Obama’s Threat of Executive Action Won’t Help the Economy

The White House can talk all it wants about executive action but Congress still calls the shots on the big issues.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 21: President Barack Obama signs a bill in the Oval Office at the White House, on November 21, 2013 in Washington, DC. President Obama signed three bills titled H.R. 2747, Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act, S. 330, HIV Organ Policy Equity Act, and S. 893, Veterans Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act of 2013. 
National Journal
James Oliphant
Jan. 20, 2014, midnight

The pres­id­ent re­cently has be­come fond of say­ing he has a “pen and a phone.” And while it’s tempt­ing to snarkily sug­gest that all he needs now is a laptop and a cof­fee mug to put him on the same level as every in­tern in Amer­ica, there is a prom­ise — or a threat — be­hind those words.

What Pres­id­ent Obama is really talk­ing about is power. Seni­or White House aides have pledged that this will be the “Year of Ac­tion” — and it’s a phrase the pub­lic will be hear­ing both be­fore and after the State of the Uni­on ad­dress next week and likely dur­ing it. The pen, aides say, is used to sign ex­ec­ut­ive or­ders, ac­tions to im­ple­ment policy in areas where Con­gress hasn’t le­gis­lated. The phone, they say, is used to rally sup­port, to bring in out­side groups from around the coun­try to push Con­gress to do more.

The White House sought to use that pres­sure earli­er this month when it im­por­ted some strug­gling Amer­ic­ans for an event to dram­at­ize the need to ex­tend un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance. But that event ex­posed the prob­lem with the phone, no mat­ter on whose desk it sits: The tac­tic didn’t work. Con­gress re­mains dead­locked over ex­tend­ing those be­ne­fits and a solu­tion, when or if it comes, won’t be be­cause of an ad­min­is­tra­tion photo-op. And it also re­veals the short­com­ings of the pen: Obama can’t ex­tend those be­ne­fits him­self. Those people are hurt­ing, and the pres­id­ent can’t do a thing about it.

That’s just one ex­ample, but it un­der­scores the chal­lenge the White House faces as it seeks to ap­pear pro-act­ive in the face of a do-little Con­gress. When ex­amples of ex­ec­ut­ive power and pres­id­en­tial au­thor­ity are used in the con­text of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, they’re of­ten cited by con­ser­vat­ives fear­fully wringing their hands about some per­ceived tyr­an­nic­al power grab. But there are real lim­its to what this pres­id­ent can do, es­pe­cially on the eco­nomy: le­gis­lat­ive ones, leg­al ones, prag­mat­ic ones. It means the ad­min­is­tra­tion has to talk big while walk­ing small or risk be­ing viewed as in­ef­fec­tu­al.

If the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s “Year of Ac­tion” rol­lout sounds fa­mil­i­ar, it’s be­cause this is an old product that’s been reshelved and wrapped in a new and im­proved pack­age. Ever since Re­pub­lic­ans took the House in 2010, Obama has been sound­ing the same note over and over again. “We Can’t Wait” was a battle cry forged dur­ing a Mid­west­ern bus tour three years ago when the pres­id­ent was try­ing to build sup­port for his Amer­ic­an Jobs Act. He gave speech after speech ur­ging Amer­ic­ans to press Con­gress to pass the le­gis­la­tion. The act, es­sen­tially a $450 bil­lion stim­u­lus pro­pos­al, rode a bul­let train to nowhere.

Since then, the ad­min­is­tra­tion has un­veiled a series of small-bore eco­nom­ic ini­ti­at­ives that, while well in­ten­ded, likely can only make a dif­fer­ence at the mar­gins. The first was a $4 bil­lion in­vest­ment in mak­ing build­ings more en­ergy-ef­fi­cient. The most re­cent came last week in North Car­o­lina, where Obama launched a pub­lic-private “in­nov­a­tion hub” in­ten­ded to de­vel­op tech­no­lo­gies that could even­tu­ally lead to new man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs. It wasn’t ex­actly the kind of dir­ect in­vest­ment in a “shovel-ready” in­fra­struc­ture job that Obama has long ad­voc­ated, something he con­ceded in his re­marks. “This is go­ing to be a long haul,” he said. A query to the White House about how many jobs had been cre­ated na­tion­ally by the “We Can’t Wait” pro­gram went un­answered.

But small ball may be the best game for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to play. Every time it has gone lar­ger, it has cour­ted con­tro­versy, as when the pres­id­ent uni­lat­er­ally de­cided to stop en­for­cing de­port­a­tion man­dates for cer­tain chil­dren of il­leg­al im­mig­rants, to al­low them to stay in the coun­try, or the in­dustry fur­or caused by the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency’s new re­straints on coal-fired power plans.

And that’s an­oth­er reas­on ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions are risky: Many lead to lit­ig­a­tion. Those EPA rules will likely be tied up in fed­er­al court, per­haps for years. Just last week, the Su­preme Court heard a chal­lenge to Obama’s re­cess ap­point­ments to the Na­tion­al Labor Re­la­tions Board — an ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion that very well could be re­versed, to the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s em­bar­rass­ment. In the very same week, a fed­er­al Ap­peals Court in­val­id­ated Obama-era Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion rules that re­quired In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders to treat all traffic equally.

It might be no sur­prise, then, that when Obama’s press sec­ret­ary, Jay Car­ney, was asked last week wheth­er — as part of the “Year of Ac­tion” — the pres­id­ent would be even more ag­gress­ive on im­mig­ra­tion policy, con­sid­er­ing that re­form bills re­main stalled on the Hill, he de­murred. “The way to ad­dress all of these is­sues is through com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form,” Car­ney said — not, he im­plied, through uni­lat­er­al ac­tion.

Re­mem­ber, this is an ad­min­is­tra­tion that in­sisted it did not have the power to raise the debt ceil­ing by it­self, that asked Con­gress to rat­i­fy its de­cision to strike Syr­ia, that is now seek­ing its help to un­tangle coun­terter­ror­ism sur­veil­lance policy, and that has dragged out its ex­ec­ut­ive dis­cre­tion so long on ap­prov­ing the Key­stone XL pipeline that some Re­pub­lic­ans are try­ing to pass bills to force it to act.

Yes, the pres­id­ent has a pen, and it’s a nice one. But there re­mains the ques­tion of how much ink there’s really left in it.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×