I'm not american, so I may be missing the point. But isn't
ck2's point that this a President doesn't have the authority for this? Are't these supposed to be congressional authorities? IE, to get these policies people should elect legislators with these views.
> But isn't ck2's point that this a President doesn't have the authority for this? Are't these supposed to be congressional authorities?
Because the US doesn't have a parliamentary system where parties have clear parliamentary leaders (there are leadership in each party in each house, but there role is not the same as party leaders in a parliamentary system), and because the President has substantial powers not found in separately-elected heads of state in parliamentary systems, and because Congressional elections are separate by-seat elections and the Presidential election is (kind-of, the electoral college makes this not really true -- but closer than any other election) Presidential campaigns are single, national elections, the Presidential elections are a major nexus for national policy ideas that take legislative action to support (and Presidential primaries, particularly, set the ground for national party platforms in presidential election years.)
Technically? Sort of. Practically? Also sort of, but a little less so.
Technically speaking these bills originate in Congress. For financial matters, specifically the House. But the President does have veto power, so has a voice in the process.
Practically speaking, the President does a lot to set the tone. It's the only nationally elected position (even if elected a little weirdly). See "bully pulpit".
It's not an either-or thing -- you need to elect both local representatives AND a president who is interested in change.
A president cannot single handedly pass these changes, but he or she DOES exercise considerable influence on the kinds of things congress passes via the ability to refuse to sign things that congress does pass, so a president interested in change is a vital part of the process.
Consider that Barrack Obama campaigned on health care reform, and a health care reform package was passed during his first term. It's not a coincidence that that happened, even though the package had to be introduced by congress -- the electoral mandate handed to a president necessarily informs the legislative pressures congressional members feel, be it to support such a mandate, or to obstruct it, depending on the political inclinations of their base.
Health insurance had been attempted by the democrats a few times so there was definitely existing support. Also passed for children, also exists as medicare, medicaid. So it had examples for things being better, just needed a huge push.
Now the health insurance we ended up with is a horrible compromise (this is personal for me, I still cannot get health insurance).
And that's with so many congress people throwing themselves into the fire and literally ending their careers by voting for that horrible compromised bill.
How in the heck do you think the radical ideas Bernie is proposing is going to get 51% of the house and 51% of the Senate?
Everyone needs healthcare, so they can relate somehow.
Now compare that to the radical reshuffle that would be needed for "free" education (which to be clear I think is a good idea).
No way senate and house throw themselves into the fire for most of what Bernie is proposing, no way.
It's a non-issue anyway, there is no way in hell America is going to elect a 78 year old Jewish man who constantly waves his arms around when he talks.
He's a great guy and a great senator and he should be proud but this country is not going to make him president, hell the democrats won't even let him win the primary, no way.
ps. he also ran 4.5 minute miles in high school which is amazing