Pork-barrel projects are policies whose spending is directed to benefit specific districts or projects. Earmarking and other forms of pork-barreling do not increase the budget of a bill; rather they increase specific sections’ share of the already set, discretionary budget. Often legislators incorporate earmarks which distributes x-amount of pork from a large bill to his or her district. These earmarks are made to appeal to his or her constituents in an attempt to prove they have been working for their district or have provided the funding needed for a project that somehow benefits those represented. Many times, these earmarks often go under the radar due to the focus of the legislature (as a whole) being set on the big picture of the earmarked bill.
In the greater public view, pork-barreling and earmarking have very negative connotations. As John Hudak explains, “Everyone loves to benefit from pork, but no one wants to favor it publicly in spite of the fact that districts and states have needs.” The question becomes, do these areas of funding promote the wellbeing of only individual districts or do pork-barreling’s effects benefit the country as a whole? The answer is probably both. Now, one would assume that because the president holds the nation’s wellbeing in the highest regard, the United States is best off with the power of pork-distribution being held in the executive branch, under the hands of the president. However, in the past when Congress was permitted the right to earmark, political disputes such as today’s political standoffs had the potential of being resolved using pork-barrel politics. Even though a pork-barreled project may benefit a single district, that project’s funding could be the touch that tipped the scale...
... middle of paper ...
... the only individuals with this strong ability to sway policy. In order to truly alter this legislative behavior, all donations, lobby, and PAC funds should be open to the public immediately upon entry. If approaching the problem from the legislatures’ standpoint, elections could be held less often with longer terms and with limited numbers of reelection. However, limiting the terms allowed can hurt the overall functioning of Congress because they would lack the grown, intelligence of those long-standing congressmen. To focus primarily on broad national issues would be to ignore local priorities and everything should start small, simple and expand outward, because that is how well-thought expansive projects are produced. The best solution to the pork-barreling issue would be to leave it in the hands of the Congress but only with complete and immediate transparency.
Double edge sword is what lies at the heart of Roach’s issue with the American political system. While the public’s trust for their elected officials continues to disintegrate because of backroom deals and a poor transparency, it is exactly what the American political system requires its participants to do in order to be effective deal makers and according Roach, “Campaign contributions and smoke-filled rooms, pork is a tool of democratic governance, not violation of it. It can be used for corrupt purposes but also, for vital ones.” Roach argues that the public must take the good with the bad, they do not have to like it or agree with it, but they must see the importance that each side plays. Roach believes that it has been within the past 40 years that publics growing mistrust for the American political system has pushed toward favoring disintermediation, populism, and self-expression over professionals and political insiders.
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
If the government changes the way they spend the budget, then they can change the way our government is ran. According to document C we spend 83% of the budget on “The Big Five”, which are the five main categories in the budget.We need to take 10%
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
As of today America’s national debt is 18 trillion dollars and approximately 5 trillion of that is held by foreign countries including China and Japan. In the last few years we seem to hear more about balancing the country’s budget and politicians raising the debt ceiling so we can pay on this debt. How have we gotten into such an overwhelming and complicated problem with our nation’s money? Ironically the same can be said for our individual household debt as well as making the same mistakes and trying to find creative ways to be accountable to our financial responsibilities. Teaching the basics of personal finance n our schools can culturally change our financial practices, leading to a more financially literate public and a stronger, more stable, America. If the younger generations can become more financially savvy, then there is an opportunity for our nation as a whole to become less dependent on debt to survive.
In response to the Great Depression, the New Deal was a series of efforts put forth by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his first term as United States’ President. The Great Depression was a cataclysmic economic event starting in the late 1920s that had an international effect. Starting in 1929 the economy started to contract, but it wasn’t until Wall Street started to crash that the pace quickened and its effects were being felt worldwide. What followed was nearly a decade of high unemployment, extreme poverty, and an uncertainty that the economy would ever recover.
They pose the many different sides that past presidents and politicians have taken to the debate. Certain presidents, like George H.W. Bush brought up the issue in a comical way by suggesting congress cut programs like “asparagus research” or “mink reproduction”. The question that Ellwood and Patashnik are trying to answer in the article is whether pork is helpful or harmful, or important or wasteful. Throughout the article opinions about the role of pork, which is legislation that allows representatives to bring jobs and money to their districts, in government of many different presidents, congressman, and politicians are mentioned. At one point in the article it says, “Rather, we think that pork, doled out strategically, can help to sweeten an otherwise unpalatable piece of legislation.” There are always going to be parts of a bill or program that a congressman may not agree with. However, when they have the opportunity to receive funding on a state project, it distracts them from the things they did not agree with, and creates a compromise of sorts. Many people argue that this pork-barrel spending is what is causing our nation’s debt, and argue that it should not be allowed. But, then again, if funding for a bridge or lighthouse in their home state is taken away, those same people will be wishing the pork-barrel funds were there to help
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
Over the course of the years, people have seen hunting as a harming ,not reasoned activity. Hunting has always been here; it’s just that now people feel like they should give their opinion about everything. Giving your opinion can be a good thing you just have to know when to. Hunting was made for men (women too) to hunt and feed their families; of course that's not the case for most people now but that does not mean people have stopped doing that. We live in a society where you are either really rich or really poor, and we as the “rich” side don’t think about how other people with less possibilities struggle. Hunting should stay legal but only for reasonable purposes not for anyone’s entertainment.
The minimum wage being too low has been a public issue in America for generations. Basically, the debate includes two different opinions. Firstly, people who want to raise the minimum wage, and second, people who would rather is stay the same. The overwhelming majority of liberals are on the side that favors a raise. Additionally, a somewhat smaller proportion of conservatives favor the change as well, but for different reasons. The liberal opinion on raising the minimum wage is based on the idea that putting more money in the people’s pockets, will stimulate the economy, and decrease poverty. The problem that conservatives and liberals alike have with this, is that a few direct consequences are proven to apply when raising wages. Some proposed consequences include unemployment, inflation, and unfairness to higher educated people. Another main point is that raising the minimum wage is thought to helps small business by increasing worker satisfaction. This issue of minimum wage has become increasingly popular and important in current times, as president Obama has proposed the idea of raising the minimum wage of contract workers to 10.10$ per hour (about a 30% increase from the current 7.25$ per hour minimum wage). A large number of people consider this wage hike unnecessary due to the fact that today’s value of minimum is higher than it has ever been since the 80’s, and because the wage hike comes at too high of a cost. All things considered, the issue of raising minimum wage is not a battle of political parties and their agendas, its really a debate between everyone.
For many people in the United States, life is no more than a regular work cycle. Members of working class usually have a High School diploma and may work in a low skilled occupation or manual labor. Most of the enjoying age of this people is spent in working, as they don’t want their new once to have a life they struggling through. Therefore, this essay will argue that minimum wage should be increased federally to $15/hour by 2017. Firstly, if taxes touches the sky, why should the minimum wage be on the ground? Increasing minimum wages would also create new opportunities for education as the students wouldn’t have to work crazy hours. Likewise, many couples won’t have to work multiple jobs in order to manage the household. Lastly, it will lift