Government Exam 2 (Institutions) New

Edmund Burke (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-Congress lectures -1774 -"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention.... But his unbiassed [sic] opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to ... any set of men living ... your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -Jilsen discusses the question of whether representatives in Congress should represent the whole country or just their district -Burke argues that representative should represent whole nation and should listen to constituents but ultimately use his or her own judgment to decide what is best for the public interest of the whole country -Jilsen says what Prindle says in that the above is not true and tend to represent districts more than the whole country, so both agree w/ Burke *members of Congress are locally oriented .should representatives rep consciences or constituents and can ppl feel that democracy is legitimate if they choose conscience?

quantitative easing (lecture, when, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -2010-2014 -injected money into the economy by buying bonds (monetary policy) *monetary policy makes FRB important and powerful economically .*monetary policy raises problems w/ democratic legitimacy b/c FRB members are appointed and not elected (independent central bank)

Robert Rubin (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -2017 -made a statement in which he warned that the Trump administration should not interfere w/ the FRB, and this echoes a statement from Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) when he said that the national bank should be independent from democratic control -Secretary of Treasury from 1995-1999 until Clinton, wrote op-ed for NYT and says FRB is critically important to economy, well-being of people, and monetary policy, expresses worries about democratic interference with the FRB b/c of Trump (same worry as Hamilton) -worried about this since 1791, Hamilton recommends national bank then, backed by Washington -wants to remove monetary policy from control of elected politicians -cannot allow democracy to control the money supply (anti-democratic) *FRB is important b/c it controls monetary policy *b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy .problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c FRB is powerful yet independent from democratic control

discount rate (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -FRB has in important indirect effect on the interest rates of the whole economy -when interest rates go down, "easy" money, opposite is "hard" money -the FRB doesn't always have "easy" b/c it tends to cause inflation -raises interest rate it charges to big banks (they borrow billions from FR) -in 2008, put discount rate at around 0 b/c it would encourage borrowing -when FRB raises this, big banks must pay a higher interest rate, big bank raise interest rate to medium then to little then to us (ripples down through economy to all the people who want to borrow money, can also lower it), huge effect on the economy *FRB is important b/c it controls monetary policy *b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy .problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c FRB is powerful yet independent from democratic control

independent central bank (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -an institution that does what the FRB does and is not controlled by elected politicians (based on what country needs and not political ambitions of the president or anyone else), odd b/c president can remove members of FRB (independence not technically guaranteed) but none ever have b/c sends bad message and stock market would crash and global investors would remove money, so FRB independent of political control -but don't control everything, like trade and new products and oil boycotts -hx continues while they try to control the economy, but they have large input -FRB also is lender of last resort: if bank about to go under and needs money b/c it made bad loans like w/ Keating Five, so FRB puts tax money into bank to keep afloat -not just economic decision, political decision b/c must decide who to save -point is to partially remove monetary policy from democratic control -if an elected politician (especially the president) could control the money supply for their own purposes and contrary to public interest, then could dump money in economy right before re-election, cause boom, take credit for it, win election, but it would crash -worried about this since 1791, Hamilton recommends national bank then, backed by Washington -wants to remove monetary policy from control of elected politicians *b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy .FRB like judiciary issue b/c not elected but lots of power: both powerful yet deliberately removed from democracy, Ron Paul worried about this, "wicked" and not democratic .problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c FRB is powerful yet independent from democratic control

fireman first principle (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -1991 -cut the budget of a bureaucracy, must get rid of fire department so all houses will burn down (want people to feel impact and become outraged b/c most popular thing cut) -"fireman first" ex: Reagan in 1991 tries to cut budget for National Public Radio, people who run it have a press conference and threaten to cut "All Things Considered" (most popular, not less popular like Tanzanian folk music) -bureaucracies always try to grow and have more money and people and responsibility -even when job finished, try not to give up money/responsibility, like living thing -when faced w/ budget cuts, never try to cut money from unimportant things, but rather cut things to make cuts most painful ("fireman first") -the tendency of bureaucrats to threaten to take away the things that will be the most painful to the public *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .example of bureaupathology

inflation (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -steadily rising prices for everyone (value of dollar is steadily going down) -in almost every country, someone tries to control the money supply -when prices go up/down in country, not just b/c of supply and demand, but also about how much money is in the country -simplified economic model: have 100 dollars in a country total and have 100 widgets (things to buy), each widget will cost 1 dollar (ratio b/w what you must buy and they money you must buy it with) -if increased money to 200 dollars but still 100 widgets, each will cost 2 dollars -so, in almost every country, some government agency tries to control money to control prices of stuff and try to avoid inflation (example above) as well as others -almost no inflation during our lifetimes -ex: 1979-80: inflation was over 10% -if gov put too much money in economy, inflation can go up a LOT very quickly -Myanmar gov in Germany in 20's, also Argentina (Peron) -> over 1000% inflation -deflation is steadily falling prices, happens same way (influencing amount of stuff/money amongst other causes) -inflation destroys societies, Nazis could take over in 1933 b/c of it -makes people desperate -to keep prices stable, growth of money in econ must be matched to econ itself (Stuff and money) -active, not passive, process -want 2% inflation right now *FRB is important b/c it controls monetary policy *b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy .one of the things FRB does is to stabilize prices by controlling money supply to control inflation/deflation .ratio b/w what you must buy and they money you must buy it with .in almost every country, some government agency tries to control money to control prices of stuff and try to avoid inflation b/c destroys societies and makes ppl desperate

monetary policy (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-FRB lecture -what FRB does: controlling money supply by putting money in at different rates to control prices, any national bank does this -FRB directly injects money (indirectly) into the economy -if not enough money in economy (like w/ Great Depression in 1930's b/c people had no money to spend so couldn't buy things so bad business and employment (want to stimulate business activity but not enough to cause inflation) -put cash in economy by buying/selling bonds from banks/corporations so the banks can lend money to their clients to spend it, gets us out of depression -we can print money to do this if economy is depressed w/o causing inflation -people who objected to this were wrong, including Trump's new chief advisor -money is NOT earned but rather essential to economy as a whole -FRB governors take money out if they think the economy is too heated -BUT don't control everything, like trade and new products and oil boycotts -hx continues while they try to control the economy, but they have large input -FRB like judiciary issue b/c not elected but lots of power -both powerful yet deliberately removed from democracy -Ron Paul worried about this, "wicked" and not democratic -FRB created by law in 1913 -7 members of people who run FRB, called governors (not like the state) -appointed by President to 14-year terms, official in big banks or economists usually -new chairperson of FRB has 4-year term, must be okayed by the Senate -none have ever been removed but technically possible -point is to partially remove monetary policy from democratic control -if an elected politician (especially the president) could control the money supply for their own purposes and contrary to public interest, then could dump money in economy right before re-election, cause boom, take credit for it, win election, but it would crash -worried about this since 1791, Hamilton recommends national bank then, backed by Washington -wants to remove monetary policy from control of elected politicians *FRB is important b/c it controls monetary policy *b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy .problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c FRB is powerful yet independent from democratic control (anti-democratic principle to not allow democracy to control money supply)

Pendleton Act (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -1883 -administrative agencies are partially out of public control, but not this way until the 1880s, as before that, the President's agents hired and fired everyone who was employed by the federal government -in 1850s: movement to take that away from President so that they would not have so much -want neutral expertise w/o policies -1882: President assassinated by disgruntled office seeker b/c he didn't get job in government -national shock about this leads to remove administrations from politics, get Pendleton Act -law passed by Congress that established the merit system: so if you want a job in most departments for the federal government, you apply to take a civil service examination, and if you do very well, you may be hired -civil service created by this act -of 2.7 federal employees, all but 2K got jobs by taking civil service exam, so President can only hire/fire people in White House (these 2K), all others hired under civil service -an individual can be fired form civil service, but it takes a series of bureaucratic hearings, and it I shard to fire federal employees -President can no longer hire/fire most people who work for federal government, so he/she cannot control them to a bigger extent than before -this is a problem with democratic accountability, as with judges and FRB, because elected politicians only have partial control over all of these administrators (another problem with democratic legitimacy) *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic accountability, as with judges and FRB, because elected politicians only have partial control over all of these administrators .but PA tried to increase democratic legitimacy by removing administration from policy

arguments about Congress (3)

1. members are locally oriented 2. decentralize power b/c they are locally oriented 3. b/c power is fragmented, policy-making is incoherent and irresponsible

Dairy Management and Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -1995 and 1994 -will take on more responsibility, happy to have more money and personnel, will happily have 2 agencies to contradict each other -ex: Dept. of Agriculture has both 1. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, one job is to persuade Americans to eat less cheese 2. Dairy Management, job is to persuade Americans to eat more cheese -together, these 2 spend over 150 million dollars a year to persuade Americans to eat both more and less cheese, so no one in the Department of Agriculture says "hey, we should get rid of one of these agencies", as bureaucrats don't think like that *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians

Sibel Edmonds (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -2001-2005 -more recent example of Fitzgerald situation -worked for FBI and translator from Turkish/Persian/Azerbaijani to English -complained to superiors after 911 because coworkers were doing bad translations and thought one was spy/mole (espionage) -complained for 6 months, nothing done, went to press, stories in newspapers from 2001-2 that embarrassed the FBI, so they fired her for going to the press -she sued, and Inspector General of US in Justice Dept. investigated this accusation of misconduct, report in 2005 says all of her accusations were correct -judge in her lawsuit allows Attorney General to dismiss lawsuit in interest of national security -point is that when there are whistleblowers who go outside of bureaucracy to media, the bureaucracies turn on the whistleblower instead of praising them *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .whistle blowers are turned on and not thanked

National Intelligence Director (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -2004 -as part of this tendency to always want more responsibility, bureaucracies will fight each other (called "turf battles" and/or "conflicts over jurisdiction") and various agencies of the same gov. will withhold info from each other as part of struggle for power between some agencies -ex: 911 attacks, national trauma, congress investigates how it happened, report in 2004 says that intelligence agencies like CIA/FBA/NSA that were charged for gathering info on such things like potential terrorists refused to share information with each other, so nobody put together the big picture to prevent 911 because bureaucracies were so jealous of their own jurisdiction, they refused to cooperate with one another. So, to address this, Congress created a National Intelligence Director, who was one person in charge of all of the intelligence agencies, have had nothing like 911 since so maybe this position has been successful in forcing agencies to cooperate -ex: France has lots of terrorist attacks in 2015 and put out report in 2016 that says same pattern present there as well, so they've done what we did (centralized intelligence agencies under one person to prevent them from keeping information to themselves due to bureaucratic greed) *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .greed: always want more responsibility

FEMA (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -2005-2007 -bureaucracies tend to follow internal rules -to a bureaucracy, internal rules become reality and moral imperative and lose all common sense in the process -follow rules but make crazy decisions as a result -one example is Federal Emergency Management Agency: comes in after natural disaster and tries to help people by giving them homes/food/medicine/etc. -Hurricane Katrina hit NO in 2005 and destroyed homes, hospitals, government buildings, banks (major disaster) -destroyed the Aquarium of the Americas as well -FEMA granted them 617K dollars for new fish, other expenses otherwise covered -check came in, but employees weren't bureaucrats, so they think they should just go catch their fish and so restocked aquarium with only 100 thousand dollars -send check with 500K back, FEMA doesn't accept b/c rules say you have to buy fish, can't catch it, what you did was illegal, and we won't accept his half million back! -this got to media, was a scandal, someone higher up decided to take money back -point is that the rules become the reality even though it seems crazy to people outside -another example: in South ATX, James McGee was on Social Security, one month he didn't get his check, they say he was dead, and he's like uhhh no, and they said resistance is futile or something, so he went to the Post Office, showed ID, gets check, happy, three days later her gets a letter that said he wasn't allowed that money because he was dead, so they were seizing his bank account -higher up did same thing as with FEMA when media got access to this story -so we have to rely on the media publicizing how ridiculous bureaucrats are when following rules sometimes -bureaucratic loyalty is loyalty to the organization, not to the country or reality or anything else -get so caught up with stupid rules that when media gets a hold of it, blame people on the inside and call them a traitor and set out to destroy them -ex: Fitzgerald's job was to audit military contracts to make sure they were doing what they were supposed to -finds that Americans wasting millions on 50s for a fancy plane -told the truth and became a national celebrity (was in People magazine) -the Air Force didn't thank him, but instead harassed him by opening mail, excluding from meetings, investigating scandal-less private life, demote him to audit military bowling alley in Thailand, got fired later *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .internal rules become reality and are often crazy, sometime exposed by media and have to act differently

American Postal Workers Union (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -2010 -US Postal Service labor union election had to be postponed b/c ballots had been lost in the mail -example which illustrates bureaucratic inefficiency *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .bureaucracies are inefficient

Parkinson's Law (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -Parkinson (British sociologist) wrote a book "Parkinson's Law": first part is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion; the second part is that expenses rise to meet income -1: so, if a bureaucracy has 3 years to build a bridge, it will take 3 years to make it -this is why bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, as they tend to take all the time available -2: ex: if we are used to making $5K a year and get a raise of $45K to total $50K, won't have $45K left over at the end: people tend to spend what they have and more, sometimes -same with bureaucracies: spend all the money they've been given, scramble to spend excess asap *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .bureaucracies tend to be inefficient and use all time/money

bureaupathology (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -bureaucracies tend to take on a life and purposes of their own, AKA goal displacement -BUT: resource allocation decisions are political decisions, so want some democratic control -give b lots of money and people and buildings and say "go build dams/stop opioid crisis/stop terrorism" so b tend to take on a life/goals of their own -artificial creature has intentions of their own (bureaupathology) -universal phenomena, named in other languages like Chinese/Russian -ex: Cabinet departments like defense and interiors, employ thousands/millions, can have billions of dollars in budget, also have independent agencies that don't answer to any agencies, like NASA/CIA (have own budgets) and government corporations like US Postal Services (makes no profit), institutions like museums like Smithsonian -federal gov employs 2.7 million civilians directly and 1.7 in military -state/local gov employ around 20 million people, like Prindle *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians

arguments about Presidency (3)

1. surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making 2. strong in foreign policy 3. during a war, presidential power expands

bureaucracy (lecture, definition,6 rules, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -government agency created to implement policy -must have big administrative agencies to put public policy into effect, like commissions -need to back policy goals w/ an organization, like military to control Taliban or people who know about dams to prevent flooding -Federal Government calls themselves administrative agencies, rest of us call them bureaucracies (UT Austin is one) -things don't happen by themselves, mobs get nothing done, need organizations -bigger projects need more organization, or chaos results -we have a bunch of federal administrative organizations (bureaucracies), rules include: 1. most are large and have many employees (biggest is department of defense here) 2. people tend to specialize, like Government vs Chemistry 3. tend to have rules to follow, like professors 4. keep written records to know who is following rules, like professor forms 5. most have hierarchy to know whose orders to follow (rank) like with military 6. have freedom from outside (political) control to a certain extent, like w/ tenure -want them to be independent b/c there are certain technical decisions that experts make and politicians should not mess w/ them, like surgeons *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians

Peter Principle (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-bureacracy lecture -stated in 1970s -stated by sociologist Lawrence Peter in 1970s, wrote book of stupid bureaucratic behavior -says "in a bureaucracy, people who are competent at their job are promoted, and they keep being promoted until they are no longer competent, at that point, they are no longer promoted, so at that point, they're in the way" -called dead wood in universities -another reason why bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, as many people are stuck at their level of incompetence -example is of LA Zoo, which had animals in natural setting after San Diego Zoo, day before it was supposed to open, someone wondered how far lions could jump since they had a 20 feet moat in their exhibit but most can jump more than that, so people would have been unsafe! Postponed opening day (legendary inefficiency of bureaucracies) *have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) *bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) .another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians .inefficiency is legendary: waste money, waste time, do stupid things, legend all over world

filibuster (lecture, when, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -1807: rules were clarified but were actually messed up -1830s: notice and take advantage -since no rules committee, Senate is chaos, consequence is filibuster -no one noticed the Senate didn't have a "previous question rule", so once a Senator gets the floor, they can keep it for as long as they want to as well as yield it if needed -endless talking in the Senate, invented carelessly/ accidentally -people in the minority talk for forever because they know they'll lose if they don't but by talking, they can make the majority give up and push a vote until next year -takes 60 votes for the Senate to end a filibuster (not ordinary majority) -minimum of 41 needed, and DM have 48 now so are the minority but can stop most things through filibustering/threatening so they can halt the government (we are the only democracy in the world that allows the minority to thwart the majority like this, chaos) -RB could eliminate this now b/c constitution says the House can change the rules, but RB could be the minority sometime in the future, so people in the majority are willing to have their policy plans frustrated just in case they are the minority later -NOT in constitution, accident of housekeeping -ex of local orientation: law says only Michigan beans can be used in US Commissary bean soup b/c filibuster of Senate (nice to ppl in his state, brings in federal money) and don't really care about where money is coming from, willing to run federal budget deficits in order to advance projects back home *tool for local orientation = decentralized = irres/incoh policy .we are the only democracy in the world that allows the minority to thwart the majority like this, chaos .bad for democracy b/c bad policy and hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

African drought bill (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -1984 -in the 1980s, DM had been in power for 30 years, RB mad b/c think DM spend too much money -RB Reagan becomes president and when Ethiopia had drought and 100Ks starving, wants to "give aid" so House passes bill for 60 mil for aid to victims, bill sent to Senate and Senator Dixon wants 100 mil for high unemployment states like Illinois, attaches this rider and over 35 others, 22 provisions of 1.1 billion, Reagan signs on July 2nd -so b/c of riders and logrolling, 60 mil to 1.1 billion *example of how policy is incoherent, as we spend without thinking how much we have to spend .*consequence of the local orientation and decentralization (result is incoherent policy) .our gov is way less organized/efficient than others and no one wins

NAFTA (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -1993 -treaty which eliminated trade barriers b/w US/MX/Canada -sponsored by DM Clinton (lobbied and speeches), DM sponsored but passed w/ RB vote, majority of DM against it (House is 40 and Senate is 49 for vs 75 and 77 for RB) -so DM pres and RB Congress pass it, who to blame/praise? *illustrates irresponsible policy-making, b/c we can't tell who to blame or praise .bad for democracy b/c bad policy and hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

Consolidated Appropriations Act (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -2005 -1994: RB take over House/Senate -RB majority and were mad at DM spending, but -388 bil for a general appropriations bill, had over 11K riders and 16 extra bil in pork *incoherent: Congress often makes no sense and irresponsible: hard to know who to blame/praise .incoherent b/c doesn't matter which party is in power, structural problem of Congress as an institution (always deficit) .irresponsible b/c both parties do this

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -2008 -bank bailout bill, sponsored by a RB administration and passed by DM votes in Congress -ppl worried about Great Dep, 700 bil to bail banks, sponsored by RB GW Bush and Paulson (sec of Treasury, RB) -both for in Senate by maj of House RB against but DM for -passed w/ DM votes in Congress but RB Pres *illustrates irresponsible policy-making, b/c we can't tell who to blame or praise .bad for democracy b/c bad policy and hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

the paradox of Congress (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -Congress is very good at serving particular interests (getting money for) individual states and/or districts but is bad at serving public interests/needs of whole country -Congress is largely incoherent and irresponsible -incoherent: Congress often makes no sense -irresponsible: hard to know who to blame/praise -Congress included millions to protect cornfields in Iowa within a bill for billions for terrorist attack protection *local orientation = decentralized = incoh/irres .bad for democracy b/c bad policy and hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

the seniority norm (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -The norm that holds that the member of a congressional committee with the longest continuous service on the committee shall be its chair (also says members could stay on a committee as long as they wished once assigned) -qualification for being on committee is to not be obnoxious with the leadership, and so before, the oldest members of committee tend to be chair and can be senile and brooding, but now, the "seniority norm" is much less important than it used to be, can go 5 notches down to pick chair now *power is fragmented, so policy-making is incoherent and irresponsible ."seniority norm" is much less important than it used to be but senior members still most active and effective legislators .its strength was that it reduced C conflict and gave members security .its weakness was that members advanced even if not talented/capable/compatible views .how committees are structured relies on this and it works poorly which is bad for democracy b/c hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

The Distributive Tendency (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -b/c members of Congress are locally oriented, they try to turn all legislation into pork for their own districts/states -still more than 100 military bases that Pentagon doesn't want and has wanted to close for decades b/c Congress people pull every possible maneuver to bring federal money and also jobs to the district *example of how policy is incoherent, as we spend without thinking how much we have to spend .*consequence of the local orientation (result is incoherent policy)

constituency service (lecture, definition (3), *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -congress + employees (aides) more concerned about how to raise money/how to make constituents happy (spend most of time helping people in their district), not national policy making (like geez, we shouldn't drill in that other district b/c environment) -members of Senate/House pay more attention to constituents than nation as a whole -of course they think about issues that affect other districts (like school shootings) but they ask "What's best for my district?" not "what's best for my country?" -constituency: ppl to whom representative feels responsible -service doing nice things, esp helping these ppl w/ things related to fed gov (ex: social security check didn't come) *members are locally oriented .local orientation fragments power and makes bad policies (incoherent-irresponsible) so bad for democracy

Speaker of the House/Senate Majority Leader (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -distinction b/w majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House b/c Speaker is stronger because there is no rules committee in the Senate to control the agenda, so the Speaker of the House is more powerful than the Senate majority leader -House has rules committee (Senate doesn't) and controls the agenda of the House (here's how much time you have to debate this bill, here are the rules on how you can amend this bill) and the Senate is much more disorganized than the House b/c they don't have this -sometimes, the rules committee say no amendments are allowed for the bill -Senate has no rules committee and only has a majority leader that can put bills on the schedule but can't bring a debate to an end once it is being debated -Speaker is the most important person in the House and is 3rd in line for Presidency, always the leader of the majority party, 2nd most "powerful" person in Washington (still not very powerful copared to other democracies) (also majority leader of each party) -assigns bills to committees -main power: partial control of the rules committee (but not absolute power, no one has this), can do things like say only 10 amendments on this and that's it but majority leader can't -rules committee can also limit time for others to speak and/or other time management -very good politician (good at making deals w/i the party and speaking to the media on behalf of the party) but does not control the House like the Prime Minster in GB does -in parliamentary system, ex: British House of Commons, Prime Minister is the majority leader and has the most power, almost every member votes the way he/she recommends, France has both President and PM but President has great deal of power b/c rules committee controls agenda there too and President controls the agenda of the French parliament whereas our President has no say as to what goes on internally in House/Senate -a President has 0 power in House/Senate here, can only ask people to do so OR (more commonly) offers to fund personal pork barrel projects, so a President can only lead symbolically here (Ex: if they're popular) -most important member of Senate is majority leader, and since no rules committee, is chaos, consequence is filibuster, (no Speaker of the Senate), gets to be majority leader b/c excellent leader that other party members want to be their leader, calls other party leader w/ proposal of party and asks them to vote for it -what about executive orders? (seems to give too much power to President), can only do this under the law, can set aside portions of federal land as national monument, ie to implement a law that Congress has already passed, not a novel thing *fits into weak leadership (fragmented power) argument .Speaker of the House is more powerful than the Senate majority leader .Senate is much more disorganized than the House (bad for democracy b/c not organized/efficient) .basic rule about leadership is that, compared to most other democracies, we have very weak leadership (in terms of parties and institutions)

party differences in Congressional voting (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -few Independents in government (like Bernie Sanders for Vermont who "caucused" for DM) -3 indep. in the House now who also do this -members of American parties vote together less often than in other democracies, but parties still mean a lot despite having little party discipline -Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is THE liberal anti-communist org (1948) and it rates members of Congress yearly, come up with "this is how we think you liberals should vote" and if you vote how they recommend 20/20 then you get 100, etc. -in 2000, avg score for RB was 7 vs 85 for DM -2005: 13 RB, 94 DM -2011: 15 RB, 91 DM -2016: 7 RB, 89 DM -Ted Cruz and Corman score of 0 (2 completely consistent conservative voters in the Senate) -this tells us: 1. parties are not perfectly liberal or conservative 2. RB definitely conservative and DM are definitely liberal (don't just lean) *incoherent: Congress often makes no sense and irresponsible: hard to know who to blame/praise .incoherent b/c doesn't matter which party is in power, structural problem of Congress as an institution (always deficit) .American parties vote together less often than in other democracies, but parties still mean a lot despite having little party discipline .parties are not perfectly liberal or conservative .RB definitely conservative and DM are definitely liberal (don't just lean)

capital-gains taxes (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -1989-92 -taxes on profits from investments (selling bought stock at higher price as capital-gains) -RB always want to min. taxes (don't profit -> no gains -> no taxes) so capital-gains taxes inhibit RB -DM in favor of taxing rich more -GWB was RB w/ DM Congress majority, pushed to lower these 4 years in a row b/c RB claim these lower investments and they want to grow economy by ending this -DM don't want to lower taxes on rich tho so vote down, defeated 4 years in a row *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .Presidents often fail getting very important domestic policy passed in Congress .if president faces C dominated by other party and policy proposal divides parties, almost certainly fails

logrolling (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -folks trading to bring projects to districts, members of Congress always doing this and bringing pork barrel projects to their district (don't think about overall budget and later get shocked that we spent more than we have) -2010: we have clear record of what was spent, but Congress outlawed specific appropriations for specific districts (ear tags) -ex: Kansas: 3.5 mil for National Institution for aviation research -ex: TX 693K for beef improvement research -Citizens Against National Waste publish "Pig Book" every year of pork barrel projects (16.5 billion total in 2010) *policy making is irresponsible: clear accounting stopped so it's difficult to see where money is going *local orientation: Congress is good at distributive legislation (taking money from federal government to give to districts) so constant tug of war of what we need as nation and what these districts want so we can think of members of Congress as making speeches and stuff but large part of what they do is to cooperate w/ one another to spend as much as possible for their individual regions .so pork barreling and log rolling are 2 big reasons why we have deficits .bad for democracy b/c incoh/irres

veto (lecture, when, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -if passes w/ simple majority, goes to President 1. signs bill into law 2. vetoes bill (constitutional right, can kill bill by sending back to House of origin w/ note UNLESS Congress overrides the veto w/ a 2/3 vote) 3. doesn't sign, 10 days later, if Congress is still in session, the bill passes w/o President's signature 4. doesn't sign, w/i 10 days Congress has adjurned, the bill dies (pocket veto, like the President stuck it in his/her pocket and forgot about it) -no item veto: writers of constitution say President must veto whole bill, so Congress tacks on bill (often budget bill) that President likes w/ stuff (bunch of pork) for their own districts so that all will go through -for last 200 years *helps w/ local orientation b/c of no item veto so pork can be written in to decentralize + bad policy .bad for democracy b/c bad policy and hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

rider (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -non-germaine (irrelevant/ not pertinent to subject matter) amendment tacked on after regular appropriations process is closed. often includes earmarks (specific appropriation of $ for specific district) -ex: Obama bill to protect consumers from credit card company abuses, S amends w/ rider after debate to allow people to take guns to national parks -ex: British PM presents budget for gov, debate for 4 days, vote, over in 5 days, in US goes on and on and no one is happy at the end *example of how policy is incoherent, as we spend without thinking how much we have to spend .*consequence of the local orientation and decentralization (result is incoherent policy) .our gov is way less organized/efficient than others and no one wins

Gene Green (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -rep 29th district (Houston), article in Statesman says, "Green's office partnered w/ 5 churches to provides evacuees w/ things like diapers... organizes citizenship/ immunization drives, returns calls for anyone who calls office asking to speak w/ Gene" -ex: IRS sends letter to someone letting them know that they miscalculated their taxes and owed a fine, IRS apologizes and says they don't have to pay fine b/c aid of Pickle made a call to member of bureaucracy (b/c Congress controls their budget) so if we have a problem with the gov, call representative's office (which are oriented to pleasing the folks back home) b/c more cooperation from federal government if we have representative on side *ex of local orientation .important b/c bad for democracy if not thinking about good of country and also bad b/c private influence over public policy/more access for some

pork barrel (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -representatives always trying to get federal money to district -law says only Michigan beans can be used in US Commissary bean soup b/c filibuster of Senate (nice to ppl in his state, brings in federal money) and don't really care about where money is coming from, willing to run federal budget deficits in order to advance projects back home -ppl who don't like this call it this pejorative term (implies disapproval) for federal projects that members of Congress bring to their district, looked down upon by political scientists/other members of Congress (who also do it but think it's pork barrel for others to do it) *ex of local orientation .important b/c bad for democracy b/c if everyone's running a personal game, how does everyone get enough? and also bad b/c private influence over public policy/more access for some

committees (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lecture -working subgroup of Congress and/or House specialized by function (can be in several committees and subcommittees at once) -ex: agriculture/ defense/ interior (federal lands)/ foreign affairs committees -a great deal of actual work done in Congress is done in committees and the people who chair these make most of the decisions -20 standing committees in the House and 16 in the Senate -House has rules committee (Senate doesn't) and controls the agenda of the House (here's how much time you have to debate this bill, here are the rules on how you can amend this bill) and the Senate is much more disorganized than the House b/c they don't have this *local orientation = power is fragmented = policy-making is incoherent b/c Congress often makes no sense and irresponsible) .bad for democracy b/c hard to get things done/have responsible budget/hold accountable

A 60-vote Senate? (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-congress lectures -cloture: a cloture vote, requiring a 60-vote majority, is the only way to halt a filibuster in the Senate (stops debate and moves to vote on final passage) *policy-making is incoherent .Senate v dysfunctional, bad for democracy b/c bad policy making and inefficient, "cloture votes were symptoms of the wider disease of excessive partisanship"

Project Apollo (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-implementation lecture -1961-1969 -the moon shot: 1961, JFK says that before the end of the decade, America will walk on the moon (true, happened in '69), announced this goal at NASA -this was a successfully implemented policy -didn't get caught in local politics b/c there were no locals on moon/interest groups -landing on the moon was largely technological problem, not political problem -didn't avoid all politics, but avoided most of the local politics which make others fail -bigger chance of implementing if less local politics *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff *success: policies that avoid local politics are more likely to succeed .bad for democracy b/c bad policies could be enacted simply b/c out of local grasp

Head Start (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-implementation lecture -1965- -another one of JBJs in 60's -wants to give poor children healthy meals and pre-school training and medical treatment -success b/c specifically designed to be administered with a deliberate avoidance of local politician interference -administered by parents of the children in Head Start, now more non-profits involved -still running, in 2009, said that they were more likely to graduate from high school, attempt college, less idle, and better health, so generally considered to be a success -schools have good public relations so no NIMBY -however, over past ten years, conservatives have been trying to cut this program but have not been able to b/c almost all DM and some RB support it so budget cut (like most other things) but program remains *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff *success: policies that avoid local politics are more likely to succeed .bad for democracy b/c bad policies could be enacted simply b/c out of local grasp

New Towns Project (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-implementation lecture -1967- -didn't require another law (already in the books), said that fed gov could declare federally-owned land to be surplus (owns a lot of land but little in TX b/c of treaty in 1845 but owns a lot in other states), admin by Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. -famous failure, under President's LBJ's administration, 60's were hard b/c riots in big cities, LBJ wanted to help both fed gov and private industry to build low-cost housing for the poor b/c he thought poor people would riot less and be happier if they had decent places to live -LBJ wants to declare some land near big cities surplus so that it will be eligible to be give loans/grants to developers to make the houses -billions spent but largely a failure, didn't work -failed in 3 cities: 1. SA - HUD announced that about half of Fort Sam Houston wasn't being used, so it announced that it was going to declare that part surplus (we own the land and we're not using it, legal designation) but the general commander objected b/c he had plans for that land, he convinced Congressman Henry Gonzales (good at bringing in pork) and he opposed the plan so SA City Council also opposed so the plan died -so opposition from local politicians killed the plan 2. Washington, DC - HUD decides to declare Fort Lincoln to be surplus (Fort built To protect DC from invasion from Confederacy, not in use for 100 years), was in middle-class black neighborhood in DC and white HUD think they'd support this b/c they didn't count on class opposition (they didn't want poor black people around after all), organized w/ parades/speeches (loud opposition), HUD spend a year and millions on research, but still died -so opposition from local residents killed it 3. San Francisco: Nike missile base, designed to shoot down Russian bombers so missile base was obsolete, people love the view in SF and building "ugly" low cost housing would have "spoiled" it, people object all around the bay area, "Defend the Forts" committee sprang up, huge and intense opposition from people all around the metropolitan area so board of directors dropped the project -so killed from people who didn't live in area (just metro area in general) -so, not much built despite spending a lot of money, one success was The Woodlands but was not low-cost housing for the poor (rich area) -one area is subsidized housing for poor people to satisfy requirements b/c city was built after LBJ when interest was less so don't care about the poor, really *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff *failure: policies entangled w/ local politics tend to fail .bad for democracy b/c piopp

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important) acronym and how much spent?

-implementation lecture -1982- -want to create electricity from controlled nuclear reactions -create s a lot of waste: deadly and radioactive for about 10K years -we have 29 in the US and no permanent place to put this waste -since 1960's, fed gov trying to figure out what to do with the waste -right now, we have temporary storage units close to reactors waiting to be shipped to permanent storage unit -in 1982, NWPA wants Dept. Of Energy to find safe permanent place to store for 10K years, problem is NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), everyone wants electricity but no one wants to live by power plant/nuclear waste dump, so if gov tries to find place and word leaks out, all people in state get mad, like with Bush, who wants none in TX -in 2002 when he is President, Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be a good place to put it b/c geologically stable (no water), spend billions to dig deep hole there, but local politicians go ballistic, mayor of Los Vegas announced to press that he would arrest any truck driver w/ nuclear waste driving through city, senators, legislators, mayors, environmentalists, etc. all against this -2006: DM win back Senate, Senator Harry Reed became majority leader in Jan 2007 but earlier in 2006 when DM win, he called a conference of Nevada media (no national media) and told them that he personally would forbid a penny being spent to develop the Yucca Mountain Suppository -nothing happened for 2 years, when Obama elected in 2008, he agrees to suspend the nuclear waste digging in Yucca Mountain -now, in 2018, 36 years after act passed, the US has spent over 15 billion dollars to try to implement that law and absolutely nothing has been done except spend money to dig holes in Nevada with nothing to fill them, so it is a failure (not implemented) *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff *failure: policies entangled w/ local politics tend to fail .bad for democracy b/c piopp

60% (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-implementation lecture -numerous studies over decades show general rules for both domestic and foreign policy: 1. people are aware of the policy 2. clear majority opinion (abortion is an example of something that doesn't have this: 40/40/20) -when both true, about 60% of the time, fed gov does what the people want -can't assess w/o this criteria b/c can't study non-existent opinions and/or w/o majority -is 60% reassuring about democracy or lot of room for improvement -some cases that public should not get what it wants, like how 70-80% of the public wants an amendment to prevent flag-burning, which a violation of freedom of expression, so not always bad when fed gov doesn't translate public opinion into policy (people who wrote the constitution didn't want tyranny of the majority) *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff .one of the criteria for a successful democracy is "do the people get the policies they voted for?", and 60% may not be enough .stats actually worse b/c most policies probably don't even uphold both rules .no studies for other countries on this issue

implementation (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-implementation lecture -the process of carrying out or enforcing a policy -making policy isn't enough, because you can't just pass a law/issue an edict and it happens -war on drugs almost 50 years ago, billions spent, didn't work well -17 years ago, wanted to rid Afghanistan from Taliban but also didn't work -point is that implementation is hard, sometimes it fails *hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff .it's hard everywhere but especially here b/c our system was designed to make policy-making and implementation hard to do so it fails often but sometimes it doesn't

Wesberry v. Sanders (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -1964 -SC reapportion decision -before, in state legis dist and US House, districts had wildly diff pop # (1 mil vs 15K and each had same vote) -urban v rural fight -SC enunciated "1 person, 1 vote" and all legis dist must have same # (w/ 1% variation) *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .example of a political decision in which judges took sides in a political controversy, showing that they are politicians .revolutionary b/c transferred power to urban from rural except in Senate b/c not 1p1v in constit

Roe v. Wade (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -1973 -Supreme Court abortion decision -SC held that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion b/c principle of sexual privacy applied to abortions but not for all 9 months -1st/4th/5th amend combined for "personal autonomy" to make decisions about own life/body -no state jurisdiction at all in first 3 months -states do have jur for 3rd trim -middle argued about -constit doesn't mention abor/health/med/sex -left up to states until '73 (illegal here) *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .example of a political decision in which judges took sides in a political controversy, showing that they are politicians

Robert Bork (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -1987 -Bork (most distinguished academic conservative) writes law review of cons inter of constit, says liberal courts of 1970s all wrong, against lib (anti labor union/env/fem/civil rights/abortion) -RB Reagan nom to SC in 1987, Senate has to approve by maj (DM maj after 1986 election) -also, all lib gps above came together in nat org out of Hollywood in national lobbying campaign and made commercial where Peck (Oscar actor) attacks Bork -first time nat campaign against SC cand, worked -voted down 58 to 42 *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .judges are obvs politicians since can make political judgements that have political consequences and can have political enemies for their political work

Texas v. Johnson (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -1989 -flag burning issue: freedom of expression for politics already est w/ NYT v Sullivan -states like TX forbid b/c unpat -1984: RB con in Dallas had radical gps burning flags, arrested, Johnson convicted, case to SC -SC says anti-fb laws unconstit b/c political act and can't be arrested for exp political beliefs and it was right to freedom of exp -Boy Scoutt handbook says only respectful way to dispose of flag lol *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians *b/c they are appointed and not elected, there is a problem w/ democratic legitimacy .example of a political decision in which judges took sides in a political controversy, showing that they are politicians .very unpopular, 75 to 100 want otherwise but ex of how (unelected) judges can stand up for political ideas even in face of public disapproval

arguments about implementation (3)

1. hard to implement policy and policy can fail b/c system is complex and checks and balances and stuff 2. success: policies entangled w/ local politics tend to fail 3. failure: policies that avoid local politics are more likely to succeed

arguments about bureaucracies (3)

1. have to have big organizations to administer policy (necessary) 2. bureaupathology: partially independent from elected officials, they tend to take on a life of their own, rules w/i them become the reality (inefficiency) 3. another problem w/ democratic legitimacy b/c they are independent of elected politicians

Bush v. Gore (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -2000 -election of 2000 extremely close (Bush wins by less than 1K votes in Florida) -nat, Gore won by over 600K votes (won pop vote) -hanging chad issue had lots of ballots disqualified by machine -DM demand recount b/c so close, Florida says no, lawsuit -Gore forces want recount in 4 biggest counties (Gore would have lost) -Bush forces want none but full Florida recount if any (Gore would have won) -SC says no recount (majority RB) so Pres W -nonsensical constit arg that no one believes *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians *b/c they are appointed and not elected, there is a problem w/ democratic legitimacy .example of a political decision in which judges took sides in a political controversy, showing that they are politicians .directly interfere against pop opinion to obstruct democracy for own aims, definitely politicians b/c corrupt!

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important) 2 rulings?

-judiciary lectures -2010 -law from early 1900s for fed state wanting to suppress corp money in elections b/c they have so much money that they can buy elections meaning corp would run country, not people -2002 McCain Feingold Act tries to limit this, one part forbid corp to sponsor smear ads 30 days before election -CU was cons org, made movie attacking Hillary in 2008 when she ran against Obama, fed election commission says no and cites MFA -CU sues, SC held in favor of CU b/c MFA unconstit b/c: 1. 1st amend says persons have freedom of speech and gov shouldn't interfere (say corp is a person) 2. $ is speech so can't reg corp ability to spend as much as they want to affect an election *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .example of a political decision in which judges took sides in a political controversy, showing that they are politicians .very direct political influence on democratic process (and to hinder it, no less)

judicial review (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -American judiciary is most powerful in world b/c have power of judicial review (can declare act of C/Pres unconstit and can void it) and app for life or until resign -interpreting the constit/law IS political *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .jr is very political power and unique to US

non-political myth (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -judges like to say they're not politicians b/c say they just try to apply the constit (non-political) but they are elected politicians -determining how we should apply the constit is a political act -judiciary is the weakest branch of the gov (power dep on others doing what they say) -Congress controls $ and has "power of the purse" -Exec has "power of sword" -weaker than those but American judiciary is most powerful in world b/c have power of judicial review (can declare act of C/Pres unconstit and can void it) and app for life or until resign -Germany has first but not second, 10-year terms *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians .American judiciary is most powerful in world ."np" myth works to make us obey them (b/w power and influence)

partisan appointments of federal judges (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -partisan aff of newly apt fed district judges tends to be over 90% except 88 of Clinton -judges are politicians b/c int of constit tends to vary based on party aff and b/c want "accurate" interpretation (failure of human nature to think both parties can be publically oriented but also one is right and one is wrong) -Pres largely apt judges from own party is evidence that judges are politicians and courts are pol instit *courts are political institutions and judges are politicians *b/c they are appointed and not elected, there is a problem w/ democratic legitimacy .problem w/ democracy b/c seem like they have too much power that is not under democratic control

"imperial judiciary" (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-judiciary lectures -some ppl think judges are too powerful -US: unelected fed judges -"ij" neutral but can be pejorative -they can overturn dem enacted laws like MFA -need judges to protect some people from others as Hamilton says in Fed 178 (must protect ppl from the ppl) *b/c they are appointed and not elected, there is a problem w/ democratic legitimacy .US unique in this widespread judiciary power .bad for democracy b/c power not from people so not legitimate .damages our democracy b/c prevents ppl from governing (weakens/eradicates democracy)

Korematsu v. United States (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -1944 -in 1941, Pearl Harbor attacked by Japan -1942: FDR has exec order to send 100K Japanese Americans and immigrants (both citizens and not) to concentration camps -all rights to citizenship lost for over 55K -no crime accusations given -K sues b/c citizen, SC says FDR has power to do this and won't second-guess what pres has to do to protect country during war, so no civil rights -pres can do whatever he/she deems necessary -1945: J loses and ppl let go after 3.5 years, official Congress apology and 20K given to each survivor in 80s *during a war, presidential power expands, almost dictators .Pres. can use Art 2 to make war as he sees fit and completely indep (seems bad for democracy b/c seems like too much power)

Iran-Contra affair (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -1985-86 -in 1981 when Reagan elected, had 2 policies: 1. 1979: Iranian Rev happening, anti-US Hezbollah in Lebanon holding 8 Americans hostage, Regan wants to persuade to release 2. 1979: comm rev in Nicaragua, R financing anti-comm guerrillas (contras), fighting increase, part of African drought bill so logroll w/ Reagan but funding was decreased anyway and from 1984-85, Congress makes funding contras illegal but R wants to reinstate aid -preserving deniability: R gathers Nat Sec ppl, tells them to solve both things but don't tell him about it so if media find out he can deny he knew about it -Colonel Oliver North honest b/c doesn't steal from taxpayers -Iran at war w/ Iraq, overthrow Hussein but we favor Iraq b/c Iran hates us -US helps Iraqis kill thousands of Iranians (track movements w/ satellites) -North goes to Iran w/ anti-aircraft missiles to illegally shoot down (missiles from Pentagon, sold w. profit) b/c wanted to encourage to release hostages (unsuccessful) -so give info and missiles secretly to both to help them kill each other -give profits from missile sales to contras illegally (breaks at least 5 laws, goes on for at least year and a half until found out) -R denies knowing, fired ppl b/c "betray" him, Congress and Justice Dept. investigate, got away w/ it b/c popular/charming and DM don't want to spend political capital to impeach -North testifies, 100% immunity, tells all, case dropped b/c privileged info, 10 others go to jail *strong in foreign policy .Reagan conducted an illegal convert operation and got away with it when it was discovered and this illustrates that Presidents have a lot of foreign power

health care reform (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -1993-94 -during 1st State of the Union speech, President Clinton pushed to create national healthcare act and made part of campaign b/c we pay much more in US (Germany spend 6-8% of GDP, we spend 15-17% which is 2-3X as much as other democracies w/ developed countries) -Clinton DM w/ DM majority and pop and good persuader so by every measure we've studied, it should've passed but 4 things: 1. said it would cost around 50 bil a year but economists say at least 150 bil a year to 500 bil, so low-balling damaged credibility 2. Hillary in sales program, didn't help much 3. radio talks (higher influence at time) and Rush Limbaugh attacked every day 4. insurance companies deadset against it, sponsor national lobbying campaign and commercials (Obama able to circumvent this) -so public opinion declined monthly and went to negative territory, no chance of winning by fall of '93 so pulls it next year *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .even in predominant party controls congress and even if public seems to support at first, presidential domestic policy initiative can still fail .we spend 15-17% which is 2-3X as much as other democracies w/ developed countries

signing statements (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important) what was legal situation surrounding example?

-presidency lectures -2001-2009 -ex is of terror war in 2001 w/ GWB, no declaration of war but C passes joint-res for GWB to punish those resp for 911 and protect US from future war attacks -this was vague: no time limits/ countries named/ power limits -unitary executive theory from Justice Dept. interpret constit and agree w/ jr, say pres can ignore Congress and courts -ss: from Monroe in 1820s, C passes law, pres signs but can put in ss saying parts of bill can be unconstit so may not follow this law -2005: C passes law saying no torture of US prisoners b/c McCain in Vietnam, GWB signs w/ ss -ss can be secret and null when next pres in office *during a war, presidential power expands, almost dictators .bad for democracy b/c pres has unlimited power: can ignore Congress/courts at own discretion for as long/whatever reason they want b/c jr is vague

ANWR (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -2003, 2006 -Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -N. Alaska has largest oil filed in N Am (9 bil) , TX used to have 6 bil barrels of oil -illegal to drill for oil in national wildlife refuge but GWB wanted exemption (was in oil company) so one public policy proposal was to open drilling at ANWR -2003: pushed for special law of exploration -GWB RB and so are both houses -tried to put "war on terror" spin on it by saying drilling would help us be less dep on ME oil -strong env lobbyist opposition like Sierra Club (strong DM presence) so fails -try again in 2006 and fail again *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .in domestic policy, even if the president is extremely popular (rally) and even when his party controls both houses (and even w/ a war pitch), a proposal can still fail

Deepwater Horizon (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -2010 -explosion in oil rig in MX, 11 X and 50K barrels of oil spilling for months -Obama has executive order for National Commission and stops drilling -but lawsuits come and fed judge nullifies and says drilling can continue b/c it's "not unconstitutional, just unreasonable" (lots of jobs dep on this) *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .even when trying to deal w/ public emergency, majority in both houses, pub opinion on president's side, president can still be side-stepped by federal judges

Libyan bombing campaign (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -2011 -Article 1 of constit says Congress can declare war and Art. 2 says pres is commander in chief -Libyan dictator Gaddafi, Arab Spring has uprisings against him, ppl w rifles are fighting rebel troops (about to be massacre) so Sec of State Clinton urges Obama to get NATO to blow army out of desert so rebels win and Gaddafi is out of power -RB controlled House, very against this, Obama doesn't even consult Congress (uses American air power in Libyan civil war) -Rb think unconstit but admin officially cites Art. 2 and not rly war so no Art. 1 power (not declared and no American troops on ground) -House RB back out and rebels win *strong in foreign policy .Pres. can use Art 2 to make war completely indep of Congress (seems bad for democracy b/c seems like too much power)

"Repeal and Replace" (lecture, year, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -2017 -ex: Trump's 2016 campaign promise to repeal Obamacare, virtually every House/Senate member campaigned to repeal it so to do so, it needed something else (like presidential boost) -ACA: majority RB in H&S try their best to r/r -Spring 2017: RB bill to r/r, passed 3 times in House but refuted in Senate (every DM voted against it and 3 RB too) b/c 20 mil would lose health insurance *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .president more successful when majority in both H&S (#1 variable) .also more successful when take clear position and support it .presidents tend to come in w/ majority power .even when a president's party controls both H&S, policy promises of the president can fail (but still more powerful b/c majority)

"commander-in-chief" clause (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important) how did writers of constitution and Hamilton feel?

-presidency lectures -Article II, section 2 of constit: congress declares war but president is commander-in-chief -writers of constit thought congress was dangerous b/c close to ppl and ppl dangerous so less checks on presidential power than on congressional power (foreign) -Hamilton's essays say that we need strong presidency in foreign policy, number 1 job is to protect nation from foreign attacks *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .bad for democracy b/c inefficient b/c causes lots of debate b/w the two

opening to China (lecture, years, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -Nixon elected 1968 during Cold War w/ SU/China (comm), enemies, cut off diplomatic rel w/ them in 1949 -US didn't formally recognize People's Rep. of China (only Rep. of China, or Taiwan, b/c not commies): no ambassadors/trade/travel -Nixon has anti-comm rep but still wanted to change US/SU/China rel -wants to signal flexibility in 1969 by visiting comm Romania, China gets message but to verify (couldn't ask us b/c no direct contact so ask France, they ask us, we say yes so China told, want to respond but subtly) -1970: US ping-pong team invited to Beijing, goes to American consulate in Tokyo to ask, say yes, go, Nixon has more contact w/ China, goes to Beijing, begins new era of int rel in 1971 -China wants US to unrec Taiwan, Nixon refuses -more cordial but not full dip rel -1979: President Carter unrec Taiwan and rec Ppl's Rep as the official gov of China (Beijing) -anti-com v pop in congress then so they hated it -this stands until today, still pretend Taiwan doesn't exist *strong in foreign policy .Pres can go against Congress and other countries and pop opinion (powerful)

Head of Government (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -chief executive of nation has two functions, this is one -person who actually makes policy choices and compromises in back-room deals, takes sides on the things that divide us in terms of policy -people are usually less connected to head of gov than head of state b/c patriotism -function of head of gov is that pres tries to use prestige as head of state to get support as head of gov to compensate for this weakness -only in US that presidents take argument that if opposing the head of gov, public is unpatriotic (not Israel, Japan, British PM) -Britain has state (queen) and gov (parliament) *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .US is one of only democracies in world that combines head of state and gov into one person .US framework of democracy did not anticipate conflict .bad for democracy b/c inefficient b/c constant confusion b/w head of state and gov, comes across as unpatriotic if president complains about this tho

Head of State (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -chief executive of nation has two functions, this is one -person who symbolizes nation -person we look up to and is what we all share as citizens of nations (most have symbolic personal relationship w/ this person) -b/c of patriotism, people still marred third rate President Harding (couldn't make decisions b/c couldn't say no) b/c people's opinions change after attack on head of state *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .US is one of only democracies in world that combines head of state and gov into one person .US framework of democracy did not anticipate conflict .bad for democracy b/c inefficient b/c constant confusion b/w head of state and gov, comes across as unpatriotic if president complains about this tho

power to persuade (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -constitution gives influence, not power: 1. presidents can set national agendas but that's not the same as being able to do anything about it 2. appoint fed judges who serve for life but can't remove, must get ratified so weak -power to persuade is no power at all -chief bargainer in system b/c agreeing for a policy allows Congress to have their pork *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .more important in US gov in 20th cent b/c advocated more for domestic policy (social welfare, Kennedy/Roosevelt, Medicare, Housing/Urban Dev) b/c fed gov started to do more in dom policy, esp in 1930s

rally and flag effect (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -surge of patriotism (for head of state, not head of gov) -ex is when approval rating of GWB went up to 89% in Oct 2001 (highest record at time) -only temporary (after left office, from 89% to 30%ish) *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .bad for democracy b/c inefficient .bad for democracy b/c ppl opinions change over factors not involving presidential performance (poor accountability mechanism)

"Imperial Presidency" (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -the phrase refers to the rise of US presidents to dominance in foreign policy after WWII (1945) *strong in foreign policy .Prindle thought pres too powerful w/ foreign and not enough domestically but changed after 911

the transformation of George W. Bush (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidency lectures -was deemed dunce during Presidential campaign of 2000, not well-spoken -all changed after 9/11 attacks b/c ppl feel country has been attacked so they move towards patriotism -from casual and uneducated son of privilege to great commander of war *surprisingly weak in domestic policy-making .bad for democracy b/c inefficient .bad for democracy b/c ppl opinions change over factors not involving presidential performance

"inherent power" (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidential lectures -Powers accruing to all sovereign nations, whether or not specified in the Constitution, allowing executives to take actions required to defend the nation and protect its interests. *presidents get lots of power during times of war .democratic debate b/c early twentieth century brought threats, both at home and abroad, that demanded immediate and decisive action. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt drew power to themselves when Congress was slow to respond, was this for the best for the country or not? does that make it democratic? .promotes idea that Presidential power should not be narrowly interpreted in this case aside from not explicitly violating a law .ouside of constit (ass w/ sovereignty and public expectations) .protect and defend the nation, whether those actions are explicitly sanctioned by existing law or not. The logic is that it makes no sense to scrupulously adhere to law and procedure if the nation is gravely harmed or destroyed in the process

executive privilege (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidential lectures -The right of presidents, recognized by the Supreme Court, to keep conversations and communications with their advisers confidential. *not lots of domestic power but this is counter-example .democratic debate b/c separation of powers theory to maintain and justify presidential autonomy and independent authority or should their powers be more broad?

the "stewardship theory" (lecture, definition, *main argument, .why important)

-presidential lectures -Theodore Roosevelt articulated that the president is the nation's elected leader and steward of its security and its future prospects and promise. Following Lincoln, TR argued that "the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by Congress under its constitutional powers." *presidents get lots of power during times of war .democratic debate b/c early twentieth century brought threats, both at home and abroad, that demanded immediate and decisive action. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt drew power to themselves when Congress was slow to respond, was this for the best for the country or not? does that make it democratic? .promotes idea that Presidential power should not be narrowly interpreted in this case aside from not explicitly violating a law .protect and defend the nation, whether those actions are explicitly sanctioned by existing law or not. The logic is that it makes no sense to scrupulously adhere to law and procedure if the nation is gravely harmed or destroyed in the process

arguments about FRB (2)

1. FRB is important b/c it controls monetary policy 2. b/c it's an independent central bank, there is another problem w/ democratic legitimacy

arguments about the judiciary (2)

1. courts are political institutions and judges are politicians 2. b/c they are appointed and not elected, there is a problem w/ democratic legitimacy