We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations, President Obama declared this week that he does not need any approval or even consultation with Congress if he decides to commit us again to war again in Iraq.
As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that the President does not need congressional approval to do go back into combat and then matter-of-factly that in their brief conversation, the President “did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take.”
While we do not expect combat troops on the ground, the White House appears to be exploring an intervention with air power and possible special forces. The White House simply told Congress and the public to trust their uber president: “Any action that he might contemplate when it comes to … the use of military force will be to deal with the immediate and medium-term threat posed by ISIL.”
I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.
This week I debated the head of the Brennan Center at New York University on Obama’s unilateral actions and the dangers that they pose on the PBS program Newshour. While my co-guest repeatedly insisted that he is “not troubled” by the concentration of authority in the presidency, I again believe that Democrats will long regret that they support the rise of this uber presidency:
leejcaroll wrote “employment has continued to grow despite no jobs bill from the republicans”
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that all depends on what the definition of the word “grow” is.
First, I want to remind everyone that I am none of the following: libertarian, liberal, Republican, socialist, Democrat, Marxist, communist, fascist, Tea Party, or politically correct. I have beliefs that appear to be chosen from a Chinese restaurant menu, i.e. à la carte. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose a political party, I would choose the Bull Moose Party.
With all due respect, you, like most people, have swallowed the government line on how unemployment is measured. It would take me a few hours to find all of the links and expand this properly, so I won’t do it.
First, the country is growing and adds around 127,000 job-age people each month to the population. This is an average, obviously, because there is a large jump in May, June, and December. The point is that the economy must create 127,000 jobs each month just to maintain current employment.
-EPI: “Signs of healing in the labor market, though unemployment remains in double digits”
Second, if you peruse the monthly BLS report (BLS: “Employment Situation Summary”), you will notice some strange things. On many of the monthly BLS reports, 300,000-500,000 people were unceremoniously dropped from the ranks of the unemployed. So what happened to these people? Did they all win the lottery, inherit big bucks from a relative, marry a sugar daddy, or go to a Slender Man theme party? No, clearly what happened to them is that they became inconvenient to count, so the government simply dropped them. There are millions of these people.
Third, many people are only able to find part-time jobs. But how are these people counted? I know a woman who works three part-time jobs; does she account for three jobs created?
Fourth, the Labor Force Participation Rate is a much better indicator than the generally used (and generally useless) U-3. Look at this BLS graph (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000) and you will realize that the LFPR has dropped continuously through Obama’s time in office.
P.S. Many libertarians here believe that tax cuts create jobs. Search for the WSJ article “Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record.” It shows that ‘W’ had the worst job creation record since WWII. Since he lowered taxes, we can safely assume that there is NOT a positive relationship between job creation and tax cuts. This makes sense when you realize that globalization allows big-shots to create all new jobs in India, China, and other far-away places.
P.P.S Here are some articles to help some of you expand your horizons (it might help if you add “Felix Salmon” to the search keywords of the first two):
-Reuters: “Jobs: The summer’s over”
-Reuters: “The JP Morgan apologists of CNBC”
-TheSaucyMugwump: “American schadenfreude and the Senate Gang of Eight’s fraudulent immigration reform bill S.744”
-TheSaucyMugwump: “Debt follies, part 1”
-TheSaucyMugwump: “Debt follies, part 2”
-TheSaucyMugwump: “Senator Marco Rubio confuses capitalism with national interest”
-TheSaucyMugwump: “Intervene a TBTF bank for the best bank holiday”
Paul C, Do you have a quote?
SWM – no I don’t have the quote, just remember it happening.
SWM,
Minnesota, the state Wisconsin could’ve been.
Annie – barter is always an acceptable form of trade. I just sold a car for x cash and x hours of specialized labor from the buyer. Essentially that is bartering.
The unemployment rate varies a lot from state to state. I know my relative in Minnesota said the employment rate there is down to 4.6%. North Dakota is booming and so is silicon valley. Finally, inflationary pressures and wage increases are starting to creep into the employment market. Bush policies caused a decession and the recovery has been slow. If a young person is capable of becoming an engineer, a coder, a physician or working in the energy field, there is plenty of work.
SWM – the crash of the over-heated housing market caused everything. Bush tried to tell people they were building too many homes but they just laughed at him.
Thank you Nick. (don’t know how to contact you, no click for your name/lack of pic)
leej, Please let me know through back channels if and when you decide to see if cannabis works for you. As I told you some time ago, and it’s a standing offer, there is little risk and the potential for much reward. I’ll do whatever is needed to help you on this.
Paul you want to look at the unemployment rate and ignore the millions if jobs created after the debacle of 2 Bush recessions. You are typical of those who hate this president. Let’s ignore anything positive and look only for negatives. Yes you have to look at the unemployment rate but the corollary is the employment numbers,
leejcaroll – you have to look at the real unemployment numbers and the types of jobs that were created.
It looks to me, in a quick read, that the SOFA covers putting in more troops if necessary.
Article 27
Deterrence of Security Threats
In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to the
maintenance of international peace and stability, the Parties shall work
actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of the Republic
of Iraq to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence,
territorial integrity, and its constitutional federal democratic system. To that
end, the Parties agree as follows:
1. In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against
Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or
territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its
elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the
Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may
be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures,
including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any othermeasure, to deter such a threat.
2. The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and
maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political
institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation
in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order
1 22
to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups,
upon request by the Government of Iraq.
3. Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point
for attacks against other countries.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf
Saucy, what do you think about the allegations by some here as to Elizabeth Warren using her status as a Native American to get tenure? I think she is the most ethical possible candidate for Prez on the horizon.
Annie – Elizabeth Warren has a group of Native American genealogists looking for her about her bold-faced lies about her faux Native American background and the use of that faux background to get hired.
I cannot see how you can think she is ethical.
How ethical is Minnie Mouse? I hear she trades favors for cheese.
(and Nick I am so glad you are getting benefit from it.)
(Nick, the gov sent a reply to me, I wrote him about why it would benefit all not just patients like myself. . He said due to concerns about safety issues, dispensing mechanisms access to more potent forms he has announced a research pilot project for kids who suffer with severe epilepsy.
To me this is the puppy strategy, puppies, and kids are warm and fuzzy so he is willing to go that far. His argument is specious at best. If there are safety concerns etc they will be the same whether they research on only kids or also adults with chronic pain, MS etc. Daylin Leach and a repub (whose name unfortunately I forget, have drafted a bill allowing for med. marijuana, Not gone anyplace so far to my knowledge but hopefully the next elections will give s a new governor and others who see the benefit of legalizing marijuana, at least for medical reasons..
I have never done anything criminal but I am getting closer and closer to trying to find a way to find someone who sells it. Problem aside from criminality, is how do you know what you buy is not contaminated? BTW saw an article in paper yesterday in Phila the mayor and council have a bill before them that they say should easily pass making possession of small amount subject to a 25$ fine and jailtime etc is gone.
No one here has mocked anyone for the legitimate use of medical marijuana. Flop.
leej, This has been a horrible recovery, no matter how you slice and dice it. We have our children being worse off than us parents. That is unacceptable.
Oh yes Saucy! I do like your answer. I still think that voting is a privilege, even if those we vote for end up capitulating to big monied interests. One day a good one will come along.
Saucy, I agree w/ everything you just said except for Chicago politics. Daley was mean, racist and corrupt and he did run the city well. He was not corrupt in the sense of todays politicians however. He did not gather wealth, only power. And, as we see today, the good taxpayers of Chicago are paying the debt for decades of Chicago pols lining their pockets w/ patronage $’s. That system does not compute in the Middle East, and maybe only does w/ a few European countries. The Middle East respects strength and force. You hit on a point that only cultist don’t understand. Obama was off script when he drew that red line in Syria. He was trying to buck up. To draw a line and then back down is something even kids in the street know is bad. But, in the Middle East it is FATAL. As we have seen.
Colorado is an enlightened state. I am strictly a medical cannabis user for pain. I use it prior to bed to help me sleep. That way I don’t get the munchies. I’m diabetic and food consumption, particularly @ night, must be regulated. I think cannabis should be legal nationwide. It is much better than alcohol. I am mocked here for using medical cannabis but it has changed my life vis a vis pain. I sleep @ night now. So, people w/ hate can mock if they wish, I don’t respond, I just sleep well @ night.
Annie, I think you will really like my answer.
I thought Chris Christie was going to be good until he showed us that he plays New Jersey hardball politics. Hillary wants to be president so bad it’s killing her; she will say and do anything to be elected. Ted Cruz is a buffoon. Rand Paul is a four-star loon. Joe Biden should be put out to pasture. Marco Rubio is 100% fixated on Cuba.
There are two people who would make great presidents, but they have little chance of winning the nomination due to politics. Olympia Snowe and Elizabeth Warren are probably the two best potential candidates for completely different reasons. Snowe and Warren are opposites in terms of experience and would need to choose running mates to properly complement their skills. Snowe would be a formidable candidate in the general election given that she served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but the Tea Party would need to go “poof” first. Warren is exactly the kind of person we need to clean up the Wall Street swamp; so is Sheila Bair.
P.S. I have not voted for years. I’m not registered anymore. I would get out and vote for Snowe or Warren (or Bair).
Saucy, employment has continued to grow despite no jobs bill from the republicans. You don’t like that you need to complain to and about Boehner et al.
“The employment recovery during Mr. Bush’s first term was very sluggish, and private employment was down 946,000 jobs at the end of his first term. At the end of Mr. Bush’s second term, private employment was collapsing, and there were net 665,000 jobs lost during Mr. Bush’s two terms.
The recovery has been sluggish under Mr. Obama’s presidency too, and there were only 1,933,000 more private sector jobs at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term. A couple of months into Mr. Obama’s second term, there are now 2,282,000 more private sector jobs than when he took office.”
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html#1SHtpFwCp1msPwY2.99
“In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect), approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.
Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.
That means that the average monthly job loss during the “difficult situation” before Obama’s policies took effect was 417,000. Over the last year-and-a-half, the average monthly job gain has been 155,000.” http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
leejcaroll – the figures on the real unemployment rate.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101326426
Bigguy: “Blaming Bush for this mess seven years later gets old. Put congress on record sand repeal these laws peiiting too easy exec action, too easily abused.”
See my comment at June 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm.
Attenuated v proximate cause. Blaming Bush for what’s happening now to Iraq now applies the logic that if President Eisenhower had in the early/mid-1950s prematurely ended our post-WW2 protective custodies and promising, progressing nation-building projects in Europe and Asia, and the expected consequences of Ike’s action manifested, then the harm would be properly blamed on President Roosevelt for displacing the functional, if tyrannical and dangerous administrations of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese.
The prevailing false narrative against the Iraq mission has confused a range of foreign policy issues.
One key area is law. Despite loud accusations of unconstitutionality, including from this blog’s namesake, the Iraq mission was actually conducted on strong law and policy grounds with over a decade of applied development. Thus, the popular characterization of OIF as ‘illegal’ has confused the public on what constitutes a legal military action.
Comparatively, Bush’s military actions were better legal than Clinton’s and Obama’s military actions, though to be fair, Bush’s military actions were better legal than Clinton’s military actions in major part because of Clinton’s military actions. In important ways, Bush followed Clinton’s precedent and carried forward Clinton’s Iraq and counter-terror policies.
The stability of following an established law and policy course, especially for an on-going event such as the War on Terror, is a main reason that Obama should have stayed the course he inherited from Bush.
Of course, Obama could have adjusted course as dictated by events as Bush adjusted the course he inherited from Clinton in reaction to 9/11, but deviating from Bush as Obama did was a gross error. Obama’s deviations from Bush in our foreign affairs have been both disastrous in real terms and unsettling to our law and policy.
Yup, leave the medical marijuana to those who need it, those who want to smoke recreationally go move to Colorado.