Our favorite ACA adviser is back in the news. Jonathan Gruber went before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday and apologized for his comments about the "stupidity" of the American people in videos continue to serve as an anti-Obamacare wellspring. As the Democrats distanced themselves from Gruber's remarks, Elijah Cummings ended up on an unlikely tag team with Darrell Issa to berate Gruber. Although Issa denied this, you can be the judge.
A recent Vox article argues that the most substantive aspect of Gruber's comments could be his implication that subsidies were only supposed to be given in state run marketplaces. This seems to support the plaintiff's case in King v. Burwell. This case, which, on November 7th, the Supreme Court decided to review, threatens the subsidies of thirty-six states.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Odds and Ends and the Wrapup
Per your request:
- The Vice President Joseph Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- President pro tempore of the Senate1 Patrick Leahy
- Secretary of State John Kerry
- Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew
- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
- Attorney General Eric Holder
- Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel
- Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
- Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker
- Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez
- Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro
- Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx
- Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz
- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald
- Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson
The Politics of Executive Action
Professor Pitney noted in class that any future administration could undo Obama's executive action on immigration. Many, knowing that reality, express concern about the action's potential rollback.
Here's Obama's response: “It’s true, theoretically, a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging. It’s not likely, politically, that they reverse everything we've done.”
Here's Obama's response: “It’s true, theoretically, a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging. It’s not likely, politically, that they reverse everything we've done.”
Senate Intelligence Committee report on C.I.A. interrogation
Yesterday the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report indicting the CIA’s use of interrogation techniques (i.e. torture) in the wake of 9/11 and the agencies subsequent practice of misleading the White House and Congress.
Recently, Dick Cheney and other leaders have argued that the government’s interrogation program was essential for finding Osama bin Laden. However, the report contends that these methods “played no role in disrupting terrorism plots, capturing terrorist leaders, or even finding Bin Laden.”
Responses to the report have been mixed. For more on the story visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-intelligence-committee-cia-torture-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Recently, Dick Cheney and other leaders have argued that the government’s interrogation program was essential for finding Osama bin Laden. However, the report contends that these methods “played no role in disrupting terrorism plots, capturing terrorist leaders, or even finding Bin Laden.”
Responses to the report have been mixed. For more on the story visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-intelligence-committee-cia-torture-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Obama on the Colbert Report
Everyone believes they can be president. Can anyone be Stephen Colbert? Watch President Obama fill in for Colbert in last night's show (I found it absolutely hilarious).
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/12/obama-fills-in-for-colbert
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/12/obama-fills-in-for-colbert
Practice Final
The following should give you an idea of the exam format. As you prepare, also take a look at the air midterm.
I. Briefly identify 12 of 14 items (4 points each). Explain each item's meaning and significance.
- War Powers Resolution
- NSC
- "Game-changers" in campaigns
- Executive agreements
- The Russo-Japanese War
- The Reagan Doctrine
- Solicitor General
- Policy streams
- US v. Curtiss-Wright
- Election of 1876
- The 25th Amendment
- Abe Fortas
- Budget resolutions
- The
II. Short essays. Answer three of four. Each answer should take about half a page. (6 points each).
- Explain: "But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have been called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans, we are all federalists."
- Why did William Daley have such a short tenure at the White House?
- Explain: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization.We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
- Tell how Twitter has changed the job of the White House press operation.
- In Federalist 8,
- Could Rick Santorum have won the 2012 Republican nomination? If not, why not? If so, how?
- See the excerpt below. Do you agree or disagree? Explain with reference to course materials.
A Democratic president, you'd think, would stick to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Jack Kennedy as role models. Not Barack Obama. As he faces tough times—economically and politically—I am told that he and his advisers are turning to an unusual source for inspiration: Ronald Reagan. Looking back, it shouldn't be a total surprise. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said nice things about the Gipper. Reagan, Obama said, "tapped into what people were already feeling, which was: we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to a sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." (At the time, Obama's ode to Ronald seemed nothing more than a jab at the Clintons (who were infuriated), and a bid for Republican votes. But now I see that it was Obama's tell: the clue to how he views himself, politics, and the presidency. He thinks he is Reagan in reverse—a patient, genial game changer for the ages—and his confidence helped soothe the economic panic of a year ago. But it isn't clear whether the president really understands the causes of the Old Man's successes, or the sobering lessons of his failures.
- Larry O'Brien
- Bud McFarlane
- Ike Skelton
- Peter Muldowney
- Mike Mullen
Monday, December 8, 2014
Presidential overreach or a go for it push that fits the times?
Two RCP articles today discussed President Obama's recent actions and their legitimacy. The first one (here) looks at the unilateral actions taken by the White House as possibly the only realistic ones, while acknowledging that these sorts of decisions are far less successful during implementation than thorough legislation passed through Congress. The second (here) discusses the constitutional legitimacy of Obamas's executive action regarding immigration, or rather, the lack of legitimacy.
Obama's course of action seems to be a refusal to accept some of the difficulties of being a second term president. His actions, while largely unpopular and lacking support, may in fact have been the only way for him to implement any sort of change. With this in mind, what would be the most successful way to address the adversity of being a second term president without overstepping perceived jurisdiction? Is there potential for domestic reform, or is the president too often forced to focus on foreign policy issues if he wants to do anything of significant value?
Obama's course of action seems to be a refusal to accept some of the difficulties of being a second term president. His actions, while largely unpopular and lacking support, may in fact have been the only way for him to implement any sort of change. With this in mind, what would be the most successful way to address the adversity of being a second term president without overstepping perceived jurisdiction? Is there potential for domestic reform, or is the president too often forced to focus on foreign policy issues if he wants to do anything of significant value?
The Presidency, Foreign Policy, and the Future
Seventy-three years ago today:
The Reagan Doctrine and The Reagan recordings
Black Hawk Down
Clinton on the Rwandan Genocide
The Bush Doctrine(s)
The Reagan Doctrine and The Reagan recordings
Black Hawk Down
Clinton on the Rwandan Genocide
The Bush Doctrine(s)
- Unilateralism
- With Us or Against Us
- Anticipatory Self-Defense: preemptive war v. preventive war
- Spreading Democracy through the World
Future standing of Bush?
Things Presidents Have to Know
The Next Robert McNamara?
Good profile from Politico on Obama's recent nomination for Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter. He already has broad bipartisan support, which is telling considering the recent shift in power in the Senate. It will be interesting to see how his style of leadership contrasts with that of his predecessors. His technical proficiencies are almost reminiscent of Robert McNamara:
"A nuclear physicist who has also studied medieval history – and a Motown fan, Obama said — Carter is considered an expert in weapons programs, budgets and the operations of the sprawling Defense Department."
Harry
"A nuclear physicist who has also studied medieval history – and a Motown fan, Obama said — Carter is considered an expert in weapons programs, budgets and the operations of the sprawling Defense Department."
Harry
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Lame-duck SecDef
Upon confirmation, Ash Carter will bring significant experience to the position of United States Secretary of Defense. He served as an assistant secretary of defense for three years, an undersecretary for defense for two year, and as deputy secretary of defense under both Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. Carter has also become rather popular within the military and among congressional leadership.
Regardless of his experience and popularity, it will remain to be seen whether or not Carter is able to significantly influence White House policy during the last years of the Obama administration.
Unless the president and the rest of the executive branch have taken Gates's, Panetta's, and Hagel's well-documented frustrations to heart, it is highly unlikely that Carter will have much more leeway than his predecessors. Obama's presidency is coming to an end in 2017 and Carter's proficiency in nuclear weapons and arms control is unlikely to transfer towards the threat of ISIL. Due to those limiting factors, Carter will most likely manage Obama's policies until the conclusion of his presidency, rather than developing unique strategies before the next administration takes over. The same limiting factors could also have had an impact on Michele Flournoy's decision to remove herself from contention.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
The State of the Union Will Go On
The speaker is eager to have President Obama deliver the State of the Union, but the welcome mat is not what is seems:
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Vision, Strategy, Project, and Tactics
" [W]ar is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." -- Clausewitz, On War
World War II:
- It is not true that the mainland US escaped harm from World War II.
- Europe First
- Island-hopping in the Pacific
The Cold War
- Kennan and the X Article
- Deterrence
- Vietnam
Will Israel Attack a Nuclear Iran?
This is something that came up last class. It's unlikely that Israel will bomb a nuclear Iran, but such an attack is not unprecedented. An interesting (but slightly lengthy) documentary explaining why:
Monday, December 1, 2014
Foreign Policy and National Security
Federalist 70
The Football
That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished...In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality.US v. Curtiss-Wright:
Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613.A very young John Spencer and a nuke:
The Football
Recognition
Treaties and Executive Agreements -- a very recent example of the latter.
Use of Armed Force
Organization
Treaties and Executive Agreements -- a very recent example of the latter.
Use of Armed Force
Organization
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)