The real world: 5 easy comparisons

In response to the recent cyber attacks, Congress has been pushed into action in order to save the American people. The House of Representatives moved past the gridlock and passed a bill. This bill pushes companies to share access to their computer networks and records with federal investigators. It would also “provide legal liability protections for companies that share cyberthreat information with each other or with the government.”

Privacy:

The issue or personal privacy has been raised with this bill. While the constitution does not specifically say that Americans have a right to privacy, the founders implied it and people today have interpreted the constitution to include that right.

Passing Legislation:

Now that the bill has passed in the House, a similar bill will go to the Senate for a vote. If it passes in the Senate, it will go to a committee with subcommittees and the official language will be worked out. It will then be sent to the president to sign. If he signs it, Congress will be in charge of oversight and will see that companies share their information.

Bipartisanship:

Within the past few years, Congress has been experiencing a lot of gridlock. Congressmen and women are voting with their party and refuse to work with opposing party members. This bill is not the case. Before the current bill was passed, a bipartisan committee worked on drafting and passing similar legislation. Looking at the voting in the house, members from both parties voted for this legislation. We shall see whether we experience gridlock between the houses when the Senate votes soon.

Influencers of Policy:

Contrary to what some may think, bills are not often completely written by members of Congress. They often have advisors, scholars, and experts helping them. Influencing this bill was Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta.

While Congress ultimately makes the schedule for legislation, the White House has some influence over what bills are on the agenda. This bill is “largely embraced by the White House,” so it probably had an influence on getting the legislation passed.

Polarizing of the parties:

Some Republicans believe that this bill does too much while others believe it hasn’t done enough. Darrell Issa(R-CA) believes the government is overstepping its boundaries. He says “since 9/11 the government has begun to know more and more about what we are doing, where are, where we sleep, who we love,” he said while consumers, “have know less and less.”

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) believes that the bill isn’t strong enough to protect the country. She says “I do believe we will see a cybersecurity bill enacted and signed into law, but it won’t be as strong as it should be to protect critical infrastructure.

This example shows the polarizing of the political party. Parties are becoming so large that members believe many different things within the party platform. This can show the American people problems and unclarity within the party, increasing cynicism and a decline in trust in government.

Lackin’ Da Skills

According to Fred Greenstein’s six qualities of presidential job performance, President Obama is not a good leader, at least not in his first term in office. We can see this mainly through two qualities: Political Skills, and Vision.

“…president to use the powers of his office assertively, build and maintain public support, and establish a reputation among fellow policymakers as a skilled, determined political operator.”

We can compare Greenstein’s definition above to Obama’s first term as the United States president (Inside Obama’s Presidency). Obama didn’t “use the powers of his office assertively” during the financial crisis of 2008. When he invited 13 CEOs of big banks responsible to the financial crisis to his office at the White House, he made no demands of the banks. Because of his actions in that meeting, he lost his influence on the banks, as shown by his speech to the banks when no bankers showed up. As a result of his loss of influence, he decided to become friends with wall street. When it came to “build and maintain public support”, becoming the friend of wall street lowered the public’s support for the president. Doing this went against most of Congress, even his own party; liberals thought that the president should stick it to the banks. This point leads us the the third part of the definition, “establish a reputation among fellow policymakers as a skilled, determined political operator.” While trying to pass his major legislation during the first few weeks of his term, the Republican party members of Congress united and all voted NO for the legislation. Since Congress was controlled by Democrats, the legislation passed with a margin of just a few votes. Another example tainting Mr. Presiden’t reputation is his attempt to collaborate with Vice President John Boehner. These men had a deal set up and the president thought that it was still good, until he got a call that Boehner held a press conference that said he would not collaborate with the president on any deal. This double crossing taints his “skilled…reputation as a political operator.” If he was skilled, he would have either a. gotten Boehner on his side with fewer hesitations or b. known that Boehner was going to double cross and take necessary action to counter it. Congressmen obviously didn’t have much respect for the president, especially when one yelled out “you lie” during a speech to the Congressional body.

When the president was campaigning for office, he had a clear message and vision for America: change. Once he got elected, he continued with this message of change and trying to change the system. Once he realized that Congress wasn’t rolling his way and his political skills were lacking, he changed his vision from changing the system, to choosing parties. He then went back to the Change message when he was campaigning for a second term. These changes in vision and methods don’t help him receive and maintain public support.

While all of these bad things happened during Obama’s first term, he did get one thing right. Obama organized a great team to help give him the best options to take. During his meetings he heard the viewpoint of the cautious and he heard the risk taking viewpoint of the other side. This allowed him to make more round decisions.

While Obama did make some good organizational decisions, he also made some really bad political decisions. His political skills didn’t allow him to do much good in his first term as Mr. President. Overall, Obama is not a good leader.

Olympia Snowe’s Fighting for Common Ground

Olympia Snowe, a retired Senator, wrote a book, Fighting for Common Ground, about the Congress of the United States and what it is, or in this case isn’t, doing. She argues that Congress isn’t getting things done efficiently or effectively due to party polarization by laying out causes for gridlock through personal examples and facts; then she explains how to fix Congress. In Congress, senators and congressmen and women are no longer occupying the middle ground. They vote with their party and the bills brought to vote reflect the party base and not the public interest.

She believes that changes to Senate rules and congressional procedures along with campaign finance and political reform can result in a more productive Congress. The three main arguments that I agree with are filibuster reform, an open amendment process, and open primaries.

Filibuster Reform

The new way of using the filibuster has been discouraging bipartisanship. Senators filibuster in order to stop the opposing side’s legislation from becoming law. It is not used to compromise for better legislation. Reforming the filibuster would force senators to compromise on legislation, no doubt painfully making bipartisanship the norm. This reform, as introduced by Snowe, would include senators being present in order to filibuster.

Open Amendment Process

I completely agree with Snowe that an open amendment process would make bipartisanship easier. Amendments are proposed changes to the text of a bill. If each party is only allowed 2 amendments, there is less chance of getting good bipartisan legislation.

Open Primaries

Adopting an open/semi-open primary would eliminate sabotage of the other party and allow more than the extreme party base to vote. This process would allow independents to vote for either party and only allow people affiliated with a party to vote for the party they are affiliated with. This form of voting allows for more people to have a say in who they elect into office, allowing for a greater chance of a bipartisan candidate.

I believe that these reforms would help congress become a more effective legislative body in our government.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Democrat

Was President Obama’s State of the Union Address given to help Democrats win in the future?

Looking at key demographics (Minorities: Hispanics, Veterans; Senior citizens, young adults pursuing a higher education, and the middle class), Obama really focused on most of them, in between being irritated and interrupted by the clapping. Obama didn’t come right out and tell everyone his intentions, instead he masked it by focusing a great deal of his speech on the demographics, mainly the Middle Class. He talked about Middle Class economics and paid sick leave, higher wages; affordable, available child care, paid overtime, and raising the minimum wage. Young adults that are pursuing a higher education (college) were listening to Obama when he planned on making community college free and that he was going to help extend the internet to all public schools. Veterans kept an ear out for Obama’s plans to allow veterans jobs when they get back from overseas.

A lot of these ideas mentioned above will take time to enact, and most of the policies probably appeal to the demographics of the country right now. So between blaming Congress for a lot of gridlock, and proposing large ideas that will take a long time to make effective, I believe that Obama was trying to set up some future success for Democrats.

Abortion or Adoption?

Let’s face it. Adoption isn’t where it should be. The adoption process takes a long time and sometimes never happens. In the United States alone, 397,122 children are living without permanent families. Only 101,666 are eligible for adoption and nearly 32% of these children wait over three years to be adopted. Around the World, 17,900,000 children live in orphanages or on the street. In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the foster care system without the emotional and financial support that they need to survive. Of those 23,396, 40% are homeless, 60% were convicted of a crime, 50% are involved in substance use, 17% of women became pregnant, and only 48% are employed.

After considering the statistics above, let’s look at the claim made by pro-life, anti-abortion people.

“Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies. Instead of having the option to abort, women should give their unwanted babies to people who cannot conceive. The percentage of infants given up for adoption in the United States declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002. As a result of the lack of women putting their children up for adoption, the number of US infant adoptions dropped from about 90,000 in 1971 to 18,000 in 2007. Around 2.6 million American women were trying to adopt children as of 2002, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.”

Isn’t fewer babies suffering without families, homes, love and care, a good thing? I understand that women can’t conceive and want to adopt, but their statistics aren’t taking into account other factors. Could the number of adoptions have dropped because of more strict adoption policies? World events that stopped or slowed adoptions? Events that made parents question the safety of their child? Parents that can’t afford the adoption process? Should we put the child at risk of not being adopted or suffering life-long psychological effects of adoption or foster care? 11% of all adolescents referred for therapy have been adopted. 33% of children have changed elementary schools 5 times or more. This movement causes them to lose relationships and fall behind educationally.

Adoption should be an option a mother considers when she considers abortion, but the idea of reducing the amount of adoptable babies should not be the reason abortion becomes illegal.

Electile Dysfunction: The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party.

In the blog post “Imagining some other ways to run elections” Eric Black talks about the election process and the domination of the Republicans and Democrats. At the beginning of the article, Black talks briefly about Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting is a system of voting to help limit or ultimately eliminate wasted votes. Voters rank the candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. The tallies are then counted and if nobody receives a majority, a complicated system find a majority and a winner is announced. RCV is used in democracies around the world ( Ireland, Australia) and here in the United States (Minneapolis, St. Paul). I like the fact that this system of voting eliminated the wasted vote. If I couldn’t make a choice as to which candidate to vote for, I probably wouldn’t vote. This is a hard decision to make so only choosing one can be tough. When given the ranking choice, you can pick one to be your first choice and let the other be second. So if your first choice doesn’t make it, your second choice still has your vote.

He then goes on to talk about Israeli’s system elections. The Israeli’s don’t vote for individual people, they vote for a list created by a party. If a party’s list gets at least 2% of the total votes, they will have at least one member of the party in the parliament Knesset.  In 2012, there were 13 different parties represented in the Knesset. The smallest parties have 3-4 seats and the largest have less than a quarter of the seats. This encourages more political parties and gets more points of view into government. This can be good or bad. This could allow for more compromise and less gridlock or this could be the start of more gridlock. This seems like a good system, allowing more minorities and less majority rule, but I don’t believe the US could use this system anytime soon. I’m sure there are more political parties out there than the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, but I can’t name any of them. The Democrats and Republicans have become too powerful to be brought down to only a quarter of the seats in Congress.

Then Black talks about plurality voting. Plurality voting is a single winner voting system. It is what the US has now (except for in those few areas that use rcv) to elect our government officials. Getting rid of plurality voting will allow more parties to thrive and widen voter political choices. People will learn what the other parties are and may vote for people not based on their party, but based on their views. Let’s be honest. Would you vote for someone that is not a democrat or a republican? It shows in the 2014 elections, there are only Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

He talks about all of this before getting to what the Constitution says. The Constitution says nothing about political parties or how the election of the house has to executed. The only guidelines the Constitution tells us is how to divide House seats (population, excluding the 3/5ths compromise), House members have a two-year terms, and representatives must be an “inhabitant” of the state where they are elected (note nothing about districts). Congress first noticed the unfairness of elections in 1842 when only 6 states weren’t using single-member districts with plurality winners. They finally passed an effective mandate in 1967 to ensure fairness to candidates and voters.

Is it possible to hold elections another way? Should they be held another way? Will changing the system help to avoid gridlock and other problems in the government? Will the political parties of today ever disappear? These are all questions that are very difficult to answer and probably won’t be discussed in Congress for a very long time, if ever. But what do you think?

Speech! Speech!

President Barrack Obama gave a televised address on November 20th taking action on immigration reform. He announced that he was taking unilateral action because Congress was at a gridlock and was threatening to shut down. His deferred action (slate) plan included 3 key ideas. 1. Add to border security to slow illegal crossing and quickly return those that cross, 2. Make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay in America and contribute to the American economy, and 3. Deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country. He is going to focus the security on those that pose a threat. “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang member, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids.” There is going to be prioritizing. He gave immigrants a deal “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”  These immigrants will receive Social Security cards as well, according to the New York Times. This includes 5 million eligible immigrants in the United States. He then goes on to say that this doesn’t apply to recent illegals or future illegals, it doesn’t grant citizenship or the right to stay permanently or offer the same benefits as citizens. He recognizes that Congress is the only one to do that. He is just offering not to deport anyone. This isn’t amnesty. He claims that amnesty is the immigration system that we have today. He talks about the political strategy and the fact that politicians use this issue to get votes and scare people. He justifies his actions by saying that presidents from both parties before him have taken the same kind of action. “And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make out immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” He wants a permanent legislative solution, but the gridlock stops a bill from being passed. He claims “Most Americans support the types of reforms I’ve talked about tonight”, but a pole shows that 38% of Americans support his actions while 48% don’t. At the end of his speech he quoted scripture saying “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.” Plenty of people are angered by his use of Bible in an address to the country. Fox news had plenty to say on the issue. They say that it was out of bounds, that he’s using scripture to try to justify unjust actions, and that he doesn’t understand what he quoted. Elisabeth Hasselbeck said “That’s not what the scholars behind the Bible would interpret as proper use.” Mike Huckabee said “I always thought that Scripture was eternal and unchanging.” There is controversy over the interpretation of the Bible, but many agree that Obama shouldn’t have quoted it. Republicans disagree with Obama’s actions and have different views on how to solve it. Some Democratic allies think more legal actions could have been taken, but Deepack Bhargava, the executive director of the Center for Community Change calls the changes “a massive breakthrough for the immigrant-rights movement.”  This plan will remain in place for three years, can be terminated by the Department of Homeland Security at anytime and it is subject for renewal. This action ended the program called Secure Communities, and local police will no longer be able to routinely detain immigrants without papers.

In class we have discussed many challenges that a democracy faces. One challenge that this shows is Divers Political Interests aka gridlock. The definition of Policy Gridlock according to our textbook is “a condition that occurs when no coalition is strong enough to form a majority and establish policy. The results is that nothing may get done.” Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on what should be done about immigration. Since Obama’s unilateral action, Republicans have been debating what to do about it. Some want to use a spending bill and threat of gov’t shutdown as leverage on Obama, but others want to look for ways that Congress can undercut the president’s actions by withholding money or threatening other priorities. Congress is at a gridlock and threatened to shutdown the government. Obama’s action was to stop a shutdown.

I agree with Obama and his address. His actions are justified because it is temporary and it was an attempt to stop government shutdown. I agree that the timing is strategic, but that isn’t a terrible thing. He announced this after the elections so he didn’t jeopardize any democratic seats. Some say, if he feels so strongly about this, why is he waiting until now to address the issue. If he hadn’t waited, there could have been a greater backlash and bigger negative impact on the issue and others. I don’t think we can blame him for waiting, because if you are one of the ones criticizing the timing, you probably don’t agree with his action. If you don’t agree, your view of the party changes and less people vote for Republicans in the elections, eliminating the Madisonian model. Madison tried to limit majority and minority by raising but limiting the representatives. Also, if the Republicans control the Congress but we have a Democratic president, there is potential for a lot of gridlock. And as Obama states, “Americans are tired of gridlock.” Obama’s actions can be justified by looking into history and looking at other Presidential action. the main one is Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. I also agree with his action because I think people should be able to come out of the shadows and become legal without fear of deportation. 11.3 million people should be deported according to regulations, but the US only have resources for 400,000 deportations a year. Obama’s action will stop 5 million from deportation and allow many to work in the US legally. They won’t be stealing jobs, because more than likely, they already have jobs. They have been here for 5 or more years. Now they will be paying the taxes that come along with that job.  I also agree with his statement “And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” Congress has been at gridlock for long enough. They need to be taking action now. We can’t afford another government shutdown and we shouldn’t have to do that. Our government should be able to compromise and make good policies without a shutdown.

The hyper American Democracy

Compared to Elite and Class Theory and Pluralist Theory, Hyperpluralism sounds the most like America’s government now. “Hyperpluralism is a theory of government and politics contending that groups are so strong that government is weakened.” So basically hyperpluralism is groups and parties that support one idea, influencing public policy to a degree that the government can’t function properly. Policy makers have so many different points of view that they can’t make a decision. They don’t want to disappoint anyone and they want their way. This leads to government shutdowns, pushing the budget, and court cases.

If we look at the most recent immigration dispute, you see the clash between 2 major groups, the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and the president. At the beginning of Obama’s presidency, Obama re-introduced the debate on immigration reform. In his speech yesterday Obama says “It’s been this way for decades and for decades we haven’t done much about it.” 2014 is now coming to an end and we are on the brink of a government shutdown. The Republicans in the House of Representatives won’t pass the bipartisan compromise bill that Obama and the Senate proposed.  Because a decision can’t be made, Obama is acting unilaterally on the reform.

If a bill proposed by a group is not passed, they can take it to court. According to Pearson’s Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, fourteenth edition textbook, the number of cases brought to state and federal courts has soared recently. If one party is unhappy about the decision made, which is almost always the case, then that party can take the case to court to try to change it. The problem with this is that there are too many cases to all be tried. Cases of less importance could potentially waste the court’s time that should be spent on things with a much greater impact. Cases with many proposed compromises and stubborn people could be tried while ones at a stand still with more open-minded people, a greater impact on America, and unable to generate compromises are on the back burner. This is hyperpluralism. The courts are weakened with this case load they could never complete. People don’t have their chance at justice because people won’t compromise.

The government shutdowns of 1995, 1996, and 2013 all had to do with the budget. The houses couldn’t reach a compromise a spending bill so they stopped their major spending. A few government services including Social Security, air traffic control, active military pay, and Congress continued to be paid. I understand why the first three should be paid, but why should Congress still get paid if they are refusing to compromise and get a spending bill? If you can’t do your job, why should you get paid? If the government doesn’t shutdown, they can still not agree on spending. Many times if a group doesn’t agree they place the issue on the back burner. Placing the issue of spending on the back burner is a terrible idea. It leads to pushing/over pushing the budget and national debt. If the government shuts down, it is literally pushed until it can’t function properly and has to shut down.

America has hyperpluralism in it’s democracy. It is evident with government shutdowns, the recent immigration reform debate, and the court systems. Humans will always fight, it is human nature. The way we deal with those fights define who we are as people. Compromising is a great skill to have that unfortunately, the government lacks. Their fighting turns into ignored bills, overspending, court cases, and in extreme incidents, government shutdown.

Here is a link to a debate on this issue.