Unshackling the Presidency to Fix the Government

[Judi Lynn]

Unshackling the Presidency to Fix the Government
By PETER BAKER
Published: July 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — In all the discussion these days about how dysfunctional Washington has become, attention usually centers on a fractious Congress riven by partisanship and paralyzed at times by rules and obstruction. Often lost in that conversation is the possibility that the presidency itself may need fixing.

At least that is the conclusion of a bipartisan group of former advisers to presidents and would-be presidents who have drafted what they call a plan to make the presidency work better. With the help of several former White House chiefs of staff, the group, called No Labels, has fashioned a blueprint that would make whoever wins in November both more powerful and more accountable.

The idea is to cut through some of the institutional obstacles to decisive leadership that have challenged President Obama and his recent predecessors, while also erecting structures to foster more bipartisanship, transparency and responsiveness. If the proposals were enacted, the next president would have more latitude to reorganize the government, appoint his own team, reject special-interest measures and fast-track his own initiatives through Congress. But he would also be called on to interact more regularly with lawmakers, reporters and the public.

“There aren’t any magic answers to Washington’s problems,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who worked on several presidential campaigns and now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “But what these reforms do is make it easier for elected officials who are serious about solving problems to do so.”

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/us/politics/no-labels-group-offers-ideas-for-more-effective-presidency.html?_r=1&=

[Warpy]

1. While it seems expedient while we have a Republican Congress

that spite has paralyzed into inaction, it's a very dangerous thing to do.

The founders of this country wrote checks and balances on power into the constitution for a very good reason: all had seen new monarchs ascend to the throne promising (and delivering) reforms--for a short time. All became paranoid and felt betrayed by ungrateful people who felt those reforms weren't big enough or had come quickly enough and turned against their people.

Every despot, in other words, started out as a benevolent one.

And once such a man with so much power is installed, it becomes extremely difficult to dislodge him, usually involving violent revolution.

I'd rather keep the inefficiency guaranteed by the constitution. The guarantee also protects us from despots.

[Myrina]

4. +100

Yes, indeed.

[pscot]

2. Rein in the philibuster and limit campaign spending

and the presidency will be just fine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. I wasn't a big fan of the unitary executive before. Still not. nt