Now I’ll pick on Congress
My last post took the side of the legislative branch over the executive branch when it comes to how this president uses signing statements. So let’s pick on Congress a little. Here’s a trivia question: how many legislative mandates govern U.S. policy towards the International Monetary Fund? Answer below the fold…. A new GAO report ...
My last post took the side of the legislative branch over the executive branch when it comes to how this president uses signing statements. So let's pick on Congress a little. Here's a trivia question: how many legislative mandates govern U.S. policy towards the International Monetary Fund? Answer below the fold.... A new GAO report gives us the magic number: Since 2001, we reported that the United States had maintained nearly 70 legislative mandates prescribing U.S. policy goals at the IMF. These mandates covered a wide range of policies, including policies regarding combating terrorism, human rights, international trade, and weapons proliferation.... The mandates date from 1945 to 2005, with the majority enacted in the last decade. Some mandates address multiple policy issues, sometimes overlapping each other. The truly surprising thing is that this is actually one fewer mandate than last year. Click on the report to see the specific mandates. Most of them are perfectly unobjectionable -- but with this many constraints, it's a miracle that Treasury can keep track of them all, much less comply with them. Plus, the aggregation of hard constraints makes it difficult for the U.S. to have the policy flexibility that makes it easier to lead the institution. Not surprisingly, the executive branch would like a little more latitude. In their response to the GAO, Treasury said: As noted in the past, the extensive mandates tend to undermine our effectiveness in influencing the IMF. We would welcome efforts by the Congress to effect a consolidation of the legislative provisions to remove unnecssary mandates. Indeed. Full disclosure: the author of Treasury's response was one of my bosses when I worked there.
My last post took the side of the legislative branch over the executive branch when it comes to how this president uses signing statements. So let’s pick on Congress a little. Here’s a trivia question: how many legislative mandates govern U.S. policy towards the International Monetary Fund? Answer below the fold…. A new GAO report gives us the magic number:
Since 2001, we reported that the United States had maintained nearly 70 legislative mandates prescribing U.S. policy goals at the IMF. These mandates covered a wide range of policies, including policies regarding combating terrorism, human rights, international trade, and weapons proliferation…. The mandates date from 1945 to 2005, with the majority enacted in the last decade. Some mandates address multiple policy issues, sometimes overlapping each other.
The truly surprising thing is that this is actually one fewer mandate than last year. Click on the report to see the specific mandates. Most of them are perfectly unobjectionable — but with this many constraints, it’s a miracle that Treasury can keep track of them all, much less comply with them. Plus, the aggregation of hard constraints makes it difficult for the U.S. to have the policy flexibility that makes it easier to lead the institution. Not surprisingly, the executive branch would like a little more latitude. In their response to the GAO, Treasury said:
As noted in the past, the extensive mandates tend to undermine our effectiveness in influencing the IMF. We would welcome efforts by the Congress to effect a consolidation of the legislative provisions to remove unnecssary mandates.
Indeed. Full disclosure: the author of Treasury’s response was one of my bosses when I worked there.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
