With the US presidential race heating up, the candidates are increasingly prone to make sweeping promises. They say they will do this or that in their first day in office – balance the budget, close the prison at Guantánamo, abolish the Federal Reserve, whatever – and their supporters all cheer that one of their cherished goals will be achieved instantly if only their man gets to sit in the Oval Office.
This is, of course, rank nonsense. And it has nothing to do with the relative absurdity of the promises being made. It has to do with the nature of US government, which is something even Americans often forget.
In the US system, the president is far weaker than the chief executive in most other countries. The reason is that it was baked in the cake by the framers of the constitution who were deeply sceptical about monarchism. They wanted a leader who was subservient to the legislature, not its overlord.
Thus we can safely ignore sweeping promises from all the presidential candidates if they require the enactment of legislation. This is especially so regarding the federal budget. Continue reading »