Matthew Dickinson, a professor of political science at Middlebury College, writes about presidential decision making:
Presidents deal with a never-ending series of memoranda that cross their desk on a daily basis, asking them to choose among different options developed by aides, often with deadlines looming that leave little time for careful reflection. Rarely do presidents have the luxury to delve as deeply into the substance of these issues and choices as they might like. Indeed, they are lucky if they can affect these options at the margins. More generally, the president must depend on the expertise and judgment of his (someday her) advisers, knowing full well that the repercussions of the choices they make will fall on their shoulders, and not their aides'.
This is always true, but we would do well to keep it in mind as we discuss the president's budget. The budget's priorities reflect Obama's values, but the choices therein reflect the combined judgment of Obama's administration, and more specifically, the political and policy considerations of his aides, assistants and bureaucratic allies. I don't think it's wise to cut Pell Grants or slash funding for the National Job Corps, but that choice isn't the sole work of the president; Obama has neither the time -- and I assume, the inclination -- to comb through departmental budgets. By the time Obama signs off on a decision like budget cuts, it's almost certainly true that the choice has been made by his advisors.
This isn't to absolve the president of responsibility, but to further illustrate the limits and constraints of the presidency. It's not just that Obama can't unilaterally pass his budget through Congress, but that the specifics of budgeting are largely beyond his control. This seems obvious, but given the extent to which we treat the president as a unilateral actor with complete control of his government, it's worth repeating.
