In last Friday’s Washington Post (Dec. 31st), everyone’s favorite right wing pundit, Charles Krauthammer, argued that Obama’s use of executive orders and regulatory rules to circumvent the legislative process was an abuse of the system, and another example of his secret plan to create an imperial Presidency. I disagree. Obama’s use of these tools are a symptom of a dysfunctional Congress, and these tools have been used for years by many Presidents, and to a greater degree.
He started off with a statement that raised my ire. When talking about Medicare payments for end-of-life counseling (you know, the "Death Panels"). he writes that "it aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law." Yes, it raised so much anxiety because the far right media echo chamber repeated the falsehood over and over and over. In the absence of fact, repetition is a good substitute. But I digress. Back to my point.
The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” and called on Mr. Bush and future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.
I searched in vain for an op-ed by Mr. Krauthammer condemning this practice by his Champion of Freedom. If he published one, I could not find it on the “lame stream” Internet. Let me know if I missed it.
In fact, in one of Obama’s first acts as President, he revoked Bush's most far-reaching claim of control over agency regulations. Executive Order 13422, which Bush issued in January 2007, replaced career civil servants steeped in the specific missions and subject-matter expertise of their agencies with political appointees. Executive Order 13422 gave the president undue control over federal agency rulemaking while circumventing legislative intent, but that must not concern Krauthammer. Bush was a Republican, doing the will of the people, no doubt.
Other Presidents have used the executive order and regulatory powers to advance their agendas and programs, beginning with George Washington. The Constitution allows for that power, although it was probably more necessary in a time when Congress was a tough group to gather together for legislative sessions. Air travel was almost 2 centuries away at the time. The fact of matter is that without using regulatory authority and executive orders, nothing would get done. If that is Krauthammer goal, to stop functioning government and create a libertarian utopia (or anarchy), then condemn the practice by ALL Presidents.
If Krauthammer disagrees with the specific policy directive, fine. Say so and be done. His critique of the way in which Obama is operating to get things done in Washington, however, is misplaced and blindly partisan.
He started off with a statement that raised my ire. When talking about Medicare payments for end-of-life counseling (you know, the "Death Panels"). he writes that "it aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law." Yes, it raised so much anxiety because the far right media echo chamber repeated the falsehood over and over and over. In the absence of fact, repetition is a good substitute. But I digress. Back to my point.
Circumventing the sausage making process of the modern Congress by using the other available tools at a President’s disposal is nothing new, or unique, as Krauthammer would lead the reader to believe. Obama’s predecessor, George Bush, used signing statements to unilaterally decide what parts of laws he would enforce and which ones he would ignore. That's not just circumventing. That's changing the rules.
Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined." Many of Mr. Bush’s challenges were based on an expansive view of the president’s power, as commander in chief, to take actions he believes necessary, regardless of what Congress says in legislation.
I searched in vain for an op-ed by Mr. Krauthammer condemning this practice by his Champion of Freedom. If he published one, I could not find it on the “lame stream” Internet. Let me know if I missed it.
In fact, in one of Obama’s first acts as President, he revoked Bush's most far-reaching claim of control over agency regulations. Executive Order 13422, which Bush issued in January 2007, replaced career civil servants steeped in the specific missions and subject-matter expertise of their agencies with political appointees. Executive Order 13422 gave the president undue control over federal agency rulemaking while circumventing legislative intent, but that must not concern Krauthammer. Bush was a Republican, doing the will of the people, no doubt.
Other Presidents have used the executive order and regulatory powers to advance their agendas and programs, beginning with George Washington. The Constitution allows for that power, although it was probably more necessary in a time when Congress was a tough group to gather together for legislative sessions. Air travel was almost 2 centuries away at the time. The fact of matter is that without using regulatory authority and executive orders, nothing would get done. If that is Krauthammer goal, to stop functioning government and create a libertarian utopia (or anarchy), then condemn the practice by ALL Presidents.
If Krauthammer disagrees with the specific policy directive, fine. Say so and be done. His critique of the way in which Obama is operating to get things done in Washington, however, is misplaced and blindly partisan.
No comments:
Post a Comment