Democracy is an imperfect system, especially with such a large population as we have here in the United States, but it is the best option that we have right now. I think that democracy is a really good option for the United States and other countries, but two things need to happen. First, our democratic system needs to evolve as our country evolves and changes, not stay outdated just because we are afraid to change what sort of works. Second, we need to work on our own democracy, not try to force our slightly broken system down other country's throats.
One way that our democracy needs to evolve is to become more compatible with our capitalistic system. Clearly they are not working hand in hand right now as they should be. I'm not exactly clear on what the best way to go about doing this is, but I know that it's something that needs to happen if we want both systems to stay in tact. In my opinion that is democracy's biggest flaw--that the way it works now is not compatible with capitalism.
This post is the same as the one that I used for the discussion on blackboard. I haven't included any sources from the book, or catchy images, because I think that this one is just for my opinion. I can't think of any images or videos that express what I am trying to say here, and people should be able to take the time to read this post with out having an image to draw them in. What do you think needs to change for democracy to be more compatible with capitalism? Please feel free to comment and share your opinions and functions of democracy, I would love to hear them.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Economic Policy
Terms to understand this post:
Fiscal Policy-Manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy. Can result in budget deficit or budget surplus (Katznelson, 294).
Monetary Policy-Attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money (Katznelson, 302).
Discretionary Spending- Under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which provide authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the treasury for specified purpose. Example: defense spending, highway maintenance, grants and loans for higher education (Katznelson, 303).
Mandatory Spending-Governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation, passed by Congress, rather than by appropriations. These programs are the result of previous commitments that Congress is obligated to meet (Katznelson, 301).
I think that the process of developing fiscal policy that provides services and sustainability should focus more on mandatory spending and less on discretionary spending. (The other type of economic policy is monetary policy). For example, the United States should put much less emphasis on military spending--it consumes a whopping one-half of all discretionary spending (Katznelson, 303)!! I think that reducing that number to maybe a fifth of discretionary spending would be a good goal, because putting that much money into defense, besides being unnecessary, is not sustainable. If a country were to spend left over discretionary funds at all, they should be put back into stimulating that country's economy.
Sources:
"Barack Obama Calls For More Defense Spending than Republicans | SwiftEconomics.com."SwiftEconomics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.swifteconomics.com/2011/02/20/obama-calls-for-more-defense-spending-than-republicans/>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Fiscal Policy-Manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy. Can result in budget deficit or budget surplus (Katznelson, 294).
Monetary Policy-Attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money (Katznelson, 302).
Discretionary Spending- Under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which provide authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the treasury for specified purpose. Example: defense spending, highway maintenance, grants and loans for higher education (Katznelson, 303).
Mandatory Spending-Governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation, passed by Congress, rather than by appropriations. These programs are the result of previous commitments that Congress is obligated to meet (Katznelson, 301).
I think that the process of developing fiscal policy that provides services and sustainability should focus more on mandatory spending and less on discretionary spending. (The other type of economic policy is monetary policy). For example, the United States should put much less emphasis on military spending--it consumes a whopping one-half of all discretionary spending (Katznelson, 303)!! I think that reducing that number to maybe a fifth of discretionary spending would be a good goal, because putting that much money into defense, besides being unnecessary, is not sustainable. If a country were to spend left over discretionary funds at all, they should be put back into stimulating that country's economy.
Sources:
"Barack Obama Calls For More Defense Spending than Republicans | SwiftEconomics.com."SwiftEconomics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.swifteconomics.com/2011/02/20/obama-calls-for-more-defense-spending-than-republicans/>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Welfare?
I think that the welfare system in the United States is slightly ridiculous. My firsthand experience has shown me people who abuse the system, and people who really need it and use it properly. Last year, my mom was receiving a $1250 check from the USPS for disability retirement every month, but we had over $7000 in bills per month. We didn't qualify for food stamps, but I am getting my full education paid for by financial aid and then some. How is it that my education is more important than our starving family?! Food stamps are a type of public assistance program.
These programs, which are supposed to help citizens missed by social insurance, are selective and means tested (Katznelson, 320). A prime example of the ridiculousness of our welfare system is given by The Politics of Power: Under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the maximum benefit for a family of three ranges from a high of nearly $1000 (Alaska) to a low of under $300 (Georgia), (Katznelson, 320). My mother has struggled to simply feed herself, my sister and me for $300, so I cannot imagine trying to support all of us for a whole month on that amount.
Our government should offer assistance to those who need it, despite the people who will inevitably take advantage. I think that doing this does not sacrifice equity, because it gives help to those people who really do need assistance without judging them based on the people who abuse the system. If we put more money into social policy, some people would inevitably take advantage of the welfare system, as they already do, but will our whole country become lazy people who depend on the government? I think, probably not. We should not stop trying to reform welfare, but that reform should absolutely not include taking benefits away from people who need them.
Lets give them both!
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Nicolle. "economy « Reactionary Century."Reactionary Century. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://reactionarycentury.wordpress.com/tag/economy/>.
These programs, which are supposed to help citizens missed by social insurance, are selective and means tested (Katznelson, 320). A prime example of the ridiculousness of our welfare system is given by The Politics of Power: Under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the maximum benefit for a family of three ranges from a high of nearly $1000 (Alaska) to a low of under $300 (Georgia), (Katznelson, 320). My mother has struggled to simply feed herself, my sister and me for $300, so I cannot imagine trying to support all of us for a whole month on that amount.
Our government should offer assistance to those who need it, despite the people who will inevitably take advantage. I think that doing this does not sacrifice equity, because it gives help to those people who really do need assistance without judging them based on the people who abuse the system. If we put more money into social policy, some people would inevitably take advantage of the welfare system, as they already do, but will our whole country become lazy people who depend on the government? I think, probably not. We should not stop trying to reform welfare, but that reform should absolutely not include taking benefits away from people who need them.
Lets give them both!
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Nicolle. "economy « Reactionary Century."Reactionary Century. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://reactionarycentury.wordpress.com/tag/economy/>.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Developing Foreign Policy
I believe that in developing its foreign and domestic policies, a nation-state's first priority should be keeping its people safe. In my opinion, the United States has clearly failed at this. Our leaders have been so busy sticking our nose in other countries' business that they failed to protect the American people. Before 9/11 they ignored repeated warnings by their own experts regarding likely attacks of the same kind (Katznelson, 368). The United States has military bases on every continent except Africa, with 15 major military bases and 600 smaller ones (Katznelson, 350). Is this amount of control really necessary? What advantages do US citizens gain from this practice? Secondly, a nation-state should concern itself with the overall wellbeing of the world. As the world becomes more and more globalized, individual countries are affected more and more by the state of the rest of the world. Take for example how the disaster in Japan and the crisis in Libya have affected the lives of Americans (just look at gas prices, among other things!). The United States might pursue worthy goals such as working with other nations to eliminate nuclear weapons; taking the lead in promoting alternative energy sources and other steps to deal with global warming; preserving the world's battered ecosystem; reducing poverty, hunger, disease and economic inequalities; and strengthening democracy and human rights (Katznelson, 368).
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
"WSN Proposals." World Security Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. <www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/dsp_proposal.cfm%3Fproposal_id%3D230&usg=__lYqNNxw5HLkmaaTvd6BgTXThHko=&h=375&w=300&sz=67&hl=en&start=52&sig2=6IS9uiDrakCd1XO1Zn5new&zoom=1&tbnid=vIsRtY91rTuOcM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=103&ei=haaYTevVGojQsAPZp9XBBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DU>.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Freedom and the Judicial System
The (federal) judicial system is highly influential in that it is able to interpret the Constitution and apply federal laws that govern all Americans. Cases begin at the district court level and may go through the court of appeals and ultimately end up at the United States Supreme Court—a panel of nine judges that have the final say in deciding the cases. The Supreme Court decides which cases are worth hearing, and ends up fully reviewing far fewer than are petitioned to it. For example, in 2007-08m it received over 9,600 petitions but only fully reviewed 75 of these (Katznelson, 259).
The Supreme Court is also able to review that decisions of state courts to ensure they comply with federal law. And while this may sound like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but this is not the case.
By being able to interpret the Constitution, the judicial system actually gives us freedoms. Consider our freedom of speech, press, and religion. More recently, the judicial system gave women the right to have an abortion. The 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, heard by the Supreme Court, granted women the right to have abortions, and was important in recognizing the constitutional right to privacy. It followed the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state law banning the use of contraceptives (Katznelson, 272).
Finally, the judicial system supports freedom in a very important way: it gives the weak the ability to challenge those who have power. The Politics of Power states, “Even the powerful cannot do as they please but must submit to the rule of the law.” Though “submitting to the rule of law” may seem to limit freedom, it actually supports it by ensuring that EVERYONE may be free, not just those with the money and resources to do so (Katznelson, 283).
I often wonder, does our judicial system have enough power compared to the other branches of our government--the executive and legislative?
Sources:
"An avalanche of cash in judicial campaigns, Pt. 2 « Sustained Outrage." Gazette blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/10/29/an-avalanche-of-cash-in-judicial-campaigns-pt-2/>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Congress: Authentic Representation?
Congress supports authentic representation of the people in that representatives and senators are elected to their positions democratically. The Senate ensures that each state is represented in congress, and the House of Representatives ensures that smaller areas within each state (which may have different interests than the entire state) are represented. Thus, Congress is made up of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (Katznelson, 220).
Congress limits the authentic representation of the people in that, like every other legislature in the world, it does not have an exact demographic profile of the citizens its members represent. "A disproportionately unrepresentative legislature is likely to leave many members of the population without representatives who even minimally comprehend their life situations and needs, while other who are overrepresented are likely to have their views taken into account as a matter of course" (Katznelson, 227).
Congress contains a much lower proportion of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and other minorities than it does white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people. Blacks make up 12% of the electorate vs. 7% of seats in the House and 1% in the Senate and Hispanics are 9% of the electorate vs. 6% of House seats and 3% of Senate seats (Katznelson, 229).
Are the white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people in Congress really representing the interests of working class Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.?
Sources:
"grassroots." Morocco Board News Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.moroccoboard.com/grassroots>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The US Presidency and Democracy
The US presidency limits the formation of an ideal democracy more than it supports it. Recently, presidential power has grown so much that the United States is moving away from democracy altogether. In the case of President George W. Bush, the United States may almost just as well have been operating under a dictatorship, so out of control was the amount of power exercised by President Bush. He even recognized that (multiple times!).
When all three branches of government (executive, judicial and legislative) check and balance each other as they are supposed to, the presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy. However, recently the presidency has found loopholes to avoid the checks and balances that are supposed to be provided by congress and the supreme court
Though the people elect the president, what the president does after that is mostly out of our control, and this is not in keeping with the rules of democracy. President G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act are prime examples of this. President Bush issued many signing statements, which he effectively used to interpret the meaning of laws to fit his own agenda. He also invoked a doctrine, the unified executive, to assert sole and unlimited control over the executive branch (Katznelson, 184). The Patriot Act, passed by congress after 9/11, gave the executive branch "wide latitude relatively unconstrained by congressional or judicial oversight" (Katznelson, 185). It deliberately did away with the checks and balances of the three branches of government that our fore fathers envisioned and therefore severely limits the formation of an ideal democracy.
The presidency was intended to provide checks and balance for the very democratic system of congress, but in fact, more often than not, congress ends up doing this for the presidency (when the existence of things like the Patriot Act don't get in the way).
The Presidency is not supporting the formation of an ideal democracy in the United States. Has the control the President exercises over our country gotten so out of control that the executive branch is harming our country more than it is helping it?
At least President Obama recognizes his power and is attempting to use it to fix some of the mistakes of our former "Dictator-In-Chief," Mr. Bush. "Those seeking the presidency are far more motivated by ideological commitment and the desire to wield power than by a lust for wealth" (Katznelson, 181). America should examine which of these weighs more heavily on presidential candidates: ideological commitment or the desire to wield power.
Sources:
jaxhud. "YouTube- Bush Dictator ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.
When all three branches of government (executive, judicial and legislative) check and balance each other as they are supposed to, the presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy. However, recently the presidency has found loopholes to avoid the checks and balances that are supposed to be provided by congress and the supreme court
Though the people elect the president, what the president does after that is mostly out of our control, and this is not in keeping with the rules of democracy. President G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act are prime examples of this. President Bush issued many signing statements, which he effectively used to interpret the meaning of laws to fit his own agenda. He also invoked a doctrine, the unified executive, to assert sole and unlimited control over the executive branch (Katznelson, 184). The Patriot Act, passed by congress after 9/11, gave the executive branch "wide latitude relatively unconstrained by congressional or judicial oversight" (Katznelson, 185). It deliberately did away with the checks and balances of the three branches of government that our fore fathers envisioned and therefore severely limits the formation of an ideal democracy.
The presidency was intended to provide checks and balance for the very democratic system of congress, but in fact, more often than not, congress ends up doing this for the presidency (when the existence of things like the Patriot Act don't get in the way).
The Presidency is not supporting the formation of an ideal democracy in the United States. Has the control the President exercises over our country gotten so out of control that the executive branch is harming our country more than it is helping it?
At least President Obama recognizes his power and is attempting to use it to fix some of the mistakes of our former "Dictator-In-Chief," Mr. Bush. "Those seeking the presidency are far more motivated by ideological commitment and the desire to wield power than by a lust for wealth" (Katznelson, 181). America should examine which of these weighs more heavily on presidential candidates: ideological commitment or the desire to wield power.
Sources:
jaxhud. "YouTube- Bush Dictator ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)