Not too much power…but responsibility. Even though he has aides, he is held responsible for the economy, foriegn affairs, tax cuts, the war, basically anything and everything that has to do with the country.
Is it too much for one person to handle…how could anyone possibly handle that much varying responsibility? Is there enough time in the day to give each subject he deals with an appropriate amount of consideration?
Whoever the president may be at a given time, he or she chose to hold himself or herself out as someone who could deal with the responsibilities of the office and so I have no problem holding him or her accountable for anything over which he or she might have control.
Let’s be honest, however, and agree that while the president may appear to have a lot of control over a lot of areas of our lives, the president’s does on a day-to-day actions actually have a very little drastic or lasting effect on lives of most people living in the United States and even less so on the rest of the world. An exception might possibly be action taken abroad by the military–although I am not completely convinced that the president even makes much of a difference in that arena.
I’m not speaking of any person in particular…just the office. I mean have we set them up to fail by giving them so much responsibility. I mean it takes teams of people just to keep him updated…how much real expertise could he have on all those subjects?
Metro:
That’s the reason for a Cabinet. I’d hardly call the Cabinet members “aides”. And I agree 100% with DB4530 that the president (and gov’t in general) are largerly peripheral to our lives. Especially when it comes to the economy. The president is no more “responsible for the economy” than he is for the weather. Well, maybe a little more responsible, but not much.
I prefer the Reagan type of management which sets some very high level goals (or a vision, if you will) and doesn’t get bogged down in the details. His job is to make sure someone sees the forest and not just the trees. (That was a freebie for all those who like to mock Reagan and his tree issue. Fire away!)
A president could always return some of his ‘responsibilities’ to Congress, in accordance with the Constitution. I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever thought that the Executive Branch shouldhave the responsibility of taking the lead on tax cuts, having given that authority quite clearly to the Congress and the House of Representatives.
But I also realize that returning a president’s ‘burdens’ to another branch of government would never happen.
The responsibility never left Congress. It has always been the function of Congress to propose law. The President has the authority to approve it or send it back for revision. This does not stop the President from submitting suggestions to Congress. Most (OK, all) Presidents assume a mandate-by-proxy as a result of being elected.
The best example of Presidential power was the year President Clinton shut down the Government by not signing the budget. It forced Congress to increase spending to meet the President’s mandates. Truly one of the few instances where you could associate the budget directly to a President’s veto power.
To answer the original question, no. It is the job of the President to choose qualified people to accomplish the tasks set forth. If you look at the qualifications of Dubya’s cabinet, you should feel a high degree of confidence that they will accomplish their goals.
The President’s role in lawmaking is a little more pro-active. The President is the only officer upon whom the Constitution imposes a duty of instigating legislation:
Const., art. II, sec. 3. From this duty of recommending “necessary and expedient” legislation comes the hoary political adage that “the President proposes, Congress disposes.”
Well, of course, it’s those damn trees that cause all the pollution.
If the pres is a simpleton like Bush, then yes, he has way too much responsibility to handle.
If the pres was a true statesman who could truly take responsibility for fundamental issues and steer them in the right direction, then no, it isn’t too much responsibility.
The buck has to stop with someone. And keeping up to date with the activities of each tree in the forest is not necessary to managing the greater affairs of the forest.
Essential groundwork, the shaping of policy and the direction of lower of echelons are the responsibility of the man at the top. The problem is, it requires great foresight and wisdom to carry out such duties effectively; more foresight and wisdom than is required to prattle off emotional speeches every other day and declare war once in a while.
There’s some truth to that statement. If you look at the Blue Ridge mountains, you are looking at polution caused by tree resins.
And if normal logging had been allowed, there would have been the fire breaks necessary to prevent the catastrophic fires over the last 2 years.
I’m not even going to pick on the person responsible. Chalk it up to good intentions gone awry.
I believe there was a long thread on this subject (try searching on “trees” and “pollution” and “Smoky Mountains”) and, while it is a bit complicated, the gist as I recall was the claim that the natural haze that gives the Smoky or Blue Ridge Mts. their name is any sort of serious pollution is a serious misuse of terminology. Besides which, there have been dramatic reductions in visibility in these regions in post-industrial times.
Right. And you know this how? Most experts in the field attribute it to fire suppression going back tens of years which has caused a buildup of brush. Also, more mature forests tend to be more resistant to fires than ones recently logged.
Here is the link to the thread on the Smoky Mountains.
Well put. I admit to overplaying my hand in that respect, simply to make the point that presidents would hardly admit that they have too many responsibilities, because that would mean reducing their influence, both in Congress and in setting a national agenda.
I know this by flying over forests that have fire breaks in them. As opposed to flying over burned stumps that didn’t. Granted, my experiences are anecdotal, but It mirrors commons sense. If you can’t get into a forest with heavy equipment then you can’t stop a large fire.
I’ve read many sound bites from the likes of Club Sierra but I haven’t seen any physical evidence to support the ill effects of fire breaks. It would better, for the purposes of discussion, to replace the words “fire break” with “access road”.
I’m sure some forms of logging are detrimental to fire suppression, but not ALL.
Sorry, but you are going to have to present more than this to claim that the roadless rules had any relation to the fires. And, I don’t see how these roads would serve as fire breaks. In many case, I believe, the fires jumped right over quite substantial roads. After all, there are usually roads getting to houses, so almost any house that burns means, by definition, the fire had to cross a road unless all the houses got burnt from the other side and then the fire stopped at the road.
Well, the Sierra Club does not oppose all forms of logging. It particularly, doesn’t oppose attempts to clear brush but leave the more mature fire-resistant trees. Alas, this is what logging companies want to do because they can’t make a lot of money at it.
Here is a link to the Sierra Club information on forest fires so you can read some of what they have to say rather than getting all your info from the likes of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Here is a brief summary of the Sierra Club’s position from their site:
Sorry but you are going to have to do better than a dismissive answer. And you missed the point of my statement. A road is not meant to be a jump barrier, it is a conduit to bring in equipment. If there is no ground access to fires then the only other option is an air drop.
I would have more respect for the Sierra Club position if they were a little more austere in their operations.
Well, again, if this was the issue, then surely they would be able to bring in the equipment near the houses and stop the fire there where there are plenty of roads.
Furthermore: (1) Roadless areas are important from an ecological point of view for biodiversity. (2) There is no strong evidence I know of that roadless areas are most at risk [Sierra Club notes that 80% of the fires occur in non-roadless areas] and some arguments how areas cut up by roads have greater fire danger (obviously they allow for more human access and humans start some of the fires). And (3) you still haven’t given any evidence that the roadless rules proposed by Clinton were a problem in these instances. Particularly considering that the designation of large areas to remain roadless was made at the end of the Clinton Administration and then put on hold by Bush, I think you may have a hard time proving cause and effect for this policy. [I think a judge then forced that the rules go into effect but even if that is so, they haven’t been in effect long enough to have prevented that much road building.]
I would have more respect for your position if you attempted to back it up with anything approaching evidence.
I would have more respect for the timber industry position that you are parroting (although I am not even sure whether or not they tried to make this roadless argument you are making) if they weren’t so obviously motivated by their own economic self-interests.
Here, by the way, care of the Native Forest Network are some quotes from the US Forest Service’s own studies of the roadless area initiative:
I would agree with you 100% if we were discussing the nature of fires. Once, they’re started, roads enable people and machines to fight it.
More roads = greater chance of fire but also greater ability to fight it.
Almost everyone else answered this thread in the way it seemed to be intended. Not with any individual in mind, but the office itself.
You on the other hand stoop to partisan political name calling. Ok, if you think the sitting president is a simpleton please show proof. Or is this just your opinion?