So we are going to be friends with the Soviet Union/Russia again. Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton had there reset with Putin for which Hillary was roundly criticized by the Republicans. Now they seem to be all right with it. I guess it matters who does it. But it confuses me.
Prior to WW-II a lot of people in the U.S. turned to Soviet-style Communism in a hangover from the Great Depression (or were we still in it?). Then in WW-II they were our friends that seemed a bit strange, but I understand that the enemy of our enemy is our friend so it was OK. Also they took the brunt of WW-II as the main front though it was difficult enough what we and our allies did.
But shortly after armistice of WW-II the Soviets/Russians became our enemies again. Remember the "Cold War?" then in the early 1970s, President Nixon started a "Détente" and the Soviets/Russians were our friends again. I was confused by this but "what the 'hey " I was offered a science prize and went over to give a couple of lectures during a "hard" freeze on foreign travel by the U.S. government. I had to get myself to London and they did the rest (see "You couldn't Have Been On That Plane - Parts I- III:" http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-couldnt-have-been-on-that-plane.html). Everything was very nice and I had to spend all the prize money in the Soviet Union/Russia so I went first class on everything that, was none too good in some cases.
Then came along President Reagan and the Soviet Union/Russia became the "Evil Empire," in 1983 - remember? This felt better to me.
Reagan was followed by President George H.W. Bush who negotiated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union/Russia. Under these conditions, it was not surprising that we became friendly with the Soviet Union/Russia again as they tried to convert to Capitalism. Give them a chance, so to speak.
This friendly relationship extended into President Clinton's* years, although he took several Eastern European counties into NATO that created a stir, but
Clinton also supported the besieged leadership of Russian president
Boris Yeltsin as well as the funneling of billions of dollars in loans
to Russia from the International Monetary Fund.In 1999, Clinton's
support for financial aid to Russia came under attack in the face of
mounting evidence that much of the borrowed money may have been stolen
by an organized criminal syndicate which included members of Yeltsin's
own family. However, supporters of Clinton's pro-Yeltsin policies credit
his administration with an important achievement not easily measured in
dollars or in the short run: the security of the Russian nuclear
arsenal. Working through the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act, the
administration provided extensive technical assistance and funding to
the former Soviet states in the safeguarding of nuclear power plants and
dismantling of nuclear weapons—an astounding achievement in view of the
animosity that once existed between the United States and the Soviet
Union. By the end of the Clinton presidency, the likelihood of a nuclear
exchange between the superpowers was almost nonexistent.
However, the failed "reset" in the Obama/Hillary Clinton period sort of drifted back to hostility to the Soviet Union/Russia which is where we are now with about a month to go in the Obama Administration tour. There seems little reason for a change in attitude. The Soviet Union/Russia is still occupying parts of the Ukraine and has taken over the Crimea. The Soviet Union/Russia still supports the leader of Syria and won't agree to a cease fire in Aleppo. What's changed ?
Nonetheless, President-Elect Trump will try his own reset. He has been very friendly to Putin and gives every indication of continuing that friendship into his administration. After all why not ? Putin has said nice things about him, and helped Trump win the election by leaking things about his opponent through WikiLeaks. His National Security Adviser, Gen. Flynn, is also is cozy with Putin.** He is considering a candidate for Secretary of State who is also friendly with Putin and has done business with him (Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil). Even the leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell has gotten onboard.
[Note added December 13: It appears thaMcConnel has had a change of heart and now supports an investigation into the the Soviet Union/Russian hacking and says that the Soviet Union/Russia is not a firend of ours.***].
So it looks like "Here We Go Again" regarding friendship with the Soviet Union/Russia. Perhaps Trump at least can build a hotel in Moscow (and maybe one in St. Petersburg as a bonus) and Tillerson can get his deep drilling contract for oil in Siberia out of it.
* http://millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-foreign-affairs
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.4f2c30d0cedd
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.53cc9b92e806
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
GREAT RECESSION VERSUS THE GREAT DEPRESSION - II
Part I of the comparison between the Great Recession versus the Great Depression dealt with the emotional after effects of a financial collapse for a country like the U.S. Herein I will only discuss the economic effects of the Great Recession on labor wages in the Upper Midwest. This region is often called the Rust Belt, a term that became popular back in the 1980s. So the labor problems of the Rust Belt have been around for a long time and have little to do with the Great Recession. Nonetheless, the angry "white" Midwestern workers came to a boil in the recent election. So why now?
Every so often on Morning Joe, they have Steve Rattner give the status of some economic condition. I thought Rattner presented two very compelling charts on the December 1, 2016 show that I have captured related to some of the angry feelings in the Midwest towards government. Of course one should notice in the figure that the steep decline in Rust Belt manufacturing jobs started well before the Great Recession, mostly during the administration of George W. Bush, with a particularly steep drop ("waterfall") going into the Great Recession. Such improvement as there has been was during the administration of Barack Obama. Note that with the Obama administration the decline in manufacturing workforce has stopped and has even started a slow recovery in all the states except Pennsylvania. You would think that workers would be happy that the decline (the bleeding so to speak) has not only stopped, but actually has slowly reversed in most states. However, we are told they aren't happy at all, so the reason for their anger must be sought elsewhere, such as the emotional effects of the Great Recession (see Part 1). but before we get too hysterical about this, please recall that Trump won these states by very small margins Michigan by less than 11,000 votes out of more than 4.8 million votes cast and Wisconsin by 27,200 out of 2.9 million votes cast and for Pennsylvania won by 46,530 votes out of nearly 6.9 million votes cast.), so maybe many people were grateful for the progress after all.
Below is some of the text of Rattner's presentation (in italics):
(Click on figure to enlarge)
(Click on figure to enlarge)
Note in the above figure, that although jobs have had a rebound in Michigan, the decline in wages that started long before the Great Recession has continued since, though at a slower pace. One can see some cause for anger there. Something like "It is nice to see my friends get back to work, but not at the expense of my wages."
In contrast, although Pennsylvania has not seen a rise in manufacturing employment, those remaining have seen the largest increase in wages of the five states and actually are even back to 2003 levels. One might wonder why manufacturing workers in Pennsylvania are so angry as the current workforce has bounced back in wages.
Certainly a part of the problem for the slow wage recovery was lack of a meaningful infrastructure program as construction (among other occupations) was very hard hit by the Great Recession.
Steve Ratner continues:
While attention mostly is focused on jobs, it’s important to recognize that falling wages are also a problem – and nothing in Trump’s announcement will address that problem, which is directly a result of trade and globalization, not automation [Emphasis added. See comment below]. In this category, Michigan – again because of the strong presence of the auto industry – has been the hardest hit, with average hourly wages in manufacturing falling from $28 per hour in 2003 to just over $20 per hour at present. (These numbers are all adjusted for inflation.)*
Though I have great appreciation for him, Rattner is certainly wrong that automation has had nothing to do with the decline of wages by workers. The wages actually must be below the costs of automation as well as achieve some sort of parity with the wages of the lowest cost countries.** Low wages in many countries, however, are tempered by the costs of shipping and some other factors like the generally higher price of natural gas in foreign countries. Thus the cost of selling something in the US. made in China may be more equivalent to, let's say, $8/hr (as a guess) rather than the $4/hr cost of labor in China, still a large difference.
I get the feeling that the manufacturing worker has been thrashing around for some years, trying to seek a political solution to the decline in manufacturing in the Rust Belt. In 2008, these people not only changed the "coach" (the president) but also the "team" (the Senate and two years earlier the House). Now in 2016, they changed the coach again, but left the team essentially in place. We should remember that the President-elect won these Rust Belt states by very small margins, suggestiong to me a high level of confusion. In the 2016 election they actually chose a n"coach" who was in confilct, not only with most of the Democratic Party but the Republican Party establishment as well but left the "team" essentially in place. We will see how that works out.
(Click on figure to enlarge)
Adding to their problems is that the American worker has been convinced to disarm and abandon unions. The decline in wages has paralleled the decline in unions.*** While unions may not be very effective, they are workers only hope in dealing with management.
Every so often on Morning Joe, they have Steve Rattner give the status of some economic condition. I thought Rattner presented two very compelling charts on the December 1, 2016 show that I have captured related to some of the angry feelings in the Midwest towards government. Of course one should notice in the figure that the steep decline in Rust Belt manufacturing jobs started well before the Great Recession, mostly during the administration of George W. Bush, with a particularly steep drop ("waterfall") going into the Great Recession. Such improvement as there has been was during the administration of Barack Obama. Note that with the Obama administration the decline in manufacturing workforce has stopped and has even started a slow recovery in all the states except Pennsylvania. You would think that workers would be happy that the decline (the bleeding so to speak) has not only stopped, but actually has slowly reversed in most states. However, we are told they aren't happy at all, so the reason for their anger must be sought elsewhere, such as the emotional effects of the Great Recession (see Part 1). but before we get too hysterical about this, please recall that Trump won these states by very small margins Michigan by less than 11,000 votes out of more than 4.8 million votes cast and Wisconsin by 27,200 out of 2.9 million votes cast and for Pennsylvania won by 46,530 votes out of nearly 6.9 million votes cast.), so maybe many people were grateful for the progress after all.
Below is some of the text of Rattner's presentation (in italics):
The role that white working class voters played in Trump’s election is now widely accepted; this chart provides graphic back up for how tough it has been for these workers over nearly two decades and how minimal the much vaunted renaissance of manufacturing has been. ... Pennsylvania, once the home of the steel industry, has had no recovery in manufacturing jobs since the financial crisis.
Only Michigan – thanks to the success of the auto industry – has shown a meaningful rebound in manufacturing jobs and even Michigan’s total is still just two-thirds of what it was at the peak.
It’s important to recognize that not all these job losses are due to trade or globalization; improving efficiency also played a role in the lower need for workers (although those productivity gains have been minimal in the last several years.)*
Note in the above figure, that although jobs have had a rebound in Michigan, the decline in wages that started long before the Great Recession has continued since, though at a slower pace. One can see some cause for anger there. Something like "It is nice to see my friends get back to work, but not at the expense of my wages."
In contrast, although Pennsylvania has not seen a rise in manufacturing employment, those remaining have seen the largest increase in wages of the five states and actually are even back to 2003 levels. One might wonder why manufacturing workers in Pennsylvania are so angry as the current workforce has bounced back in wages.
Certainly a part of the problem for the slow wage recovery was lack of a meaningful infrastructure program as construction (among other occupations) was very hard hit by the Great Recession.
Steve Ratner continues:
While attention mostly is focused on jobs, it’s important to recognize that falling wages are also a problem – and nothing in Trump’s announcement will address that problem, which is directly a result of trade and globalization, not automation [Emphasis added. See comment below]. In this category, Michigan – again because of the strong presence of the auto industry – has been the hardest hit, with average hourly wages in manufacturing falling from $28 per hour in 2003 to just over $20 per hour at present. (These numbers are all adjusted for inflation.)*
Though I have great appreciation for him, Rattner is certainly wrong that automation has had nothing to do with the decline of wages by workers. The wages actually must be below the costs of automation as well as achieve some sort of parity with the wages of the lowest cost countries.** Low wages in many countries, however, are tempered by the costs of shipping and some other factors like the generally higher price of natural gas in foreign countries. Thus the cost of selling something in the US. made in China may be more equivalent to, let's say, $8/hr (as a guess) rather than the $4/hr cost of labor in China, still a large difference.
I get the feeling that the manufacturing worker has been thrashing around for some years, trying to seek a political solution to the decline in manufacturing in the Rust Belt. In 2008, these people not only changed the "coach" (the president) but also the "team" (the Senate and two years earlier the House). Now in 2016, they changed the coach again, but left the team essentially in place. We should remember that the President-elect won these Rust Belt states by very small margins, suggestiong to me a high level of confusion. In the 2016 election they actually chose a n"coach" who was in confilct, not only with most of the Democratic Party but the Republican Party establishment as well but left the "team" essentially in place. We will see how that works out.
Adding to their problems is that the American worker has been convinced to disarm and abandon unions. The decline in wages has paralleled the decline in unions.*** While unions may not be very effective, they are workers only hope in dealing with management.
* http://stevenrattner.com/2016/12/morning-joe-charts-putting-trumps-carrier-deal-in-context/
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/05/plight-of-american-workers.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-race-to-bottom.html
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
WHAT IS A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN?
I think a way should be found to litigate what "natural born
American" means. You couldn't do it for Papa Romney who was born in
Mexico because he didn't get the Republican nomination. You have to have "standing" i.e. you have to be injured. Because he didn't win the nomination, no one was injured. Democrats
decided not to try McCain who was born in the Panama Canal zone, but he
was born in a U.S. military hospital on an American military base to two American parents; however he
didn't win the presidency either so it was mute. At any rate, I would accept McCain as a natural born American. Goldwater was born in Arizona, but before it became a state, his credentials are suspect also, but he didn't win the presidency either so Democrats had no "standing." If anyone was injured in these three cases it was the candidates Republican opponents in the nomination process but none have tried to take out a lawsuit over it.
Obama was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an immigrant father* (He is a natural born citizen on two counts and many Republicans (including Trump) refuse to recognize him as a legitimate American born. Snopes has an interesting discussion as to whether Obma is a legitimate president. The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified inArticle II
of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to
be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United
States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.** Mitt Romney may have claimed he was injured by Obama's victory, but he too didn't take out a suit. At any rate, I doubt he would have won.
.........................................................................
A few facets of this claim [of being a natural born American] immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sittingU.S. Senator
who has already spent a good deal of time and money securing his
party's nomination for the presidency would suddenly be discovered as
ineligible due to an obscure provision of U.S. law; and second, that
U.S. law would essentially penalize someone who would otherwise qualify
for natural-born citizenship status simply because his mother was too
young. The fact is, the qualifications listed in the example quoted
above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.
Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there (21 August 1959 for statehood vs. 4 August 1961 for Obama's birthdate).
But Cruz was born in Canada to one American parent (mother) and even carried a Canadian passport and he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until he decided to run for president.* I certainly hope he doesn't win because he scares the H@LL out of me, but his case is questionable. Constitutional law Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard said that as a student, Cruz was an "originalist" who said that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally intended.***
Here are some other possibilities. Consider this one, suppose you are born in the U.S. to legal immigrants or even better suppose you are born in the U.S. to illegals. Technically you are a natural-born American even if your parents are not citizens (see above quote). Can you imagine Republicans on that one? Or suppose you are born by C-section. Is that "natural born?"
I think we ought to get this thing out of the way for good. It is fine with me if the Supreme Court says born anywhere in the U.S. and/or born to an American citizen.
NOTE ADDED 01-16-2016: Houston attorney Newton Schwartz, who said he isn’t connected to any campaign, filed the lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Texas. The court is being asked to settle whether Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, meets the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawsuit-filed-over-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-2016-01-15)
* Until 1934 if your mother was American but the father wasn't, you were not considered a natural born American citizen and had to be naturalized. In 1934 a law was passed making you a citizen not needing naturalization if it is you mother is an American citizen and your father isn't. So it is only since 1934 that you are considered an American citizen with either parent being an American citizen.
** http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
***https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/11/professor-laurence-tribe-questions-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
Obama was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an immigrant father* (He is a natural born citizen on two counts and many Republicans (including Trump) refuse to recognize him as a legitimate American born. Snopes has an interesting discussion as to whether Obma is a legitimate president. The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in
.........................................................................
A few facets of this claim [of being a natural born American] immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sitting
The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.
Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the
But Cruz was born in Canada to one American parent (mother) and even carried a Canadian passport and he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until he decided to run for president.* I certainly hope he doesn't win because he scares the H@LL out of me, but his case is questionable. Constitutional law Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard said that as a student, Cruz was an "originalist" who said that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally intended.***
Here are some other possibilities. Consider this one, suppose you are born in the U.S. to legal immigrants or even better suppose you are born in the U.S. to illegals. Technically you are a natural-born American even if your parents are not citizens (see above quote). Can you imagine Republicans on that one? Or suppose you are born by C-section. Is that "natural born?"
I think we ought to get this thing out of the way for good. It is fine with me if the Supreme Court says born anywhere in the U.S. and/or born to an American citizen.
NOTE ADDED 01-16-2016: Houston attorney Newton Schwartz, who said he isn’t connected to any campaign, filed the lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Texas. The court is being asked to settle whether Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, meets the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawsuit-filed-over-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-2016-01-15)
* Until 1934 if your mother was American but the father wasn't, you were not considered a natural born American citizen and had to be naturalized. In 1934 a law was passed making you a citizen not needing naturalization if it is you mother is an American citizen and your father isn't. So it is only since 1934 that you are considered an American citizen with either parent being an American citizen.
** http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
***https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/11/professor-laurence-tribe-questions-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
Thursday, March 12, 2015
IS INEXPERIENCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY?
As I hear criticism of Hillary and Jeb as being too "old school" or whatever the words, it seems that being president requires that the successful candidate be inexperienced. Consider George W. Bush (Bush-43) and Barack Obama who really had very little experience in the various aspects of the presidency, especially foreign policy, before becoming president. And Bush-43 managed to not only get us into the quagmire of Iraq but preside over the greatest economic collapse of the country since 1929.*
Now look at the Republican candidates for president. A number of them won't even have survived a whole term as Senator by 2016 (Marco Rudio-elected 2011, Rand Paul-2011, Ted Cruz-2013). None of these will have completed even one term as Senator by the time of the 2016 election.
And then there is Tom Cotton, though not a presidential candidate yet, who has been a Senator for barely more than 2 mo. who managed to stampede 46 of his colleagues into sending a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah and create an international incident. Even senile John McCain now has reservations about doing this.
Though I feel Bobby Jindal has no chance to obtaining the Republican nomination, he seems to want to be a candidate and is somewhat more experienced than those mentioned above having served two terms in Congress and now as governor of Louisiana.
I don't know how good a president either of Hillary or Jeb will be (You won't know until they do it if elected.), but at least they have experience relevant to running things.
* Many assume that everything in Iraq would be all right if only Obama had left 10 or 15 thousand troops there (presumably under Sharia law). We did leave 10-20 thousand troops in Afghanistan after running the Taliban into Pakistan, however, and they came back stronger than ever. So I have my doubts. We'll never know.
Now look at the Republican candidates for president. A number of them won't even have survived a whole term as Senator by 2016 (Marco Rudio-elected 2011, Rand Paul-2011, Ted Cruz-2013). None of these will have completed even one term as Senator by the time of the 2016 election.
And then there is Tom Cotton, though not a presidential candidate yet, who has been a Senator for barely more than 2 mo. who managed to stampede 46 of his colleagues into sending a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah and create an international incident. Even senile John McCain now has reservations about doing this.
Though I feel Bobby Jindal has no chance to obtaining the Republican nomination, he seems to want to be a candidate and is somewhat more experienced than those mentioned above having served two terms in Congress and now as governor of Louisiana.
I don't know how good a president either of Hillary or Jeb will be (You won't know until they do it if elected.), but at least they have experience relevant to running things.
* Many assume that everything in Iraq would be all right if only Obama had left 10 or 15 thousand troops there (presumably under Sharia law). We did leave 10-20 thousand troops in Afghanistan after running the Taliban into Pakistan, however, and they came back stronger than ever. So I have my doubts. We'll never know.
Friday, June 27, 2014
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Speaker of the House John Boehner says he will sue the president because of all the executive orders he is issuing. Though it does seem as if President Obama is keeping the country running by Executive Orders, It turns out he is a piker.
At 4 yrs and 3 mo. into his presidency (March), President Barack Obama issued 175 Executive Orders.* At this rate (3.4314/mo.), he will have 329 Executive Orders beating his predicessor George Bush (#43) with 291.
And there are four Presidents in the 1,000 or more Executive Order Club club: Woodrow Wilson with 1803 (first member), Theodore Roosevelt with 1081, Calvin Cooledge with 1203, and Franklin Roosevelt with 3522 (the champion). There are two honorable mentions with more than 900 Executive Orders: Herbert Hoover with 968 and Harry S. Truman with 907, making four Presidents in a row with at least 900 Executive Orders. Then things dropped off markedly as Dwight D. Eisenhower had "only" 484.
Since Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan is the champion with 381 followed by Bill Clinton with 364, both recent records probably safe from Obama.
I believe Jimmy Carter had the most of one-term presidents with 320.
So based on number of Executive Orders, I think it will be hard to make a case that Obama has been making an execessive amount; however, I presume the case will be made that his Orders are more meaningful.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
At 4 yrs and 3 mo. into his presidency (March), President Barack Obama issued 175 Executive Orders.* At this rate (3.4314/mo.), he will have 329 Executive Orders beating his predicessor George Bush (#43) with 291.
And there are four Presidents in the 1,000 or more Executive Order Club club: Woodrow Wilson with 1803 (first member), Theodore Roosevelt with 1081, Calvin Cooledge with 1203, and Franklin Roosevelt with 3522 (the champion). There are two honorable mentions with more than 900 Executive Orders: Herbert Hoover with 968 and Harry S. Truman with 907, making four Presidents in a row with at least 900 Executive Orders. Then things dropped off markedly as Dwight D. Eisenhower had "only" 484.
Since Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan is the champion with 381 followed by Bill Clinton with 364, both recent records probably safe from Obama.
I believe Jimmy Carter had the most of one-term presidents with 320.
So based on number of Executive Orders, I think it will be hard to make a case that Obama has been making an execessive amount; however, I presume the case will be made that his Orders are more meaningful.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
