Assistance Of The Executive Branch In Economic Recovery - Research Paper Example

Assistance Of The Executive Branch In Economic Recovery The U. S. economic crisis is stealing the lifestyle of Americans out from underneath their technologically savvy, home owning, luxury seeking, and debt accumulating culture. The belief that every American should go into debt to own a home, extend their living expenses well beyond their means and become a faux member of the elite by pretending that they are actually living a lifestyle that could never have been sustained, has been the catalyst that has put the United States into an economic freefall that is costing far more than the risk was ever worth in creating these pretend lives. As President Barack Obama accepts the role as the elected President of the United States, representing a cultural first as a person with an African American heritage leading the nation from the chair of the President, the country is facing a crisis that threatens to rival the Depression of the 1930’s, providing a daunting challenge for the executive branch of the government. One of the initial steps in addressing this crisis was for President Obama and the Democratic leaders to put together a plan in the form of a stimulus package in order to provide a foundation toward economic recovery (Teslik). The package will have to be put through the Congressional process and be passed in order to take effect. While the economic stimulus package that has been presented by President Obama and the Democratic leaders has a high amount of expenditures, it is suspected that as it passes through Congress, it will have an even higher dollar amount than was originally intended. As President Obama leads the country through this crisis, he will not have the power to take actions without consulting with the associated legislative powers that must approve what he and his advisors believe should be done to create much needed growth. However, an example of the power of the executive branch as it was used to rush through an issue that possibly should have been considered with greater care is the emergency bail-out that President Bush made to the auto dealers near the end of his Presidency (Sangor, Herszenhor, and Vlasic). The bail-out has proved to not be sufficient to solve the problems that the industry is facing, thus creating even more problems for President Obama. The problems that have been created have put a strain on the limits under which his office must abide. While President Obama has only made recommendations that he has pushed to put through, this has put him under the unique position to make business decisions for the auto makers in ways that are now unique to his administration. According to Stolberger and Vlasic, “The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General Motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid”. Rick Wagoner, GM’s chairman and chief executive was asked to resign, for which he complied, and it has been indicated by President Obama’s administration that the whole board will be replaced over a short course of time. In addition to this action, The Treasury Department has asked banks to accept a deal where they would accept 15 cents on the dollar for the outstanding 6.9 billion dollar debt that is still owed by Chrysler (Vlasik and Sangor). This active role in restructuring business is a backlash to the excesses that were still being indulged by bailed out businesses. The administration under President Bush provided bail-outs to a variety of companies that were struggling and those companies still gave large bonuses to executives and continued to participate in frivolous spending that shocked a nation that was reeling from the enormous government expenditures meant to save struggling businesses. According to New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo “A.I.G. made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout” (Story). According to Louise Story, the bonuses that were handed out by A.I.G. after the bailout were in excess of $165 million dollars, an obscenity of abuse against taxpayers of the nation. Therefore, a role is being accepted in the executive branch that has not been a part of the Presidencies before this time. The President and his advisors are taking active roles in presenting businesses with instructions on how to operate and conduct their dealings in order to try and preserve those companies and thus preserve jobs. The administration of President F. D. Roosevelt during the Depression of the 1930’s focused on providing services to the people in order to strengthen their ability to sustain life (Millis 2). President Reagan’s ’Reaganomics’ theory and ’Trickle-down economics’ theories during the recession provided more support for corporations assuming that the benefit would eventually reach the poor (Hartman 17). President Obama has been put into a position to directly fight corruption that is costing taxpayers in misused bailout funds by directly affecting the direction that private corporations will take. In the execution of the mandates that he proposes as he uses the power of his office to push corporate entities to respond in cooperation with the administration recommendations, he is judiciously executing a responsibility of the President to protect the nation from abuse from corporations with their hands out. As Congress has designated funds to be spent by entities in order to support a failing business, these funds were not intended to line the pockets of individuals who participated in actions that caused the issues of the business as in the example of A.I.G. However, this is a thin line that is being walked by the President. While President Bush has not been directly held responsible for the actions that go against the ideology of the United States, most recently torture that his administration instituted as an accepted practice. He has been condemned pubically for having an participated in an unlawful abuse of power and there is threat that some of those who participated in enacting the policies might face prosecution (Shane and Mazzetti). Now, the current Presidential administration feels that they must interfere with the way in which private industry runs their entities in order to preserve the economy. The Bush administration believed that the threat of terrorism trumped the need to preserve the ideology and spirit of the American ideals that support due process and protections of person. The Obama administration now faces the prospect of violating the spirit of capitalism as it interferes in the operation of business and industry. The Executive Power has a broad stroke on a narrow canvas of power. As in all branches of the government, the Executive Branch must continually be reinterpreted as time and circumstance creates challenges that can allow for much suffering should the flexibility of the law become unbending. The President cannot do much without Congressional approval, however as the last ten years have shown, the influence of the Presidential Administration can wield a tremendous power. As in the example of Rick Wagoner, whose actions admittedly warranted removal from his position, he was asked by the President of the United States to step out of his seat of power for the greater good. How can a citizen of the nation refuse such a request from his President? Therefore, since these recommendations are coming from a national seat of power, the decisions that President Obama and his administration make in regard to business operations will continue to have a severe influence over the course of the operation of business and industry despite the limited powers of the Executive Branch to enforce these requests. As the economic crisis continues, the preservation of the economic way of life may have to be forgone in order to help citizens survive the aftermath. However, the decision that faces the President and his advisors is whether or not to adhere to the spirit of capitalism or to institute policies that restrict the course of business. A sever lack of oversight in the last twenty years has contributed to the issues that the nation currently faces, but is the answer to create directives that directly influences the way in which individual businesses conduct themselves? Unfortunately, the corruption that has been displayed from some of the industries that have accepted tax dollars as bailouts has created a challenge for the administration that must aggressively address these issues. Time will be the indicator as to whether or not these actions will violate the spirit of the American ideology, or save a nation from economic collapse. Works Cited Hartmann, Thom. Screwed: The Undeclared War against the Middle Class--and What We Can Do About It. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006. Milkis, Sidney M., and Jerome M. Mileur. The New Deal and the Triumph of Liberalism. Political development of the American nation. Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002. Sangor, David E., Herszenhorn, David M. and Vlasic, Bill. “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama”. The New York Times. 19 December 2008. 21 April 2009 Shane, Scott and Mazzetti, Mark. “In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Look at Past Use”. New York Times. 22 April 2009. 22 April 2009 Stolberger, Sheryl G. and Vlasic, Bill. “U. S. Lays Down Terms for Auto Bailout”. The New York Times. 30 March 2009. 21 April 2009 Story, Louise. “Cuomo Details Million-Dollar Bonuses at A.I.G.”. 17 March 2009. 22 April 2009 Client Last Name 7 Teslik, Lee Hudson. “Backgrounder: The U.S. Economic Stimulus Plan”. The New York Times. 27 January 2009. 21 April 2009 Vlasic, Bill and Sangor, David E. “U. S. in Standoff with Banks over Chrysler”. The New York Times. 22 April 2009. 22 April 2009 Read More