Does the President Alone Have the Power to Heal the Economy?

In some areas — such as energy and immigration — he can make big changes unilaterally. On the economy, it’s much harder.

National Journal
Catherine Hollander
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Catherine Hollander
Nov. 7, 2013, 4 p.m.

Two years ago, Pres­id­ent Obama de­clared to the res­id­ents of an east­ern Las Ve­gas neigh­bor­hood, “We can’t wait for an in­creas­ingly dys­func­tion­al Con­gress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” Weeks earli­er, GOP law­makers had blocked Obama’s $447 bil­lion Amer­ic­an Jobs Act.

The first of­fi­cially “We Can’t Wait” ac­tion that Obama took, an­nounced in that speech, was to make it easi­er for some homeown­ers to re­fin­ance their mort­gages. Since then, the ad­min­is­tra­tion has taken an ad­di­tion­al 43 solo steps to “sup­port middle-class Amer­ic­ans,” ac­cord­ing to the White House web­site. These range from a re­cess ap­point­ment of Richard Cordray to head the Con­sumer Fin­an­cial Pro­tec­tion Bur­eau to in­vest­ing $4 bil­lion in mak­ing build­ings more en­ergy ef­fi­cient. Oth­er ini­ti­at­ives are in the works.

But the White House can’t — and hasn’t — moved the needle on the na­tion’s slug­gish growth and high un­em­ploy­ment with these man­euvers. What the ad­min­is­tra­tion can do by go­ing it alone is to af­fect a tar­geted group of in­di­vidu­als (as it did by in­tro­du­cing new wage and over­time pro­tec­tions for roughly 2 mil­lion home-care work­ers in Decem­ber 2011), speed up spend­ing on cer­tain pro­jects, try to make the gov­ern­ment more ef­fi­cient, and set the stage for fu­ture in­nov­a­tion. These steps are not eco­nom­ic game-changers in the short term.

Eco­nom­ic ex­pect­a­tions for the we-can’t-wait ac­tions were al­ways small in scope, even with­in the ad­min­is­tra­tion. White House Com­mu­nic­a­tions Dir­ect­or Dan Pfeif­fer ex­plained when the ini­ti­at­ive was launched, “These steps aren’t a sub­sti­tute for the bold ac­tion we need to cre­ate jobs and grow the eco­nomy, but they’ll make a dif­fer­ence.”

It’s not the only place the ad­min­is­tra­tion has staked a go-it-alone strategy. Na­tion­al Journ­al re­por­ted last month how Obama’s use of his ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity on gun con­trol, cli­mate change, health care, and na­tion­al se­cur­ity made him one of the most power­ful pres­id­ents ever. But on the eco­nomy, the pres­id­ent can only nibble around the mar­gins without Con­gress, and even there, the im­pact is tough to see in the data. “I would give the ini­ti­at­ives a high grade, but I would ap­ply it to a very small corner of the prob­lem,” says Jared Bern­stein, a former eco­nom­ic ad­viser to Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden. “In terms of mov­ing the macro eco­nomy, they tend to be of too small a scale.”

It’s clear from look­ing at the White House list how small-scale many of the items have been. The $4 bil­lion in­vest­ment in en­ergy ef­fi­ciency is just 0.024 per­cent of the $16.6 tril­lion U.S. eco­nomy; an­oth­er move freed up $473 mil­lion for in­fra­struc­ture pro­jects.

Kath­ar­ine Ab­ra­ham, who was a mem­ber of the White House Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers from 2011 to 2013, groups the ac­tions in­to four broad cat­egor­ies: put­ting more money in­to con­sumers’ pock­ets; mak­ing the en­vir­on­ment bet­ter for busi­ness; mak­ing gov­ern­ment more ef­fect­ive; and ac­cel­er­at­ing in­vest­ment in trans­port­a­tion and in­fra­struc­ture.

Eco­nom­ists in­ter­viewed by Na­tion­al Journ­al said the last of those ob­ject­ives has the most prom­ise for boost­ing the strug­gling re­cov­ery be­cause it can provide an im­me­di­ate in­fu­sion of cash in­to the eco­nomy. Con­sumers might in­ject some new life in­to the eco­nomy with ex­tra money in their pock­ets from, say, re­fin­an­cing or get­ting a sum­mer job through a new pro­gram aimed at young people. A more ef­fi­cient gov­ern­ment is cer­tainly an ad­mir­able aim, but elim­in­at­ing in­ef­fi­cien­cies could also re­duce jobs, off­set­ting some of the eco­nom­ic be­ne­fits of pro­ductiv­ity.

The Na­tion­al Ad­dit­ive Man­u­fac­tur­ing In­nov­a­tion In­sti­tute, a pub­lic-private part­ner­ship and the first of 15 in­cub­at­or-type man­u­fac­tur­ing in­sti­tutes the White House wants to cre­ate, is one we-can’t-wait ini­ti­at­ive that eco­nom­ists say might help re­vive the eco­nomy. NAMII spe­cial­izes in 3-D print­ing, a tech­no­logy that is seen as re­volu­tion­ary but has a num­ber of kinks to be worked out. The hope is to spur a tech­no­lo­gic­al re­volu­tion and breathe new life in­to man­u­fac­tur­ing. This is a long-term hope.

With the short term in mind, the White House an­nounced in early 2012 a pi­lot pro­gram to help small-busi­ness ex­port­ers gain cred­it and a more stream­lined pro­cess for ex­port­ers look­ing to delay or re­duce duty pay­ments on for­eign mer­chand­ise. “They’ve done … some smart things on man­u­fac­tur­ing, and we’ve seen some growth in the sec­tor,” Bern­stein says. (Man­u­fac­tur­ing activ­ity ex­pan­ded for the fifth-straight month in Oc­to­ber, ac­cord­ing to the latest In­sti­tute for Sup­ply Man­age­ment na­tion­al sur­vey.) “Are they re­lated? You know, maybe a little bit at the mar­gin, but I wouldn’t push it too far.”

The White House says it’s try­ing to move the ball for­ward any way it can, in the hopes that these small steps will add up to something big over time, demon­strate to Con­gress the po­ten­tial of cer­tain ini­ti­at­ives, and help a chunk of Amer­ic­ans in the mean­time. A few, says a seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial, have the po­ten­tial to trans­form the eco­nomy. NAMII is one; Se­lect­USA, a Com­merce-State De­part­ment ef­fort to en­cour­age for­eign and do­mest­ic com­pan­ies to in­vest in the U.S., re­quired a re­or­gan­iz­a­tion of the gov­ern­ment, one that could per­man­ently change the way busi­ness is done, the of­fi­cial said.

Even if growth is stuck for now, it’s polit­ic­ally smart for the White House to fo­cus on the eco­nomy. Ac­cord­ing to the Pew Re­search Cen­ter, 86 per­cent of the pub­lic in Janu­ary ranked “strength­en­ing the eco­nomy” as a top pri­or­ity for Con­gress and the White House in 2013, al­though the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s act-uni­lat­er­ally at­ti­tude has drawn cri­ti­cism from the Right for sub­vert­ing reg­u­lar pro­cesses.

A White House fo­cus alone isn’t enough. In terms of the mac­roe­conomy, the White House has lim­ited powers. It needs Con­gress to get in­to the act.

What We're Following See More »
Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
1 days ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
2 days ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
2 days ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
2 days ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
2 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.