The Social Security ace up Bush's sleeve - executive order

[Guest guest]

C

Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:46:59 -0700 (PDT)

The Social Security ace up Bush's sleeve - executive order

 

 

 

 

So which little bushie was whispering in Carlos Watson's

ear?

CP ;>)

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/29/ace.up.sleeve/index.html#

 

The ace up his sleeve - executive order - CNN.com - Mar 29,

2005

 

Carlos Watson

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- This past weekend, Republican Senator

Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the influential chairman of the

Senate Finance Committee, seemed to throw cold water on

President Bush's hopes for major Social Security change.

And recent polls have shown that the public is also cool to

the idea of private accounts, arguably the central element

of President Bush's Social Security plan.

 

But as the Social Security debate continues to unfold, do

not underestimate President Bush's ability to still get his

ideas enacted. Indeed, even without broad Congressional or

public support, President Bush just may have an ace up his

sleeve. How might he enact his private accounts idea

without such support, you may ask? By executive order.

 

Indeed, the Constitution has long provided the president

with a certain amount of unilateral power to make policy.

And from George Washington to George W. Bush, that power

has frequently been used when presidents have felt stymied

by Congress or the courts. Among some of the notable

presidential directives (a broader category of unilateral

presidential power that includes executive orders,

proclamations, pardons, national security directives and

more) are: the Louisiana Purchase, the Emancipation

Proclamation, and the Japanese Internment Camps.

 

When President Clinton failed to get his health care plan

passed in the mid-1990s, he experimented with portions of

his program via executive order.

 

Similarly, if President Bush ultimately fails to persuade

Congress (especially centrist Senators) to back his private

account plan, he may sign an executive order for a smaller

version of his plan, such as allowing federal employees to

experiment with a heavily regulated form of private

accounts. It clearly would not be his first choice.

 

He'd rather enact a broad national plan, passed by Congress

and signed by him. But if he cannot get Congressional

passage of an overall Social Security change plan (or even

just the private account portion), President Bush just may

use the executive order route to ensure that a test version

is put into effect.

 

And while President Clinton was sometimes criticized for

his bold use of executive orders, he had to be at least

somewhat politically cautious because of the risk that

Congress or the courts might overturn him. President Bush

has less risk in that regard because of Republican

dominance in both arenas. And thus, he may indeed be more

aggressive in using the executive order to implement

private accounts if his legislative efforts fail.

 

By the way, if President Bush uses the tool to change

Social Security, it will be the fourth major arena in which

he has meaningfully advanced policy using presidential

directives. Indeed, he has almost single-handedly created

his multi-billion dollar faith-based initiative through

executive orders, allowing churches and religious

institutions access to taxpayer money for drug treatment,

mentoring and other social service programs.

 

Second, as The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh and others have

reported, presidential directives have guided much of the

covert war on terrorism. Third, President Bush has

significantly relaxed regulations and oversight of a number

of large business industries via executive order.

 

Critics of executive orders note that Congress and the

courts rarely overturn such directives, thereby raising the

specter of unchecked, un-reviewed and potentially even

presidential abuse of power. Indeed, the Supreme Court has

only overturned an executive order twice and Congress a

mere four times in the past century. Perhaps in part

because of this leeway, Harvard political scientist William

Howell estimates that since FDR, presidents have increased

use of unilateral power in significant areas by a factor of

four.

 

So this fall, whether the issue is Social Security or what

to do in the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea,

keep your eyes on the ace up President Bush's sleeve.