Blog #9: Federal Budget Process

The federal budget process is the process of creating the budget for the United States government. The federal budget process begins with the President's submitting to Congress his proposed federal budget for the next fiscal year. The federal government's fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calender year. The President's budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. Next, the House and the Senate budget committees draft a budget resolution, which is a framework within which the members of the committees will make their decisions about spending and taxes. A budget resolution includes targets for total spending, total revenues, and the surplus or deficit, and allocations within the spending target for discretionary spending and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending, which accounts for one-third of all Federal spending, is what the President and Congress must decide to spend for the next fiscal year through the 13 annual appropriations bills. Mandatory spending, which accounts for two-thirds of all Federal spending, is spending authorized by permanent laws rather than the 13 annual appropriations bills. For discretionary programs, Congress and the President must act each year to provide spending authority, while for mandatory programs, they may act to change the spending that current laws require. Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Members of the Senate and the House typically negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate. Once both Houses of Congress and the President approve the the budget resolution, the Government then monitors the spending through agency programs, the OMB, the GAO, and Congressional committees.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/guide.pdf

Essay #2: "Does Voting Matter?"

Voting for a candidate in a democratic election in the United States of America can be seen as irrational for a variety of reasons. First, there are multiple costs for voting, and a person may or may not want to pay or be even be able to afford the cost. Another reason why voting can be seen as irrational is the time consumption it requires. With the numerous hurdles one must overcome just to register and also with the large quantity of time one must allot just for voting on election day, it is reasonable and rational for one to stay home and be lazy since it is much easier. Voting also requires the voter to be informed on the candidates and their positions on important issues, resulting in more time that must be spent by the voter. Also, because the chance of affecting an election is low, it is not plainly irrational to not participate. However, despite all of these reasonable reasons, voting does matter, for it shows the general public opinion and it allows for a person to express the power granted to him by the basic principles of democracy. Also, voting is a right granted to American citizens. Therefore, many people pride themselves in exercising their right to vote. Lastly, and most importantly, if every person considers voting to be irrational and do not vote, then the purpose of an election is not achieved and the democratic process fails, for the general public/majority opinion is not influencing the government.

Blog #8: Bush's Waning Power

In the government of the United States, three major factor's that affect the President's power in legislative battles are whether the President is a strong persuader, whether the President has a good approval rating, and whether the President is a "winner." Unfortunately for President Bush, all of these factors go against our current President. This article from the Washington Post depicts our President's waning power, which is portrayed in the current legislative battle over the bailout bill. The failure of the bailout bill to pass through the House shows Bush's waning political power and influence because the bill failed to pass due to a large number of defectors in the House of Representatives from his own party. Since Bush has not been successful as President, since he is not very persuasive, and since his approval rating is extremely low, it is hard for Congressmen, especially from his own party, to believe in the words he is saying and to jump on his bandwagon. Also, since the Congressmen need the public's votes to be reelected, it is not wise to side with a person who is not well liked/approved by the public. Therefore, Bush's power and influence in the government is nearly fully diminished.

Article: http://www.newser.com/story/38733/bailout-vote-shows-bushs-power-waning.html

Blog #7: Gridlock

Congressional stalemates, or gridlocks, that describe legislative inaction occur for many reasons, especially over important issues. One reason for the occurrences of gridlocks is the division of government. The division of government allows for numerous checks and balances that a bill must go through before becoming a law. Even though having a strong system of checks and balances can make sure a bill is fool-proof before it becomes a law, having too many checks and balances can severely delay the passing of a bill, and it simultaneously allows for more areas where the bill can be defeated and die, which does not resolve the issue the bill is being passed for. For example, a bill can pass through both houses of Congress and still be defeated due to the President's veto power. Another reason for gridlocks is a bicameral legislature, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill must be passed in both houses to remain eligible to be made into a law, which is a major reason why so many gridlocks occur. For example, a bill may pass in the House of Representatives due to having a majority of Democrats, but when the bill is sent to the Senate, it is defeated because the Republicans still hold a majority in the Senate due to having longer terms in the Senate (6 years) than in the House (2 years). Also, with filibusters in the Senate needing a 3/5 vote to bring about the filibuster's cloture, bills often die on the floor of the Senate. Also, the party system used today in politics is a primary reason for gridlocks occuring. The rivaling Democratic and Republican parties oppose each other on most major issues, which causes a still widening gap to form between the parties, which in turn makes compromise less likely. A gridlock causes a bill to be delayed in becoming a law, which makes the issue, which is most likely progressively worsening, that the bill is being passed for to remain unresolved. The delayed response to the issue may be too late to solve the issue by the time the bill is ultimately passed. Gridlock is somewhat an appropriate representation of the will of the people, for earmarks can be added on to the bill that wins the vote of individual Congressman because it "brings the pork back home" to the Congressman's constituency, which makes him more liked by the people he represents and which gives him more of a chance to be reelected. However, the true will of the people is probably to pass the bill that resolves the critical issue for the welfare of the nation as a whole. Congress can be effective, but it would be very difficult with the current setup of government and with party politics.

Blog #6: Judicial Branch and the Brown v. Board of Education

The Judicial Branch has had the greatest impact historically on desegregation due to such cases as the Brown vs. Board case, Cooper v. Aaron case, Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Board case, and Swann v. Charlotte-Macklenburg Board of Education. The criticism that Brown failed to address its limited enforcement power and that Brown generated an incredible backlash that actually worsened race relations is fair for many reasons. First, the facts show that less than 1 % of black school-age children in the Deep South were attending schools with whites 10 years after the decision, meaning the Brown decision was not very effective. Part of the reason for this fact is that some states refused to cooperate and used mass resistance to hinder its effectiveness. To counter the massive resistance, large civil rights movements formed, greatly increasing racial tension. Then, to counter civil rights movements, racial movements led by radical white supremists countered the counter movements, often leading to violence, such as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Also, individual white supremists chose to rebel against the Brown decision by keeping their children home and home-schooling them. Pursuit of federal legislation may have been faster due to having more power to enforce the legislation. But, with the racism that existed during those times, the same types of resistance would have occured, and may have actually been worse and more violent. Overall, though, the final result would have been reached either way, for the Brown decision did for the most part do its job in integrating the South, even though racism is still lurking in the shadows still today.

Blog #5: Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation is defined as only a selected few of something is held within the principles or definition of another thing. In government, selective incorporation is used to describe how only a few of the Bill of Rights' amendments are selected through judiciary review to be held within the 14th amendment. When the 14th amendment was passed, the American people thought that all of the Bill of Rights' amendments were incorporated into the 14th amendment, which is called total incorporation. However, the Supreme Court made decisions as though the 14th amendment had never been adopted. This followed the trend set by the Court in 1833 in the Barron v. Baltimore case, which upheld both the principle of "dual citizenship" and the principle that the Bill of Rights did not apply to decisions or to procedures of state and local governments. However, following the Quincy v. Chicago case in 1897, the Court started to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights' amendments into the 14th amendment. One example occurs in 1925 in the Gitlow v. New York case selectively incorporated Freedom of Speech of the 1st amendment into the 14th amendment. In 1937, however, the Supreme Court shows that the Bill of Rights' amendments are selectively incorporated into the 14th amendment through the Palko v. Connecticut decision, which was that the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment is not incorporated into the 14th amendment.

AP Essay #1: Federalism, Mandates, and Devolution

In the government, there are a number of programs in which the national government engages in regulated federalism by imposing national standards on the states without providing any funding at all. These fundings are called "unfunded mandates," which are formally defined as national standards or programs imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without accompanying funding or reimbursement. The states complained against this form of regulated federalism because they claimed that mandates took up so much of their budgets that they were not able to set their own priorities. The burden of unfunded mandates became a major rallying cry of the 1994 Republican Congress' Contract with America. One of the first measures adopted by the 104th Republican Congress in 1995 was an act to limit unfunded mandates known as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Considered both a triumph of lobbying efforts by state and local governments and a renewal of federalism, this law stated that any mandate with an uncompensated state and local cost estimated at greater than $50 million a year, as determined by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), can be stopped by a point of order raised on the House or Senate floor. Although it reduced the cost of mandates, the primary impact of the "stop, look, and listen" requirement of the UMRA came not as the affirmative blockage of mandate legislation, but rather, as an expert put it, from "its effect as a deterrent to mandates in the drafting and early consideration of legislation." The act was therefore not a revolutionary answer to the problem of unfunded mandates. The act does, however, represent a serious effort to move the national-state relationship a bit further toward the state side. The UMRA differs from devolution in the sense that the UMRA still places authority in the hands of the federal government. Devolution is defined as a policy to remove a program from one level of government by deregulating it or passing it down to a lower level of government, such as from the national government to the state and local governments. Devolution and "new federalism" would be more effective at reducing unfunded mandates in actual practice because more authority is given to the state governments through block grants, which rival and replace unfunded mandates, and which also simultaneously reduce the costs placed on the state governments because the national government covers some, if not all, of the costs when they are used. Also, the UMRA did not actually reduce unfunded mandates. Instead, it only lowered the costs of the mandates and caused the mandates to be reviewed longer in the drafting and early consideration of legislation. Therefore, devolution and block grants should be used as the primary method to reduce unfunded mandates.