PS311 Final

How Committee members are chosen: Formal and informal constraints

"Property rights" in committee assignments arose around the turn of the last century. Members can stay on committees from one congress to the next if they choose to. -Informal, once on a committee you can stay on for as long as you want, seniority rule to become chair Allocation restrictions. -Senate: "Johnson rule": all junior senators get one "good" assignment before a senior senator gets a second. "A" and "B" committees. Senate Republicans created "super A" committees [bold, limit 1] -ex: A: Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Banking, Commerce, Energy, Environment, Finance, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, Judiciary, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions [limit of 2] -House: Exclusive (only committee you serve on), Semi-Exclusive (only a few you can serve on), Nonexclusive (can do any). -ex: Exclusive- Appropriations, Rules, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce

Theoretical perspectives on committees: Distributive theories

"high demand preference outliers" → demand from constituents, chamber has different preferences than that committee Agenda setting- can take bills and have floor act Gate-keeping (textbook refers to this as negative agenda power): the right of a committee to decide to keep an item off the floor if it doesn't want action. Protected by germaneness rule and closed rules (therefore, less applicable in Senate). Structure-induced equilibrium view: any outcome with 3 groups of people with three preferences, committees prevent cycling Committees provided the basis for making credible claims of credit (Mayhew) Easy to think of committees as providing "take it or leave it" propositions and being composed of "high demand outliers" -"gains from trade" - logrolling, two high power committees trade support with each other -"deference" to committees - deference helps ensure that high power committees get what they want -Supposed "self-selection" on committees Problems with this view -"high demand committees" hard to sustain in a majoritarian institution. The Senate, especially, has ways around committees. Other ways around gatekeeping: discharge petitions, motion to recommit with instructions.

House Freedom Caucus → why is it so powerful?

33 of 235, any time FC wants to withhold support they can cancel a bill New because it's very formal: regular meetings, vote internally on how caucus should endorse/not endorse what Republicans want to do To the right of the Republican median Vote together to strengthen negotiating power → formality that helps their power Quasi-third party coalition gives strength

Positive agenda power

Ability to push through legislation that is approved by the committee and opposed by others. Power is limited: have to rely on persuasion (information advantage), leverage from threats if others fail to cooperate, strategic packaging (logrolls), and dominance of conference committee. Logrolling especially important! And historically helped by dominance of conference committee

Negative agenda power

Ability to stop legislation that is opposed by the committee Still some committee deference (hard to get things out of committee if the committee strongly opposes)

The actual vote on a bill

After all of the amendments are voted on in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered by the floor. Amendments are approved as a block and then the vote on final passage. Senate doesn't have a Committee of the Whole.

Controlling for alternative explanations in racial rep

Alternative explanations for the nature of racial representation that emerges in the new black majority districts- region, % black, income. The supply side theory hold up when considering these alternatives. How best to measure income? Maybe not because of composition but other factors like what part of the country, etc How to measure impact of income on style of representative? → median, ratio of white income to black income, get commonality focus on issues more when all people need help, difference in districts with large income disparities

Committee Transfers

Assume a move means a voluntary move to higher prestige If members get stuck on a committee they don't want, they can request a transfer at the beginning of new sessions. Try to move up to a prestige committee, to a desired policy or constituency committee, and off undesired committee. If there are property rights in committee seats, then a transfer reveals a preference for the new committee over the old committee. This gives rise to independent measures of committee value developed by Charles Stewart and Tim Groseclose (Grosewart scores). -Shows which committees more important -Top 4 are Ways and Means, Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, and Rules (for House). Foreign relations, finance, and appropriations for Senate. -Over time, portfolio of committees increases! People moving up overall, transferring off the worst committees

Bendix and Mackay (2017) methodological study of factions & results within R party

Bendix and Mackay (2017) study factions in the Republican party using interest group ratings Interest groups issue "report cards" on how MCs have voted in the previous term; these scores are frequently designed specifically to highlight allies and identify opponents. Very rarely objective, tailor which votes counted, being in factions has tangible effect on your success as a legislator Three factions in the House GOP: Pro-business, worker oriented (populists, not as inclined to cut welfare, socially conservative), and ethno-radical (ex Steve King, racist) Congressional parties not contained by Congress but exist outside and are linked to outside forces, relationships should show preference

Challenges to the party-centered view of Congress: Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship: political tactic or moral principle? What does it really mean? Does it require compromise? Clinton and Bush models. Large support from both parties, or pick off a few extreme members? Obama was seeking the Clinton approach, but has been rebuffed by the Republicans. Chait, "The presence or absence of cooperation between parties tells us nothing about whether government is acting in the public interest." -Common thought is to work together to get things done -Compromise or it's your policy that becomes bipartisan when you get others from other party to vote for it? -True bipartisanship = between 2 preferred positions, in between ideals -Bush's approach was not true bipartisanship, just convincing other side to vote. Obama tried true bipartisanship but it didn't happen

Progressive ambition

Career in office based on climbing ladder, each step will be based on timing

Party Unity: Primary challenges to incumbents

Challenge if dislike, driven by policy Far fewer serious primary opponents Noticeable dip in late 80s= likelihood of serious challenge goes down over time -Goes along with growing party hegemony

Committee Hearings

Committees make sure maintain committee turf to ensure activity in a certain policy area More behind the scenes stuff that isn't mentioned Information-gathering (substantive and political) Build the public record Symbolism Establish jurisdiction Put together by staff- staff is key! Often real experts on these issues, people work for 20-30 years Hearings rarely change the minds of members of Congress. My experience with the Senate Judiciary Committee's Voting Rights Act hearing in the summer, 2006. Concern about the coverage formula for Section 5. -Witnesses don't actually change minds -Important for informing public not much for members of congress But they can be significant, like the Kavanaugh hearings.

Grimmer and Powell: Committee Exile

Concept of committee exile: involuntary removal from committees that comes with change in party control, when majority party changes you make room for new majority party Impact on behavior: people who are kicked off are bottom of the seniority list, then behave less productive on their lesser committees and spend more time on constituent activities so that they can get elected

Influences on Member Behavior

Constituency: Ambiguities in determining constituent preferences. The division of labor in members' offices: district communication is filtered through various layers of the staff hierarchy. -Do what voters want, hard because get most involved and most informed people's opinions which isn't representative of the whole district, who to be responsive to?, need better sense of district Members' preferences (ideology, religion, career background). -states with same constituents but very different senators (ex Baldwin and Johnson), own preferences have big impact on what they do legislatively Party (leadership and general party identification). Committee membership- Important in guiding kinds of issues member works on Interest groups - link to district is important and makes interest group more powerful President - obviously more influential with own party.

Party Unity: Shared Donor Lists

Dem cluster of sharing, Republican cluster, and Howard Dean Distinct partisan with little overlap Intent by organizations to only share with people of same party

Strategic politicians and the economy

Disjunction between the macro and micro-level findings on the impact of economic variables on congressional elections. There is a strong relationship at the macro level, but not at the micro level. Sort this out by focusing on the calculations of rational politicians and contributors. -How economy/income affects congressional outcomes -Macro → strong relationship (good incumbent party good) -Micro → not!, contradictory, economy strong incumbent candidate recruit strong opposition Strategic politicians and amateurs. The career structure and lateral entry. → Most elections see strong candidates emerging when economy helps their party

The Calculus of Candidacy

E ( ai ) = Pi Ui - Ci Utility of running equals the probability of winning times the benefits of winning, minus the costs. What are the benefits of holding office? The costs? (direct costs and opportunity costs). Prob of winning based off of things like presidential popularity, economic status, etc Benefits include national policy impact, chance to be in majority party, move up career/party ladder Costs of winning include money, personal costs (family, reputation), opportunity costs = family time Impact of probability of winning on the type of candidate who will run. -Party expected to do well will recruit stronger candidates than will party expected to lose

Ideological factions versus "tactical" factions

Ex Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee similar in idea but differ in tactics

The collective dilemma in Congress

Example of the institutional dilemma: reporting campaign finance data in the Senate. Debate on electronic filing of information with the FEC - but finally resolved! Example of the policy dilemma: transportation bill and the "bridge to nowhere" (more on this later). -Individual interest hurts larger interest, Pork barrel politics, push through because it's good for district Enhancing responsiveness, undermining responsibility: changes in norms, campaign finance, media access. -Tension between being responsive to constituents but if you do too much of this it's seen as irresponsible -Campaign finance as public funding, goes down because it gives an advantage to incumbents and they want that advantage -Media becomes easy target to score points while running down the institution of media "Running scared" article: "America's problem of governance is not insufficient responsiveness on the part of its elected leaders. On the contrary, America's problem is their hyper-responsiveness." Agree or disagree? -Too responsive to those who are active and neglect the less interested majority

What do Congressional Leaders do

Formal/Institutional: "Day Job" -Organize the chamber (especially Rules committee is important job): Appoint members to committees, Organize task-forces -Handle the floor agenda: Order of votes, Time of debate, Votes on amendments -Consult and negotiate with the president: make sure president will sign the bill Informal/Partisan -Fundraise: help with smaller races -Party spokespersons: are congressional leader, push party message -Influence members: make sure have votes to ensure party agenda goes through, no real punishment/requirement to vote with party means they need to use influence

Theoretical perspectives on committees: Informational View

Fundamentally different from other views While "rational choice" approach, more in consonance with more traditional views. Uncertainty over policy outcomes. Committees provide information to the floor. Committees will mostly be made up of people who have interests in those topics, but chamber will also want to have more representative committees: heterogeneous rather than homogeneous preferences. -People on committees want to be there, but have different preferences (different perspectives and views of what they want) Committees are responsive to chamber majorities. -More responsive to what the floor wants, seen as "mini-floor" and come to more centrist conclusions -What the median of overall chamber is what you'd expect from that committee -Would expect higher overall productivity (closer proposals to what chamber wants)

What do committees do?: channel ambition

Get ambitious politicians to do hard work in committee because it's necessary to become an expert in an issue

Effect of party unity and ideological extremity on probability of primary opponent

Greater party unity = less likely to face primary More extreme you are = more likely to face challenge (relative to party median)

What do committees do?: provide for representation of groups

Groups called to testify to support important constituency

Congressional Oversight- Tools

Hearings are most obvious but other more integral to legislative process Many tools for oversight in addition to hearings and investigations: -Authorization process: laws actually get written, can write broad/narrow for executive (more oversight later), ex broad good when foreign policy but narrow good to pin down loopholes in regulation -Appropriation process: after it becomes a law you need to pass funding, more leeway or more specific -Inspectors General. In 70 different agencies, from the CIA to all independent regulatory commissions. There to ensure laws are being implemented correctly and audit government policies so they're run correctly -Government Accountability Office. 3,100 employees. The auditing arm of Congress. -Reporting requirements written into law- report back to Congress to say how law is working, written into the law so it must be done -Also, Senate confirmation process, casework, program evaluation, and the ultimate tool: impeachment. →Casework for constituents to make sure the law is working well (lots of complaints on one issue = laws not working), impeachment to remove people

What do Committees Do?: study issues and provide expertise

Hold hearings Work out the details of legislation - write the actual language in "mark-up" sessions. Most important function is to create actual legislation and provide expertise to the process

House/Senate comparisons on committees

House more reliant on committees than the Senate. Senate does more of its work on the floor than the House. -435 members makes it hard to get stuff done, so you need to do it in committee -House more specialized and most work gets done in committee -The House must originate all tax bills, so this gives Ways and Means greater power as the first-mover. However, this isn't always strictly followed. Strike everything but the title of a House bill. Senators hold more committee assignments (3- 5) than House members (1 or 2 generally) -Become specialist on these 1-2 things as opposed to generalist on more things in Senate -Can strike everything but title (technically still a House bill) then stick in whatever senate bill you want

Party factions

How "divided" are the parties internally

Party Unity: Co-voting

How members vote together Currently spread out, often don't have Democrats vote with Republicans (2 distinct tight clusters with basically nothing in between)

Accountability and the legislative process: Doug Arnold and the importance of the potential challenger.

How to account for the fact that most people don't pay attention to politics? How can there be accountability? Challenger activates the latent opinions of the public, so the incumbent has to be responsive even if it looks like the public isn't paying attention. Constituents involved in meaningful way in this theory, typical person doesn't really pay attention to politics. If this is true then how have accountability for actions? → idea of potential challenger (not general or intent public but a potential challenger when casting votes) Responsive even if public isn't paying attention, comes up during election if you vote against constituent interest

Keith Krehbiel's gridlock interval

Ideology system (takes party out of it) Can predict what happens with congress on left to right scale and inclusion of key players Veto pivot- 33rd member to support president's position, anything outside their preference they vote against Filibuster pivot- 40th vote to stop filibuster Anything within the two, can't change policy outside this range (gridlock interval)

Supply-side theory and racial representation

Impact of the racial composition of the candidate pool in the Democratic primary on the type of candidate who wins. Type of representative you get dependent on racial makeup of primary pool If the Dem. primary field is all African American candidates, "commonality" candidate wins. If a white candidate runs, "difference" candidate wins. Why? -Commonality because tyring to appeal to white voters -Difference because saying that white rep won't represent interests (more racially polarized campaign strategy) style of campaigning carries over into the kind of rep

What do committees do?: Provide the institutional basis for credit claiming.

Important for reelection, shows actual thing for credible claim

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18)

Increased defense budget caps by $80 billion in FY2018 and $85 billion in FY 2019, while the non-defense domestic discretionary spending cap was increased by $63 billion in FY2018 and $68 billion in FY2019. Approved funding for previous year (6 months into new Fiscal year)

John Kingdon's model of consensus and roll call voting

Interview-based research. Talked through with Members of Congress the process of making a vote, based on cues of environment/party/etc Cue taking and the "field of forces" Salience of the issue, positions of the relevant actors, important to constituents has different set of considerations Only 7 unexplained cases (most due to cues) Tie Kingdon's theory to the members' goals. Link to the constituency and the reelection goal: the "string of votes" that may get the member in trouble. -Constituents will understand voting against them every once in a while, but not string of voting against their interests

Limits of Congressional Leadership

Limits of Leadership Parties are not zero-sum institutions. Do not shut out the minority party. Fear that the minority party will become the majority party and treat you the same way you treated them. -Can't entirely keep other party from having benefits of legislation (must share them to some extent) -"Shadow of future" → fear that minority party becomes majority party and treats you how you treat them, behave nicely so they'll be nice to you in return No ultimate sanctions - can't hire and fire members, the voters have that power. Therefore must operate through persuasion and incentives. -No control over who serves so it has to be more persuasion and incentive

Madatory vs Discretionary spending

Mandatory (interest on the debt, pensions, entitlements,) versus discretionary spending (everything else). Mandatory is the part that you can't really change (would require big cuts) vs everything else the government does (discretionary)

Race and Representation: Focus on districts that are at least 25% African American

Means significant amount of reelection voters are black, so you'd want to favor them to get reelected (racial representation) Speeches: difference members spend more time than commonality talking about racial issues (except partly racial issues, makes sense that commonality members focus here) Substantive representation: difference from black (13%) to white (1.3%) members on sponsoring legislation Symbolic: white 89% sponsor, Black 47.1% Being black sponsor makes it more likely that your bill will become law -However, symbolic is 0.87, part racial -0.86, racial -0.0023 passing -Being symbolic is fine but when it's substantive then it doesn't do well Commonality members overall more successful getting their things through: endorsement of biracial coalitions, more successful as commonality because congress is very white, bills themselves are more likely to pass and then commonality people are better at attaching themselves to this legislation

Accountability and the legislative process: traceability

Members try to avoid "traceability" on controversial issues. How is this done? Bipartisan commissions, automatic mechanisms, defer to bureaucracy. This can allow more responsible behavior, but not necessarily: closing bases versus pay raises. Bipartisan commissions set up with prominent people on both sides with recommendations and congress votes (takes some responsibility away), auto raises because voting to raise their own salaries is a hard vote so now have to vote not to raise pay, let bureaucracy decide details and just give broad guidelines

Deciding how to participate as a representative

Members' goals impact actions: reelection, policy, power within the institution (Fenno). -Taking no tough positions could mean you look like a wimp and be hated by everyone, which is why it's not done on a regular basis -Ex intensity on both sides, sae vote but don't want ot be attached to it, bad for district Voting (or abstain). When to abstain or not abstain and how viewed? Problems with this? Cosponsor a bill- put your name on someone else's bill = stronger interest Speak on behalf of a bill and try to build coalitions for its passage. Sponsor a bill - actively involved in writing the bill and amendments. Participate at the committee level. Can claim authorship if key to getting bill formed Non-legislative behavior: constituency service

Campaign strategies: social media and the internet

More use of outlets and targeting/using different ways Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram are the big four. Facebook (and email and texting) for fundraising, Twitter for spin and publicity (presidential debates), YouTube and Instagram for essentially free media. -Free media to reach voters, not as targeted (youtube/insta) Many new consultants who focus only on web design and social media for political campaigns. Clearly these are becoming increasingly important in congressional campaigns

Bargaining and coalition building

Nature of bargaining and eventual chances of passing the bill depend on: Topic of the bill - what is at stake? Salience of the bill for the public. Is the public activated? Orphan Drug Act and Quincy television show episodes (Waxman) Number of intense supporters. Who the supporters are - leadership, key committee members, president. Who is flexing institutional muscle Intensity and size of the opposition. Waxman: obstructing the Dingell Clean Air Bill. -One super powerful House member who was super against the bill because it could hurt the car industry, made passage harder

Race and Representation in Congress: Aggregate-level and individual-level

Overall impact of the CBC: cohesion on roll call votes (better to be unified or have diversity?), impact on the passage of legislation, patterns of committee membership, leadership positions. Cohesion of black caucus shows some internal debates, often think unified is better (freedom caucus) but diversity could give power because gives broader range of groups who could help join your coalition (help each other, CBC usually sticks together) Different levels of support between difference and commonality members (about 50 points). Commonality = new and different committee membership and more likely to work with leaders

Why have factions?

Parties assemble broad coalitions by necessity -We have a two-party, plurality-winner system -The "team" that has just one more group/person than the other is the winner Factions inevitable in country with 2 party system that are as large as we are Tricky part is none are membership exclusive, publish membership, tricky to tack

Approaches to studying parties in Congress: Party cartel theory (Cox and McCubbins)

Party cartels usurp the power to make rules governing the structure and process of legislation. -Agenda control in favor of majority party (especially with negative agenda, won't call vote if it splits party); majority party has structural advantages -If you can keep the bad things off the agenda it helps the majority party, unless majority of country agrees and then majority party is seen as obstructionist There are two main consequences: -the legislative process is stacked in favor of majority party interests (especially in terms of negative agenda power: keep things off the agenda that would split the party). -because the majority party has all the structural advantages, the key players in most legislative deals are members of that party and the majority party's central agreements are facilitated by cartel rules and policed by the cartel's leadership. Possible electoral consequences for the majority party?

How Committee members are chosen: transfer requests

Party committees make choices from requests submitted by members. Strategic behavior by members to switch rankings. If you're stuck on a committee you don't want now, you get the chance to switch to a committee you want Then freshmen send in ranked lists, usually followed by those making assignments (especially for important committees for districts). This can be manipulated by listing prestige committees for top two and then your actual #1 after so they'll give you a lower pick.

Explaining polarization in Congress

Patterns within parties: Rs more conservative (M&O). Increased income inequality and immigration: debates about redistributive policies help, correlation between inequality and polarization, and percentage foreign born

Committee Membership: party ratios

Percentage of R/D Renegotiated every Congress There is a bonus given to the majority party, but usually reflect the composition of the body at large -Couple extra seats per committee in the House, the Senate is much more even (threat of filibuster) Special bonus for certain committees House: Committee ratios range from 1.5:1 to 2.25:1 (Rules has 9-4 edge because of importance) for "important" committees, 1.3:1 for most others. -More of a partisan advantage in the House than Senate. Senate: ratios are similar given the 51 (R)- 49 (D) division (1.04:1). Rs have one more seat than Ds on most committees. 2-3 more on important committees.

Agenda Control

Positive and Negative Agenda Power Which of the previous approaches are consistent with positive or negative power? -Positive = distributive -Negative = distributive and partisan Other tools noted above applied to partisan theory: motion to recommit with instructions and discharge petition. Also closed rules as a mechanism for both protecting committees and supporting the party's views. Suspension of the rules can be used as well, but typically only for minor legislation (needs 2/3 support to suspend rules, used for minor and consensual legislation, have to have strong agreement across the board).

Challenges to the party-centered view of Congress: Preference-based theory

Preference-based theory: the median voter is pivotal, or the filibuster pivot in the Senate (parties don't add much to understanding congressional decision making). Also a veto pivot in the House and Senate. Gridlock interval. -Based on ideologies not parties, can explain most of what happens in Congress, median voter ideologically and 60th voter for filibuster, veto pivot vote have power (key players) However, there are preference-based spatial theories that do include parties. Downs: Parties "formulate policies to win elections rather than winning elections to promulgate policies." Parties seek to win elections by sticking closely to the policy preferences of the median voter. However, this doesn't mean that parties in the legislature don't matter

Race and Representation in Congress: How to measure behavior in Congress?

Problems with relying on roll call voting. Selection bias and bias of interest group support scores (exaggerates ideological extremity and mischaracterizes racial issues). -Roll call is traditional strategy but problem is selection bias were select targeted votes when making group score (change things you say are racial but really aren't), only centrist bills have roll call votes so not looking at whole range of representatives behavior Alternative measures of member behavior: cosponsorship and sponsorship of legislation; speeches on the floor, committee assignments, leadership positions. -Qualitative measurements, broader range of behavior of Members of congress, ex speeches on floor → gives better understanding because rhetoric (racialized or neutral) or support etc What do these measures add to the study of racial representation? Which of these measures could be dismissed as "symbolic" behavior? Do they matter anyway? -Bills like House Resolutions that have commemorative or symbolic purpose, usually set aside but could show racial undertones or meaning (ex confederate statues coming down), or who/what to symbolize

Measuring Strength Parties in Congress

Roll-call votes: do co-partisans vote together -Cohesion: difference between the proportion voting yes and proportion voting no, average difference between two sides -Party unity: percent of party voting together Congressional caucuses: do co-partisans caucus together -Formally, but not majority party (ex Freedom Caucus) Legislative co-sponsorship: do co-partisans sponsor the same legislation Policy priorities: do co-partisans emphasize the same issues -Act of selecting what you spend time on is indication of preferences Campaign contributions: do co-partisans receive money from the same set of contributors -Fundraise from same individuals? -Some people shouldn't donate to both Democrats and Republicans

Implications for influence districts and black majority districts.

Rule that influence`is better because representative would be better and have sympathetic white Democrats, but research shows that they won't sponsor or give explicit interest in black issues (not substantive)

Tools of Congressional Leadership

Sanctions - Importance of procedural votes. -Procedural vote → changing rules = more expectation of voting with party, substance difference is fine but if you vote against your party on a procedural vote you will be punished Rewards -Help during next election Setting the Agenda -Negative power: party cartel theory argues that it is most important for leaders to prevent bills from coming to the floor that would divide the party. The "Hastert rule." -Positive power to push party agenda Shaping legislation: direct negotiation, multiple referral, omnibus legislation. -Omnibus → combine popular and tougher votes together into one, easier to vote for overall package -Refer bill to multiple committees to ensure a good chance of passae Influencing outcomes--persuasion, control of the Rules committee, suspension of the rules. -Rayburn and insurance → if you have a close vote have insurance of people who are willing to vote with party. Hold their votes until the end of the close vote if need them to vote they'll vote with party, if the bill win he'd release their votes to vote with district -More extreme tactics: "Black Thursday" and the prescription drug vote → lose roll call then you can't call again until next day, declare it a different day (two Thursdays in one day), held open drug vote for hours when it's normally 15 minutes to try to strengthen votes

Committee Chairs

Seniority system: the practice of reserving the chairs of committees for the most senior member (on that committee). Result of revolt against Joe Cannon- chairs had been controlled by party leadership but revolt to change to seniority Senate: pretty inviolate, with bidding, except under LBJ. LBJ used chairmanships as personal patronage system House more violations. Recently Boehner and Tea Party. -1994: term limits (6 years) plus vote of caucus. The term limit was a big change leading many representatives to retire when losing chairmanship. -Dems abolished the rule

Simpson-Bowles commission

Set up in Obama administration, bipartisan and have different interest groups, what to do with longterm spending problem Tax and entitlement options: their plan was very politically unpopular -The tax plan would have increased taxes by $2.6 trillion. -Plan to cut mandatory spending and defense spending. -Plan to shore up Social Security. Recommendations ignored because no one wants to raise taxes and cut entitlements Did not get anywhere in Congress. The "super committee" created after the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 was another effort to deal with big budget reform, but failed. Contributed to the climate that led to the government shutdown. But it is coming up again now. -Ignored plan because it's unpopular, created another committee in 2011 but this disappeared, last 6 months seeing that huge increase in debt and have to make choices (S-B ideas coming back), tax cuts only make this problem worse

Types of bargaining: Negotiated

Simple logrolling (reciprocity norm) → trade votes Time logrolling → no specific trade but an IOU for future Compromise (Waxman and Bliley on the pesticides bill in 1996; early negotiations in secret) → secret helps with these tough negotiations Side payments (Iraq vote, some trade agreements) → what can do to sweeten policy deal

Influence of committees over policy outcomes varies by three main factors

Size and salience of the policy agenda. Large agendas require committees to be active. Party leaders will take an interest only in issues that many members care about. Less salient, committees can dominate. -Need active committees to make policy happened if large agenda -Less salient agenda when they're especially deferent to committees Majority party strength: homogenous, cohesive parties can dominate committees. Institutional context: House/Senate differences. Senators have more power on the floor.

Campaign strategies: GOTV

Social media and digital ads increased microtargeting, GOTV ensure people vote go door to door talking to voters

Aspects of Floor Behavior: Amending Bills

Special orders or rules (House) and unanimous consent agreements (Senate). Committee of the Whole in the House to consider amendments (under 5 minute rule). May ask for revote of the entire House, but rarely done. Controversy over House delegates in 1993 led to dozens of revotes UCAs for routine things but anyone Senator could stop process Committee of Whole in House used to expedite amending process, 100/435, consider under 5 minutes, can ask for revote but slows things up The amendment tree.

Types of committees

Standing- where most legislation originates Select/special- less common Joint- internal meetings really, don't originate laws Conference- formed from House and Senate committee that passed the legislation to make sure the same bill can pass in both houses in the same form Ad Hoc- less common, can be done for issue of timely importance Joint committees are not very important, but conference committees are crucial for working out differences between different versions of bills that pass the House and Senate.

Historical evolution of the two party system

Straight party ticket, party-centered elections. Progressive reforms (Australian ballot, primaries), candidate-centered elections. Almost always 2 majority parties Plurality elections are major cause of this Straight party tickets (voting one party makes it easier to just vote for one of the two parties and not consider others) Secret (australian) ballot: weakened parties (can't bribe for votes) Primaries = control to voters, candidate-centered elections

Strategic considerations in voting for members of congress

Strategic waiting - when there is a tough vote, leaders may ask members on the fence to wait and make sure their votes are not needed. -Wait until know how it will turn out before casting your own vote Means that winning vote margins should be closer than losing vote margins. Timing of announcing your position on an important vote. Analysis of the NAFTA vote. Why would you wait or announce early? -Ex NAFTA vote: original vote, based on border vs non-border, border district announce decision 35% sooner (less conflicted) vs non-border (more interests, more conflict)

What do Committees Do?

Study issues and provide expertise. Channel ambition. Provide for representation of groups. Provide the institutional basis for credit claiming. Oversight of the executive branch. Subpoena power—compel testimony.

Subcommittees and Their Role

Subcommittees sometimes just smaller versions of committees. -More specialized topics. -Many subcommittees (4-6 usually) for each committee The congressional receptor for the "Iron Triangle" -Congress, executive branch, and interest groups Increasing importance of subcommittees -Since 1973 institutional change by House Dems "Subcommittee bill of rights" in 1973 (House Dems)

What do committees do?: Oversight of the executive branch & purposes of congressional oversight

Subpoena power—compel testimony. Ensure executive branch carrying out laws as intended Check on president Purposes of oversight: -Programmatic: making sure the laws are working as intended, play representative role making sure implementation correct -Political: calling attention to policies opposed by the majority party (House hearings on Obamacare rollout, Benghazi; much at stake if Ds regain majority in two weeks) or support for policies favored by the party (protecting gun rights). →Try to undermine policies and point out problems, also to support your beliefs -Institutional: protect congressional prerogatives. 108 committees and subcommittees have oversight jurisdiction over the Dept. of Homeland Security. -Complex system!

Debt ceiling crisis of 2011

Summer of 2011, showdown over the vote to increase the federal debt ceiling. Typically a routine vote that is the responsibility of the majority party. Republicans in the House refused to pass it without massive cuts in spending. -Neither party wants to be party that votes to raise the ceiling but majority party has to do it, used this as leverage for cuts that they knew democrats wouldn't agree with U.S. government debt was downgraded by bond rating agencies on credit, the stock market fell, measures of volatility jumped, and credit risk spreads widened. -Red flags in economy because it looked like default on debt was imminent Finally a compromise. Passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 2, 2011 (with bipartisan support). Created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or "Super Committee," that was supposed to recommend $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures over 10 years. The committee deadlocked. -Concession to Republicans who weren't happy, looked at cutting entitlement spending -deadlock = no recommendations (didn't work out)

Explaining polarization for the mass public

The media (more segmented cable news rather than network news). -Watch what you agree with -Accidental learning = learn centrist perspective about politics because to watch TV you had to watch news The internet ("ideological silos" and Google searches). Responding to polarized elites—role of money. -Elites and campaigns and money polarized, public respond Geographic sorting: more homogenous communities

Theories of Congressional Parties: Aldrich and Rohde conditional party government

The more parties are ideologically unified, the more able they are to enact "positive" policy changes When members are ideologically similar, they can "trust" that the leadership will enact policies that are favored Members are then willing to delegate substantial authority to their leaders under certain circumstances (when ideologically coherent within party and distant ideology in other party) -Under these circumstances believe that leaders will enact things you'll agree with; want to be able to sustain party brand (majority one party agenda = distinguish from opposing party) This authority is revoked during periods when parties are internally divided

How Committee members are chosen

Transfer Requests Formal and informal constraints -Property rights -Allocation restrictions -Senate: Johnson rule -House: exclusive, semi-exclusive, nonexclusive

Republican Factions

Tuesday Group (moderate republicans, tend to be NE and W coast, pro-business, more socially liberal) -Outnumber HFC but more informal, don't always vote together so not as impactful Freedom Caucus (very right wing, sizable number if all wanted to defeat something) Republican Study Committee (conservative but with eye towards winning voters)

Types of bargaining: Non-negotiated

Unilateral action (leadership summits) → bring party leaders together to hash out details, usually done when need to pass something quickly, just work out with leaders not a ton of negotiation with members of congress Anticipated reaction (same, but leaders take into account preferences of others) → take into account preferences of other when making the details, not one on one but takes it into account

Types of votes

Voice vote- yell aye or nay, loudest wins, determined by chair, if disagreement can call for roll call, leaders use when difficult vote for party division vote- stand and are counted, some accountability but not recorded so worse than voice but less than recorded if issue splits party recorded vote (electronic voting system in the House, manual roll calls in the Senate)- actual roll call, little card into voting box records yes or no in senate they actually call the roll 44 House members and 11 senators may call for a roll call (one-fifth of a quorum; 25 House members needed in the Committee of the Whole). When would this be done? Roll calls in the House are held open for 15 minutes, but usually takes longer in the Senate

Weak or Strong Parties/Leaders today?

Weak parties? -No formal whip system: keep track of votes but no punishment for voting against party -No control over party nominations: can't remove people from running as a Democrat if you go against the party -Substantially weaker control over party resources: not all Dem money at leaders but it is informal influence -Overall, a lesser reliance by individual members on the formal party apparatus: resources, how to vote, etc are weaker Strong? Compared to 2-3 decades ago -Modern day party unity is relatively high, especially given the absence of a formal whip system -Negative agenda control is particularly strong; parties are unwilling to risk their members (Very strong power, Very few times "backbench" forces an issue using discharge petitions) The Party Still Decides? -No formal control over nominations, but strong evidence that leadership has lots of control over party primaries (especially true for Congress)

Campaign strategies: reaching voters

ads, yard signs/bumper-stickers, door to door, robocalls, rallies. Ads and traditional methods door to door has biggest per dollar impact (personal connection)

Aspects of Floor Behavior: Calendars

bills move from the committees to calendars, from which they are called up in order. Non-controversial bills are considered under "suspension of the rules" (Orphan Drug Act and food labeling, Waxman book). Controversial bills are usually considered under a "rule." Leaders can postpone and change order, suspend rules to expedite process for non controversial bills, controversial under "rules" because leader wants more power over how it proceeds

Campaign strategies: on campaign message

combination of positive and negative. Choosing issues and playing to your strengths. Mix positive/negative, play to strengths in background, playing up middle class/military background, negative ads give reason to vote against incumbents

Campaign strategies: fundraising

dialing for dollars. Outside groups. Spend up to 50% of time on campaigns dialing for dollars outside groups increasingly important

"Subcommittee bill of rights"

done in in 1973 (House Dems) Written jurisdictions- actually know right of each Subcommittee, know where bills go, fair split Members given rights to pick memberships and bid for chairmanships More autonomy from the chair of the committee (could call meetings without approval of chair) Minority party guaranteed some staff (reversed in 1995, now determined by majority party) Hearings would be open, unless closed by a majority vote- new baseline norm, could be closed by majority vote

Fiscal Cliff

earlier budget deal, automatic cuts that would happen if no budget fix, cut to fill holes

Duverger's law for elections and other institutional factors

elections and other institutional factors, such as the committee system, promote the two-party system. Makes it hard for third parties to get into office and then they have to caucus with one of the major parties if they want to have any power. Single member and winner take all = two party system Idea of wasted vote: no representation unless you win the most votes (proportional representation helps get people from your party elected even if haven't won majority of vote) Would need proportional representation if want change

Campaign strategies: on type of candidate

incumbent, challenger, or open seat? Challenger clearly has the tougher task: give voters a reason to vote against the incumbent and vote for you. Distinguishing feature, easier for incumbents, challenger fighting uphill battle

Democratic factions

known for broad based coalition of supporters Blue Dog Democrats (powerful conservative factions) New Democrats (out of fashion, came in under clinton, pro-business Dems) Progressive Caucus (left-wing) Black Caucus (prominent among House and Senate Dems

Aspects of Floor Behavior: Deliberation

makes policies more legitimate, educates the public, and helps Congress reach intelligent decisions. Many obstacles to good deliberation. How speeches are taken and how it affects deliberation, more for show and public then convincing other members of Congress, should theoretically help make policy better but normally happens (members of Congress don't have time to be on floor and have actual debates), not always historically true (more committee assignments now, etc) Through 20th century, filibuster rare. Increases through 70-90s, big jump after 2000 House → rule attached to bill to regulate debate and amendments (except those included), called modified closed rule (closed rule = no amendments involved)

Other ways to categorize committees

more the way that members think about them: prestige, policy, constituency, and undesired. Prestige committees are exclusive Constituency committees vary (agriculture, armed services/VA, natural resources, small business) Policy committees (ex oversight, judiciary, homeland security, etc)

Changes Made by House Republicans after 1994

most of these upheld by Dems in 2007 Committees eliminated Proxy voting and rolling quorums banned Committees must publish roll call votes on all bills and amendments. Meetings may be closed to the public only when absolutely necessary. All committees open to broadcast coverage & still photography. Multiple referrals eliminated.

Budget deficit/surplus definition

net revenue minus spending. Usually a deficit Spend > take in = deficit Take in and spend = surplus

Who are the Congressional Leaders: Informal/Partisan

not specified in constitution, operate in partisan side of politics Majority/Minority Leaders The Whips: deputy leaders, #2 -at-large (work with general body) and regional whips (represent one area and are responsible for those votes). Conference/Caucus Chairs: manage overall party caucus, what rank and file members want, communicate with leadership, for Dems this is the same as the minority leader Policy chair: research policy for the party Campaign Committee Chairs Recently: Assistant Leaders? -Especially on Democratic side (House side makes up for extra leadership slot when become minoirites). Also Senate 2014 election to avoid infighting, add new post -Republicans have done a very good job moving people through ranks and not just having one person in for decades (Ds more solid leadership because they're in power)

Debt ceiling

overall limit of how much US can borrow, increase by vote every few years Use budget process as tool for high level conflict Often used to put pressure on spending cuts, legally can't borrow over this unless raised, if hit ceiling and don't increase could default on debt (government would literally be bankrupt), game of chicken

Theories of Congressional Parties: Cox and McCubbins negative agenda control

parties are, at most, able to enact "negative" agenda control (can at least block legislation) The party "brand" is a shared resource individual members need in order to successfully seek re-election -Protect brand= block legislation that doesn't help party, muddle brand if it's going to divide party To maintain this brand, members are willing to delegate agenda control authority to leadership In exchange for authority, leaders will ensure that no policy will be considered unless it enjoys the support of the majority of the party (Hastert rule)

Theoretical perspectives on committees: Partisan perspective

party > committee, based on what's best for the party Conditional party government - MCs will not delegate broad power to leaders if their preferences are heterogeneous within the party, only if they are homogenous and there are differences with the other party. -Policy would be were majority party median is Prevent committee chairs from blocking bills. Make committees more responsive to the party caucus (rather than the floor median). -Took away some gatekeeping powers of committees, now responsive to party chairs as opposed to committee chairs Rules committee as the arm of the leadership. (9-4 for majority) Bypass committees - leadership task forces, bring right to the floor w/o committee consideration, post-committee adjustments, control of the appropriations committee. Increasingly important in settling House/Senate differences: bypass conference committees. The "Hastert Rule" - would not bring a bill to the floor for a vote unless it was supported by a majority in his party (even if a large majority of the House supported it). None of these things are consistent with distributive or informational theories

Party influence in who runs for office

party has a stake in trying to recruit the best candidates to run for office. Have interest in recruiting the best candidates to run, hard to win even if opportune conditions if no good candidates Direct Recruitment → try to find people directly, help with fundraising and other efforts Negative recruitment (Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak, "The 60th Democrat") → discourage people from running

The opportunity structure

pattern of office holding in a given state or for a given office. The layering of local, state, and federal office. Open or relatively closed: weak party systems versus party machines. -Varies from state to state based on strong/weak party system -In a strong party system you have to work your way up, in a weak system it's relatively open and don't have to work up

Approaches to studying parties in Congress: Responsible party government

policy commitments to the electorate: candidates run on a unified national platform. willingness and ability to implement promises (unified government is implied). strong opposition party to allow accountability when necessary. sufficient differences between the parties to provide meaningful choices. Call for stronger parties (especially Congress) and make them more responsible for this, if don't follow national platform not elected, only works with unified government, strong minority party with alternate platform to challenge majority party when needed, sufficient differences between parties

Who are the Congressional Leaders: Formal/Institutional

presiding officers Speaker of the House (de facto party leader) - only Constitutionally mandated position in the house President of the Senate (Vice President, leader of chamber that's not elected to Congress) President Pro Tempore

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA)

reduced tax rates for businesses and individuals; increased the standard deduction and family tax credits, but eliminated personal exemptions and making it less beneficial to itemize deductions; limiting deductions for state and local income taxes (SALT) and property taxes and mortgage interest. Ryan's crowning achievement Limiting deductions → blue states with higher taxes now pay more burden of federal taxes TCJA is projected to add about $230 billion to the deficit this year, including its effects on interest costs and economic growth. CBO estimated it would add $1.891 trillion to in debt over 10 years (dynamic scoring). BBA18 is projected to add another $190 billion this year. -Effort to lower corporate tax rates to keep corporations here and paying taxes here as opposed to offshoring -Tax cuts have added to economic growth, but creates long-term problem of greater debt

The role of the conference committee

the conference committee as the source of committee power. The floor defers to committees because the "ex post veto power" that standing committee members exercise by controlling the conference committee. Conference reports cannot be amended. -Main explanation for why committees were powerful -Conference committees dominated by standing committees (standing members work off Conference committees and shape agreed upon version), then couldn't be amended and take Conference committee report as final version, when Conference committees were strong it was important source of power for committees -Now more of a ping pong between chamber leadership → more majority party median wins In practice, party leadership has exercised stronger control over conference committees. Work out deals within the party before the conference committee meets - the "disappearing conference." In 1973, 25% of all laws went through conference; in 2012 only 3%. Resolve differences through "ping pong" amending, accept other chamber's version.

Federal debt definition

the total accumulation of budget deficits. How much owed in total, built up overtime, not probably until it becomes too big Danger point when more debt than the size of the economy (GDP)

Majority and minority party "roll rates"

who wins roll call votes, the majority party or minority party? Studies of roll call voting showed that the majority party rarely gets rolled - this was seen as strong evidence of negative agenda power. However, recent work that focuses on all bills, not just those with roll call votes, reaches different conclusion. 44 major pieces of legislation from 1937-1952 were opposed by the majority party. How often does majority party lose? Not often- evidence of negative agenda power, don't let a bill onto the floor if a majority of the majority party doesn't agree (Hastert Rule) If the majority party has a vote they know they're going to lose, they do a voice vote because it wouldn't appear that the majority party lost. 44 bills were opposed by a majority of the majority party were passed during this time