Chronologie de la presidence Obama Flashcards
(35 cards)
La présidence de Barack Obama (2009-2017)
La présidence de Barack Obama fut inédite par la dimension symbolique de l’élection du premier président afro-américain à la Maison-Blanche. Elle fut également controversée. Dans les rangs du Parti républicain et de la mouvance conservatrice, des soupçons furent exprimés quant à son penchant supposé pour le socialisme, sa religion ou son lieu de naissance, jetant ainsi le doute sur sa légitimité de chef de l’État, puisqu’une personne née hors du territoire américain n’est pas éligible à la fonction présidentielle. À l’inverse, ses partisans virent en lui le sauveur d’une Amérique affaiblie moralement, diplomatiquement et économiquement lors de la présidence de George W. Bush (2001-2009), discréditée à leurs yeux par la « guerre contre la terreur » et une crise économique de premier plan. La campagne présidentielle de 2009 suscita ainsi l’espoir d’un grand changement chez les électeurs d’Obama, pour qui il incarnait la possibilité d’un renouvellement de la présidence, de l’État fédéral et de la société, ainsi que l’éventualité d’une amélioration du sort des minorités et d’une réduction des inégalités. Le degré de concrétisation de ces espoirs constitue l’un des critères à l’aune desquels un état de lieux de la présidence Obama peut être établi.
D’autres paramètres pertinents sont également à prendre en compte, tels que la trajectoire personnelle et politique d’Obama, le contexte économique dont il hérita en 2009, ou encore la nature du système politique américain, caractérisé par une séparation des pouvoirs qui limite la marge de manœuvre du président.
Les modalités d’action d’Obama évoluèrent en fonction de la composition politique du Congrès : s’il put s’appuyer initialement sur une majorité démocrate dans les deux chambres, il dut faire face à une majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants à partir des élections législatives de 2010, puis au Sénat à partir de 2014. En politique intérieure, comme en politique étrangère, les années Obama furent caractérisées par la recherche constante du compromis. Cependant, une posture présidentielle en apparence moins impériale (pour reprendre le terme employé par A. Schlesinger dans son ouvrage The Imperial Presidency), conjuguée à des erreurs de communication à propos du programme de ses deux mandats, a facilité la tâche d’une opposition décidée à faire obstruction. L’échec de la nomination de Merrick Garland à la Cour suprême en 2016 illustre ces difficultés. Obama, dont les talents d’orateur l’aidèrent à remporter deux élections de suite avec une majorité du vote populaire, dut revoir ses ambitions à la baisse. Pour cerner les rapports de force, il conviendra de tenir compte des interlocuteurs du président, tant démocrates que républicains. Parmi les principaux acteurs de la période, on retiendra des conseillers et ministres influents de l’administration Obama (par exemple, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Timothy Geithner, John Kerry, Jacob Lew, x et Lawrence Summers), ainsi que les dirigeants de l’opposition, notamment John Boehner, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney et Paul Ryan.
On tâchera d’examiner la présidence Obama à l’aune d’un ensemble de promesses, de mesures et de résultats, en s’attachant au positionnement idéologique et à la stratégie politique du candidat puis du président, ainsi qu’au contexte socio-culturel de la période concernée. Un tel examen appelle une étude multidimensionnelle, qui peut s’articuler autour de cinq enjeux principaux.
L’économie
L’une des questions les plus épineuses à laquelle Obama dut faire face fut celle de l’économie. À son arrivée au pouvoir, il hérita d’une situation de crise économique extrêmement grave, dont l’ampleur, la nature et les conséquences, telles que les licenciements et saisies de logements (foreclosures), lui valurent le nom de Grande Récession, en écho à la Grande Dépression qui suivit le krach boursier de 1929. Les mesures fiscales, monétaires et économiques prises par l’administration Obama pour y faire face furent considérables, et si elles n’eurent pas le retentissement du New Deal des années 1930, elles aboutirent néanmoins au sauvetage de l’industrie automobile et des banques. En 2009, le plan de relance de l’économie (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) permit de réduire le chômage, tandis que la loi Dodd-Frank de 2010 visait à mieux réguler le système bancaire. Sur ces points, il conviendra de privilégier la portée idéologique et le débat politique autour du stimulus et de la politique de sauvetage des grandes entreprises plutôt que les aspects purement techniques de la politique économique menée par l’administration Obama.
La politique sociale
Le champ d’intervention des pouvoirs publics étant très vaste dans le domaine de la politique sociale, il s’agira de mettre l’accent sur les mesures politiques fortes ou à portée symbolique. La réforme du système de santé (Obamacare) demeure l’action la plus emblématique de la présidence Obama en matière de politique sociale. Les tergiversations, les maladresses politiques et l’opposition farouche des conservateurs, démocrates autant que républicains, vidèrent le texte de loi (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) d’une grande partie de sa substance, témoignant ainsi de la difficulté politique à réformer en profondeur le système de santé. On peut penser que, malgré cette réforme, la politique sociale de l’administration Obama s’inscrivit dans la droite lignée de celle de ses prédécesseurs. Qu’il s’agisse de l’enseignement, des Faith- Based Initiatives ou de l’aide aux plus démunis, Obama semble avoir opté pour la continuité plutôt que pour la rupture.
La défense de l’environnement
Sur cet enjeu comme sur les autres, il faut tenir compte du blocage systématique du Congrès et des incohérences de la Maison-Blanche. Les promesses écologiques d’Obama, esquissées dans sa campagne électorale de 2008, enthousiasmèrent les écologistes. Mais très vite, les choix économiques reléguèrent la question environnementale au second plan. Obama semblait penser que sa réélection en 2012 dépendrait principalement du taux de chômage, de la croissance, de la compétitivité économique et du compromis avec le Congrès, même si son discours officiel continuait à articuler transition énergétique et croissance économique. En 2013, en revanche, libéré du fardeau de la réélection, Obama déclara : « si le Congrès n’agit pas [en faveur de l’environnement] pour protéger les générations à venir, moi, je le ferai », annonçant un deuxième mandat marqué par des décisions importantes en matière environnementale. En novembre 2015, il rejeta le projet d’oléoduc géant Keystone XL et annonça le Clean Power Plan concernant le charbon. La signature, au siège de l’ONU à New York en 2016, des accords de Paris (COP21) consacra Obama comme président favorable à l’écologie. Mais les obstacles juridiques auxquels le Clean Power Plan dut faire face, tant devant la Cour suprême que devant la Cour d’appel fédérale, illustrent à la fois la complexité du système politique américain et la difficulté de porter un jugement sur la politique de l’administration Obama sans tenir compte des contre-pouvoirs.
La politique étrangère
La politique étrangère américaine est guidée par des intérêts inscrits dans la durée. L’opposition d’Obama à la guerre en Irak laissa présager qu’en arrivant au pouvoir, il allait être confronté à l’inertie du complexe militaro-industriel. Si elle fut réelle, le président réussit pourtant à infléchir la politique extérieure de son pays sur de nombreuses questions, notamment vis-à-vis de l’Iran et de Cuba. Mais à force de vouloir se démarquer de son prédécesseur et éviter une démarche de nature idéologique, Obama se vit critiqué pour son indécision, et parfois pour son improvisation. Aux yeux d’un bon nombre de conservateurs, il faisait figure de fossoyeur de la puissance, de l’hégémonie et du leadership américains. Le cadre doctrinal de la politique étrangère de l’administration Obama s’avère difficile à décoder, ce qui s’explique en partie par l’échec de l’unilatéralisme bushiste des années 2000 et par la complexité inhérente à l’utilisation du smart power prôné par Obama. Le bilan comporte des échecs indéniables. Après le discours prometteur du Caire en 2009, Washington ne parvint pas à résorber la fracture entre le monde musulman et l’Occident, ni à faire avancer la cause de la paix au Proche-Orient. Quant au soutien apporté à l’intervention militaire franco- britannique en Lybie en 2011, il fut contesté, tout comme le refus d’intervenir en Syrie en 2013 malgré l’utilisation d’armes chimiques par le régime syrien.
Le leadership moral
La victoire d’Obama à l’élection présidentielle de 2008 eut un impact immédiat sur l’image des États-Unis, ternie par l’invasion de l’Irak en 2003. La promesse de retirer les troupes américaines d’Irak et de fermer la prison de Guantanamo laissait penser qu’un terme serait mis à certaines dérives des néoconservateurs, ce que le comité Nobel encouragea en attribuant le prix de la Paix au président américain dès 2009. Or non seulement le centre d’incarcération de Guantanamo ne fut pas fermé, mais le nombre de personnes tuées à l’étranger par des drones de l’armée américaine, hors de tout cadre juridique reconnu, augmenta. En 2013, l’affaire Snowden montra que l’État américain se dotait de moyens de surveillance contraires aux principes en vigueur. De même, si le discours de campagne sur la notion de race, prononcé à Philadelphie le 18 mars 2008, laissait penser que la société étatsunienne avait évolué sur la question raciale, tendant vers une plus grande égalité républicaine, l’élection de 2008 fut suivie par une augmentation des violences policières contre les Noirs et une polarisation accrue du débat public, avant que l’élection de 2016 ne porte au pouvoir un candidat décidé à détricoter le legs de son prédécesseur.
La participation élevée lors de l’élection présidentielle de 2008 reflète les grands espoirs suscités chez nombre d’électeurs par la campagne d’Obama. Ces espoirs furent en partie déçus car, contrairement à Franklin Delano Roosevelt ou Ronald Reagan par exemple, Obama ne parvint pas à transformer la société. Au bout du compte, il fut un président gestionnaire et réformateur, plutôt que fondateur.
Bilan
Mais au-dela du bilan sans doute mitigé, il s’agira d’étudier le contexte historique de la présidence Obama, ainsi que ses enjeux politiques, sociaux et économiques, avec la distance critique nécessaire pour prendre la pleine mesure de ces huit années de pouvoir.
x
Thepresidency of Barack Obamabegan at noonESTon January 20, 2009, whenBarack Obamawasinauguratedas the44thPresident of the United States, and ended on January 20, 2017. Obama, aDemocratfromIllinois, took office following a decisive victory overRepublicanJohn McCainin the2008 presidential election. Four years later, in the2012 election, he defeated RepublicanMitt Romneyto win re-election. He was thefirstAfrican Americanpresident, the firstmultiracialpresident, the first non-white president, and the first president to have been born inHawaii. Obama was succeeded by RepublicanDonald Trump, who won the2016 presidential election.
Obama’s first-term actions addressed theglobal financial crisisand included amajor stimulus package, a partial extension of theBush tax cuts, legislation, a majorfinancial regulation reform bill, and the end of a major USmilitary presenceinIraq. Obama also appointedSupreme CourtJusticesElena KaganandSonia Sotomayor, the latter of whom became the firstHispanic Americanon the Supreme Court. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress until Republicans won a majority in theHouse of Representativesin the2010 elections. Following the elections, Obama and Congressional Republicans engaged in a protracted stand-off over government spending levels and thedebt ceiling. The Obama administration’s policy against terrorism downplayed Bush’s counterinsurgency model, expanding air strikes and making extensive use of special forces and encouraging greater reliance on host-government militaries. The Obama administration orchestrated themilitary operationthat resulted in thedeath of Osama bin Ladenin 2011.
In his second term, Obama took steps to combatclimate change, signing a majorinternational climate agreementand anexecutive orderto limitcarbon emissions. Obama also presided over the implementation of theAffordable Care Actand other legislation passed in his first term, and he negotiated rapprochements with Iran and Cuba. The number of American soldiers in Afghanistan fell dramatically during Obama’s second term, though U.S. soldiers remained in Afghanistan throughout Obama’s presidency andcontinue to as of 2019. Republicans took control of the Senate after the2014 elections, and Obama continued to grapple with Congressional Republicans over government spending, immigration, judicial nominations, and other issues.
The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, was a severe worldwide economic crisis considered by many economists to have been the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, to which it is often compared.[1][2][3][4]
It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in the United States, and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008.[5] Excessive risk-taking by banks such as Lehman Brothers helped to magnify the financial impact globally.[6]
Massive bail-outs of financial institutions and other palliative monetary and fiscal policies were employed to prevent a possible collapse of the world financial system. The crisis was nonetheless followed by a global economic downturn, the Great Recession.
The European debt crisis, a crisis in the banking system of the European countries using the euro, followed later.
In 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was enacted in the US following the crisis to “promote the financial stability of the United States”.
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition that overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government.[54] An estimated 151,000 to 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first three to four years of conflict. In 2009, official US troops were withdrawn, but American soldiers remain on the ground fighting in Iraq, most redeployed following the spread of the Syrian Civil War, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria having invaded Iraq from Syria, and captured large areas quickly, while carrying out widespread atrocities and global terrorist attacks.
In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to use military force against Iraq should he choose to.[58] The Iraq War began on 19 March 2003,[59] when the U.S., joined by the U.K. and several coalition allies, launched a “shock and awe” bombing campaign. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S.-led forces swept through the country. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba’athist government; Saddam was captured during Operation Red Dawn in December of that same year and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam’s demise and the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces. Many violent insurgent groups were supported by Iran and al-Qaeda in Iraq. The United States responded with a troop surge in 2007, a build up of 170,000 troops.[60] The surge in troops gave greater security to Iraq’s government and military, and was largely a success.[61] The winding down of U.S. involvement in Iraq accelerated under President Barack Obama. The U.S. formally withdrew all combat troops from Iraq by December 2011.[62]
The Bush administration based its rationale for the war principally on the assertion that Iraq, which had been viewed by the U.S. as a rogue state since the 1990–1991 Gulf War, supposedly possessed an active weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) program,[63] and that the Iraqi government posed a threat to the United States and its coalition allies.[64][65] Some U.S. officials falsely accused Saddam of harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda,[66] while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq.[67][68] In 2004, the 9/11 Commission said there was no evidence of an operational relationship between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda.[69] No stockpiles of WMDs or an active WMD program were ever found in Iraq.[70] Bush administration officials made numerous assertions about a purported Saddam-Al-Qaeda relationship and WMDs that were based on sketchy evidence, and which intelligence officials pushed back on.[70][71] The rationale of U.S. pre-war intelligence faced heavy criticism both domestically and internationally.
In seven months of secret FBI debriefings after his capture, Saddam admitted that he faked having weapons of mass destruction when he was in power but had planned on developing a weapons of mass destruction program with nuclear capability within a year. Saddam made the admissions in videotaped interviews with George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned by the FBI with the CIA’s approval to try to develop the former dictator’s cooperation
In the aftermath of the invasion, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and remained in office until 2014. The al-Maliki government enacted policies that were widely seen as having the effect of alienating the country’s Sunni minority and worsening sectarian tensions. In the summer of 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched a military offensive in northern Iraq and declared a worldwide Islamic caliphate, eliciting another military response from the United States and its allies. The Iraq War caused over a hundred thousand civilian deaths and tens of thousands of military deaths (see estimates below). The majority of deaths occurred as a result of the insurgency and civil conflicts between 2004 and 2007. Subsequently, the Iraqi Civil War, which was largely considered a domino effect of the invasion, propelled at least 67,000 civilian deaths in addition to the displacement of five million people within the country.
x
Osama bin Laden, the founder and first leader of the Islamist terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, shortly after 1:00 am PKT
The raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was launched from Afghanistan.[6] U.S. military officials said that after the raid U.S. forces took the body of bin Laden to Afghanistan for identification, then buried it at sea within 24 hours of his death in accordance with Islamic tradition.[7]
Al-Qaeda confirmed the death on May 6 with posts made on militant websites, vowing to avenge the killing.[8] Other Pakistani militant groups, including the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, vowed retaliation against the U.S. and against Pakistan for not preventing the operation.[9] The raid was supported by over 90% of the American public,[10][11] was welcomed by the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and a large number of governments,[12] but was condemned by others, including two-thirds of the Pakistani public.[13] Legal and ethical aspects of the killing, such as his not being taken alive despite being unarmed, were questioned by others, including Amnesty International.[14] Also controversial was the decision not to release any photographic or DNA evidence of bin Laden’s death to the public.[15]
x
The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris)[3] is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), dealing with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, signed in 2016. The agreement’s language was negotiated by representatives of 196 state parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Le Bourget, near Paris, France, and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015.
In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the agreement, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump’s 2016 term. In practice, changes in United States policy that are contrary to the Paris Agreement have already been put in place.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), nicknamed Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system’s most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
x
First 100 days
heinauguration of Barack Obamaas the 44th President took place on January 20, 2009. In his first few days in office, Obama issuedexecutive ordersandpresidential memorandadirecting the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.[195]He ordered the closing of theGuantanamo Bay detention camp,[196]but Congress prevented the closure by refusing to appropriate the required funds[197][198][199]and preventing moving any Guantanamo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.[200]Obama reduced the secrecy given to presidential records.[201]He also revoked PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s restoration of PresidentRonald Reagan’sMexico City Policyprohibiting federal aid to international family planning organizations that perform or provide counseling about abortion.[202]
The Mexico City Policy was first implemented in 1984 by theReagan Administration. Since that time, theUnited States Agency for International Development(USAID) has enforced the policy during all subsequent Republican Administrations and has rescinded the policy at the direction of all Democratic Administrations.[2]After its initial implementation byPresident Reaganin 1984,[3]the policy was rescinded by Democratic PresidentBill Clintonin January 1993,[4]re-instituted in January 2001 by Republican PresidentGeorge W. Bush,[5]rescinded in January 2009 by Democratic PresidentBarack Obama,[6][7]and reinstated in January 2017 when Republican PresidentDonald Trumptook office.
x
Domestic policy
Obama appointed two women to serve on the Supreme Court in the first two years of his Presidency. He nominatedSonia Sotomayoron May 26, 2009 to replace retiringAssociate JusticeDavid Souter; she was confirmed on August 6, 2009,[206]becoming the first Supreme Court Justice ofHispanicdescent.[207]Obama nominatedElena Kaganon May 10, 2010 to replace retiring Associate JusticeJohn Paul Stevens. She was confirmed on August 5, 2010, bringing the number of women sitting simultaneously on the Court to three justices for the first time in American history.[208]
On March 30, 2010, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, areconciliation billthat ended the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increased thePell Grantscholarship award, and made changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[209][210]
In amajor space policy speechin April 2010, Obama announced a planned change in direction atNASA, the U.S. space agency. He ended plans for a return ofhuman spaceflightto the moon and development of theAres Irocket,Ares Vrocket andConstellation program, in favor of funding Earth science projects, a new rocket type, and research and development for an eventual manned mission to Mars, and ongoing missions to theInternational Space Station.[211]
President Obama’s2011 State of the Union Addressfocused on themes of education and innovation, stressing the importance ofinnovation economicsto make the United States more competitive globally. He spoke of a five-year freeze in domestic spending, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and reversing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, banning congressionalearmarks, and reducing healthcare costs. He promised the United States would have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and be 80% reliant on “clean” electricity.[212][213]
The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029) is a law that was enacted by the 111th United States Congress, by means of the reconciliation process, in order to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub.L. 111–148). The law includes the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was attached as a rider.
The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2010 at Northern Virginia Community College.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a space station (habitable artificial satellite) in low Earth orbit.
The ISS is the ninth space station to be inhabited by crews, following the Soviet and later Russian Salyut, Almaz, and Mir stations as well as Skylab from the US
LGBT rights
On October 8, 2009, Obama signed theMatthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expanded the1969 United States federal hate-crime lawto include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[2
On December 22, 2010, Obama signed theDon’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, which fulfilled a key promise made in the 2008 presidential campaign[216][217]to end theDon’t ask, don’t tellpolicy of 1993 that had prevented gay and lesbian people from serving openly in theUnited States Armed Forces.[218]In 2016, thePentagonalso ended the policy that barredtransgenderpeople from serving openly in the military.[219
As a candidate for the Illinois state senate in 1996, Obama had said he favored legalizingsame-sex marriage.[220]By the time of his Senate run in 2004, he said he supported civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex partners but opposed same-sex marriages.[221]In 2008, he reaffirmed this position by stating “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”[222]On May 9, 2012, shortly after the official launch of his campaign for re-election as president, Obama said his views had evolved, and he publicly affirmed his personal support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to do so.[223][224]
During his secondinaugural addresson January 21, 2013,[194]Obama became the first U.S. President in office to call for full equality for gay Americans: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” This was the first time that a president mentionedgay rightsor the word “gay” in an inaugural address.[
White House advisory and oversight groups
On March 11, 2009, Obama created theWhite House Council on Women and Girls, which formed part of theOffice of Intergovernmental Affairs, having been established byExecutive Order13506with a broad mandate to advise him on issues relating to the welfare of American women and girls.[231]The Council was chaired bySenior Advisor to the PresidentValerie Jarrett.[232]Obama also established theWhite House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assaultthrough a government memorandum on January 22, 2014, with a broad mandate to advise him on issues relating to sexual assault on college and university campuses throughout the United States.[232][233][234]The co-chairs of the Task Force were Vice PresidentJoe Bidenand Jarrett.[233]The Task Force was a development out of the White House Council on Women and Girls andOffice of the Vice President of the United States, and prior to that the 1994Violence Against Women Actfirst drafted by Biden.[2
x
Economic policy
Obama presents his firstweekly addressas President of the United States on January 24, 2009, discussing theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 17, 2009, Obama signed theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787billioneconomic stimuluspackage aimed at helping the economy recover from thedeepening worldwide recession.[236]The act includes increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks andincentives, and direct assistance to individuals
Obama and theCongressional Budget Officepredicted the 2010budget deficitwould be $1.5trillion or 10.6% of the nation’sgross domestic product(GDP) compared to the 2009 deficit of $1.4trillion or 9.9% of GDP.[247][248]For 2011, the administration predicted the deficit would shrink to $1.34trillion, and the 10-year deficit would increase to $8.53trillion or 90% of GDP.[249]The most recent increase in the U.S.debt ceilingto $17.2trillion took effect in February 2014.[250]On August 2, 2011, after a lengthy congressional debate over whether to raise the nation’s debt limit, Obama signed the bipartisanBudget Control Act of 2011. The legislation enforces limits on discretionary spending until 2021, establishes a procedure to increase the debt limit, creates a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction with a stated goal of achieving at least $1.5trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years, and establishes automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $1.2trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such savings.[251]By passing the legislation, Congress was able to prevent aU.S. governmentdefaulton its obligations.[252]
As it did throughout 2008, the unemployment rate rose in 2009, reaching a peak in October at 10.0% and averaging 10.0% in the fourth quarter. Following a decrease to 9.7% in the first quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate fell to 9.6% in the second quarter, where it remained for the rest of the year.[255]Between February and December 2010, employment rose by 0.8%, which was less than the average of 1.9% experienced during comparable periods in the past four employment recoveries.[256]By November 2012, the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%,[257]decreasing to 6.7% in the last month of 2013.[258]During 2014, the unemployment rate continued to decline, falling to 6.3% in the first quarter.[259]GDP growth returned in the third quarter of 2009, expanding at a rate of 1.6%, followed by a 5.0% increase in the fourth quarter.[260]Growth continued in 2010, posting an increase of 3.7% in the first quarter, with lesser gains throughout the rest of the year.[260]In July 2010, theFederal Reservenoted that economic activity continued to increase, but its pace had slowed, and chairmanBen Bernankesaid the economic outlook was “unusually uncertain”.[261]Overall, the economy expanded at a rate of 2.9% in 2010.[262]
TheCongressional Budget Office(CBO) and a broad range of economists credit Obama’s stimulus plan for economic growth.[263][264]The CBO released a report stating that the stimulus bill increased employment by 1–2.1million,[264][265][266][267]while conceding that “It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.”[263]Although an April 2010, survey of members of theNational Association for Business Economicsshowed an increase in job creation (over a similar January survey) for the first time in two years, 73% of 68 respondents believed the stimulus bill has had no impact on employment.[268]The economy of the United States has grown faster than the other originalNATOmembers by a wider margin under President Obama than it has anytime since the end ofWorld War II.[269]TheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentcredits the much faster growth in the United States to the stimulus plan of the US and the austerity measures in the European Union.[270]
Within a month of the2010 midterm elections, Obama announced a compromise deal with the Congressional Republican leadership that included a temporary, two-year extension of the2001 and 2003 income tax rates, a one-yearpayroll taxreduction, continuation of unemployment benefits, and a new rate and exemption amount forestate taxes.[271]The compromise overcame opposition from some in both parties, and the resulting $858billionTax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress before Obama signed it on December 17, 2010.[272]
In December 2013, Obama declared that growingincome inequalityis a “defining challenge of our time” and called on Congress to bolster the safety net and raise wages. This came on the heels of thenationwide strikes of fast-food workersandPope Francis’ criticism of inequality andtrickle-down economics.[273]
Obama urged Congress to ratify a 12-nation free trade pact called theTrans-Pacific Partnership.[274]
x
Environmental policy
On September 30, 2009, the Obama administration proposed new regulations on power plants, factories, and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curbglobal warming.[275][276]
On April 20, 2010, an explosion destroyed an offshoredrilling rigat theMacondo Prospectin theGulf of Mexico, causing amajor sustained oil leak. Obama visited the Gulf, announced a federal investigation, and formed a bipartisan commission to recommend new safety standards.
In July 2013, Obama expressed reservations and stated he “would reject theKeystone XL pipelineif it increased carbon pollution” or “greenhouse emissions”.[279][280]Obama’s advisers called for a halt topetroleum exploration in the Arcticin January 2013.[281]On February 24, 2015, Obama vetoed a bill that would have authorized the pipeline.[282]It was the third veto of Obama’s presidency and his first major veto.[283
x
Health care reform
Obama called forCongressto pass legislation reforminghealth care in the United States, a key campaign promise and a top legislative goal.[285]He proposed an expansion of health insurance coverage to cover the uninsured, to cap premium increases, and to allow people to retain their coverage when they leave or change jobs. His proposal was to spend $900billion over 10 years and include a government insurance plan, also known as thepublic option, to compete with the corporate insurance sector as a main component to lowering costs and improving quality of health care. It would also make it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage forpre-existing conditions, and require every American to carry health coverage. The plan also includes medical spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans.[286][287]
On July 14, 2009, House Democratic leaders introduced a 1,017-page plan for overhauling the U.S. health care system, which Obama wanted Congress to approve by the end of 2009.[285]After much public debate during the Congressional summer recess of 2009, Obama delivereda speech to a joint session of Congresson September 9 where he addressed concerns over the proposals.[289]In March 2009, Obama lifted a ban on using federal funds for stem cell research.[290]
On November 7, 2009, a health care bill featuring the public option was passed in the House.[291][292]On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its own bill—without a public option—on a party-line vote of 60–39.[293]On March 21, 2010, thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act(ACA) passed by the Senate in December was passed in the House by a vote of 219 to 212.[294]Obama signed the bill into law on March 23, 2010.[2
x
Gun control
On January 16, 2013, one month after theSandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Obama signed 23 executive orders and outlined a series of sweeping proposals regardinggun control.[309]He urged Congress to reintroduce anexpired banon military-styleassault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings, impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, introduce background checks on all gun sales, pass a ban on possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets, introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals and approving the appointment of the head of the federalBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesfor the first time since 2006.[310]On January 5, 2016, Obama announced new executive actions extending background check requirements to more gun sellers.[311]In a 2016 editorial in theNew York Times, Obama compared the struggle for what he termed “common-sense gun reform” towomen’s suffrageand othercivil rights movementsin American history.[312]
Government mass surveillance
In 2005 and 2006, Obama criticized certain aspects of thePatriot Actfor infringing too much on civil liberties and sought as Senator to strengthen civil liberties protections.[319][320][321]In 2006, he voted to reauthorize a revised version of the Patriot Act, saying the law was not ideal but that the revised version had strengthened civil liberties.[321]In 2011, he signed a four-year renewal of the Patriot Act.[322]Following the2013 global surveillance disclosuresbywhistleblowerEdward Snowden, Obama condemned the leak as unpatriotic,[320]but called for increased restrictions on the NSA to address violations of privacy.[323][324]The changes which Obama ordered have been described as “modest” however.
x
Foreign policy
In February and March 2009, Vice President Joe Biden andSecretary of StateHillary Clinton made separate overseas trips to announce a “new era” in U.S. foreign relations with Russia and Europe, using the terms “break” and “reset” to signal major changes from the policies of the preceding administration.[326]Obama attempted to reach out to Arab leaders by granting his first interview to an Arab satellite TV network,Al Arabiya.[327]
On March 19, Obama continued his outreach to the Muslim world, releasing a New Year’s video message to the people and government of Iran.[328][329]In April, Obama gave a speech inAnkara, Turkey, which was well received by many Arab governments.[330]On June 4, 2009, Obama delivered a speech atCairo Universityin Egypt calling for “A New Beginning” in relations between the Islamic world and the United States and promoting Middle East peace.[331]
On June 26, 2009, Obama responded to the Iranian government’s actions towards protesters followingIran’s 2009 presidential electionby saying: “The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. We see it and we condemn it.”[332]While in Moscow on July 7, he responded to Vice President Biden’s comment on a possible Israeli military strike on Iran by saying: “We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.”[333]
On September 24, 2009, Obama became the first sitting U.S. President topresideover a meeting of theUnited Nations Security Council.[334]
In March 2010, Obama took a public stance against plans by the government of Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahuto continue building Jewish housing projects in predominantly Arab neighborhoods ofEast Jerusalem.[335][336]During the same month, an agreement was reached with the administration of Russian PresidentDmitry Medvedevto replace the1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treatywith a new pact reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons in the arsenals of both countries by about a third.[337]Obama and Medvedev signed theNew STARTtreaty in April 2010, and theU.S. Senateratified it in December 2010.
In December 2011, Obama instructed agencies to considerLGBT rightswhen issuing financial aid to foreign countries.[339]In August 2013, he criticized Russia’s law that discriminates against gays,[340]but he stopped short of advocating a boycott of the upcoming2014 Winter OlympicsinSochi, Russia.
In December 2014, Obama announced that he intended tonormalize relationshipsbetweenCuba and the United States.[342]The countries’ respective “interests sections” in one another’s capitals were upgraded to embassies on July 20, 2015.
In March 2015, Obama declared that he had authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis in theirmilitary intervention in Yemen, establishing a “Joint Planning Cell” with Saudi Arabia.[343][344]In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series ofarms deals with Saudi Arabiaworth $115 billion.[345]Obama halted the sale of guided munition technology toSaudi Arabiaafter Saudi warplanestargeted a funeralin Yemen’s capital Sanaa, killing more than 140 people.[346]
Before leaving office, Obama said German ChancellorAngela Merkelhad been his “closest international partner” throughout his tenure as president.[347]
x
In February 27, 2009, Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq would end within 18 months. His remarks were made to a group ofMarinespreparing for deployment to Afghanistan. Obama said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”[348]
On August 19, 2010, the last U.S. combat brigade exited Iraq. Remaining troops transitioned from combat operations tocounter-terrorismand the training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi security forces.[349][350]On August 31, 2010, Obama announced that the United States combat mission in Iraq was over.[351]On October 21, 2011 President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq in time to be “home for the holidays”.[352]
In June 2014, following thecapture of MosulbyISIS, Obama sent 275 troops to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. ISIS continued to gain ground and to commitwidespread massacres and ethnic cleansing.[353][354]
In August 2014, during theSinjar massacre, Obama ordered acampaign of U.S. airstrikes against ISIS.[355]
x
War in Afghanistan
Early in his presidency, Obama moved to bolster U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan.[360]He announced an increase in U.S. troop levels to 17,000 military personnel in February 2009 to “stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan
In February 2013, Obama said the U.S. military would reduce the troop level in Afghanistan from 68,000 to 34,000 U.S. troops by February 2014.[365]
In October 2015, the White House announced a plan to keep U.S. Forces in Afghanistan indefinitely in light of the deteriorating security situation.[366]
x
Israel
In 2011, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution condemningIsraeli settlements, with the United States being the only nation to do so.[367]Obama supports thetwo-state solutionto theArab–Israeli conflictbased on the 1967 borders with land swaps.[368]
In June 2011, Obama said the bond between the United States and Israel is “unbreakable”.[369]During the initial years of the Obama administration, the U.S. increased military cooperation with Israel
In 2013,Jeffrey Goldbergreported that, in Obama’s view, “with each new settlement announcement, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.”[372]In 2014, Obama likened theZionist movementto theCivil Rights Movementin the United States. He said both movements seek to bring justice and equal rights to historically persecuted peoples. He explained, “To me, being pro-Israel and pro-Jewish is part and parcel with the values that I’ve been fighting for since I was politically conscious and started getting involved in politics.”[373]Obama expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself during the2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.[374]In 2015, Obama was harshly criticized by Israel for advocating and signing theIran Nuclear Deal; Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu, who had advocated the U.S. congress to oppose it, said the deal was “dangerous” and “bad”.[375]
On December 23, 2016, under the Obama Administration, the United States abstained fromUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemnedIsraeli settlement buildingin the occupiedPalestinian territoriesas a violation of international law, effectively allowing it to pass.[376]Netanyahu strongly criticized the Obama Administration’s actions,[377][378]and the Israeli government withdrew its annual dues from the organization, which totaled $6 million, on January 6, 2017.[379]On January 5, 2017, theUnited States House of Representativesvoted 342–80 to condemn the UN Resolution.[380][381]
x
Libya
In February 2011, protests in Libya began against long-time dictatorMuammar Gaddafias part of theArab Spring. They soon turned violent. In March, as forces loyal to Gaddafi advanced on rebels across Libya, calls for a no-fly zone came from around the world, including Europe, theArab League, and a resolution[382]passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.[383]In response to the unanimous passage ofUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1973on March 17, Gaddafi—who had previously vowed to “show no mercy” to the rebels of Benghazi[384]—announced an immediate cessation of military activities,[385]yet reports came in that his forces continued shellingMisrata. The next day, on Obama’s orders, the U.S. military took part in air strikes to destroy the Libyan government’s air defense capabilities to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly-zone,[386]including the use ofTomahawk missiles,B-2 Spirits, and fighter jets.[387][388][389]Six days later, on March 25, by unanimous vote of all its 28 members,NATOtook over leadership of the effort, dubbedOperation Unified Protector.[390]Some Representatives[391]questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath.[392][393]
x
Syrian Civil War
On August 18, 2011, several months after the start of theSyrian Civil War, Obama issued a written statement that said: “The time has come forPresident Assadto step aside.”[394][395]This stance was reaffirmed in November 2015.[396]In 2012, Obama authorized multipleprograms run by the CIAand the Pentagon to train anti-Assad rebels.[397]The Pentagon-run program was later found to have failed and was formally abandoned in October 2015.[398][399]
In the wake of achemical weapons attackin Syria,formally blamedby the Obama administration on the Assad government, Obama chose not to enforce the “red line” he had pledged[400]and, rather than authorize the promised military action against Assad, went along with the Russia-brokered deal that led to Assadgiving up chemical weapons; however attacks withchlorine gascontinued.[401][402]In 2014, Obama authorized anair campaign aimed primarily at ISIL, but repeatedly promised the U.S. would not deploy ground troops in Syria.[403][404]
x
Death of Osama bin Laden
Starting with information received from Central Intelligence Agency operatives in July 2010, the CIA developed intelligence over the next several months that determined what they believed to be the hideout ofOsama bin Laden. He was living in seclusion ina large compoundinAbbottabad, Pakistan, a suburban area 35 miles (56km) fromIslamabad.[405]CIA headLeon Panettareported this intelligence to President Obama in March 2011.[405]Meeting with his national security advisers over the course of the next six weeks, Obama rejected a plan to bomb the compound, and authorized a “surgical raid” to be conducted byUnited States Navy SEALs.[405]The operation took place on May 1, 2011, and resulted in the shooting death of bin Laden and the seizure of papers, computer drives and disks from the compound.[406][407]DNA testing was one of five methods used to positively identify bin Laden’s corpse,[408]which was buried at sea several hours later.[409]Within minutes of the President’s announcement from Washington, DC, late in the evening on May 1, there were spontaneous celebrations around the country as crowds gathered outside the White House, and at New York City’sGround ZeroandTimes Square.[406][410]Reaction to the announcementwas positive across party lines, including from former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.[411]
The United States Navy Sea, Air, and Land (SEAL) Teams, commonly known as Navy SEALs, are the U.S. Navy’s primary special operations force and a component of the Naval Special Warfare Command. The Navy SEALs were created by John F. Kennedy on 1 January 1962. Among the SEALs main functions are conducting small-unit unconventional special operation missions in maritime, jungle, urban, arctic, mountainous, and desert environments. SEALs are primarily tasked with capturing or if necessary, eliminating high level targets, or gathering intelligence behind enemy lines for future military actions. They are often referred to as “The cream of the crop”.[6
The World Trade Center site, formerly referred to as “Ground Zero” or “the Pile” immediately after the September 11 attacks, is a 14.6-acre (5.9 ha) area in Lower Manhattan in New York City.[1][2] The site is bounded by Vesey Street to the north, the West Side Highway to the west, Liberty Street to the south, and Church Street to the east. The Port Authority owns the site’s land (except for 7 World Trade Center). The previous World Trade Center complex stood on the site until it was destroyed in the September 11 attacks.
Iran nuclear talks
In November 2013, the Obama administration openednegotiationswith Iran to prevent it from acquiringnuclear weapons, which included aninterim agreement. Negotiations took two years with numerous delays, with a deal being announced July 14, 2015. The deal, titled the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”, saw the removal of sanctions in exchange for measures that would prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. While Obama hailed the agreement as being a step towards a more hopeful world, the deal drew strong criticism from Republican and conservative quarters, and from Israeli prime ministerBenjamin Netanyahu.[412][413][414]In addition, the transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran shortly after the deal was announced was criticized by the republican party. The Obama administration said that the payment in cash was because of the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions”.[415]In order to advance the deal, the Obama administration shieldedHezbollahfrom theDrug Enforcement Administration’sProject Cassandrainvestigation regarding drug smuggling and from theCentral Intelligence Agency.
x
cultural image
On May 25, 2011, Obama became the first President of the United States to address both houses of theUK ParliamentinWestminster Hall, London. This was only the fifth occurrence since the start of the 20th century of a head of state’s being extended this invitation, followingCharles de Gaullein 1960,Nelson Mandelain 1996,Queen Elizabeth IIin 2002 andPope Benedict XVIin 2010.[458][459]
On October 9, 2009, theNorwegian Nobel Committeeannounced that Obama had won the2009 Nobel Peace Prize”for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.[460]Obama accepted this award inOslo, Norway on December 10, 2009, with “deep gratitude and great humility.”[461]The award drew a mixture of praise and criticism from world leaders and media figures.[462][463][464][465]Obama’s peace prize was called a “stunning surprise” byThe New York Times.[466]Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the third to become a Nobel laureate while in office.[467]Obama’s Nobel Prize has been viewed skeptically in subsequent years, especially after the director of the Nobel Institute,Geir Lundestad, said Obama’s Peace Prize did not have the desired effect.[468]
x
An assessment on the Barack Obama’s presidencyBarack Obama
Political strategy of Barack Obama
1 On the economic front
- Overall unemployment reached its peak, at 10 percent, in October 2009, and began a long slow decrease so that six years later, in the fall of 2015, it at last reached a tolerable 5 percent.
- The Obama health insurance reform barely survived a legal challenge in the Supreme Court in 2015, and its further survival would depend on the willingness of congressmen and -women and judges to defend it.
2 THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY AND INEQUALITY
Like global warming, the growth in economic inequality poses a challenge to progressive presidential leadership that would be daunting under the best of political circumstances. The trends in both the climate and the economy are by their nature difficult to reverse, and in an era of partisan polarization and nearly constant gridlock, presidents seeking to meet those challenges are unlikely to be able to claim decisive victories. When change fails to match expectations, the disappointment that many people feel may lead them to disparage what political leadership has accomplished. That reaction, however, would be a mistake in the case of Barack Obama’s record on economic inequality. Despite relentless Republican opposition, Obama made significant progress in mitigating and reducing inequality. What he did not receive is much political credit for that achievement—and why he failed to get credit is as important a question as how he was able to do as much as he did.
When Barack Obama went to Osawatomie, Kansas, in December 2011 to give a speech on inequality and called it “the defining issue of our time,” he was registering a shift in the framing of the problem and seeking to put inequality at the center of his 2012 reelection campaign.2
Conservatives have generally seen redistribution as both illegitimate and futile—illegitimate because government has no right to transfer income from those who earn it to anyone else, and futile because dng so will only reduce the incentives to be productive.
But if these were the chief causes, policy would likely be ineffectual in reducing inequality, except by depressing economic growth. Disagreeing with this analysis, other economists as well as sociologists and political scientists have argued that rising inequality has political and institutional sources and pointed to cross-national evidence that greater equality does not, in fact, come at the expense of growth.
But many who have offered this interpretation have also insisted that more radical policies than Obama’s would be necessary to reduce inequality in the United States. The constraints of American politics are severe, but which party controls the presidency has nonetheless made an enormous difference in the extent of economic inequality. Building on the work of Douglas Hibbs, Larry Bartels finds that from 1948 to 2014 income inequality increased sharply under Republican presidents but decreased somewhat under Democrats.
Yet even Bartels is skeptical about any recent rollback of inequality under Obama.
The more tractable questions about presidential leadership involve changes in policy with an immediate and direct impact. During Obama’s presidency, these changes came in three areas: 1) the response to the Great Recession, particularly through the Recovery Act in 2009; 2) healthcare reform, mainly through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010; and 3) changes in taxation, chiefly through tax provisions of the Recovery Act and the ACA and legislation adopted during the lame-duck session after the 2012 election, which repealed earlier Republican tax cuts on the top brackets and extended permanently the Recovery Act’s tax cuts for the poor. These policies substantially mitigated the effects of the Great Recession on poverty and inequality. Once the healthcare and tax reforms were carried out in 2013 and 2014, they significantly reduced inequality from the level it had reached before Obama became president. But these achievements might as well have been declared state secrets. Many of them involved policies that were low in visibility and high in complexity and therefore inherently difficult for ordinary citizens to understand even when they were beneficiaries.
The Great Recession, the Recovery Act, and Inequality
Any assessment of Obama’s record on inequality has to take into account the conditions under which he became president. During 2008, unemployment had risen from 5 percent to nearly 8 percent (it would eventually peak at 10 percent). The collapse of the housing market had set off a financial panic in the fall of 2008, imperiling major financial institutions and raising the specter of a depression on the scale of the 1930s. As of January 2009, the economy was in free fall: nearly 750,000 jobs were being lost each month, and real GDP was dropping at an annual rate of about 6 percent.8
A declining economy typically has disparate implications for people depending on their socioeconomic position and how much of a cushion they have against adversity. Recessions increase inequality in market incomes chiefly because of higher unemployment rates and the increased duration of unemployment. So, at the inception of Obama’s presidency, inequality was set to increase substantially from its already high levels. Instead, federal policies cut short the recession and limited the impact on both inequality and poverty. The federal government’s response to the recession had three different aspects. The first consisted of standing countercyclical policies—automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and food stamps. The second aspect comprised measures taken to stabilize financial markets, beginning under George W. Bush. In September 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board had rescued major banks and other financial institutions, and in October Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which authorized up to $700 billion to buy distressed assets or equity in financial institutions. By the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve had reduced interest rates to zero, and it continued to support the economy through quantitative easing under Obama. The continuity of these financial-market policies from the Bush to Obama administrations highlights the short-lived bipartisan support those policies enjoyed at the height of the financial crisis. Obama did, however, use the TARP funds in one way that many Republicans opposed—to bail out the auto industry, an unambiguous success. And in 2010, Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed by Congress almost entirely on party lines. Fiscal stimulus, the third aspect of the federal response to the Great Recession, was chiefly the work of Obama and the Democrats, except for a tax cut adopted under Bush in early 2008. Obama’s stimulus program, enacted less
than a month after he took office, served in part as a vehicle for his larger agenda. As its full name indicated, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included provisions for long-term investments in public infrastructure and technological innovation. Indeed, with its provisions for the financing of green technology and a new program in the Energy Department to support breakthrough discoveries, it would turn out to be the only major piece of legislation that Obama was able to get through Congress to address climate change (all his other measures would be through executive action). The Recovery Act also financed improvements in roads, bridges, water and sewage systems, and other aspects of public infrastructure, emphasizing “shovel-ready” projects to create jobs and get money into circulation as quickly as possible. But, partly because of the difficulty in using public investment to boost short-term demand and target support to those hit hardest by the recession, most of the Recovery Act’s more than $800 billion in funds went to three other purposes: tax cuts, expanded benefits for the unemployed and the poor, and fiscal relief to the states. The first two of these were unambiguously aimed at mitigating inequality and poverty as well as stimulating the economy. The legislation created or enlarged three tax credits: a new Making Work Pay tax credit, which went to low- and middle-income people, and increases in the earned income tax credit and child tax credit, which went to those with low incomes. The expanded government benefits in the Recovery Act were also structured to favor people in greatest distress. The legislation increased the duration and generosity of unemployment benefits and, in an unprecedented step, paid for a substantial portion of health insurance for the unemployed. It also temporarily expanded food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]), welfare payments (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and assistance for housing (Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program). SNAP assumed particular importance: one in four children and one in eight adults were receiving food stamps by 2010, as the program functioned, in effect, as a minimum basic income.
The final part of the Recovery Act—fiscal relief to the states—was more uncertain in its distributive implications. The rationale for federal aid to the states was to reduce cutbacks in public services and layoffs of teachers and other public employees as states saw their revenues fall. But the federal money was fungible. Even when the federal aid was tied to a program like Medicaid, states might use the funds to reduce their own spending in that area. So there was no guarantee that federal aid would end up as stimulus, much less as progressive stimulus.
Altogether—taking into account later extensions of the Recovery Act’s temporary tax cuts and spending measures—the total discretionary stimulus from 2009 to 2012 amounted to $1.2 trillion and averaged about 2 percent of GDP.
Hemmed in by the failure to win credit for the Recovery Act, Obama was unable to build on it. Healthcare reform would have that same problem.
x
Healthcare Reform as Redistributive Policy
— Passed in March 2010, the law expanded Medicaid to serve more of the poor and near-poor (up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level), and it enabled others to obtain private insurance through a new structure of rules and subsidies in the individual insurance market.
Tax Reform in the Obama Presidency
The tax cuts at the beginning of Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies were skewed toward the upper brackets, whereas Obama’s tax cuts were targeted toward low- and middle-income people.
Legislation in 2012 repealed the Bush tax cuts for high-income individuals and families, pushing the top rate back up to 39.6 percent. It also increased taxes on capital income and made a variety of other changes, including reinstatement of the estate tax, that fell primarily on the rich.
The Credit Conundrum
The Recovery Act, healthcare reform, and tax changes of the Obama presidency all followed the same pattern. The policies were progressive in their inspiration and impact, but they were nonetheless disappointing to progressives, who wanted stronger measures. They were also little appreciated or understood by the public at large, which saw them largely through partisan lenses. Republicans, of course, lambasted the policies, and conservative media portrayed them as unmitigated failures. To be sure, the economic recovery and healthcare reforms did help Obama win reelection in 2012, though at that time even opinion leaders who supported Obama did not believe that he had been able to do much about the growth in economic inequality.
x
6 Obama’s court
Obama’s law school years coincided with a burgeoning conservative attack on both liberal constitutional doctrines and liberal approaches to constitutional interpretation more generally.
even before the Court lost its most powerful conservative with Antonin Scalia’s death a year before Obama left the presidency, the predicted constitutional realignment had not come to pass. In the battle between a liberal president and a conservative-majority Court, Obama prevailed when it came to blockbuster cases on new issues, like the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage, as well as the defense of longstanding doctrines like affirmative action and abortion. Despite the conservatism of the Court’s majority, it has been Obama’s Court, which is to say a twenty-first-century Court that continues to reflect—even if imperfectly—the central preoccupations of the second half of the twentieth century.
Trump quickly made his first appointment to the Supreme Court in 2017—an appointment that Democrats claimed was stolen from Obama by the Republicans’ refusal to consider his nominee. And while Trump’s appointment of federal appellate judge Neil Gorsuch was relatively conventional, Trump’s ascendancy and governing style has been anything but.
At the end of his tenure, Obama’s Court that looked as though it had a solid liberal majority returns to the cusp of conservative control.
The Mid-Century Settlement
The constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court elaborated in the middle of the twentieth century had two essential features: the broad legitimacy of the federal administrative state, especially in the realm of economic regulation, and the judicial protection of civil rights and civil liberties.
The legitimacy of the administrative state had its origins in the New Deal era of the 1930s.
decade the Court had placed its imprimatur on a vastly expanded federal administrative apparatus. For the following fifty years, the Court allowed the political branches virtually free rein to regulate the economic and social spheres.
As it evolved, the mid-century settlement became as much about carving out a space for judicial protection of minorities and fundamental rights as it was about protecting the administrative state from the judiciary.
The first African American president of the United States was possible because of a civil rights movement that had received the Court’s blessing in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, a movement that forced the adoption of the civil rights acts of the 1960s and fundamentally changed the American electoral calculus.
The Warren Court became synonymous with a judicial expansion of a a kind of liberal constitutional rights, from racial equality to privacy, to freedom of speech and religion.
The constitutional developments that characterized the 1930s and the 1960s estabished the enormous power of the federal government and the judicial protection of individual and minority rights. But before the justices began to put the finishing touches to the Mid-settlement Republicans began proliferating.
years, Nixon appointed four new members of the Court: Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justices Lewis F. Powell, Harry A. Blackmun, and William H. Rehnquist. Though the Burger Court was less liberal than its predecessor, it nonetheless continued expanding individual rights, most notably where women’s rights were concerned. In 1986, the Burger Court gave way to the identifiably more conservative Rehnquist Court.
Even after Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to the Court in the 1990s, that conservative dominance continued with seven Republican-appointed justices. The Rehnquist Court was the most stable in 150 years.
The conservatives who increasingly populated the Court toward the end of the century did not accept the evolved equilibrium of a vast administrative state combined with judicial protection of liberal rights. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1986 and 1991 by Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush respectively, were unafraid of enforcing their version of the Constitution whether or not it challenged established political settlements. In fact, they were part of a more fundamental challenge to the method of constitutional interpretation itself. Articulated most powerfully on the Court by the charismatic Justice Scalia, this conservative challenge strategically embraced an approach to the Constitution that emphasized the text of the document and its original understanding. The goal was to limit judicial discretion to protect liberal causes and produce more conservative constitutional outcomes.
despite several decades of a mjority of republican appointments, the court has not delivered as conservatives had expected by 2000. Too many were less than reliable as John Paul Stevens (Nixon, 1975), Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan, 1981), Anthony M. Kennedy (Reagan, 1988), and David H. Souter (George H. W. Bush, 1990)
Stevens and Souter came to be closely aligned with the Court’s left flank.
It was against this backdrop that, in 2005, George W. Bush appointed John G. Roberts to replace Rehnquist as chief justice and Samuel Alito to replace O’Connor. With Alito and Roberts at the Court, conservatives saw a better chance to remake the Constitution.
Reestablishing the “Constitution-in-Exile” would undermine the legitimacy of the regulatory state that had been insulated from constitutional challenge since the New Deal.6 Conservative justices were equally committed to rolling back the protection of individual rights in areas like affirmative action and abortion, and stopping the evolving protection of sexual orientation in its tracks.
This more reliable 5–4 Court seemed poised to deliver on promises not kept—a wholesale remaking of the mid-century constitutional settlement seemed achievable.
x
