Why is Obama supposed to come up with a stimulus plan?

There's no rule that says the executive is supposed to think up all the legislation.

Congress is the preeminent power in our government. (The three co-equal branches was cooked up by by some grade-school civics textbook author... Congress is pre-eminent by design.)

The executive is required to submit a budget once a year but it doesn't follow the executive's role is writing all the legislation for congress to sign-off on. Congress could have, and probably should have taken the initiative and drafted their own damn plan. It is not just their right, it's their responsibility.

This is tough to say because I have little respect for Congress as it is rather than as it was intended to be, but institutionally they are supposed to lead not sit around waiting by the fax machine hoping some good ideas show up.

(One of the things I most desire from Bush leaving is a dramatic weakening of the executive branch.)

stop Israel, etc etc. I joke, but in all seriousness, when everyone else stops doing their job, one person has to do it all. Congress/Senate hasn't done anything much for us in years.

Also, he is not Harry Reid.

That all branches were reigned in and limited to their respective roles.

Is due to the fact that the President is the only leader who represents the entire nation as a whole. In any event, it's been done this way for decades. The New Deal programs didn't originate with the Congress but with Roosevelt.

It also probably saves time by getting the President and the Congress on the same page, so to speak so they don't need to spend their time overriding vetos.

I find it all rather sinister. There is always a crisis that demands a unitary executive. But there always will be a crisis because the world is a crisis generating machine.

Why did Bush getting into office mean we should have tax cuts? The president doesn't set tax rates. And so on...

But we have had an imperial presidency for a while and we will for a while longer. (Probably forever.)

Given the state things are in we need central leadership today as a practical matter. But I don't see how that will ever change.

The prez has access to various departments that collect and analyse information; he has access to complete tax information, commerce information, and is in charge of the agencies that produce most of the economic reports. They are his extended staff. Congress has a more limited staff, and has to request the information they want from the executive branch. While there's a CBO and a few other agencies, their staff resources are more limited.

Leadership is also at issue. Congress can't lead as well as the president can, simply because it speaks with 545 voices (if I did the arithmetic right). Some are pointless--no offense intended for their constituencies, but new reps from places like Idaho just don't get the attention in the national media that established reps from places like California or NY do.

Moreover, each representative represents his constituency, his state or district. None of them represent so much as two states. That creates problems.

Execution is also a problem: The prez is the only person in charge of executing it, having, as he does, the executive branch under him. Therefore he gets a say in the legislation, because he can veto it. If he doesn't like it, he can impede it--most budgets don't *require* that every cent be spent, and even if they did, there are ways around it.

That said, the prez proposes, and the Congress disposes. Don't assume that it'll pass with no changes--or, rather, don't assume that Congress won't have a large say in what gets included. Obama will negotiate with Congress, spec. the dems, because he wants it to pass, and because certain reps/senators will have very determined ideas as to what should be included.