The Presidency and the Bully Pulpit

Public Opinion — April 22, 1874 (Photo credit: Cornell University Library)

Bully pulpit, a term first coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, refers to a political office, specifically the White House, as a powerful platform from which to advocate a political agenda. In other words, the President of the United States is in the position to use his office to rally public support or sway public. Currently, Pres. Barack Obama has been using the bully pulpit in an attempt to educate the American people concerning public policy .

The framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended the president to have the power to influence public opinion in the way advancements in communication technology now allows. However, the framers never intended for women to vote or for for the United States to declare itself the worlds policemen. Nevertheless, here we are. Do you believe it is appropriate for the modern president to leapfrog the Congress and talk directly to the American people in order to influence public opinion on public policy?

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• “Not Even Close”: Obama’s Got A Bigger Mandate Than The GOP, And A Bully Pulpit (bell-book-candle.com)
• President Barack Obama: Calling out bullies from the bully pulpit (thesunnews.typepad.com)

A More Perfect Union

Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 2005: Situation in South Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana near Empire, Buras and Boothville, United States of America (2005-08-29, 7:10 EDT). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A few years ago hurricane Katrina left us wondering how such a tragedy could happen in America; not the winds, the rain, or the storm surge, not even the broken levees.  The failure and frustrations related to relief efforts are what prompted us to ask how such a thing could happen here.  This time it’s the fiasco in the wake of hurricane Sandy.  People are without power, water, shelter, and hope.  Despite the best efforts of many, and despite the generosity of millions, there is simply not enough being done fast enough to keep children warm and safe at night across New Jersey and New York.  New York!  Rudy Giuliani, America’s Mayor (so dubbed after 9/11), is blaming the federal government, FEMA, and by extension President Obama.  Others are pointing the finger at the state governments of New York and New Jersey, local governments included, for not having plans in place for such an event and for not having the resources required to respond effectively to such a disaster.

But, let us be fair.  People are standing on line across the Northeast waiting for gasoline.  Gasoline is a commodity that is privately produced and distributed by the private sector—the same oil companies that have been posting record profits throughout the nation’s greatest recession.  Government has virtually nothing to do with local gasoline supplies or pricing.  In the same light, non-governmental charitable organizations are providing what they can, but it’s obviously not enough.  Organizations like the Red Cross are responding admirably—as always.  There are web sites, hash tags, text messages and celebrity, all-star, concerts raising tens of millions of dollars for the relief effort.  But almost two weeks after the storm there are still families without generators or shelter.  Why are we not blaming Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, Target, and every other retailer of basic goods for NOT rolling out the truck convoys with emergency supplies for storm victims?  Why are hotels and motels across the region refusing to accommodate storm victims unless they can pay up front (they are not willing to wait for FEMA reimbursement)?  Take notice people.

We live in a nation that depends on the combined capacity of government, the private sector, and non-governmental, not-for-profit, organizations to produce and allocate all of the things we need to live the lives we live.  We are just coming out of a long campaign year and we know who the President will be for the next four years.  We know which party will control the House of Representatives.  And we know we will be subjected to politics-as-usual—both sides arguing about the proper role and size of government.  My suggestion:  Force President Obama and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to meet and talk about recovery in the wreckage of a family home somewhere in Staten Island, New York.  Surround them with families and small business owners that have been wiped out by the storm (have Mitt Romney sit there and listen just for good measure).  And, finally, don’t let them leave until they strike a deal that last longer than the photo-op.

We the People, of the United States of America, in order to
form a more perfect union . . .

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• 40,000 Homeless & Freezing in Nyc - Fema Failing Miserably (theburningplatform.com)
• Hurricane Relief: Staten Island, Queens And West Village Residents Feel Neglected In Sandy’s Wake (huffingtonpost.com)
• Giuliani: Where the hell are the generators? (hotair.com)

The Daily Show: Republican Candidate Said What About Rape Now?

Richard Mourdock forgets the first law of fetus club.

Government is the Problem, Not the Solution?

Federal Emergency Management Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, works together with state and local emergency management officials to coordinate governmental responses to disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities  in the United States.  In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, FEMA can provide food, water, shelter and medical assistance for disaster victims as well as longer-term recovery assistance through low-interest loans to businesses and homeowners. FEMA has been involved in recovery efforts following natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires, and following man-made disasters, such as the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003 and the September 11th terrorist attacks.

However, half the country believes the government, specifically the federal government, is never the solution and always the problem. Yet, they were silent during the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, the September 11th terrorist attacks, the destruction caused by hurricane Irene, and now the inevitable devistation of hurrican Issac. Moreover, the governor of any state impacted by a disaster will only receive assistance if they declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. Not surprisingly, all the governors representing states impacted by hurricane Issac have accepted the serviced of the federal government despite the fact that some have openly questioned the purpose and function of such services in the past.  Clay Bennett posted a cartoon on his blog with timesfreepress.com which raises a serious question concerning the function of government and federal assistance.  Is government the solution or the problem? Is there a state in the union that is truly self-sufficient?

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• With Hurricane Isaac Coming, Everyone Asks the Wrong Question (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Obama ’causes more misery than natural disasters’ (wnd.com)

The Colbert Report: Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Are the Dynamish Duo

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan share their deepest, innermost policies with one another — and if people elect them, they may even share those policies with constituents.

 

The Tool of Taxation

Old hammer during reconstruction of the building in Pleszew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In graduate school a professor of mine often referred to the “toolbox of government.”  The characterization must have resonated with me because I still use it in my own classes almost fifteen years later.  Of course he was referring to the variety of actions that governments at all levels have at their disposal to implement and otherwise enforce public policy.  For our purposes we can narrow the contents of the “toolbox” down to the bare minimum:

• The power of government to deprive a person of liberty (think incarceration and in the most extreme form, the death penalty)—the hammer.
• The power of government to deprive a person of property (think real property and money)—the hammer.

Confused?  Don’t be.  Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) is credited with expressing the position that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  In this regard the power to tax is the power to punish those who violate the law, ignore regulations, or otherwise challenge the general welfare—the hammer.  The power to tax citizens and residents, businesses, corporations, is generally available to most governments—from Congress to your local water district.  Check your text books, one of the first concurrent or shared powers listed is the power to tax.  Moreover, taxes are ubiquitous—fees: taxes; assessments: taxes; dues: taxes; levies: taxes; taxes: taxes.  The power to tax is the power of government to deprive.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) , much will be made of the taxation aspect of the now upheld health care reform package—especially the individual mandate, which requires people capable of paying for health insurance to do so or risk a penalty (tax).  What do you think, is it the most intrusive tax ever devised by government (in this case by democrats)?  Is it a new tax?  Is it a tax increase (even though it only applies to people who don’t buy their own health insurance—and wouldn’t we otherwise call these people free-riders or equate them to people who don’t buy car insurance and drive up all of our rates)?  With all the hammers we get hit with every day, is this the one we’re really going to object to?  Ouch!  I know how to fix it; where’s my hammer?!

–DENNIS FALCON

Video Glossary: Iron Triangles

Pork as Federal Spending; The Eternal Conundrum?

In the context of the federal budget the term “pork” generally refers to spending at the state and local levels that members of Congress are able to claim as evidence of their hard work on behalf of their constituents.  It goes without saying that members of Congress share the belief that “bringing home the bacon” increases the likelihood that  they will win reelection.  All one has to do is look for signs in their community that proclaim “YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT
WORK, funded in part by . . . .”  I dare say we usually appreciate the work being done. After all, don’t we all like road improvements, new libraries, and better policing?  Add national entitlement programs like social security and Medicare—and don’t forget military spending—to that list and voila, you have the federal budget.

That’s just on the spending side.  What about the revenue side?  Individual and corporate income taxes provide almost 51 percent of federal revenues (42 percent and 9 percent respectively).  In 2010, the federal  government collected $2.2 TRILLION in receipts from these and other sources.  That can buy a lot of “pork.”  Wait . . . it does buy a lot of pork.  The problem is that one person’s bacon (pork), lettuce, and tomato sandwich (in the form of some federally funded project or another) is another person’s social security check.  A federal dollar spent on one project is a federal dollar that can’t be spent on another. One person’s gain; one community’s gain, is another’s loss.  What one sees as our tax dollars at work another may see as our federal taxes being wasted.  After all, why should my taxes help build a bridge in Oregon (I live, work, and pay taxes in California)?  That’s the dilemma.  If there were enough money to go around we wouldn’t be having this and many other conversations.  But there isn’t.  Federal revenues are being strained by unemployment at the same time that the costs of government programs are rising in leaps and bounds.  And as long as members of Congress see spending federal money at home as their constitutionally granted prerogative there will be a strain that affects all of us (see Matthew Frank’s Blog posted on the Missoula Independent for an example of the thinking in Congress).  Is there an alternative to the system of pork barrel politics that drives much of federal spending?  Other than a threatened presidential veto, can you think of other checks that can be used to reduce the temptation on members of Congress to spend federal funds on projects that might be funded at the state or local level (or maybe even by private sources)?  We could use some help about now.

–DENNIS FALCON

Bully Pulpit

Bully pulpit, a term first coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, refers to a political office, specifically the White House, as a powerful platform from which to advocate a political agenda. In other words, the President of the United States is in the position to use his office to rally public support or sway public. Currently, Pres. Barack Obama has been using the bully pulpit in an attempt to educate the American people concerning the perils of a U.S. default.  If the U.S. defaults on its debt obligations, interest rates could skyrocket at the very least while faith in the world’s premier economy could be shatter sending global stock markets plunging at the very most.

William Howell of CNN posted a blog outlining the different roles the Congress and the present play when formulating policy. Nonetheless, the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended the president to have the power to influence public opinion in the way advancements in communication technology now allows. Do you believe it is appropriate for the modern president to leapfrog the Congress and talk directly to the American people in order to influence public opinion on public policy?

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Congressional Riders—the Budget Battle Over Ideas

According to many observers, the impending government shutdown of 2011 has less to do with actual government spending priorities and more to do with the battle over social issues that have been at the center of partisan and ideological battles going back more than thirty years.  From the public funding of abortions and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the Department of Education and Head Start, Democrats and Republicans alike have used a variety of social issues to divide the American electorate.  Wedge-issue politics is nothing new.  What is surprising is that leaders from both parties believe that a divisive and caustic budget battle in 2011 will bear fruit in the elections of 2012.

Many observers believe that a compromise over budget numbers is being held hostage over the inclusion of legislative riders—riders are specific provisions in a bill that are often intended to impact a potential executive veto of the overall bill—regarding social policies such as those mentioned above.  The Obama White House has no intention of placing core constituencies on the chopping block of the federal budget; but it also wants to avoid a government shutdown that will have unknown political consequences in the 2012 elections.  In the immediate sense, a government shut-down will impact a number of key constituencies such as soldiers and other federal workers who will not receive their regular pay checks.  Ironically, as Maureen Miller points out by quoting humorist Andy Borowitz “That’s like eliminating the fire department & sending checks to the arsonists,” referring to the fact that members of Congress will nonetheless receive their full pay uninterrupted.

Is there a better way to run a government?  Did the Framers really envision a government that would embrace a politics of posturing and gridlock—i.e., politics?  Better yet, is this what a government not wholly captured by one or more factions looks like in real life?  I wonder.

–DENNIS FALCON