Which is more important, the EXOP or the Cabinet?

The Executive Office of the President

Direct & coordinate the federal bureaucracy; created by the 1939 Reorganisation Act

Advisers:

œ Provide information and analysis of the key issues facing the administration

œ Providing guidance in specialist policy areas

œ Evaluating political/legal significance of presidential decisions

œ Writing speeches/presenting the President’s view to the public

œ Liaising with Congress to gain support for the President’s programmes

œ Filtering out who can get presidential access

œ Monitoring work of the executive department and agencies, ensuring they are carrying out the political agenda

Positives of the EXOP…

Beneficial to the Head of Government to have complete confidence in the closest advisors and to be certain everything in the administrations political agenda is implemented.

Power in Washington is measured by access to the President, the White House staff use their position to exert pressure on his behalf; however, it proves difficult for long standing close friends to present criticism – leading to presidential isolation resulting in only few advisers having direct access (this was the case for Nixon & Reagan)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – largest & most important agency:
Prepare the budget that President would present to Congress (spending priorities)
Reviews policy proposals, ensuring they are in line with President’s goals
Director – confirmed by the Senate : Shaun Donovan

The Council of Economic Advisers – long term economic planning, aiding other executive departments with long term plans – Jason Furman

The National Security Council (NSC) – co-ordinating foreign/military policy; considerable importance, particularly for Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 as a result of suspicions between CIA, FBI – assistant to the President, Security Affairs Susan Rice

Departments have been at the detriment of Presidents – GW Bush set up the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives because he wanted to see religious groups to settle disputes

Currently, Obama has failed to save the Department of Homeland Security from partial shutdown, as Congress fail to renew it.

Restrictions on choosing the Cabinet

President can’t adjust the number of departments, responsibilities or promote his policies
Heads of departments should have compatible backgrounds with the department
Powerful pressure groups are consulted in the selection of the candidates and will lobby
Should be representative – EGG formula, Ethnic group; Gender; Geographical region

Limitations on the usefulness of the Cabinet

o   Heads of Department/Cabinet secretaries are usually POLICY specialists and they’re basically shit in areas unrelated to policy – not as useful in helping the President make decisions

o   May lack a close relationship with the President/each other; resulting in lack of confidential material shared with the cabinet

o   Members of the Cabinet form strong ties to Congressional committees/pressure groups; due to the long-term planning that takes place in departments who appear to be at odds with the President who is in office for a maximum of eight years.

o   Growing tendency for divided Cabinet – as each Head of Department gets increasingly committed to their own departmental priorities rather than a shared agenda

o   Friction between departments due to competition for funds for their programmes 

o   Heads of Departments are accountable to BOTH Congress and the President

Due to these shortcomings, policy making is often the result of bilateral meetings with the President and the top tier Cabinet Members for Defence (Ashton Carter), State (John Kerry), Treasury (Jack Lew) and Justice (Eric Holder).

Usefulness of the Cabinet

·         Embodying the presidential platform; Bush – campaign theme of compassionate conservatism

·         Being ‘in touch’ – having a representative Cabinet from every corner of American society. Obama’s first Cabinet was the most racially diverse Cabinet, with seven women initially.

·         Presenting an image of open, collective government – Cabinet meetings are photographed; key decisions are made by people who not subject to Senate ratification

·         Cabinet is called by the President to discuss major initiatives that affect every department – including annual budget

·         Cabinet meetings give opportunity for a check on legislation, information exchange – enforcing a sense of coherence, particularly if the administration is going through political turbulence.

How important is the Cabinet?

Yes, the Cabinet has importance	No, the EXOP has more importance
Cabinet members in charge of huge departmental budgets including Health (Burwell), Defence (Carter), Justice (Holder), State (Kerry) have colossal amounts of importance, due to the significance of their departments	However, the EXOP is in charge of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) so the Council of Economic Advisers, under Furman is of similar importance.
The Cabinet is of more importance as the EXOP need not be confirmed – which means the EXOP can get too close and will not give honest feedback. The EXOP becomes sycophantic and will then fail to see political realities outside the presidential/EXOP bubble. Depletes the effectiveness & power of the president	EXOP are the close political allies, who would see the President every single day, giving them greater importance on the day to day dealings. Contrastingly, Clinton’s cabinet didn’t meet more than three times in a year while he was in power – suggesting the distance and the spatial leadership he exerted
Individual cabinet members are extremely powerful alone – pushing their significance in their respective departments, particularly in court cases. For instance Shelby County v Holder Hobby Lobby v Burwell Pinpointing on them and giving them a greater media influence	The EXOP are likely to be the president’s allies – whereas within the Cabinet, if a Secretary of State was to fall out with the President they would lose their job emphasising the greater importance of the EXOP. Chuck Hagel lost his Defence post as a result of poor dealings over what to do about ISIS. Hagel was subsequently replaced by Carter. Sebelius fell out with Obama for the poor reception of the HealthCare.org, and he felt she wasn’t pulling her weight. Sebelius was subsequently replaced by Burwell.
Cabinet must be confirmed – through senatorial courtesy trials. Hagel for instance, was filibustered for his position in defence during these trials. The Cabinet must be selected through the EGG formula.	The EXOP has more powerful politicians who have greater experience in their fields and in political office – the crème de la crème is selected for positions in the EXOP.

The Vice President - sideman or nah?

The Vice President

Joe Biden - Democrat

Not worth a bucket of warm piss/spit – the Vice President ceases to be of importance, and they have the two constitutional roles;

-          The presiding officer of the Senate (mostly carried out by a Senator anyway), Vice President breaks a tied vote in the Senate

-          Takes over the Presidency if the President dies in office or can’t carry out his duties – Vice Presidents are a heartbeat away from presidency making the position a strong Launchpad for election campaigns

A position of growing importance

-          Role in balancing the ticket – compensating for the weaknesses in the Presidential candidate – the female absence in the ticket was the reasoning for Sarah Palin onto the vice presidential ballot.

-          As federal government has grown, the Vice President has to do more with the running of the executive branch

-          Important advisory roles

-          Important roles in liaising with the party and colleagues in Congress

-          Under Obama, the role has become one of the administrations policy czars – with responsibility for policies that impact middle/working class families

-          Of the eleven most recent, four Vice Presidents have become the party’s presidential candidate

The role of Vice President becomes of importance in assisting the execution of domestic policy, 

PROS & CONS of the Obama legacy - By Tamanna Moushumi & Samuel Donkoh, LSE Political Science research

The President of the United States of America:
Barack Hussein Obama
2008 - present

PROS	CONS
Gave people healthcare provisions; popular scheme that the people both wanted and needed. AFFORDABLE	Obamacare – no public option as it remains private having cost $2trillion
LGBT rights, repealing DADT; minimum wage for federal workers	Polarised presidency – as Obama is now ‘reaching across the aisle’
START Treaty with Russia – controlled nuclear weapons by limiting the strategic offensive arms On foreign policy, ‘we don’t have a strategy yet…don’t do stupid stuff’  suggesting his political pragmatism and flexibility to adapt with the foreign policy demands	Foreign policy front – Sarah Palin has criticised Obama on his ‘attempts’ to curb ISIS Obama hasn’t taken a harsh/tough enough stance with Netanyahu – relationship is on the rocks with Israel whilst going positively with Iran. Iranian deal – nuclear power for domestic use; opponents are suggesting the obvious creation of nuclear weapons Not standing up to Russia – allowing Putin to continue to do as he does; leader of the opposition was shot
Cuban diplomatic relations restored for the first time in 50 years; first Democratic president since Kennedy	Cuban relations – frosty as it is criticised that Cuba gives asylum to most wanted on the FBI list included Assata Shakur
Withdrew ground troops from Afghanistan and Iraq	Guantanamo Bay remains open – wont close the ‘’shining city on the hill
"Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive." Obama has rescued the economy	Drone strikes, every Tuesday – ‘kill list’, in which Obama remains the jury, the judge and the executioner. He does not need Congressional sanction for drones either – so he can do as he pleases
Allowed immigrants to ‘come out of the shadows’, giving immigrants temporary visas. Protected children, particularly Dreamers	Immigration: Dream Act, Executive Order, right to stay with a ‘path to citizenship’ – giving amnesty to criminals  ‘Deporter-in-Chief’
Monitored acts – data is scooped up, stored. Greater security at the sacrifice of freedom	Surveillance state – NSA ruthlessly pursues ‘whistle blowers’ – Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning
Minimum wage for federal workers	CIA Senate Torture reports/detention – waterboarding Chicago – black sites being used to torture people, no legal access The Head of the Chicago black site used to teach those at Guantanamo how to torture
First black Executive with the most diverse Cabinet. Role model to other ethnic minority groups; fundamental in the history of the USA, considering Jim Crow laws that marginalised African-Americans and ethnic minorities Judicial appointments are diverse – Sotomayor, Hispanic Latina	Pressure groups including Black Lives Matter exist despite the so called eradication of the racial barriers as a result of Obama being the first black executive.

How effectively do the three branches of federal government check each other? 13/15 Tamanna Moushumi

The quasi-legislative power of the Supreme Court has meant that the over exertion of political power has become difficult to check in recent years. The Court’s use of judicial review in the US vs. Windsor case displayed the constitutionality of laws made by Congress being challenged by the Supreme Court and effectively reversed. Arguably, this reduces the effectiveness of the legislative branch, as the judicial branch can so easily interpret the constitution to mean a plethora of meanings and thus allow the judiciary the quasi legislative powers that allow them to change the law. This suggests checks and balances are sufficient as the Supreme Court is able to back the rights of minority groups of citizens which Congress doesn’t have the ability to do.

The President can circumvent Congress, illustrating that the checks are too weak. Obama has done this through the Immigration Executive Order; the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill failed and Obama has effectively worked around the rest of Congress by passing the Immigration Executive Order which prioritises the deportation of ‘felons, not families’. However, it could be argued that checks are effective through the actions of Congress overriding the President, as they are the legislative branch of government. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment prevented the use of federal funding to pay for abortions within Obamacare. Arguably, this was an effective check on presidential power as Congress circumvented the President by passing an altered version of Obamacare. Furthermore, the Stupak Pitts Amendment was backed up with an Executive Order, but only after Congress forced Obama to do so. This suggests that the checks ensure one branch does not become ultimately sovereign and power is equally distributed.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the checks and balances by the federal government are too strong to be effective due to the partisan gridlock that is the result of the 2014 Midterms, turning Obama into a lame-duck president. Prior to this, partisan gridlock occurred in Autumn 2013 when the government experienced a shutdown as the budget failed to pass; illustrating that the checks were too strong as the government shut down for sixteen consecutive days. Contrastingly, it could be argued that bipartisanship within government is what the Framers would have wanted; political philosopher Montisquieu remarks, ‘when the executive & legislative powers are united in one person, there can be no liberty’.

The legislature (the Senate) has the power to confirm or reject judicial nominations to the Supreme Court and the federal bureaucracy. The confirmation of Justice Kagan by senatorial courtesy trials are evidence of efficient checks and balances made by the legislature on the judiciary. However, it could be argued that the Senate was Democrat at the time and would be in favour of Obama’s nomination. On the other hand, in light of Chuck Hagel’s resignation, Ashton Carter’s nomination to the federal bureaucracy could be received differently, as the senatorial courtesy trials will be Republican controlled, and could very much influence the nomination as Secretary of State for Defence, having been nominated by Obama, a lame duck president.  

Federalism...

Name of Federalism and Key Figures	States or Federal Government	Key Cases	Explanation of change theme	Any other relevant information
Dual Federalism / layer cake federalism	State – everything apart from foreign and interstate affairs	Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)gave states the permission to enforce segregation laws/Jim Crow if they wished	The Supreme Court struck down laws passed by Congress to regulate business & working conditions – the Supreme Court deemed this unconstitutional and these laws only applied to inter-state commerce	‘the power of states over local matters may be eliminated and…our system of government destroyed’
Co-Operative Federalism – the new relationship of co-operative federalism was more like two different mixtures contributing to marble cake federalism	Federal Government	Wall Street Crash – the Great Depression, 1929 New Deal – provided financial help for the unemployed Schechter Poultry Corporation v. US (1935) Regulated all companies including local trade, which was state responsibility US v. Butler (1936) the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional as it interfered with state responsibility	The federal government rose to take responsibility for local schools, work/unemployment benefits – which was a major departure from traditional federalism	The New Deal destroyed Federalism. Co-Operative federalism continued because the government needed to control the economy during WWII and after to take care of the aftermath of those who served & were wounded by war. During the Cold War, the US was a major technological player in arms and provided a vast array of jobs in the economy. Federal government rose as the key player, taking away state power.
Johnson and Creative Federalism	Federal government	Great Society – aimed to alleviate poverty; only federal government would have the resources for such a large programme that would take significant commitment in areas including; healthcare for the elderly, inner city unemployment, housing, education, transport Gideon v Wainwright (1963) – defendants were entitled to a lawyer even if they couldn’t afford it, due to the 6th Amendment Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – suspects had to be informed of their rights to not incriminate themselves (silence), 5th Amendment	-Direct federal support; block grants   changed the nature of federalism -Financial support for local government bypassing state government; constitutionally, the local government is accountable to state government which changed the dynamic of federalism completely. -Categorical grants; given for specific purposes – the state couldn’t put the money to any other use	Federal government dictating how money was spent by states changed the nature of Federalism    Effects of Great Society – the amount of money spent by federal government on welfare for citizens rose dramatically
Nixon and New Federalism	State government	Nixon attempted to bring back federalism in its purest form. Nixon attempted to reverse the effects of the Great Society which he believed completely destroyed federalism. Roe v Wade (1973) Texas law that restricted abortion was struck down, due to the 9th Amendment which protects the rights other than those stated in the Constitution. Any state law which made abortion illegal was an unjustifiable intrusion by the   Government on the privacy of the individual	Whilst Nixon attempted to pass the federal power down to the states, the Supreme Court continued to insist on Federal standards being applied to state laws and actions	General Revenue Sharing – categorical grants replaced by block grants for states to spend
Reagan and New Federalism	State government	-Issued Executive Order to favour the interests of the states  over federal government when policy making -By reducing federal aid to states, he broke dependency culture (reducing $18billion) -Instead of federal & state government sharing responsibility, the states would take FULL responsibility of 2/3 programmes (Medicaid, welfare/food stamps) and federal government would be responsible for the third. This was known as SWAPS – and whilst this seemed a feasible proposal, the states simply couldn’t afford such a programme	Appointed Anthony Kennedy who shared the view that the judiciary should restrain Congress in interfering with in state affairs/problems	Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem
Clinton and New Federalism	State government	Clinton felt, as a previous governor, states should have freedom to decide what was best for states, which was enhanced by the growing professionalism state governments possessed. US v. Lopez (1995) – Congress had exceeded powers when it passed banning firearms near schools; this could only be passed by states; Printz v. US (1997) – background checks could not be enforced by Congress as this was for states to instruct	1960s: local/state electors declined, as most wanted to be in Washington. 1990s: this reversed and state politicians cooperated with one another Economic boom leading to an increase in tax revenues for states and less reliance on Federal government income
George W Bush and New Federalism	State government	Fiscal conservative agenda; if taxes were cut national government would be forced to do less & people would rely on their own resources. Starving the Beast would strengthen state governments and ensure personal responsibility	-9/11 federal government was given additional funds to spent on reconstruction of New York City; new government department set up for Homeland Security INTERVENTIONIST INSTINCTS: -Medicare – improved healthcare for the elderly -No Child Left Behind – federal government’s contribution to the cost of education. Introduced the federal system of   accountability for schools not meeting English, Maths, Science criteria -Hurricane Katrina: serious damage to New Orleans – Bush committed to rebuild the city
Obama and Federalism	Federal government	US v. Windsor (2013) – against Congress, struck down the part of DOMA that prohibited federal benefits to homosexual couples Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) – refused to hear case on same sex marriage, which reinstated same sex marriage in California. Fisher v Texas (2013) – voided the Grutter decision and made Affirmative Action unconstitutional in Texas, in favour of the state Shelby County v. Holder – invalidated Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act; permitting the states to decide their own voting procedures. This was a win for the ANTI-FEDERALISTS!!! National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius – that insurance exchanges under Obamacare were unconstitutional as they didn’t have the individual mandates to force the states in providing healthcare insurance. Congress couldn’t collect taxes under the Commerce Clause, making the coercion of states to buy healthcare insurance completely unconstitutional	Obamacare – Affordable Care Act meant that the federal government was maintaining the role of the state by paying for welfare Obama Stimulus Package – economy was in absolute shambles, collapse of the Lehman Brothers. Economic stimulus bill of $787billion dollars