What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

Our American economy, while the richest in the world, is hardly the most stable model to base my construct to answer the question this week.  I would develop a economic policy that wouldn't over extend spending beyond that of my theoretical GDP.  I would make taxes a non tiered system and make everyone pay their own share of taxes. In addition I would make sure that foreign investors shared common beliefs and goals so that if I had to borrow money and run into a deficit I wouldn't owe money to the proverbial devil herself.(CHINA anyone???)  I would also make sure that all state and municipal level governments could not run deficits because it would create issues at the federal level resulting in bailouts to irresponsible local governments.

The value of running an economy based on my proposed policy would be that the funding for all social services would be completely sustainable for all citizens because expenditures would never overwhelm revenues.  My model also ensures the perpetuation of my foreign relation policies by only allowing my international friends to invest in my nation and not my enemies.  Which is the case currently in America where we have private corporations or countries which we deem to be misaligned with our values, who own half of our companies and controlling domestic services through shareholdings.  

In all I find that the scope and accountability my policy will covers can really make the difference we aren't seeing domestically in America right now.  The overspending on people who do not deserve it and the underspending on the issues that matter like Education and Healthcare is what is dragging this nation into the crapper.  America cannot police the world or save all the poor people by bringing them here.  What we can do is strengthen ourselves , our allies , and future allies so that we may face the future together with common goals of economic and environmental  sustainability and peaceful and moral prosperity.



  

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

          The question this week is very general and broad but I will try to answer it the best way I can by using the U.S. government as non idealistic model

          Initially I was surprised to find through the assigned reading how American social services are less than mediocre in comparison to other industrialized and modern nations.  The reason being is that we utilize less then twenty percent of our GDP to fund programs aimed at supporting: welfare for citizens in poverty, funding public education and health care and support for Children and the elderly.  The reading goes further and describes specifically that “Comparatively,  the U.S. welfare state is small; it captures a more limited share of tax revenues and national wealth than does welfare spending in comparable advanced capitalists countries.”[1]

I was also surprised by the origin and evolution of social programs in America as well.   The first real movement to broadly support citizens was in 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed and aging Americans finally something to look forward to for security.  Previously only pensions and benefits for military staff and their families were prevalent as a social service but after the great depression President Franklin D Roosevelt found it a necessity for the government to step in and create programs and subsidies to protect people in need.   President Roosevelt was quoted saying that one third of the population was “ill –housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished”[2]  His stance on how the government should step in dynamically changed the perception of governmental involvement in social welfare programs. 

Lastly I found how the current movement for national healthcare was created, augmented and finally passed during the first term of President Barrack Obama.  While I do find the value in social welfare programs based on the fact that I was a recipient of said programs as a child, I find that the abuse of such programs and subsidies makes them almost more of a burden then a blessing.  Furthermore I find that the effectiveness of social programs abroad is based on their regulation of services distributed to citizens only and not for non citizen immigrants.  It almost balances out the high percentage of taxes on income they pay in Europe when they know their countrymen and themselves are reaping the benefits of working.

How would immigration reform change the funding for social services in America?

Would changing the tax liability of individuals based on income make a difference for the funding of social welfare programs?

Is applying a tiered tax liability system fair for those who make more then average?  Is it punishment for achievement and success?

---

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

In a perfect world a nation should develop its foreign policy to ensure peaceful and lucrative relations with other countries.  The domestic policies of this idealistic nation would protect the best interests of all people and never would exploit anyone.   Alas we do not live in a perfect world.  We live in a world where might is right and only on the backs of the less fortunate do the privileged gain and maintain their power.  In addition while I understand that fact I wish it wasn't that way.  If a country could stay true to positive core values and treat other countries with peace and respect they would unfortunately be exploited by the more militaristic and economically successful nations like America and the EU.

In contrast to the pipe dream above, America's foreign policies have almost always been driven by maintaining American Superiority financially and militarily.  That stance hasn't always been the case though.  Early in the inception of America our stance was to stay out of European and others affairs. The best advice was given by our first president, George Washington who urged Americans to "profit from the good fortune that geography provided in the form of an ocean separating it from Europe, to avoid "entangling alliances" with other countries"1

Later in American history our stance on foreign policy and chiefly our involvement in other country's political instability changed.  After WWII America changed it's approach to foreign policy by becoming more involved in promoting our democratic and economic ideology abroad. "the assertion of global political leadership and the expansion of American economic influence abroad."2   There were many newly independent countries in Africa and Asia who were open to our line of thinking because they wanted socio-economic change and didn't want anything to do with their former European oppressors. The opportunity WWII created was one our nation had to capitalize on.  We focused on three things to focus on which were: "opposing communism, integrating the non-Communist world, and creating international regulator institutions."3

Much more could be said about the history and process of American ascension to greatness and power.  I try to focus on where we are going.  I truly hope that we can continue to support democracy all over the world and protect people who cannot protect themselves.  Regardless of the means and tactics we used to achieve our current place in the world I feel that at the core of who we want to be is morally good.  I just hope we don't fall apart from the inside.  Our domestic issues scare me much more then our foreign.  In two generations we could have a predominantly Hispanic population.  What kind of political focus do you think a population like that will have?  Will the best interests of America really be that important or will it come second to biased aid given to Latin countries.

1,2,3 Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

                        The judicial system was created to interpret the laws of our country and protect citizens’ rights, the limitation of simply interpreting current laws rarely allows for new reform not already supported by legislation elsewhere.  The lack of social or legal reform by the judicial system or its judges only allows them to support our freedom through the interpretation of state or federal laws.  The process or action is called judicial review.  Judicial review is described in the text by saying” The principle of judicial supremacy gives the courts the power of judicial review, which permits them to nullify or overturn any federal, state, or public law that conflicts with the Constitution.”[1]  In certain instances a judge’s ability to make a decision on a wrongful termination lawsuit or a discrimination lawsuit is really how they support our freedoms.  Through diligent interpretation of the current laws is how our rights are protected by the judicial system.

            The problems associated with how the judicial system supports our freedoms is derived from the separation between Federal and State courts and more importantly how judges are chosen in each court system.  The State courts are defined structurally by the state and the majority of the individual states today elect their judges during election years.  The democratic selection of most state’s judges makes their legal decisions more inline with the perceptions of the people who voted them in.  In contrast Federal judges are chosen by the President and then approved by the U.S senate. The very one sided appointment to federal judges makes them unaccountable to the citizens who are affected by their legal decisions.  Furthermore the lifelong appointments given when you are selected to be a federal judge means that judges who make decisions that the public majority would disagree with can’t be removed from office.  The text goes on to explain that “citizens cannot judge the judges and remove them. “[2]

In all I really don’t like how federal judges are appointed.  While I’ve learned from the book that the majority of cases filed in the U.S. are handled by state judges, I find it very scary that some of the big cases that affect U.S. policies regarding energy and economy could be handled by someone who is soo old they would be completely out of touch.  Also I feel that being a judge that long could really go to someone’s head.   It would go to mine. J

If all but Supreme Court justices were democratically voted in how do you think it would affect the current judicial system?

Would the appointment of predominantly Hispanic judges change how illegal citizens are prosecuted in America?

I chose not to add this because some might find it offensive but I found it quite entertaining.
mwahahahahahaha

http://race42012.com/2009/06/10/political-cartoons/, Accessed 3/20/2011

---

[1] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

The U.S. congress today would seem to the common citizen to be a very democratic or representative legislative body, but the truth is that our Congress is hardly that at all.  I find that to be true because the people who are democratically voted in as congress people are very rarely representative of the people who voted them into office.  The socioeconomic background of Congress people differs vastly compared to the people they supposedly represent the interests of.  The book describes the relationship by stating: “...It matters whether the social backgrounds of members of Congress are roughly similar to those of the people they ostensibly represent.”[1]

            Another reason I find Congressional representation less than authentic is related to the business of lobbying.  Lobbying is the practice of special interest groups to influence members of Congress through the promise of campaign funding, fundraising assistance for a campaign or a mutually advantageous arrangement where the lobbying group would promise to donate or fund special programs the congress person is personally vested in.  Apparently people who are passionate about certain issues but lack monetary backing won’t make very good lobbyist and have a poor chance at influencing any segment of Congress.  That being said, socioeconomically disadvantaged people have little to no hope for anyone lobbying Congress on their behalf or for issues that affect them.  The text book goes on and quantifies the actual estimated amount spent on lobbying in the past few years “In 1998, total spending on lobbying reached $1.4billion. Ten years later, in 2008, lobbying by companies, unions and other interest groups cost $3.3billion…”[2]

            Overall we can see that while Congressional decision making is very accessible to the public, the legislative process is not without inequities that are almost impossible to overcome.  I wish personally that more people would find value in running for these elected offices so we would have representation that would reflect the common person.  I’m not just talking about representation by so called minorities which in fact are not that anymore because of population growth over the last decade but representatives that would put some heart into what they are doing.

---

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

Firstly, I find it hard to define what exactly a ideal democracy might be.  The various definitions I find explain that a democracy is a form of government where ALL of the people cast votes in fair elections to decide who in their government will represent them and make decisions that will influence them.  The presidency doesn’t necessarily support or limit the formation of the aforementioned.   In many ways the president is more “the peoples candidate” than other elected officials because of the hype and popularity the position attracts.  The unit rule which directs the electoral college’s votes to the state’s cumulative popular vote is proof that normally the person elected as president is the voting majority’s favorite as well.

In contrast the very existence of the position of president in American government undermines some peoples perceptions of an ideal democracy because of the overwhelming power the position wields in comparison to other elected offices.  The power the president has may seem overtly abundant but the original purpose of the position was to be an executive power that can help the progression of government, legislation and law making.   The famous historical American revolutionary Alexander Hamilton sited that” a strong executive was necessary to provide leadership and decisiveness to a government that could otherwise drift and be stalemated in a system of checks and balances.”[1]  I sincerely agree with Hamilton because I find that contemporary politics are driven by bi-partisan squabbles and our elected representatives very rarely agree enough on legitimate issues to make positive changes.   

Another aspect that may seem like the president undermines democracy is when his or her personal politics interfere with the majority of what our congress might vote for.  That scenario could be for the good or detriment to our country and government but the fact that a final veto could keep us out of war or prohibit irrational decision making from a majority ran congress is a positive to me.  I find it amazing that as the text book describes,” The constitution empowers the president to approve or veto legislation passed by congress, act as commander in chief of the armed forces, faithfully execute the laws, pardon criminals, make treaties call congress into special sessions, appoint government officials, and recognize foreign governments.”[2]   

Lastly, I believe that even though the position of American president may seem to many to be nothing more than an American Monarchal figurehead, historically American presidents have helped shape or world.

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2]   Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[3]    http://www.ineedmotivation.com/blog/2008/06/great-quotes-from-american-presidents/

 (accessed       3/6/2011).

How do individuals and groups of people influence the political process?

The American political process is influenced by many people and organizations.  The majority of these people or groups consist of activists, labor unions, and business lobbyists.  The reasons they influence the process include: beneficial political change, beneficial social change or for personal gain which is typically monetary.  

Another type of organization that influences the political process is advocacy groups. Advocacy groups represent the interests of groups of people and organizations and through donations to specific political campaigns  they directly influence the outcome of elections and in turn the composition of our representative democratic government.  Too often though the interests of the private sector coupled with their monetary resources unfairly influence the political process.  More recently though the composition of different representative groups such as labor unions or manufacturing guilds has become more elite and less inclusive.  "more contemporary interest groups are centralized, professional advocacy groups as opposed to mass membership organizations."(2)

On a smaller scale social movements brought on by tragedy or social injustice can inspire politically neutral individuals to take up a cause and work to change public opinion and in turn the political process.  One example is when in the 1960's the blatant lack of regulations pertaining to the conservation of natural resources and the spoiling of the natural state of our country fueled the Environmental movement.  "The early environmental movement included conservationists who wanted the country's natural resources to be managed efficiently by the government and preservationists who wanted to retain the land in its natural state.".(1)

The cartoon depicts the tea party express which is representative of the recent conservative movement many individuals have become apart of.  They endorse and promote legislation that would limit government spending and limited taxation on a federal level.  

It is an example of a movement that I ideologically agree with.  I try to forget Mrs. Palin is a prominent member though. 

[1] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton,

2011