I"m flabberghasted!

Who does what, can do what and is responsibile for what still seems like questions for "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader." The Roles of The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are cast in concrete, yet very few seem to understand those roles and instead sound like this nation is actually a monarchy, or worse, a dictatorship.

1. The Deficit: The Executive Branch proposes a budget, but Congress actually passes it. I've sat in enough budget justifications before Congressional staffers to cause me to buy stock in Maalox. There are deficits because BOTH the Executive proposed them AND Congress granted them to be. So when you seek to condemn anyone for the deficit, look at 1600 PA Ave and Capitol Hill simultaneously, as there's no deficit without mutual consent of the Executive and the Congress.

2. The Economy: Congress passes the laws affecting the economy, the Executive Branch enforces the laws through regulations based on the Congress' laws, and Congress has oversight responsibility as to the success (or failure) of the laws and their enforcement. That success (or failure) becomes the basis for subsequent legislation by Congress and a revised budget to the Executive Branch to amend enforcement.

3. Immigration: Same as #2, just substitute "immigration" for "the economy."

4. Pick a topic, any topic: Same as #2, just substitute "______" for "the economy."

Every 4 years a President is elected under the mantra of "the past was bad, the present isn't all so great, but I can make the near future better." But the President can't do it! ! ! ! ! The President (Executive Branch) is only one prong on the governmental trident. Congress still owns the law-making role and money-dispensing role. That's the check-and-balance which keeps the US Government from looking like China's or Jordan's.

I'm willing to give the President-Elect all the support I can post-inauguration, but only to the limit of his role and responsibilities as authorized and limited by Article 2 of the Constitution. The role and responsibilities as authorized and limited to Congress are within Article 1 of the Constition. They do not overlap, are not comingled, nor can they be.

Forget the campaign rhetoric of the Presidential election. It means nothing now, as it meant nothing then - both candidates did not sound "Presidential," but instead sounded "King-like." However, the public tends to follow princes(ses), and not knowledgeable leaders, because knowledgeable leaders know their lawful limitations and don't make promises of any kind that they know can't be kept. However, the concept that "the king can do no wrong, or be incorrect in any fashion" is the basis for most campaigns - and "we" fall for it all the time (candidate-regardless).

So, all the "change" in the world can be promised during the campaign, but the newly-elected President now has as his next-door neighbor a Congress with a 9% approval rating - and he can't get anything done on the street without the agreement of this next-door neighbor. He can't get the money for anything unless the next-door neighbor authorizes it - by legislation and by passing a budget submission. And the next-door neighbor can still pass all sorts of laws which the Executive may not like or want, but Executive is sworn to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [my] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, the President must administer ALL the laws, based on the funding provided, whether s/he likes it or not.

The President fulfills "executive" responsibilities - not monarchial ones. As citizens, we had better be aware of the difference.

So, changing out the residents of 1600 PA Ave, DC without concurrent exchange of most of the 545 in Congress is like replacing the oil filter on a car and putting the old oil back in the crankcase. The car still runs, but for how long and how well and with how much damage to the engine?