Politics, Government & Public Policy: April 2012 Archives
President Obama's "We Can't Wait" campaign to bypass a gridlocked Congress does not demonstrate that he has changed his opinion on the separation of powers built into the Constitution -- it shows that his earlier complaints about Bush's use of executive power were completely disingenuous.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama's new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of "Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action," said Mr. Obama's use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama's past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable."What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency," Mr. Howell said. "Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard -- he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action." ...
The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.
So... President Obama decided to change his tune on executive power immediately after his party lost control of Congress. What a "remarkable" "transformation"!
Bush-era TSA head Kip Hawley definitely understands the problems with our approach to airport security and is right in laying the blame with the politicians rather than the TSA itself.
The crux of the problem, as I learned in my years at the helm, is our wrongheaded approach to risk. In attempting to eliminate all risk from flying, we have made air travel an unending nightmare for U.S. passengers and visitors from overseas, while at the same time creating a security system that is brittle where it needs to be supple.Any effort to rebuild TSA and get airport security right in the U.S. has to start with two basic principles:
First, the TSA's mission is to prevent a catastrophic attack on the transportation system, not to ensure that every single passenger can avoid harm while traveling. Much of the friction in the system today results from rules that are direct responses to how we were attacked on 9/11. But it's simply no longer the case that killing a few people on board a plane could lead to a hijacking. Never again will a terrorist be able to breach the cockpit simply with a box cutter or a knife. The cockpit doors have been reinforced, and passengers, flight crews and air marshals would intervene.
This is spot-on. The only things that should be banned from aircraft are items that could bring down the plane or inflict mass casualties.
Clearly, things needed to change. By the time of my arrival, the agency was focused almost entirely on finding prohibited items. Constant positive reinforcement on finding items like lighters had turned our checkpoint operations into an Easter-egg hunt. When we ran a test, putting dummy bomb components near lighters in bags at checkpoints, officers caught the lighters, not the bomb parts. ...1. No more banned items: Aside from obvious weapons capable of fast, multiple killings--such as guns, toxins and explosive devices--it is time to end the TSA's use of well-trained security officers as kindergarten teachers to millions of passengers a day. The list of banned items has created an "Easter-egg hunt" mentality at the TSA. Worse, banning certain items gives terrorists a complete list of what not to use in their next attack. Lighters are banned? The next attack will use an electric trigger.
All of Hawley's recommendations are good, and I'm actually quite surprised to read so many sensible suggestions from a high-level bureaucrat.
One important consideration that isn't mentioned: the long security lines are themselves tempting targets for terrorists, and an attack at an airport line would disrupt our country as much as a downed plane.
It's all over Drudge, but just in case you missed it here is hidden camera footage of a white guy with no identification being offered Attorney General Eric Holder's primary ballot.
The only explanation for objecting to voter ID laws is that some people are perpetrating voting fraud and don't want to stop.
The Supreme Court justices voted on Obamacare last Friday and Drudge immediately speculated that one of the left-wing justices tipped off the president. Joseph Curl thinks that Obama's actions over the past few days show that the president was tipped-off and knows that the ruling will go against him.
And Mr. Obama no doubt already knows that's just what the court will do when it rules in June. The justices fiercely questioned the president lawyer over three days, mocking his often indefensible arguments for why the government can force Americans to buy health insurance, and then took a preliminary vote last Friday. Clearly, a justice sympathetic to the president passed along the outcome -- and Mr. Obama's comments this week certainly appear to show the court is planning to rule against the trillion-dollar mandate.
If President Obama were unsure about the ruling wouldn't he be playing nice? If he received a leak and heard that Obamacare is going to be upheld, wouldn't we be hearing "I have confidence in the Supreme Court to make the right decision"? The only possibility that fits the evidence is that Obamacare is toast.
What's most interesting to me is that Obama didn't attack the conservative justices exclusively.
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.
In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.
He says the word "confident", but he is acting defensive and angry. You do the math.
Notice that Obama doesn't decry the possibility that a conservative majority might strike down Obamacare in a narrow 5-4 vote -- he attacks the whole court. My guess:
- Obamacare is toast
- Obama knows that the vote is currently shaping up to be worse than 5-4 against him
- Obama is trying to intimidate one or more left-wing justices to vote with him and narrow his loss
- Obama is shaping the narrative in advance of this historic rebuke
A 5-4 loss might be the best outcome for Obama's reelection. Nate Silver disagrees and says that a Supreme Court loss will be a huge defeat for the President.
The latest fad seems to be articles claiming that if the Supreme Court declares President Obama's health care bill to be unconstitutional, it would be good news for him politically. This position has been argued by the Democratic pollster Mark Penn, the Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and CNN's James Carville, among others.The theory seems to rest on the notion that Mr. Obama could use the health care bill to rally his base, either by railing against the Supreme Court or by trying to advance a new plan.
There are a few basic problems with it:
1. Mr. Obama does not face a major problem with his base, but his standing is tenuous with swing voters.
2. Among swing voters, the health care bill is not very popular.
3. The Supreme Court declaring the health care bill unconstitutional will not make it more popular among swing voters.
The health care bill is not popular with swing voters, but a properly designed (and Constitutional) replacement might be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
