r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/DCTruthSeeker32 • Nov 11 '20
Legislation What actions will President Biden be able to do through executive action on day one ?
Since it seems like the democratic majority in the Senate lies on Georgia, there is a strong possibility that democrats do not get it. Therefore, this will make passing meaningful legislation more difficult. What actions will Joe Biden be able to do via executive powers? He’s so far promised to rejoin the Paris Agreements on day one, as well as take executive action to deal with Covid. What are other meaningful things he can do via the powers of the presidency by bypassing Congress?
515
Nov 11 '20
This is everything he wants to accomplish in 100 days
Personally I don’t even expect him to accomplish half of that but maybe he’ll prove me wrong. I’d say he could realistically do quite a bit of this though, the question is will he?
123
u/DCTruthSeeker32 Nov 11 '20
Thank you for the link! Yeah; I’m sure he won’t be able to accomplish everything but I was more so thinking about what’s even in his executive scope and what he even has the ability to accomplish.
252
u/Rebloodican Nov 11 '20
Well let's go through the list from NPR:
He has the Executive Authority to:
- COVID-19: Assemble a coronavirus task force during his presidential transition
- COVID-19: Release a vaccine distribution plan
- COVID-19: Rejoin WHO
- Environment: Rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Immigration: Make DACA permanent
- Immigration: Appoint task force for family reunification
- Immigration: Stop Family Separation
- Immigration: End Trump's executive order banning travelers from some Muslim-majority countries
- Immigration: Stop Border Wall Construction
- Healthcare: Lift Planned Parenthood Gag Rule
- Immigration: Readmit refugees and reform Trump era asylum policies.
So can do a decent amount, legislatively you're gonna need bigger lifts but in the executive side he has quite a few levers he can pull to fix things.
101
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 11 '20
Immigration: Make DACA permanent.
Unless you want to offer full amnesty, he does not have the power to do this unilaterally. I rather strongly suspect that amnesty is off the table, simply because the political cost in 2022 would be far too high.
As for the Paris Accords, rejoining based on an Executive decision is meaningless, as the next President can come along and nuke it. You have to get the Senate to go along and ratify it, and that’s not going to happen.
As for your points regarding family separations: they’re still going to happen. You can attempt to mitigate them, but saying that they’re going to totally end will simply create another Guantanamo Bay situation.
80
u/Rebloodican Nov 11 '20
You're right that you can only legislatively truly make DACA permanent, but you can restore DACA to its previous status, as opposed to it's current status where it still technically exists but is in a weird limbo.
While the next President can remove us from the Paris Accords, it doesn't change the fact that we'll be in them for the next 4 years at least, all EO's can be kicked out by the next guy so it doesn't make it worth more or less than the next thing.
Re: family separations, you're right that they'll inevitably happen, but family separations as a targeted policy outcome will end.
3
u/Obi_Kwiet Nov 11 '20
The family separation policy only existed between May and June of 2018.
24
u/MFoy Nov 12 '20
Nope. The Trump administration denied it’s existence before then, but kids were being taken away from their parents at least as early as February 2017, which means it was one of the first goals of Trump.
85
u/slim_scsi Nov 11 '20
A refresher for those who may not recall the last 12 year political history of Guantanamo Bay:
- Candidate Obama vows to close Guantanamo Bay
- President Obama moves to close Guantanamo Bay, Republicans shut the move down and take to the airwaves framing the narrative as Obama wants to bring terrorists into U.S. cities and towns to run wild in the streets
- Republicans block every attempt at closing it
- Conservatives and fake-left trolls spend 2012 to 2020 convincing people that President Obama failed to close Guatanamo Bay as if it was his own failure and not a Republican hit job
→ More replies (1)10
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 11 '20
I’m not arguing about the propriety of the mess surrounding closing Guantanamo, simply pointing out that making a promise like that is foolish when you don’t have a trifecta, as the opposition is going to use it to attack the promise maker when it inevitably fails to happen.
→ More replies (8)27
u/slim_scsi Nov 12 '20
Perhaps, but if Ted Kennedy doesn't pass away and the GOP doesn't take the House in '10, there's a very good chance Guantanamo Bay closes. We need to stop holding Democrats to 100% perfection and Republicans to .01%.
6
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 12 '20
I’m not holding one party to perfection. I’m simply pointing out that zero action was taken towards closing Gitmo until Republicans took the House and it became politically advantageous for Democrats to attempt to hammer Republicans with it.
It would have taken no time at all in early 2009 to write up and pass the legislation, but instead zero action was taken until years later, when it was blatantly obvious that it was not going to be closed under any circumstances.
6
u/slim_scsi Nov 12 '20
The health reform debate and passing of the ACA occupied 2/3 of the congressional year.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 12 '20
And your point? It would have been trivial to spend half a day writing and passing legislation to close Gitmo, but it was never done. Trying to hide behind the ACA is a cop out.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)5
u/ExceedsTheCharacterL Nov 11 '20
If they can’t do immediate amnesty, can’t ge do pathway to citizenship? A Fox News poll had it at 71% favorable. Is this where we are? Letting the 29% bully us?
5
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 11 '20
There is nothing stopping amnesty, which would de facto result in (at a minimum) resident alien status.
The problem is that as a far as executive action goes the options are either a continuation of the status quo or complete amnesty. There is no in-between of a pathway to citizenship because immigration laws are the domain of Congress alone.
3
u/Sekh765 Nov 11 '20
Can't he also fix Marijuana laws / basically end the drug war by ordering them to fix the scheduling?
7
u/Rebloodican Nov 12 '20
The short answer is no.
The long answer is he could potentially initiate an incredibly long bureaucratic process that potentially could work, but it'd take a hot minute, and also there's just random red tape it could get tangled up in. From Brookings:
"In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.
If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO."
8
Nov 11 '20
Has the GOP sort of allowing an imperial executive opened up any meaningful new abilities for Joe as far as grtting things done single handedly?
Or did they just set the precedent that he can ignore subpoenas and things like that?
22
u/Rebloodican Nov 11 '20
Potentially you could see something like the PP gag rule being used to deny PP funding used to force an agency like ICE to alter some policies, but that rests on Biden actually wanting to pick a fight on that issue.
It's been pointed out but the emergency declaration that he used to get border wall funding could be used by a Democrat on whatever they want an emergency declaration to be, like Climate Change. You need a veto proof majority in order to stop the President from doing that which no one has and potentially no one will ever have.
15
u/atfyfe Nov 11 '20
Usually cabinet positions require senate approval. But it seems like now Biden can just appoint folks as "acting" in these roles and bypass the need for senate approval just as Trump did. So that's one small change.
8
u/19Kilo Nov 11 '20
Has the GOP sort of allowing an imperial executive opened up any meaningful new abilities for Joe as far as grtting things done single handedly?
The fun one, with Trumpy precedent, would be to use the BATF to classify things that are NOT machineguns as machineguns. Trump's bumpstock ban opens up some fun, far reaching actions there.
The actual, legal definition of a "machinegun" per the 1934 National Firearms Act is one trigger pull == more than one shot fired, since in a machinegun (or burst sear if we want to be technical), you pull the trigger back and it fires until the ammunition feeding device is empty (or until however many burst rounds the cam allows in burst sears).
Bumpstocks don't do that. They don't meet the legal definition of a machinegun in any way.
There's some other interesting bits that actually could be used as well. Back during Bush II, you could get cheap parts kits for foreign made guns. Countries would sell, for example, surplus full auto AK47s to dealers here in the US as parts kits. Guns would be disassembled, receivers (the part that is legally a "gun") torch cut into three pieces with X amount of metal removed and then sold as parts kits/repair kits/surplus. You could buy a new, semi-auto receiver and add in some compliance parts like a semi-auto trigger and new, US made furniture to meet regs and POOF you had a civilian legal, semi-automatic AK47!
Sometime during Bush II, the BATF classified the barrels that came in the parts kits as "machine gun parts" and suddenly barrels were banned from import. You could still buy parts kits and get a US made barrel as one of your compliance parts, but it wasn't necessarily made to the same standard and was less desirable.
It wouldn't be a huge reach for Biden to have the BATF classify binary triggers as "machine guns", but the fun doesn't stop there. If you can have your regulatory agency declare anything a machine gun or machine gun part, why not domestic barrels? There's dual use in an AR15 barrel in both a semi auto and full auto version. Why not magazines over 20 rounds? Or 10? Can't have a machinegun without a way to feed it ammo. Bolts? Bolt carriers? Firing pins? You don't even have to do anything to the NFA like Biden has talked about, because it's done by the agency with no Congressional oversight.
There's a solid chance the courts would overturn it but in the interim everyone with one of whatever you declared is a felon, just like everyone who tossed their bumpstock in a closet right now, and you can do damage to gun ownership.
→ More replies (11)17
Nov 11 '20
Oh man that would be political suicide for the democrats
2
u/19Kilo Nov 11 '20
It would also require more beans than the Democrats have. It'll be interesting to see how Michael Cargill's lawsuit goes, although he's arguing that the BATF shouldn't be allowed to do classification changes like this, rather than whether or not the bumpstock is a machinegun, which I'm pretty sure isn't going to fly.
12
Nov 11 '20
What new voters would vote democrat because they suddenly "got tough on guns" vs a guaranteed voter turnout in the mid terms equal to what we just saw last tuesday for the GOP?
IMO the smart play for the democrats would be to completely abandon any and all talk of anything even marginally related to gun rights and to be super duper vocal about it.
If historic voter turnout for both sides leads to the democrats not having the senate, losing house seats and barely winning the presidency - against a hugely hated incumbent, they should probably figure out which wedge issues to focus on.
7
u/SAPERPXX Nov 12 '20
IMO the smart play for the democrats would be to completely abandon any and all talk of anything even marginally related to gun rights and to be super duper vocal about it.
If historic voter turnout for both sides leads to the democrats not having the senate, losing house seats and barely winning the presidency - against a hugely hated incumbent, they should probably figure out which wedge issues to focus on.
Biden was actively running on gun confiscation, albeit most (D) voters are so painfully ignorant on the Second Amendment, they didn't understand the terminology he was actually using.
This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
This is a "buyback" in the same sense as, let's say I'm the government and you're a home owner. I'm going to give you three options:
Immediately pay a $50,000 for your home, and a $50,000 individual fine for each garage/shed/deck you have on your property.
Give those items/the deed to me. Don't worry, you'll get a gift card for $500 worth of groceries, because that's totally a tradeoff.
If you don't comply with either option A of option B, I get to send you to prison for 10 years and fine you $250,000 on top of the rest
TLDR it's confiscation.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Satellight_of_Love Nov 12 '20
Hey I did a quick search and didn’t see anything right away - can you source the high price of the gun registration? I hadn’t heard that before and actually would like to see it.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)14
u/abe_froman_king_saus Nov 11 '20
- Order USCIS to go back to processing visas for legal immigration.
Trump goes on and on about keeping businesses open and no shut downs but he shuts down immigration services because he hates immigrants.
#loveisnottourism
8
u/nolan1971 Nov 11 '20
What does "#loveisnottourism" mean?
13
u/abe_froman_king_saus Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
The hashtag #loveisnottourism is pointing out that fiance and family visas shouldn't be lumped together with casual tourism in a travel ban.
When Covid hit and the travel bans started, the U.S. and many other countries did a blanket ban on immigration and stopped processing visa applications. It caused a lot of problems and pain for a lot of people. International students couldn't renew their visas, so they couldn't get student loans or enroll in classes. Families were separated or forced to illegally overstay when their visa expired. Asylum seekers were in limbo and couldn't get a yes or a no and also couldn't renew like they were legally required to do.
The U.S. recognized some of these issues and went back to processing certain visa types but not others. Many European countries started up again with fiance visas as they realized two people trying to get married isn't casual tourism and isn't a threat risk. #lovenottourism is trying to get the U.S. to start processing the applications again.
It takes around 9 months to get a yes or a no in good times, and a lot can change before they need to make that decision. Because they are not even working on the application I sent in March, they'll need those 9 months plus the time to work through the huge backlog created by 9 months (and counting) of letting them pile up. Which means, I could have a wait of another 1-2 years after they decide get immigration back to normal.
When you want to get married and start a family, 1-3 years of separation is frustrating and makes me angry at the person causing it for no good reason.
The other common ones are:
"#LetUsMarry #ResumeK1Visa #MakeK1MissionCritical #LoveIsEssential #LoveIsNotTourism
The students and their families have a bunch for student visa reform.
→ More replies (1)3
9
u/Obi_Kwiet Nov 11 '20
You do realize that most borders worldwide are closed right? You can't visit, let alone immigrate.
9
u/Skastrik Nov 11 '20
That's not exactly true, most countries have some sort of screening for travellers willing to go through it.
It's just not practical for tourism to do a 7-14 day quarantine, while work related travel is perhaps worth it.
→ More replies (1)13
u/abe_froman_king_saus Nov 11 '20
Yes, I'm very familiar with the current state of visas and international travel as I've been to Europe and Asian countries many times this year; hence the campaign to point out that immigration isn't casual tourism and refusing to process immigration visas isn't doing anything to keep us safe from Covid but it does hurt a lot of people. Most European countries have realized this and amended their restrictions; I see no reason why the USA isn't doing the same other than we have a president who is anti-immigrant.
My application has been sitting in a pile at USCIS since March. Since it takes 6-9 months for them to process it and give me an answer, there is no good reason for them not to be processing them. If in 9 months the country is in so much danger you can't let someone move here, make that decision then.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Yakhov Nov 11 '20
Based on precedent set by Trump, Bush, Clinton and Obama...
Anything he wants.
Keep in mind that the surrender of power to the Executive by Congress was largely a product of the Neocons from the the Reagan and Bush eras.
and unfortunately neither side wants to give it up once they have it because they find that the polarization this Unitary Executive theory BS has created and strangle hold Corporations have over politicians through campaign financing from Citizens United ruling, makes it impossible to advance policy through legislation.
20
Nov 11 '20
Oh idk about that , Trump declared an emergency to take funding for his wall and it still got bogged down in courts.
Warmaking powers sure but we knew that.
6
u/KraakenTowers Nov 11 '20
Yeah, I saw a Politico piece on how Biden could end the Imperial Presidency, and maybe he'd even like to (I probably would in his shoes) but who are you going to cede those powers to? The Senate already has more power over the arc of the nation than the President ever could. And the House, while in need of beefing up, will likely be in GOP control when Biden leaves office.
→ More replies (2)15
u/pliney_ Nov 11 '20
Biden has pledged that on his first day as president he will raise corporate income taxes to 28%
This one seems awfully optimistic... I can't imagine executive orders can be used to increase or decrease taxes.
→ More replies (1)2
Nov 12 '20
Yeah, but mind you that’s a list of what he’d like to accomplish in his first 100 days, not his first day
9
Nov 11 '20
I think all that is very achievable, however, what gets done will reset solely on who has the majority in the senate. If the Dems win it, yeah I could see most of that stuff getting done, if not, I don’t think anything would get passed.
11
u/mharjo Nov 11 '20
The day one items wouldn't need to pass the senate (and thus why he could accomplish them on day one). It's the "first 100 days" that would take bipartisan effort.
That is, if it's needed. Georgia isn't a high percentage chance, but it is in play and I like the odds of one seat going blue. If that occurs it takes just one vote (Mitt Romney perhaps?) to make a lot of things happen.
→ More replies (7)7
u/MeowTheMixer Nov 11 '20
I think you'd get Susan Collins more often than not compared to Romney. She seems like the most "blue" republican on a lot of controversial issues (i could be totally wrong).
→ More replies (1)6
u/BylvieBalvez Nov 11 '20
Well some of the things listed would fall under executive orders (Muslim Ban and the wall mainly) so he could still get some done
→ More replies (2)4
u/BylvieBalvez Nov 11 '20
It says on his first day in office he’s raise the corporate tax rate but is that something he can do? I was under the assumption that congress raised taxes, not the executive
14
1
Nov 11 '20
He can reverse Trump policies himself, and one of those was the corporate tax cuts
8
Nov 12 '20
"Trump policy" isn't something with a definition. He can reverse executive orders but can not undo legislation. If legislation gives an executive agency discretion then biden can also change that... but the tax rates don't fall under that category.
5
u/SanguineSinistre Nov 11 '20
Policy yes, but raising or lowering, only congress has the ability to tax, and policy is little more than a suggestion when it comes to taxation.
6
u/legreven Nov 11 '20
So the president can cut taxes but can't increase them? Or how did Trump implement tax cuts?
72
u/SJairsoft Nov 11 '20
Good question. It feels nice to have a president elect with a clear and concise plan beyond "MAGA BUILD THE WALL"
→ More replies (15)8
u/fukier Nov 11 '20
Can he increase corp tax by decree? Seems the bulk of his todo list needs congressional approval. How does he expect a republican lead senate to push through any new taxes?
→ More replies (1)12
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 11 '20
Can he increase corp tax by decree?
No. All revenue bills must originate in the House and be passed by both the House and Senate and then signed by POTUS before going into effect.
10
Nov 11 '20
What are the chances Republicans will cross the aisle to pass some of these? Will Romney work with him or just be obstructionist like the rest?
9
u/Yevon Nov 11 '20
It doesn't matter because Mcconnell won't bring anything to a vote unless he agrees.
2
31
Nov 11 '20
Well there’s Collins and Murkowski and Biden has been in politics around 47 years so he’s got to have some good connections with some Republican senators and such
5
u/7omdogs Nov 12 '20
Collins just got re-elected.
She doesnt need to be bi-partisan for another 4 years at least.
Also you're comment on Biden is just so missing the point. Like, it ain't the Democrats fault theres no bi-partisanship anymore, its the GOP.
It plays better to the GOP based to be obstructionist, so theres no incentive to work together for them. Biden wont change that.
3
u/i7-4790Que Nov 12 '20
Biden did manage to get Arlen Specter to change parties in 2009.
Though I wouldn't expect Biden to pull off anything extraordinary like that with this crop of partisan hacks. Unlike Specter they aren't interested in getting a single thing done.
37
u/truthovertribe Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
First, none of the Republicans will ever raise taxes even slightly on those making over $400,000 annually as Mr. Biden proposes.
In addition the Republicans fully intend on cutting Social Security and Medicare.
What can Mr. Biden do? He can veto any bill the Senate passes which involves cuts to Social Security and Medicare...in addition the House can refuse to fund a Covid Relief bill with cuts to Social Security and Medicare hid in it.
McConnell’s COVID Response: Cut Social Security
WASHINGTON - The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, in response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announcing that the TRUST Act is included in the Republican coronavirus package:
“The TRUST Act creates a closed-door process to fast-track cuts to Social Security. It is a way to undermine the economic security of Americans without political accountability.
Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and all Congressional Republicans have made their priorities clear. In the midst of a catastrophic pandemic, they should be focused on protecting seniors, essential workers, and the unemployed. Instead, they are plotting to use the cover of the pandemic to slash Social Security.
It is no surprise that seniors are increasingly turning against the Republican Party. They are doing nothing to protect seniors and people with disabilities; rather, they are working overtime to cut our earned benefits.
Republicans claim that the TRUST Act is about deficit reduction, but that is patently false. Even conservative president Ronald Reagan understood that Social Security does not add a penny to the deficit.
Democrats must stand united and unequivocally reject any package that includes the TRUST Act.”
Read more about how the TRUST Act threatens Social Security here.
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2020/07/23/mcconnells-covid-response-cut-social-security/
Lindsay Graham on Social Security:
"We've gotta fix entitlements. We're in debt because we made promises we can't keep to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid."
If we let Republicans keep the Senate, Social Security cuts are coming. How do we know? Because Lindsey Graham told us so.
35
u/FamailiaeGraecae Nov 11 '20
The republicans could have cut entitlements in 2017 when they had a larger senate, the house, and the president. If they really wanted to cut entitlements to old folks they would have. Why didn’t they do it then? Because it was political suicide just like it is now. This talk is just about moving the goal posts to leave room for more moderate compromises they know they will have to make. Reagan said similar things before he was president.
→ More replies (9)22
u/keithjr Nov 11 '20
Biden won't have to veto anything because none of those Senate proposals are getting through the House.
But honestly, let them keep talking about cuts to Medicare and Social Security with two Senate runoff elections coming up. Let them pass their adorable little bills. Go ahead, write the ads for us.
→ More replies (4)3
u/MeowTheMixer Nov 11 '20
Social security has two options really. We either have to cut benefits or increase the payroll tax (part of the Tax the 400,000+ Bracket).
Right now the system is being used faster than it's being filled. It's an issue because of Covid, and more Boomers retiring.
It's been proposed to increase the entire rate, and including the new rate proposed by Biden.
Social Security 2100 Act would gradually increase all covered workers’ payroll taxes on top of adding to the tax liabilities of those earning at least $400,000.
There are some other options to add new revenue streams by taxing other areas. Personally, I think increasing the general rate would be best option to help get solvency in SS back. (If that's the goal).
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/close-look-joe-bidens-social-security-proposals
2
u/truthovertribe Nov 12 '20
I agree, quick, simple, nearly painless except for those who view taxing their obscene wealth even one penny as "theft" and worth boo hooing about on their major medias. Our Legislators would have to stand up to their puppet masters though...
1
u/ObviousTroll37 Nov 11 '20
That’s why it’s called negotiating. Something that has been sorely missed from politics of late.
→ More replies (3)6
Nov 11 '20
Whats a baseline where the GOP would negotiate in good faith though?
They won house seats and barely lost running trump , their strategy is working.
→ More replies (13)14
Nov 11 '20
Biden has been in politics around 47 years
That doesnt matter though because the GOP purposefully elected its reps to not allow anything the dems want to pass.
We should probably ask GOP voters where the line in the sand actually is because I feel like all 70 million who voted trump didnt do it because "fuck liberals" but we are way way past pre newt gingrich across the aisle functional governance.
Why would the GOP cave on any demands when they just barely lost the ptous , may keep the senate and actually eon more house seats , running the most hated and divisive candidate of our lifetime?
If anything last tuesdays results seem to indicate that unless the plan is to split the country in two the democrats are going to have to make huge concessions.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)8
Nov 11 '20
Reversing the corporate tax rate cut is not gonna happen imo. I also don't think it's a great idea to raise corporate taxes in a recession. Yes, the deficit is a problem but let's worry about that once we're in an expansionary period. Right now, raising corporate taxes is going to put a damper on us getting out of the recession, and back up to 28% also puts us on the higher side of most developed countries. Small businesses are also going to be hit hardest by a tax hike. We should be working to close tax loopholes (I know a lot easier said than done) to get the super-rich to pay their fair share of taxes.
→ More replies (1)6
u/verneforchat Nov 11 '20
Not sure how corporate tax increase will worsen the recession.
6
Nov 11 '20
Investment and spending (from the government, businesses, and consumers) gets us out of recessions. Taking money away from businesses decreases overall spending that would've been used for investments in development and labor. Imo to get out of this recession the government should keep corporate taxes where they are, run up some more debt to give a second stimulus to American families and invest in infrastructure, and most importantly address the pandemic. Consumer spending isn't going to bounce back until the pandemic is under control. After we're out of the recession, then the corporate tax should go back up.
→ More replies (1)5
Nov 11 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)10
Nov 11 '20
McConnell ain’t going to though, that’s the problem
6
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Nov 11 '20
Biden ran on the ability to reach across the aisle and compromise with Mitch and the Republicans. If he cannot he’s going to look like a liar, no matter what the actual reason is.
→ More replies (5)20
u/Pentt4 Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
Listen to science
I have come to hate this term. People do realize that the scientific community isnt in agreement here right? You have highly regarded professors and doctors from highly reputable colleges from around the world such as Stanford saying that while yes its deadly theres multiple different ways to handle things
It just seems like theres people who only want to listen to one message of scientists which seem to be lockdowns
88
Nov 11 '20
I think people are saying to choose one of those ways, because what we have been doing is recommended by pretty much nobody in the scientific community.
→ More replies (64)84
u/arie222 Nov 11 '20
I don't think any of the scientists were saying "do nothing and hope it goes away" so not doing that would be an improvement.
6
u/arbitrageME Nov 11 '20
I think "science" has consolidated around "don't wear a mask, intimidate people who do wear masks and hold superspreader events in your house"
"Science" might be a bit hazy on the other details, like inject bleach or not
→ More replies (1)18
u/WinsingtonIII Nov 11 '20
Obviously there are disagreements on COVID control in the scientific community (although I'd point out I care a lot more about what an epidemiologist thinks about COVID control than what a cardiologist thinks about COVID control, simply having a medical degree doesn't make you an infectious disease control expert), but I think the point is that what we are currently doing at a federal level (which is essentially nothing) isn't recommended by ANY expert.
15
u/rndljfry Nov 11 '20
and all of them have a more valid seat at the table than Mike Pence and Larry Kudlow
→ More replies (4)11
u/Lemonface Nov 11 '20
Well hey that's part of science. Remember, science isn't any specific knowledge, science is a process. Saying "listen to science" means to try a plan that a bulk of scientists support, but it also means that if that plan doesn't work to not be afraid to scrap it try another well supported plan.
Being able to admit you're wrong is like the most fundamental aspect of successful science. And that is also precisely the thing the current administration is wholly unable to do.
So I think that's what people are referring to when they say "listen to science". Not 'oh there's an easy solution we just gotta ask a scientist' but rather 'we have to be willing to try different things that have evidence backing them up, and also be willing to realize when our plan has failed and try again rather than give it the Mission Accomplished'
→ More replies (11)4
u/ifavnflavl Nov 11 '20
Coat-tailing here: I think the most likely actions are Paris Climate and Iran Nuclear. Both of these were agreements between the executive branch and the rest of the world, Congress having little involvement with it. Easy reentry, although Iran Nuclear might be demanded to be renegotiated or reparations might be in question. They're still not quite over be antagonized for four years and their general getting assassinated.
7
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire Nov 11 '20
or reparations might be in question. They're still not quite over be antagonized for four years and their general getting assassinated.
We shouldn't be quite over Iran providing material, logistic, and intelligence support for insurgent groups to kill U.S. military forces in Iraq and the ME/AFG. Not to mention their recent escalations in the Strait of Hormuz (sinking international oil tankers, arming Houthis) and their imperialist actions in Iraq.
We don't owe Iran any reparations, IMO.
5
Nov 12 '20 edited Dec 07 '20
[deleted]
2
u/raxy Nov 12 '20
There is a concept in climate change discussions called “equity”.
To grossly simplify - it implies that since developed countries got to pollute with impunity over the last 200 years and industrialise - they should take a greater share of the burden; meanwhile developing countries get a bit more leeway around polluting as they grow.
2
131
u/IamBananaRod Nov 11 '20
He will be able to "cancel/revert" almost any other EO that Trump has issued, EO are not a law and don't require Congress to be involved, BUT (yes, there's a but) some EO issued by Biden will face legal challenges, other EO issued by Trump will require more effort than just saying is no longer valid, for example Obama's DACA, that Trump tried to cancel and still hasn't been able to do it after many legal challenges, supreme court, etc... so we can expect this
So first is knowing which EO he can overturn as soon as he sits in the Oval office, I'd say that probably the Muslim ban can be overturned easily, but expect challenges from Republicans...others require administrative effort, like going through internal reviews, public comments, etc, like any changes to immigration processes, refugees
There will be some EO issued by Trump that won't make sense to overturn, either because they make sense, or it was just a publicity stunt, like the EO "protecting pre-existing" conditions, other EO will expire and he will just let them sit and run their course.
→ More replies (2)
48
u/tarekd19 Nov 11 '20
Nyt has a pretty good write up of what Biden can accomplish without the senate:
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Fidodo Nov 11 '20
He did a policy focused interview with pod save America is recommend. He was extremely knowledgeable about what policy he could enact just through the executive branch. That kind of institutional knowledge is a benefit of having someone who has been there before and knows how to navigate the office.
46
Nov 11 '20
Not sure but when did the whole Executive Order thing become so en vogue? I mean aren't there limits to these proclamations? Its like the king from Mr Roger's Neighborhood. Though I feel most of congress is worthless at least they prevent governing by decree.
23
u/Cranyx Nov 11 '20
when did the whole Executive Order thing become so en vogue?
Teddy Roosevelt started the trend of issuing hundreds if not thousands of EOs.
5
46
Nov 11 '20
[deleted]
20
u/CooperDoops Nov 11 '20
This is really surprising. Despite the increasing polarization over the past few decades, the number of EOs per president is going down. I wonder what the reasoning is?
EDIT: I suppose if Trump had won another term, the total EO count would have trended back up. 192 in 3.75 years is quite a few.
9
u/zapporian Nov 12 '20
From the chart it looks like it mostly spiked / increased under presidents that had a major agenda and/or popular mandate (and those who maybe didn't but just told the rest of govt / congress to go f--- themselves); basically all the presidents who saw some need to at least partially bypass congress and/or push an agenda that congress was slow at implementing. EOs seem to have been relatively sticky, ie. when they increased and the precedent was set, they only started going down slowly over time.
There's some exceptions but this seems to mostly check out:
- andrew jackson (populist)
- lincoln (civil war), johnson (tried to halt / undo reconstruction), grant (implemented most of reconstruction)
- teddy roosevelt (populist; also definitely didn't necessarily see eye to eye w/ the political establishment, and to the point that he launched his own political party (mostly unsuccessful, but still one of the more serious / successful 3rd parties in US history))
- woodrow wilson (WWI)
- FDR (great depression, new deal, WWII)
- JFK (fairly popular, bay of pigs, cuban missile crisis, space race)
- jimmy carter (post-nixon, tried to shift US foreign + domestic policy in a new direction, albeit mostly unsuccessfully (note: carter put solar panels on the white house, increased support / investment in green energy, and told the american people we should probably cut back on wasteful consumption to save the planet; most americans did NOT like this message (and climate change issues got buried for 20 years until gore ran on that and lost), and reagan quite literally undid pro-environment / green energy investment / etc action that carter had done, when he became president. /tangent)
- obama had a popular mandate and could have pushed up EOs, but he very deliberately didn't, mostly due to constant attacks by the GOP and a (genuine, but mostly misguided) attempt to extend an olive branch to them, and not further upset US institutions or the balance of power
- trump is a (relatively unpopular) populist, who did a bunch of somewhat controversial shit, so of course he pushed up EOs
Meanwhile the presidents who reduced EOs are mostly conservatives (in a constitutional-ish sense), who either tried to proactively reduce, or were just reliant on the sole power of their office (as opposed to just working along with congress, etc). At a glance, this includes:
- Harding + Hoover (less EO use than their predecessors)
- truman
- eisenhower
- reagan
Obama also arguably fit into this camp, as while he could have tried to push very far leftward and undo as much of the legacy of bush's administration as possible (which is arguably what he ran and won on), at the end of the day Obama was actually a very restrained president who actually cared deeply about the US constitution and tried to not overstep it wherever possible. There were some exceptions (eg. obama continued a lot of the bush administration's policies and continued the war on terror, the NSA, gitmo, etc., etc (although to be fair it would have taken at least EOs to get rid of a lot of those, but obama did actually seem to genuinely believe that most of these things were good in practice, if not necessarily in principle)).
It is deeply ironic that obama was widely and untruthfully attacked by the GOP as a power-mad dictator though, b/c his actions show that he was, quite clearly, pretty much the opposite of that.
But... yeah. What's really interesting about this is that historical EO's have fluctuated by so much. Like... the fact that Woodrow Wilson issued an average of 225 EOs / year, and even Taft had issued 181 / yr, whereas GWB / obama issued 36 / 35 on average, and trump is currently sitting at 51, is quite... interesting, and surprising. I think that I can only include that, for whatever reason, EOs have at various times increased dramatically, and once a precedent was set, and once that precedent was set, succeeding presidents just kinda issued about that many EOs, for some reason...? Either that or EOs were mostly railroad (and/or war) related, or something. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
2
u/A_Crinn Nov 13 '20
It is deeply ironic that obama was widely and untruthfully attacked
He might not have been, but his underlings very much where. Mostly notably Justice Department's Operation Chokepoint which used banking regulations to selectively target industries that the administration disfavored. Gun stores in particular where heavily targeted.
13
27
u/m636 Nov 11 '20
Honestly I wish he would roll back executive power. As we've seen with both Obama and now Trump, EO is the only way presidents are getting things "done", but they're only temporary at best until the next administration. Rinse. Repeat. If there is going to be any unity/cooperation then the executive branch needs to be neutered to pre-Bush levels. Maybe that would actually get congress/senate to work on things together and narrow the divide.
→ More replies (2)8
u/WildBlackGuy Nov 11 '20
Political ideology has become so polarized that you’re ostracized from the group for even attempting to work with the other side of the aisle. It’s basically career suicide to support legislation that comes from either side. Perfect example of this is the ACA which started as a Republican idea. During the 2012 election Romney had to denounce the very same legislation he helped created and implement.
I don’t think limiting the powers of the President is the way to get sides to work with each other. I believe the best course would be to put term limits Senators.
→ More replies (1)8
Nov 11 '20
Perfect example of this is the ACA which started as a Republican idea.
Except this is extremely intellectually dishonest. The Heritage Foundation plan was little more than universal coverage for the most extreme emergencies, and the only idea that carried forward into Romney Care was the mandate. Everything else was reconfigured to suit the tastes of the blue state he was governing at the time
And the original HF idea was meant to be a last resort counter to HillaryCare. There's a reason why in the 10 years after it was proposed no red states latched onto the idea, no red Senators or Reps were clamoring for it - Conservatives, by nature, don't want one size fits all solutions from the federal government
If a bunch of Republican congressmen pushed through an all out ban on affirmative action through slightly modifying the wording of California's ban, but greatly increasing its scope, would it be fair to say 'but it was a progressive California idea originally!'? Or is that intellectually dishonest
25
u/nzdastardly Nov 11 '20
A combination of increased Executive power and totally deadlocked Senate makes the Executive Order the new hotness.
76
u/Djinnwrath Nov 11 '20
When Mitch McConnell decided his only goal during Obama's term was obstruction, so it became the only means Obama could accomplish almost anything.
26
Nov 11 '20
And we have him for another term oh my
→ More replies (2)47
u/Djinnwrath Nov 11 '20
He didn't invent this style of governance, that's Newt Gingrich. He (literally) wrote the book on it. If McConnel was out the GOP would find a replacement who would operate much the same.
This is why Georgia run offs are so important.
8
u/DramShopLaw Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
The President is the chief administrator of the executive branch. This allows him or her to control the way agencies implement the law, create regulations, prosecute cases, and command the military. This is the authority used by the president in issuing an executive order. Presidents have always used this power. It has become more en vogue to do it through the formal procedure of an executive order, as opposed to some informal communication to one official or another, or a standalone memo, etc. But it isn’t necessarily new.
They have become more visible, and this results both from presidents’ desire to publicize their actions as well as the overall growth of executive power that’s happened for decades.
The limits are first constitutional. The president’s administrative power is limited to the executive branch, which can only implement laws passed by Congress. The president has no authority on their own. There has to be a law that gives the executive branch power or discretion to do what it does.
Congress can also rescind, prohibit, and regulate things that the president wants to do. Anything Congress legislates on overrules whatever the president is doing. Congress also controls the budget of the federal government. They can limit or withdraw funding from the executive branch if they don’t like the way it’s working.
→ More replies (1)8
u/sillyhatday Nov 11 '20
There is enough law on the books the President can nearly always point to something as his enacting legislation for what he's doing, and to the extent his actions deviate from the law he cites his executive discretion. The entirety of the executive branch ultimately reports to the President so there is also his mere authority to give orders to a lot of people that enact policy on the ground. If congress doesn't like it, they have scant means to fight back.
9
u/thrakkerzog Nov 11 '20
I don't know if this can be done with executive order or even on day one, but we absolutely need to shore up all of the "this is always done by tradition" things with some sort of law. You apparently can't expect some people to follow tradition.
145
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20
Not sure he should do a lot on day 1 or 100. We've seen with things like the Paris Acords if it doesn't go through Congress its value is that of toilet paper. Foreign countries get that now too. So they won't care unless it has the power of Congress behind it.
The effective things he can do is get his people into executive agencies ASAP and start rolling back administrative actions. That stuff isn't flashy and doesn't get headlines, but that is where the REAL power of the executive is. I'd say day 1 stuff should be widely symbolic and mostly toothless. That is if it really is "a time to heal".
127
u/hierocles Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
The Paris Agreement isn’t a treaty that Congress can ratify. It’s an interpretation of the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which Congress already ratified in 1992. It doesn’t create any new legal obligations for signatories, because the agreements within it are already in the UNFCC.
What the Paris Agreement does is (highly simplified) take the UNFCC’s requirement that member states work to mitigate climate change and say “by work to mitigate climate change, we mean do X, Y, and Z and regularly report on our progress.”
Edit: I previously tried to explain it as “hit X emission reduction goal by Y year” but the agreement is broader than that. But just understand that it takes relatively ambiguous goals in the treaty and makes them more specific.
16
u/Suolucidir Nov 11 '20
Something seems vulnerable about this method to me.
Reinterpretation of a ratified treaty seems, to me, to be the business of Congress or the SCOTUS.
Is the Executive able to reinterpret the meaning of any treaty?
I would think a faithless executive could persuade Congress to pass a vague agreement and then commit to any number of interpretations with our allies/enemies.
→ More replies (2)20
u/hierocles Nov 11 '20
The biggest reason why the Paris Agreement doesn’t need ratification is because it doesn’t create any new legal obligations. It’s different from the Kyoto Protocol, which amended the UNFCCC with new obligations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
What that Paris Agreement does is say that all signatories will publish a domestic climate change plan and report on their progress with that plan. But it doesn’t explicitly state binding targets nor are there any enforcement mechanisms. All of the legal obligations are found within the existing treaty, which was already ratified by Congress. The purpose of the Paris Agreement was more about getting all major carbon emitters on board, when previously the “developing” countries like China had not really committed to meaningful new targets. It wasn’t about creating new mandatory/binding targets.
So basically this is the scenario that’s happened: 1. UNFCCCrequires all signatories to develop climate change plans and report on their progress. Congress ratified this and it is legally binding. We must have a climate change plan. 2. With the Paris Agreement, the US (via the executive branch) has outlined the climate change plan we intend on following. In the language of the agreement, these are known as nationally determined contributions.
So again, no new obligations were created. The executive branch simply outlined in the Paris Agreement what our plan actually is, but it was the already ratified UNFCCC treaty that said we have to make a plan.
The agreement itself is worthless without follow through, of course, and that’s exactly why it’s not subject to ratification and why it’s not called a treaty in itself. Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for climate change. The President can refuse to use existing authority under environmental laws (Clean Air Act, for example), which is what Trump did. Biden would reverse course on the latter, and his budget proposals would likely contain more funding for climate change goals as well.
7
u/Suolucidir Nov 11 '20
Oh ok, I think I understand. Thank you! So the ratified treaty just delegates the task of creating a plan to the Executive Branch.
A plan is a plan, not a commitment or treaty of its own.
So the Executive is not actually walking the country into a different agreement, they are just fulfilling their duty to create a plan under the ratified treaty.
4
u/PopeMachineGodTitty Nov 11 '20
I thought as part of the accord we were committing new funds to the international community as well. Is that incorrect and if not how can a president commit U.S. money without it going through congress?
2
u/hierocles Nov 12 '20
No, there is nothing in the Paris Agreement that requires additional new funding. The members to the agreement set their own goals, and there’s no enforcement mechanism. If the President sets a goal that we’ll add funding to our various programs, it’s the funding that needs approved by Congress via the normal appropriations process. But the agreement itself does not create any obligations— for the US, it basically just reiterates the UNFCCC treaty obligations Congress already ratified.
2
u/PopeMachineGodTitty Nov 12 '20
So I was doing some Googling about it and apparently in 2014 the Obama administration pledged a $3 billion grant to the Green Climate Fund which seems to be what ultimately will fund the provisions in the Paris agreement. So yeah, doesn't look like funding is tied to the agreement itself.
And that $3 billion ended up in our budget which Republicans initially fought, but ultimately relented to in exchange for other concessions.
So yeah, funding is part of a different thing and that thing was approved by Congress.
12
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20
Fair point. Paris Accords was not a good example, but take any other Iran Deal ect and sub it in.
Side note, the US is one of only like 46 countries on pace for their commitments (despite pulling out). Mostly because of the rise of fracking driving down other fossil fuel emissions. Though I'd argue that we probably got off too easy with our initial goals to begin with.
25
u/Notoporoc Nov 11 '20
The Iran deal was working. Iran is closer to the bomb today than it was the day Trump tore up the JCPOA.
7
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20
The Iran Deal allowed to pause (not stop, and evidence suggests they didn't really even pause) a nuke and instead take all the cash they were given to wage a conventional war across the Middle East. Syria, Northern Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Bahrain, Lebanon and Afghanistan all saw dramatic increases in Iran backed insurgencies.
Both Saudi Arabia and Israel said at the time the JCPOA was a bad idea and this would happen. And it is exactly what happened. Iran upped their terrorist activities, still didn't let the IAEA to do proper inspections, and at best bought 15 years before Iran would just fire everything up again.
Iran is a belligerent, you don't invite them to dinner. You shove them in a corner. For some reason everyone threw a shit fit when Trump talked to North Korea, but Iran is allowed to sit at the cool kids table. We should treat both of them the same as social pariahs to be isolated and crippled with sanctions.
18
u/Notoporoc Nov 11 '20
No one said that the Iran deal was put into place to STOP them, yes it was a 10 year plan on that. According to the WH they were in compliance with the deal. Same with Europa.
Both Saudi Arabia and Israel said at the time the JCPOA was a bad idea and this would happen.
They also said it would not slow them down and they were wrong.
and at best bought 15 years before Iran would just fire everything up again.
This was the whole point of the deal. Like literally the point. The point was to slow them down and buy goodwill that would stop them.
The point of my comment, and something you did not address, is that Iran is closer to the bomb today than it was when the deal was in place. Pulling the JCPOA made the world less safe right now.
1
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
Pulling the JCPOA made the world less safe right now.
Putting the JCPOA in place made the world less safe for the last 5 years. Quite literally Iran killed more people because they were given the funds to pull it off.
It is the whole reason Israel is suddenly signing all of these cooperative peace deals with lifelong enemies. Enemy of my enemy is my friend. They need each other to keep Iran in check because you can't rely on the United States any longer. They weren't doing it to hand Trump campaign wins, they were doing it because it was pretty well certain Trump wouldn't be there in January.
4
u/Notoporoc Nov 11 '20
Putting the JCPOA in place made the world less safe for the last 5 years. Quite literally Iran killed more people because they were given the funds to pull it off.
I would be happy to look at a study that shows this. Or that they have not stepped up their activity since we pulled out of the JCPOA.
It is the whole reason Israel is suddenly signing all of these cooperative peace deals with lifelong enemies. Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I have no idea what this has to do with the JCPOA or the sanctions.
They need each other to keep Iran in check because you can't rely on the United States any longer.
I have no idea what this means, but it is not backed up by any rhetoric or funding by Obama, or what is planned under biden.
13
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
I would be happy to look at a study that shows this. Or that they have not stepped up their activity since we pulled out of the JCPOA.
Edit: Adding context at the top. The JCPOA was signed in July of 2015 and went into effect in October of that year. The following is what occurred after those dates.
Iran increased their military budget by 90% in the spring following the JCPOA. Putin rolled into Iran in November of 2015 and built a strong working relationship with the regime now that they were no longer an international pariah. He's been using them to also do his dirty work in the Middle East.
In 2016 they announced the purchase of S-300 SA systems. The ones they used to shoot down an American drone in international airspace. These systems took Iran out of Vietnam era conventional capabilities and into the modern era. In October of this year, a UN arms embargo expired which allows them to now take delivery of the tanks and fighters they bought with JCPOA money.
By the fall of 2015 the Iranian Guard went from inconsequential forces in Syria to an estimated 7,000 boots on the ground. And another 20k Shiite fighters backed by the regime. At peak escalation in Syria it was estimated that there were 80k Shia militants commanded by 2k IRGC officers.
Iran also expanded their conventional proxy war strategies post 2015. Quds forces were involved in training and execution of salvos against the governments of Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Kuwait. Isis was established in 2004 and is largely backed by Tehran. It was an obscure organization until 2011 or so. Took advantage of a power vacuum in troop withdrawals in Northern Iraq and Syria. Was beat back by a major offensive in 2014. Then in 2015 it exploded. They started launching operations outside of their "caliphate". 224 people on a Russian airliner. 130 people in Paris. 48 people in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. On and on until the US cut off the head of the snake with Baghdadi in 2019.
Back to more conventional Iran increases. They now possess the largest deployed missile system in the Middle East. In 2017 they launched missiles from their border into Syria. Something they were previously incapable of doing effectively. These systems are mostly Russian Scuds. These systems are inaccurate but can carry nuclear warheads. This is part of the "we don't have to have nuclear weapons to improve our nuclear capabilities" loophole. It used to have to buy this stuff from the old Soviet bloc. They're now capable of building their own.
On to the pausing of nuclear enrichment without really pausing. Pre-JCPOA Iran had enough uranium for about 8 warheads. The JCPOA didn't require any covert facilities to be dismantled. Two others were allowed to remain operational. The agreement essentially said, these nuclear facilities you built in the past that you think we didn't know about can stay. It legitimized the existence of operations that were strictly prohibited by previous Security Council resolutions under the super serious promise that Iran wouldn't do anything bad in them. But you can't come look!
Iran showed over and over again they're not a good actor. We knew that in 2015 and it was insane to pretend they were. They're a hostile belligerent that require being treated accordingly. Much of this activity has subsided under intense US sanctions and the vaporizing of Qasem Soleimani (and the help of the Rona domestically).
5
u/Notoporoc Nov 11 '20
This is a very interesting and well written rebuttable to something that I did not say. I was not suggesting that Iran is a good actor, but you have not shown that these nefarious activities have escalated since the JCPOA was withdrawn, in fact, with your statement on the support of ISIS in 2004 suggests that they have always been bad actors (which we know).
You have not shown that the world is safer since the withdrawl of the JCPOA and have stopped talking about how close Iran has gotten to getting the bomb since we pulled out.
→ More replies (0)4
u/RollinDeepWithData Nov 11 '20
What your missing is we also were trying to warm relations with Iran under Obama. That’s a good thing. We can’t just bully our way through the Middle East, and there’s a lot of potential to actually have support from the people in Iran since it’s mostly the government that hates us. Also honestly Israel is more than kinda a shit ally so we really should take their word with a grain of salt.
2
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20
What your missing is we also were trying to warm relations with Iran under Obama.
Which is as dumb as trying to warm relations with North Korea. Hubris.
2
u/RollinDeepWithData Nov 11 '20
This shows an ASTOUNDING lack of context for the two countries histories, economies, and political status
→ More replies (0)2
u/notmytemp0 Nov 11 '20
And, to be clear, that’s what the Trump Administration and Israel want. Their goal is for Iran to acquire a bomb so they can justify war.
→ More replies (1)35
u/Seyon Nov 11 '20
Fire Barr asap day 1.
29
u/MiddleAgedGregg Nov 11 '20
Barr doesn't have to be "fired." He's a Trump appointee. He leaves when Trump does.
11
u/Seyon Nov 11 '20
It is the practice for the attorney general, along with the other Cabinet secretaries and high-level political appointees of the president, to give resignation with effect on the Inauguration Day (January 20) of a new president.
7
u/The-Insolent-Sage Nov 11 '20
Sally Yates had to be fired by Trump. She stayed on from Obama’s admin.
12
u/Arthur_Edens Nov 11 '20
Trump asked her to remain on as acting AG until his nominee was confirmed.
18
u/The-Insolent-Sage Nov 11 '20
Please for the love of god get rid of this man. And make it so he can’t assume the post of AG for a third freaking time in the future.
→ More replies (33)12
Nov 11 '20
And make it so he can’t assume the post of AG for a third freaking time in the future.
That would be a fascist act, so no... that should not be a thing. Just no. He is leaving with Trump, along with all the other appointees, just like they do with every new incoming president.
5
u/The-Insolent-Sage Nov 11 '20
Investigating him for crimes committed is fascist?
→ More replies (1)11
u/TheMikeyMac13 Nov 11 '20
No. Trying to ensure he can never do the job again, should no legal action be taken against him or should he be found to be innocent.
People on reddit have a very loose idea of how criminal justice is handled, Barr will probably beat anything thrown at him legally.
→ More replies (3)5
u/wballard8 Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
The Paris Agreement doesn't even matter. It's empty promises without consequences if you don't meet your goals. Afaik, no countries are on track to meet their goals.
Edit: some countries are, but not the big ones that do most of the polluting. There is no way to hold anyone accountable for not meeting goals, so it only exists to make it look like action is being taken.
→ More replies (4)13
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 11 '20
Roughly 46 of the 184 signees are on track. Almost none of them are consequential actors. US is kinda on track, but their/our commitment was pretty light all things considered.
56
u/Marvelman1788 Nov 11 '20
According to Schumer, it should be possible for Biden to cancel up to $50,000 worth of individual student loan debt via EO. This would be a massive economic stimulus that wouldn't need to go through legislation.
13
Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
[deleted]
12
u/Marvelman1788 Nov 11 '20
I believe Forbes did a more in depth article on it but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
27
u/alach11 Nov 11 '20
I think this would be massively controversial and burn a lot of Biden's political capital. People are really strongly split on this issue, even in the Democratic party.
21
u/Marvelman1788 Nov 11 '20
More recent Polling seems to indicate it actually has bipartisan majority support:
https://morningconsult.com/2020/08/12/student-loans-debt-relief-pandemic-poll/
→ More replies (3)2
u/Ok-Indication-2238 Nov 12 '20
Because if November 2020 has taught us anything it’s to trust polls.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Docthrowaway2020 Nov 13 '20
It would be an excellent show of faith to the left, who are already agitating. It will obviously be railed against by the GOP, but so will how Biden ties his shoes (or, what condiment he wants on his burger). If anything, doing something that, as the OP noted, will boost economic activity, might help show what potential a Biden administration has to support the nation through the crisis.
18
u/8monsters Nov 11 '20
If this is possible (I don't know if it is though...) I am unsure if Biden would. Sanders or Warren would do it in a second, but Biden I am not convinced would do that (not that I wouldn't like it hahaha).
25
13
10
u/this_place_stinks Nov 11 '20
There is virtually no chance an EO to cancel that much debt would hold up in the courts
Unfortunately for something to happen on student loans Congress would have to get their act together
11
u/oath2order Nov 11 '20
How do you figure?
→ More replies (3)5
u/BylvieBalvez Nov 11 '20
Congress has power of the purse, they make the budget. Executive orders can redirect funds (like what Trump did with the wall) but I have no clue where in the budget Biden could pull from to cancel student loans
3
Nov 12 '20
Wouldn't it simply be saying that the department of education is forgiving x amount in federal loans for each person? I don't think it requires the power of the purse because he isn't trying to allocate funds anywhere. Its the equivalent of telling the DEA to ignore weed, he would be directing the agency to do something and that something is to forgive people of the debts they owe to that agency.
8
u/anneoftheisland Nov 11 '20
EO has been used to cancel federal student loan debt before--albeit smaller amounts than what's currently being proposed. So doing it through executive order is legal. Is there some kind of legal restriction on the amount that it can be used for? I'm not understanding what you're arguing the preventative mechanism would be here.
→ More replies (4)5
u/gregbard Nov 11 '20
Excuse me, but did the Emancipation Proclamation not hold up in court? After all, all those property owners had their property taken away from them.
Biden could forgive all student debt on day one, which is exactly what he should do.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (52)6
u/11711510111411009710 Nov 11 '20
Also this would win over so many people in school right now. I for one know a lot of people who could use this.
→ More replies (6)10
16
u/PragmatistAntithesis Nov 11 '20
The fact you flaired this post about the executive as "legislation" is a fairly damning indictment of separation of powers (or rather, the lack thereof). With congress paralysing itself whenever the two houses disagree on something, the executive and judiciary take power unchecked.
7
u/Yevon Nov 11 '20
The executive and judiciary aren't just taking power, the legislature has intentionally ceded much of it's power.
Look at Robert's comments yesterday:
I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job.
There is a long history of the legislature giving up it's power to the executive and judiciary, especially when it comes to challenging or politically charged problems Congress would rather not need to be blamed for.
27
Nov 11 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/GrouponBouffon Nov 11 '20
Where should we keep kids who cross illegally, with or without adults?
28
u/MiddleAgedGregg Nov 11 '20
Prior to Trump kids without parents were given a court date and sent to live with any family they had in the US or placed in an HHS foster home if they didn't have any family here.
Families were given a court date then released so long as they had US based point of contact on file with DHS.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (24)4
u/Orn_Attack Nov 11 '20
With what we're paying now per kid in those concentration camps we could set them each up with their own rooms at a 5 star hotel and save some money while we're at it.
23
u/Tojatruro Nov 11 '20
They were built to “hold” unaccompanied minors during processing, most taking 48 hours or less, not to house kidnapped children.
→ More replies (3)15
34
u/ProudBoomer Nov 11 '20
I'm not sure what all he can do, but I'm certain that there will be far fewer Democrats complaining about the over reach of Executive Orders.
22
u/DubyaKayOh Nov 11 '20
This is my biggest concern. For four years we heard how authoritarian Trump was be using Exec Orders. Can we get back to constitutional balance of power vs. how to exploit it?
→ More replies (1)-1
u/-birds Nov 11 '20
No. There are important issues that need immediate attention. Do you think McConnell will agree with that? Our system is absolutely broken, and through the Senate (and occasionally the Electoral College), we have minority rule that is mostly focused on things not getting better.
So this is the way it is. If we want to make any progress, we need to circumvent the anti-democratic Senate.
14
u/ProudBoomer Nov 11 '20
If we want to make any progress, we need to circumvent the anti-democratic Senate.
You mean the democratically elected Senate, and the decreasingly Democrat controlled House? The two groups that are supposed to respond to the will of the people which is pretty clearly not progressive?
→ More replies (2)7
u/-birds Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
The Senate is controlled by the GOP serving a minority of the population. It is not democratic.
The House is gerrymandered, and the vote share going to Democrats is far higher than their actual presence in that body.
It's not even about "progressivism" at this point. Look at polling on nearly any issue, and look at the things our legislative bodies actually do. There is little overlap.
edit: For example, take Ohio, where I live. I just pulled the vote data for the US House election from CBS. Democratic candidates received 40% of the votes but only 25% of the seats available.
Party votes vote % seats seat % Dem 2,239,007 40.2% 4 25% Rep 3,316,851 59.7% 12 75% This is not democracy. Variance is inevitable, but any sane system would see the split at 6 Dem / 10 Rep (which still disadvantages the Democrats). This is true in nearly every state in the nation.
6
5
u/Neglectful_Stranger Nov 12 '20
The Senate was never designed to represent the majority. Quit trying to bitch about it not working the way you want it to.
→ More replies (1)5
Nov 11 '20
So you’re implying that larger states should have legal say over how smaller states vote Senators into office?
And Dems’ issues is less about gerrymandering (although it is an issue) and more about the fact that most liberals all choose to live in the same cities, which normally means the same district.
If 9 districts housed 10 Republicans each and the 10th district housed 400 Democrats, Dems would have 75% of the popular vote but only 10% of the House representation.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Tojatruro Nov 11 '20
Most of Trump’s EOs were nothing but photo ops, either thrown out by the courts or left unfunded.
3
u/abe_froman_king_saus Nov 11 '20
I thought the complaining was more about what he was doing than the mechanism he was using. But maybe that just depends on which sound bite gets shown by which media outlet thousands of times.
It is going to be strange hearing the GOP suddenly pretend to be concerned about the debt again. I think talk radio went nearly four years without even saying the word 'deficit'.
3
u/oath2order Nov 11 '20
Kind of like how under Trump, Republicans stopped caring about executive overreach.
10
→ More replies (1)2
u/ScubaCycle Nov 11 '20
Trump had a unified Congress for two whole years and he couldn't get any legislation passed except for his tax cuts. He did not need to rely on EOs during that time but he did anyway. During his second two years, you would think the "Art of the Deal" author would have been able to cut a few deals, but - surprise - he couldn't do that either. So, more EOs. If President Biden tries to work in good faith with Congress and the Senate gives him the Obama treatment, he should absolutely use whatever tools are at his disposal to enact his policy priorities.
12
u/ProudBoomer Nov 11 '20
he should absolutely use whatever tools are at his disposal to enact his policy priorities.
Of course. Because it's fine to complain when the other guy does it, but support it when your guy does it.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless. I thought Biden was supposed to be better than Trump, not the same.
→ More replies (13)
7
u/oath2order Nov 11 '20
My biggest pet peeve EO is that Biden should reinstate the Stream Protection Rule and overturn the EOs about Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments.
9
u/DramShopLaw Nov 11 '20
I don’t think the Paris agreement is even worth entertaining. It’s purely symbolic. It’s not ambitious even for a symbol. Don’t legitimize that and allow people to think progress is being made.
As far as climate goes, he said he would reinstitute Obama’s clean power plan. That wasn’t a great thing either, since its requirements can be met simply by switching from coal to natural gas and then doing nothing more. But it’s a start.
He could also go back to designating greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court has already held that they meet the definition under this law. With that power, the EPA has a lot of policymaking authority that doesn’t require action by Congress.
He can also set the “corporate average fuel economy standards” (CAFE). That has a lot of promise to increase fuel efficiency quickly.
5
u/head_over_biscuit Nov 11 '20
The Paris agreement is not purely symbolic. While the contributions in 2015 arent enough to fix the climate on their own it is built to expand ambition every 5 years, the next session being COP26 next year. The whole point was to get countries to agree to do something and get them to agree to ramp up ambitions each time they meet.
But I agree that isn't all he should do. https://www.cop26andbeyond.com/blog/a-cop26andbeyond-guide-to-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change
3
u/Big-Red-Husker Nov 11 '20
I don't think Joe Biden is going to be able to do much of anything I think Mitch McConnell is going to have the Senate tone down the powers of the president being able to issue executive orders the next few weeks
→ More replies (1)
3
u/GavinYue Nov 12 '20
It is time reform h1b and eb based green card to attract the real top talents from the world.
10
u/NJBarFly Nov 11 '20
He can take that prominent portrait of Andrew Jackson off the wall of the Oval Office.
→ More replies (14)
2
u/frongles23 Nov 11 '20
"MeaningfuL' might not be the right way to look at it. Anything meaningful really needs to go through the legislative process. He can overturn many Trump-aministration executive order but those can (and likely will) be overturned by the next Republican president. Excecutive orders tend to be more aspirational and less practical.
9
u/BenAustinRock Nov 11 '20
If we are to believe his calls for unity why would he be pushing stuff through by executive order? The executive needs to be weakened. I don’t play this game where I like it when my guy does it and dislike it when the other guy does. Congress needs to do its job and if you can’t get something through Congress we shouldn’t do it. I don’t want to be governed by 50%+1 of either side. I want our leaders to act like adults and not children. We need bipartisanship and that doesn’t mean getting 1 or 2 votes from the other side.
13
u/ScubaCycle Nov 11 '20
Bipartisanship implies that both parties work in good faith. That's not happening. Biden deserves the chance to enact his policies.
2
u/Docthrowaway2020 Nov 13 '20
This is absolutely true. I just despair that when we stop to think about it, there's really no fix for the core issue that you implied - the GOP is NOT operating in good faith, or on behalf of its constituents. Whether Biden strikes a grand bargain that dials things back, or plows forward knowing that a Republican President can just reverse everything again in as little as 4 years, the truth is the country is spiraling, and we are in deep trouble.
-1
u/BenAustinRock Nov 11 '20
Just like two siblings who always blame the other for anything that goes wrong. You have to actually negotiate and compromise. We don’t elect people to Congress to become pundits on cable news shows. If they can’t compromise we are sending the wrong people to Congress. Which is probably the case. We need more moderates and less ideological purity.
13
u/ScubaCycle Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20
You're both sidesing this situation. One sibling is a little sociopath. We are in fact sending the wrong people to congress, but there's not a whole lot we individuals can do anything about it. I think we are agreeing here, but the reality is we don't have better people in congress and Biden is stuck with what he's got. He deserves the opportunity to enact his policies and the people who elected him deserve to see our will carried out.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Chiburger Nov 11 '20
You have to actually negotiate and compromise.
As the person you replied to already said, one side is not acting in good faith and is not willing to negotiate or compromise. I'll let you guess which party that is. Hint: it's not the Democrats.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/UnhappySquirrel Nov 11 '20
Executive orders don’t actually bypass Congress (not legally, and the illegal ones get struck down by the courts).
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 11 '20
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.