I was stunned when I read in MinnPost that the Office of the President may actually be able to arbitrarily change the minimum wage for many by signing an Executive Order. What do you think? Should he? Could he?
MinnPost Min Wage Increase by Executive Order?
The Hill White House Side Steps
National Journal Can The President Raise the Minimum Wage?
Not surprisingly Rep Ellison, our MN Rep who insisted on getting paid during the government shutdown, is helping to lead the charge. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Think of it as part of the checks and balances. When Congress is unable to act, the president can act for them.
--Hiram
Since what Obama is allowed to do and what he is supposed to do have no bearing on his actions, he might very well do another really stupid thing. It is, after all, part and parcel of his personality to believe that he can command the seas not to rise. Surely if his whim is for mere wages to rise, he will do it.
part of checks & balances ??? I don't get it. we might as well get rid of the peoples voices (congress) and hire an emperor. yes, something like we unofficially have now.
Yes, but who wants a naked emperor?
Congress is dysfunctional. They refuse to even consider legislation. Someone has to govern.
--Hiram
there's no doubt that congress is dysfuntional today but it's typically what happens when the the leadership at the executive level is incompetent; even in private business. besides look how often the current CEO attacks the opposing party and/or uses bully and scare tactics to get his way... and we question how congress get's so divided.
Hiram,
Are you really proposing that a "dictatorship" is better than a "grid locked" government?
Would you have felt the same way if it had been George W Bush flexing his power?
is the supreme court part of the checks and balances if Obama were to overstep his executive authority?
That is pretty much why I was asking, I think that is what is supposed to happen however it does not seem to very often.
Wiki Executive Orders
Votetocracy EOs
Fed Register EO List
The SC only tackles cases that have come from the lower courts, except in rare cases. The big problem is finding somebody with the "standing" to sue in the lower court, and the courage to actually bring the case. Then there is the question of actually getting a "constitutional purist" reading out of those liberal judges. Now, with Obama "packing" the DC circuit court, the chances for limiting Emperor Obama's usurpations by court action is pretty bleak.
Republicans only have themselves to blame for the filibuster situation. They are the ones using it at an unprecedented rate AND they are the ones who failed to live up to the terms of the deal made during the last nominations stalemate.
President Obama has not produced a slate of nominees out of line with what you would expect from a Democratic President, and as such, there is no reason to deny nearly all of them an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
I would guess the President has a limited ability to increase the minimum wage for the impacted federal contracts by EO, but it would be unwise for him to do so.
I would like some definitive facts that say "Republicans are using the filibuster at unprecented rates." The last I looked, the opposite was true. And to say that Obama nominees are "mainstream" is laughable. sorry.
Here you go:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
Isn't the nuclear option is just another tool used to support the wishes of Sir Emperor Obama?
PolitiFact Harry Reid Says
Sean's source looks good, and shows that the GOP politicians seem to be acting in an atypically obstinate manner.
Jerry or Binger,
Do you have anything that supports your view that all ~80 of the recommended candidates were far Left of center...
John. I'm referring to the democratic process... not the candidates and would need to do research to answer your question.
Thanks for considering it.
My point is that I don't know enough to say whether Obama or the GOP were being unreasonable. Sean's article indicates it has been the GOP, unless the DFL has been putting forth all Left Wing activist judges.
Has President Obama been nominating "left-wing activist judges"? Well, he's been nominating judges that match his worldview, just as Republican Presidents do when they hold the office. That's one of the perks of winning. The question is whether or not Obama has nominated people outside of the norm, and I think the record there would show he hasn't. His two Supreme Court picks, for instance, were both (I would argue) closer to the center than Alito and arguably Roberts as well. Kagan, in particular, has supported broad readings of executive power that aren't in line with much of Democratic base.
Meanwhile, the notion of an "activist" judge has become so watered down it's become meaningless. Frankly, both ideological blocs on the Court have showed themselves willing to, at times, engage in behavior one might describe as "activist".
I think the problem we have here is with the statistics. What is being compared here are the number of "cloture" motions that failed in confirmation votes. But I'm willing to bet, knowing Republicans as I do, that Republicans never went that far. A simple threat to filibuster by Democrats and the nominee simply wasn't brought up, unless it was a high-profile nominee worth the fight. Democrats, on the other hand, are ALWAYS spoiling for a fight and love forcing Republicans to back down, so those cloture votes DO get scheduled. Also, this statistic says nothing about the eventual outcome of the nomination. The last time the GOP talked of the nuclear option, the "gang of seven" simply gave up on a half-dozen good judge candidates to keep the nuclear option off the table. They did, but it went in Harry Reid's pocket, and now... BOOM!
Whether Obama has been nominating people "outside the mainstream" certainly depends on which bank of the stream you are standing on. From where I sit, it looks like he has selected people that I will agree match his worldview, but he is a radical leftist! Isn't that by definition outside the norm? No attempt, as previous Presidents, to propose someone with more centrist credentials.
By no measure is Barack Obama a "radical leftist". He's consistently pursued policies that fall in the center-right of the Democratic party.
The center RIGHT of the Democrat Party? Really? I had no idea that someone who voted in favor of abortions into the 10th month was on the center right! Maybe the Democrats are more radically left than I realized.
Jerry, Source of this strange claim.
Sean,
It is hard for even me to see Obama as just Left of center. His desire for more wealth transfer, strong pro-choice, socialized healthcare, illegal resident amnesty, etc seems pretty solidly entrenched with the solid Lefts.
However you maybe correct based on what I read from some of the Far Left/Socialistic folks on MPP...
Obama's "socialized healthcare" is based on policies developed by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s, first introduced in Congress by Republicans in the 1990s, first passed into law in 2006 by the 2012 Republican nominee for President, and advocated by many prominent Republicans up until the point that Democrats like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton embraced it in 2007. It's not single-payer. It doesn't have a "public option". It contains no expansion of Medicare. By mo means is the ACA some sort of "radical leftist" fantasy.
As for "wealth transfer", Obama's "radical leftist" platform was to return tax rates to where they were during the 1990s, when the American economy saw its best period of economic performance since the 1960s.
"Illegal resident amnesty"? Give me a break. Compare the Obama proposal (supported by many prominent Republicans, by the way) versus what Reagan did in the 1980s. If Obama is a "radical leftist", what was Reagan?
You guys have worked yourself up into such a fever about Obama, you can't see what he actually is. It's not Obama that is far to the left, it's you who are so far to the right.
Here's a great piece on how this has worked in health care. Every time a Democrat embraces Republican policies on health care, Republicans back away.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/12/heritage-uncertainty-principle.html
Are you requesting sourcing for the fact that Obama voted to support the killing of infants born alive in a botched abortion? Illinois Senate records and newspapers of the time. It's common knowledge.
Sean, I love the way you challenge our thinking. Unfortunately, too much of it is of the "tu quoque" variety. Just because some Republican or Republicans agreed with or supported an idea doesn't make it the right thing to do or have done. The 1986 Reagan Amnesty is the perfect example. Supposedly, it compromised amnesty for millions (ignoring the law) to get border security (upholding the law). The fact is most illegals never took the amnesty, millions more poured in expecting it, and the border security never happened. Now, the current proposal says we should do the exact thing over again, only THIS time it is certain to work just like the dreamers say it will.
And there is no such thing as "too far right." There is right, and the opposite is wrong. Obamacare is wrong. Increasing the minimum wage is wrong. The world doesn't work the way the leftists dream it does.
Well, now you're moving the goalposts. Just because a policy is wrong doesn't mean it's "radical leftist".
NY Mag Heritage Uncertainty Principle
Sean,
I of course believe that it is the Left that keeps moving the goal post.
Imagine that the state of the USA in the 1920's was truly Conservative and Capitalistic. Government was small and there was minimal social security, medicare, welfare, legal abortion, single parent households, etc, etc. For better or worse people worked or paid the consequences, they took care of their infirm family members, etc.
Then the "Progressives" started pulling the country to the Left. G2A Continuum And some of the changes were good. The funny part is then they have the nerve to say the Conservatives are "changing"...
I am not sure when the progressives would claim success, maybe when we are fully socialistic... Which of course will cause its own set of problems.
Comic 1
Comic 2
Comic 3
"Just because a policy is wrong doesn't mean it's "radical leftist".
I like that, and it's true. However, the opposite is unquestionable. Radical leftist policies fail every time they're tried, e.g. Venezuela today, where there is a TP shortage and something like 50% annual inflation.
And I don't care what you label them on the left or right politically, wrong ideas are not right ideas. By calling Obama a radical leftist, I am using a rhetorical shorthand to say he is generally wrong.
Post a Comment