since 2009!
The focus of this article is to say that despite how much of an economic genius Pres. Obama is, it's the CONGRESS that really controls what goes on economically. What an excellent way to shift blame away from the President, who for years has told how he's got a "laser focus" on jobs and how jobs is what he thinks about when he wakes up and before he goes to sleep. This was the President who told us the near trillion dollar economic stimulus bill would ensure the jobless rate would not exceed 8%. And after the passage of the bill the unemployment rate crept above 10%. Only recently has it moved under 8%.
During Bush's years as President, the unemployment rate stayed mostly below 6%. Only by around 2008-2009 did it start its move upward, which, incidently, corresponds with a time that the ECONOMICALLY ALL-IMPORTANT CONGRESS was in the hands of Reid and Pelosi.
Please provide a date for said promise by the President.
The increase in unemployment rose to 10% after the enactment of the legislation and prior to the monies being spent.
No mention of the Stock Market/financial implosion beginning in August 2008? I'm shocked - not!
If you insist on writing such drivel, especially as shown by your last paragraph, don't expect to be taken for anything other than your apparent true self - a troll.
10% was achieved late in 2009. But early in that year (the stimulus bill was signed Feb 17th) the stimulus was treated as such a pressing emergency that even a day's delay was beyond unacceptable to the Democrats. Yet the bill would not have an effect for many months afterward?
In mid-January of 2009 Obama touted the release of an economic report by incoming Administration advisers Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer which pushed the need for a stimulus bill to create jobs. Accompanying that report was the famous chart which projected the unemployment rate WITH the recovery plan vs. how the unemployment rate would increase WITHOUT the recovery plan. Certainly you recall Obama using a blow-up of that chart as he pressed for the passage of the stimulus bill.
My word that he "ensured" (ie promised) us the unemployment rate would not exceed 8% with the bill was perhaps a little too strong. The chart and report were accompanied by the requisite disclaimers as to the accuracy of the projections, but he certainly used the chart to push the bill.
filibuster....it:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/search-results?cx=012852851039939669615%3Ai48p-3mtx2s&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=filibuster&sa=Go%21
TheHowlingPig (above at 8.1) has Frédéric Bastiat turning over in his grave, I'm sure. He claims that economic stimulus can result (on a micro scale) simply by the President issuing an edict to relocate governmental offices into impoverished areas near the Capitol. Voila', economic stimulus.
I appeal to Zora Renee for more Econ 101, please. Your fellow liberals are sorely in need of SOMEONE to dissipate the mists of darkness.
This is my frustration with Obama as a creature of Washington. I support in and believe in most of his policies and voted for and worked for him to get elected and re-elected. But I get frustrated with stories like this and the blowup of the fiscal cliff in that he is not able to work out a deal with his political opponents that they will sign on to. He's so convinced that his way is right that he seems to expend too much capital trying to convince the other side that they are wrong (or make them look like loons) rather than coming up with a deal that the Repubs can buy into. It stupefies me that these folks can't see the political advantages of working together rather than politics as a zero sum game.
Is it remotely possible the markets performed better under Reagan Clinton and Obama than they did under Bush and Bush(although the first one had mixed results not utter disaster) because they were better at their job? Is that remotely possible?
Except you put Reagan in while ignoring that under Reagan 2 things happened, 1st the stock market crashed, under Reagan, the first time since 1929 and secondly the US went from the worlds leading loaner nation to the worlds leading borrowing nation. Really I don't know why you credit Reagan for being more then the one who created the whole failed economic plan that created the Bush disasters. Here is a clue S&L's crashed after Reagan deregulated them. Reagan was a failure who destroyed the countries economic stability and no matter how high you build a pedestal to prop his rotting corpse up he is still sewer scum.