BusinessWeek

As Barack Obama prepares for his second swearing-in as America’s chief executive, it’s worth considering how little is legally required to apply for the job. According to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, you need to be at least 35 years old, a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and a “natural born” citizen. That’s it—no degree, no managerial experience, no strategic vision is explicitly required. You don’t even need to be born in the U.S.

Susan Rice’s decision to withdraw from consideration to be the next secretary of state has averted a potentially bruising Senate confirmation battle. It may help the White House defuse the controversy over its handling of the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Rice’s retreat also paves the way for John Kerry to succeed Hillary Clinton at Foggy Bottom, a prospect that has been received favorably among Kerry’s colleagues; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Kerry would be “would be a popular choice with the Senate.”

“We really risk jeopardizing where we stand in the global economy by showing we can't govern,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan Washington group that backs deficit reduction. MacGuineas's ...

The program’s new terms have been popular with student loan advocates, but there may be some significant flaws with its new design, suggests Jason Delisle, co-author of a new report on the changes. Delisle, who heads the Federal Education Budget Project at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy institute in Washington, D.C., helped develop a calculator that took a close look at how the changes to IBR will impact students, including those enrolled in MBA programs.

Such a ruling would have “absurd ramifications for our commerce and culture,” said Marvin Ammori, a legal fellow with the New America Foundation, a nonprofit policy group in Washington. Kirtsaeng also contends that a ruling favoring Wiley would give ...

It took barely half an hour for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to change the subject of their final debate from foreign to domestic policy. Responding to moderator Bob Schieffer’s question—“What is America’s role in the world?”—the candidates launched into their respective plans for rebuilding the U.S. economy. Obama talked about creating manufacturing jobs; Romney vowed to support entrepreneurs. Then they sparred over the merits of hiring more public school teachers.

“The key to America's victories in World War II and the Cold War is that we had our economy do the heavy lifting,” says Patrick Doherty, director of the Smart Strategy Initiative at the New America Foundation. “That's always been the secret of American ...

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, based in Washington, says there's growing support on Capitol Hill for tackling the debt in a constructive manner. She says she's hopeful that a “grand bargain” to put the ...

Mitt Romney’s response to the assaults on U.S. embassies in the Middle East was willfully misleading (accusing the Obama administration of issuing a statement sympathizing “with those who waged the attacks,” which it never did), indisputably ill-timed (trying to score political points off a national tragedy) and quite possibly fatal to his chances of becoming president. If Romney hoped to draw a foreign-policy contrast with Obama, he blew the opportunity.

Foreign policy got short shrift in this year’s Republican and Democratic conventions. In their acceptance speeches, both candidates made brief obeisance to the moth-eaten chimera of energy independence, promised trade deals that would create jobs at home, and pledged to counter threats in the Middle East. Romney did vow global military dominance. Obama at least mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq and cited his administration’s efforts to get tough with China. But did either candidate attempt to explain how America’s national interests are connected to the fortunes of the rest of the planet?