This
week we are addressing the idea of the traditional, or Constitutional,
presidency and the modern presidency. While there is no doubt that the
powers, influence, responsibility, and scrutiny of the president have
all increased exponentially there are some issues that have confronted
presidents throughout our history. The Tea Party movement, which is a
loosely affiliated group of conservative Americans supporting lower
taxes, reduced national debt, and smaller government (for more info on
the Tea party click
here) represents a challenge that is far from new. Take a look at
this recent interesting New York Times article which focuses on the recent debt ceiling debate (again click
here
for some background if needed) and compares it to similar challenges
faced by Thomas Jefferson and other presidents. Then use the following
prompts to start your blog discussion. To be clear you are not expected
to answer each of the questions, they are meant as a way to start the
conversation. You can feel free to respond generally to the article and,
as always, to the other comments left by your classmates.
- What was similar about the modern situation and the ones facing earlier presidents?
- What was different?
- What does this article suggest about the changes (or lack therof) that the presidency has gone through?
Reminder: please keep your comments to one long or two short
paragraphs and feel free to agree or disagree with previous comments.
Last summer's debt-ceiling debate (massive understatement, I know) almost mirrors Jefferson's philosophy of reducing taxes while prioritizing debt payment, except for one crucial difference. Both saw ongoing conflicts overseas, dealt with ballooning deficits and both attempted to pay that debt while still cutting taxes, a seeming contradiction. The big difference lies in the fact that, in Jefferson's case, pragmatism came before politics. Like Reagan, he often ended up doing the opposite of what he'd intended to do when that was the best course of action.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have that today. The article mentions Mr. Gingrich's Tea Party moment backfired. It fails to explain why. As Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich's partisanship translated into permanent gridlock, resulting in several government shutdowns. This is hardly a way to court votes, so of course it backfired. The legacy remains, though. Since his "Contract with America" and its homogenization of the GOP, being a "moderate" has taken on ugly connotations in GOP circles. Under Mr. Gingrich, willful, uncompromising partisanship became the policy. The fact that the Tea Party's candidates insisted upon the hardline "Party of No" approach to the point of fighting with their own Speaker Boehner, and nearly had our nation default, highlights the big difference between now and then. However much they quote Jefferson and Reagan, they certainly don't behave like either.
We are living in the worst of times since the Great Depression and matters will get worse undoubtedly. One would think in this precarious and daunting crisis, members of congress would put aside the game of politics and devise a long-term deficit deal that would cut spending instantaneously. One would think in desperate times that the president would lead the way for bipartisanship in congress. It’s times like now, when America needs a true leader that can withstand national hurdles and be resilient.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Obama, Ronald Reagan acted quickly in his first year of office to rectify the carnage under Jimmy Carter’s administration by introducing a bill with bipartisan support called “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981” instituting lower income taxes. He also implemented the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 and reformed the tax code. He created 16 million new jobs, unemployment was five percent, and federal spending was reduced from 4.perecnt to 2.5 percent. Also, President Ronald Reagan slashed entitlement programs such as Medicaid and food stamps while creating more jobs for the less-fortunate Americans. An economy can only function properly under policies of Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan of less government intervention, less federal spending, and lower taxes to ensure stability and prosperity. Generally, Obama fails to understand less government intervention means a better economy. Unlike Reagan, Obama has created solely four trillion dollars adding to the deficit. It is time that Obama ceases his sporadic spending and become more centrist in his beliefs like Clinton. I believe president Obama is right that Super millionaires should be taxed more; however, not individuals making $250,000 because a person making the aforementioned and a millionaire are not making the same type of money; therefore, should be taxed differently. The economy will progress if Obama shows leadership by revealing his new economic plan pronto, reforming the tax code, and living up to his word that he will get fellow Americans back to work.
With Jefferson, Taft, and just about every president since, we have this outstanding issue of foreign policy which the Tea Party seems to avoid discussing. Becoming an Isolationist is not a reality, sorry. With Palestine trying to get their way into congress tomorrow and us having reached the maximum debt available, times are a little more stressful than a fifteen million dollar purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon. Whether or not it should be like this, we have American soldiers in just about every single part of the world and keeping them there costs a pretty penny. I can’t say I’m Obama’s biggest fan and the fact that money seems to burn a hole in his pocket isn’t exactly keeping congress or any Americans happy, but there are bills which need to be paid to keep this country functioning. I know you’re probably rolling in your grave Mr. Jefferson and you can give my apologies to Mr. Madison as well, as important as it is to have the economy be our number one priority, our involvement in the rest of the world is costing us more than a fight against the Barbary pirates.
ReplyDeleteThe article is interesting in that it shows how throughout this country's history there were always people calling for a small government. One of the major debates that that occurred right after the birth of this country was between the federalists and anti-federalists. That too revolved around states' and federal rights of government. And, unfortunately, as the problem continues to present itself, at each presentation there will be people on both sides, both representing different segments of the population and both believing that their idea is best for the country. And thanks to their steadfastness, neither side will relent which causes problems in and of it self when both sides are unable to arrive at an agreement.
ReplyDeleteI do find it incredibly interesting that these current Debt arguments are deeply rooted in American History. Yet I think the final paragraph speaks volumes to the current situation with the Tea Party politicians. The author noted how Taft and Jefferson in their own ways were able to transform the US into foreign and domestic powers. But currently, with American public policy under "attack from insurgents" (phrase used to describe Tea Party activists in the article), President Obama's hands are tied. To try to make some sense out of my rambling blogpost, I do find it fascinating how this current situation is nothing new. Insurgency in political parties has firm roots in American politics, and in my mind will always play a role. Unless the US develops a stronger party system, giving party leadership the ability to control their parties better (handing out of funds, dismissal from the party) we will not see a change to American "political insurgency"
ReplyDeleteBoth Presidents Obama and Jefferson were faced with a very similar problem of how to fix the debt crisis? Interestingly enough, the way in which each President attempted to solve the problem differed greatly. On the one hand, President Jefferson chose that he was going to reduce citizens taxes, which to some may seem like a counter productive move when the the government is trying to generate money to compensate for the lack of debt ceiling raise. On the other hand, President Obama has stated that he is going to raise taxes, which seems like the sensible move, when the government in trying to collect money to pay off debt. I open the question to my fellow bloggers why did each president approach the debt ceiling crisis with different alternative ways? (Please help educate the International students in the class, haha)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom 2008 until now, our political situation is comparable to the economic meltdown of late 1920's. In these difficult times, American needs there Government to work around the clock in order to devise a long term solution to the deficit crisis. I agree with Jonathan, that it is imperative that Obama assume the role as leader and get this mess rectified before it’s too late. Obama needs to persevere as our commander in chief. An economy can only prosper under policies of Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan. I want less government intervention, less federal spending, and lower taxes to ensure a stable and flourishing American economy. I hope that Obama's new job plan will pave the way for a new auspicious beginning for America.
ReplyDeleteIt seems interesting that throughout history people keep calling for smaller government. People want less taxes and to shrink the ever growing deficit, yet the country also want all the social spending. The government could shrink the massive budget, but doing so would require less spending on social programs that some groups find pointless, but others find crucial because it suits their needs-" Ideologically the American public is conservative, in practice it is liberal" In my opinion the article seems to imply that it is possible to not increase taxes in addition to shrinking the deficit, but this seems to come at a major cost. In President Jefferson's time it would've meant shrinking the size of the army and navy at a time when it was necessary (or possibly passing up the Louisiana purchase), in President Roosevelt's time it meant scaling back on New Deal Initiatives, and today in President Obama's administration it would mean "nibbling at the edges of medicare and social security." The Presidency seems to not have gone through that much change over the years because they are still attempting to juggle the responsibility of providing that which the public asks for and needs in terms of social spending, while simultaneously finding a way to pay for it all. As the article said Americans want government to be small and less taxes in theory, but when it comes down to it we want our government to act and provide for us.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jonathan over whether or not it is the right thing to increase taxes on the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a big mistake.
In the current fiscal year, welfare is over $430 Billion. That's roughly 12% of the budget.
The federal government receives the majority of their tax revenue from the rich people (rich, meaning above $250,000). Almost half of Americans do not even pay taxes.
How is it fair to say that we should increase the tax rates for the rich when they are already paying a ton of money to the government as it is? And you wonder why a lot of rich people want to hide their money in places like the Caymen Islands or Switzerland.
The rich people are the employers in this country. By giving them tax breaks, we are giving them the opportunity to use that extra money to hire more workers and expand their businesses. This will both strengthen our economy and decrease the unemployment rate.
By lowering the unemployment rate, less people will rely on public welfare.
This will decrease the government's deficit spending.
Posted for Eyal (It would have been in before the deadline if not for technical problems):
ReplyDeleteDeficit crisis or not…There is a fundamental intrinsic economic issue with America, and it happens to manifest itself, this time, with a deficit crisis. The deficit ceiling is purely theoretical anyways. What...Since the ceiling was extended- all of your problems are now fixed? All the sudden the country hasn’t passed this imaginary, apparently really flexible line, and America doesn’t crash. Let me let you in on a little secret, the debt is still there, and its growing because America has given more freedom to grow. In my opinion, all they have done is exacerbate the crisis. No more beating around the bush, or should I say Obama. America has to buckle down and review and come up with a real solution. Hopefully Obama’s plans do work. Or another trillion dollars away you will once again dig the hole deeper.