The Evolution of Presidential Policy

During the 20^th century, particularly within the past few decades, the president's role has evolved in terms of domestic and budgetary policy. Contemporary presidents have a range of expectations from redeeming campaign promises to responding to emergencies to addressing social problems within the country. Too often the public's expectations exceed the president's ability to fulfill them. In addition, the president's job is more difficult because-regardless of the specific policy-he always faces dilemmas.

Changing the face of the modern presidency can be directly attributed to Franklin Roosevelt. However, his initiatives were primarily economic whereas Kennedy and Johnson incorporated social welfare and civil rights measures. It is President Johnson who organized the first domestic policy program to fund his Great Society, and these staffs have been in place for every administration since. "The centralization of policy making in the White House enables presidents to exercise more control over the content, timing, and promotion of policy initiatives" (Edwards & Wayne 422). All of these things are quite beneficial for a president and his campaign promises and objectives, yet the president's efficacy is directly contingent to relation the domestic policy staff has with other executive departments.

Budgetary and economic policy making are another area where the president has experienced a changing role. This is "one of the most critical, complex, and persistent spheres for the exercise of presidential leadership" (Edwards & Wayne 442). Not only is the budget a way for presidents to meet the country's changing needs in a way that is economic and efficient. Especially in recent years it has become very important, as presidents and Congress both have had to devote more time to forming the budget and getting its Congressional approval. Presidents are responsible for the executive portion of the budget and are instrumental to the legislative portion as well.

Despite the influence given to the chief executive in this capacity, "from the president's perspective, the sad fact is that a relatively small proportion of the total budget is subject to presidential control" (Edwards & Wayne 445). The budget is not the best measure of presidential power. "Not only are presidents and Congress constrained by previous commitments, existing legislation, and their campaign promises but they are also subject to strong clientele and constituency pressures, as well as fluctuations in the economy that may prevent them from imposing spending discipline or repealing popular taxes benefits" (Edwards & Wayne 450). These factors hinder the president's ability when it comes to the budget, but there are numerous organizations that have grown in scope regarding economics and the budgetary.

One such organization is the Treasury Department. "Originally charged with responsibility for collecting and dispersing federal funds, its functions have gradually expanded to include debt financing, import controls, and international financial transactions, as well as currency exchange" (Edwards & Wayne 465). Over time this department has traditionally been conservative with economic matters, advocating stability and long term growth. The treasury secretary serves as an economic advisor to the president while also serving them as a coordinator, lobbyist, and spokesperson.

A second organization is the Office of the Management and Budget [OMB]. Serving as "the president's principal institutional entity that oversees the budgetary process," the OMB serves to enforce the president's fiscal policy (Edwards & Wayne 414). Any monetary request goes to the OMB who is charged with "deciding whether the proposal was in accordance with the president's program; consistent with the president's objectives; or, at the very least, not opposed by the president" (Edwards & Wayne 414). The OMB proves extremely beneficial to the president because they can help to approve legislation that the president wants to enact, make various departments understand each other's views more clearly, and help resolve interagency disputes. Clearly this last function is very important. Perhaps most importantly about the OMB is the fact that that they have the most influence over the president. An OMB recommendation to approve a bill usually always gets accepted.

Thirdly the Council of Economic Advisers is a small and specialized group of advisers selected by the president. Members are usually drawn from scholarly fields or have previously served on the council's staff. "Its functions include analyzing economic conditions, forecasting trends, and preparing the president's annual report to Congress," but overall the council has declined in importance (Edwards & Wayne 466). What is important about this group is the relationship of the chair to the president, which in turn affects policy making.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Board [FRB] involves economic policy, but is not a direct agency of the president. The primary objective of the FRB is to regulate monetary policy. "It does so by adjusting the discount rate that commercial banks must pay when they borrow money from one of the banks in the Federal Reserve System. The percentage of deposits that commercial banks must maintain is also regulated by the FRB. A third way the FRB can affect the money supply is by requesting its regional banks to buy or sell government securities in the open market" (Edwards & Wayne 465). It can also adjust the value of the dollar on the international scene to meet the needs of the American economy. Although the FRB is independent, they must be cognizant of the impact the president and Congress have on the economy. Recently they have been using rates to slow or stimulate growth.

In relation to Congress, the president has an edge when it comes to control over the economy. With the treasury department, the OMB, and the economic council at his disposal the president has a considerable advantage when it comes to determining the budget and other fiscal priorities. However, the budget cannot be enacted without Congressional approval, and Congress is highly unlikely to reject anything endorsed by the OMB. Yet struggles between the president and Congress regarding the budget are nothing new. During the Clinton administration there was a battle regarding the budget. "As a consequence of this struggle and the refusal of each side to accommodate the other, the government was forced to close down, not once but twice. Eventually, through the skillful use of his bully pulpit, President Clinton turned public opinion against the Republicans forcing the GOP to back down" (Edwards & Wayne 451). Despite this example, the overall attitude between the president and Congress is usually one of negotiation and cooperation.

Relationships between Congress and the president are necessary to make progress. Milkis and Nelson reference the Neustadt theory to the modern presidency where "it was the president's job to resurrect the aggressive and skillful style of leadership that Franklin D. Roosevelt had displayed so that congressional leaders, cabinet officers, party officials, and others would 'feel obligated' to do what the president 'wants done'" (Milkis & Nelson 323). Major consequences can occur if a president takes this approach. Examples include the Vietnam policies of both Johnson and Nixon. Johnson's shortcomings were displayed as was the unsettling facets of presidential government. Nixon's policy demonstrated his aggressiveness for using presidential power and also made it more controversial. Carter is an example of a president who had difficulties communicating with Congress which "may be attributed in part to the inexperience of his staff, which consisted mainly of 'the provincial veterans of his campaign team'" (Milkis & Nelson 357). Regardless of a president's style it is imperative that he maintain an open relationship with Congress and stay abreast of the current agenda.

When it comes to policymaking and democracy Congress is the branch that should be paramount. Of course the president is the ultimate leader and should have the ability to pursue the agendas and legislation that matter most to him, but not at the cost of Congress. Members of the Senate and the House represent smaller constituencies that together form the group of officials representing the people of the United States. The president should take advice from Congress and truly listen to what they are saying. Congressional members have the advantage of being grouped into committees and subcommittees so they are more informed of their area of expertise than the president usually is. Their knowledge-along with cooperation from the president-makes for a productive presidency.

WORKS CITED:

Edwards, George C & Wayne, Stephen J. Presidential Leadership. Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.

2006.

Milkis, Sidney M. and Nelson, Michael. The American Presidency: Origins and Development. Congressional Quarterly, Inc.: Washington, D.C. 2007.