PS 104 real 3

COLAs (cost of living adjustments)

For workers who have automatic raises (COLAs) as part of their basic pay package, moderate inflation is not a problem. adjustments given to employees to offset the increases in the prices of goods and services they purchase and to keep salaries from lagging behind the external market

the civil rights movement for Women

When the original Constitution was being written, John Adam's wife, Abigail Adams, implored her husband to include women in the document. However, the founders did not heed her advice, and equal rights for women was not achieved until the twentieth century. Originally, the idea of "protectionism" was used to deny rights to women. This was the idea that a women was weak and needed a man to protect her, so she must be excluded from certain parts of society and remain dependent on a husband. In 1919, the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, which gave women the right to vote. Unfortunately, women remained dependent on men, and they continued to face discrimination in society. Eventually, the fourteenth amendment was passed, which declared that the equal protection of the laws would be guaranteed to every citizen. The clause on gender was initially included by a southern segregationist who thought that it would make the bill fail, but, of course, it did not. Unfortunately, the gender clause of this doctrine was not actually used to protect women until the 1960s. When it finally started being enforced, women saw progress in sports, education, and the workplace. Today, the Court also applies intermediate scrutiny to cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. Another important attempt to secure women's rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, fell short of just a few states needed to ratify the Constitution. Gender and Civil Rights -Reed v. Reed (1971), Moritz v. Commissioner (1972), Craig v. Boren (1976). Role of RBG in 1972 case. (2018 move, "On the Basis of Sex" with Felicity Jones). Moved toward equal protection for women. -Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the "reasonable basis" test. Legislative protections -The EEOC didn't start enforcing the gender aspect of the law until the late 1960s. -Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act. Crucial for women's sports. UW athletics became compliance with Title IX in 2001. Women's hockey team and cutting many non-revenue men's sports, such as baseball, was a response to Title IX. Club volleyball tournament in Louisville. -The Equal Rights Amendment. Passed Congress in 1972. Fell short of the 3/4 (38 states) needed for ratification by a couple of states. APT women were not given right to vote in Constitution Until the early twentieth century, women in most parts of the country could not hold office, serve on juries, bring lawsuits in their own name, own property, or serve as legal guardians for their children. A woman's identity was so closely tied to her husband that if she married a noncitizen she automatically gave up her citizenship! women were too frail in the business world and needed to be protected by men. protectionism served in many court cases to deny women rights the Nineteenth Amendment, giving women the right to vote, was finally passed in 1919 and ratified in 1920 Lecture Outline: Women and civil rights -Women were not given the right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment, in 1920. -Preventing women from having equal rights was rationalized through protectionism, the idea that women should be denied certain rights for their own safety or well-being.

Supreme Court's rulings on Obamacare.

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in 2012, the Supreme declared that the ACA was constitutional. However, instead of upholding the individual mandate on the basis of the Commerce Clause, as supporters had argued, it upheld it on the basis of Congress's power to tax. On the other hand, it ruled that Congress could not force the states to accept the expansion of Medicaid. This coercion was deemed to be an unacceptable use of Congress's spending power, meaning some states were able to choose not to follow this provision of the law. Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate. The Court also limited the expansion of Medicaid initially proposed under the ACA. All provisions of the ACA continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion.[38] Globalization refers to "the diffusion of interests and ideologies across national borders. Supporters of globalization believe that it will encourage "universal human rights" and "global economic development," which would clearly aid democracy and be extremely beneficial for everyone. On the other hand, critics believe that globalization will lead to a "one word government" where everyone has to answer to officials and bureaucrats. This side clearly believes that it would harm democracy as national sovereignty would become obliterated. Others believe that it will lead to a world where countries are controlled by a few multinational companies, which would harm democracy by removing institutional structures through which the people would be able to have a voice and harming the economy. These companies would have lax environmental regulations, few job protections, low wages, and generally exploit workers in order to guarantee high profits for themselves. In the 2016 presidential election, global trade was a central part of Donald Trump's platform. He criticized the Trans Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying that they were "horrible deals." He claimed that these agreements allowed other countries to export more to the U.S. than they were importing to it, which meant that they were taking advantage of us and hurting American jobs. Not only that, but countries like China have looser environmental standards, lower labor costs, and less regulation, which encourages companies to "shift jobs overseas." As globalization has increased, many workers who are employed by these companies have lost their jobs. However, "free trade has been a centerpiece of global economic policy for decades." Supporters argue that enacting protectionist policies for specific industries affected by globalization ends up hurting the economy more overall. In other words, the loss of jobs in these sectors is not worth creating trade barriers (tariffs) to protect because the positive gains in those sectors are offset by the larger negative effects on the general economy. Tariffs (taxes on imports) create inefficiencies, increase costs of goods, and reduce citizens' overall wealth. Soros states that the world is becoming "increasingly interdependent." While economic globalization is keeping up with this trend, political globalization is lagging behind. Mots and capital are able to "move freely across national boundaries," but, sadly, this has not happened for political institutions. He argues that while we have formed worldwide political organizations, they are dependent on how much power individuals states are willing to give up, which has limited their scope of influence. He proposes creating "a global open economy," which would encourage stable financial and political institutions. Not only that, but all countries would see their needs met instead of just those of industrialized nations. At the moment, industrialized nations control international markets, and they have "excessive faith in the magic of the marketplace," which is preventing them from pursuing global unity. Soros asserts that if the United States took the led on this issue, it would have a high chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the country "jealousy guards its sovereignty," and until this situation changes (which may never happen), "an open-society alliance" is extremely unlikely. If it ever did come about, Soros states that this could be a good "opportunity to reform the United Nations." Bailey is in favor of globalization, and he believes that it is extremely beneficial. In his article, he examines different research on the results of the growing "free movement of goods, capital, and even people, across borders." He claims that the research demonstrates that globalization has had positive effects on almost every aspect of society: world trade, economic growth, child labor, likelihood of military conflict-free trade, general equality, job prospects, productivity, environmental protection, overall wealth, individual income, and life expectancy. In the end, he argues that "all of this open movement of people and stuff across borders" has clearly paid off.

the Federal Reserve Board

pursues full employment and stable prices -Another tool of economic policy includes monetary policy. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 to regulate the nation's financial and banking industries. It is governed by the Federal Reserve Board. Five Governors of the 12 Federal Reserve banks serve on the Board, and it is led by the Chair (currently Jerome Powell). This organization is independent from Congress and the President, meaning it is not subject to Congressional or Presidential review. The members of the board are also not as easily influenced by politics because they each serve 14 year overlapping and rotating terms. The chair is appointed by the President every four years (with approval from the Senate), so there is a little bit of influence there. The FED is in charge of monetary policy. This includes influencing interest rates and controlling the money supply, which, in turn, determine inflation and economic growth. With interest rates, the FED can only indirectly have influence because expectations for inflation set long term interest rates. In other words, if people expect inflation to increase a lot over a long period of time, they will demand higher interest rates. However, they can influence the discount rate, which is the interest rate the FED charges to member banks for short-term loans. This has an indirect impact on consumer rates because if member banks are able to get loans at a lower interest rate, they will have less of an incentive to charge borrowers higher interest rates. This can encourage investments and economic growth. The FED also has tools to control the supply of money, which directly affects inflation. For example, the reserve requirement is the amount set by the FED that banks must keep in their reserves. If the FED lowers the reserve requirement, that means that banks are able to lend out more money, which increases the money supply and increases inflation. On the other hand, the FED can also use open market policies. This includes buying and selling government securities or treasury bonds. Selling bonds takes money out of the economy and decreases inflation. When the FED buys bonds on a large enough scale, it is said to be "printing money" or using quantitative easing to spur economic activity. The FED has also influenced the federal funds rate, the overnight rate that member banks lend to each other, which can have indirect affects on consumer rates. APT The Federal reserve: An independent agency that serves as the central bank of the US to bring stability to the nation's banking system -The Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977 gave the Fed a dual mandate of pursuing stable prices and maximum employment. The chair, vice-chair, and five other governors serve on the Federal Reserve Board. The governors have 14-year overlapping terms and are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. -responsible for monetary policy=includes influencing interest rates and the money supply, and regulating the lending activity of member banks -there are 12 regional FED banks -the regional banks lend money to banks, hold reserves for them, supply currency and coins, buy and sell government securities, and report on the state of the economy in their respective regions. -political independence, not subject to congressional or presidential review, can literally create its own money so not reliant on Congress -The Fed's primary source of income is interest on the Treasury securities it owns. Online an independent agency of the federal government established in 1913 to regulate the nation's banking and financial industry A seven-member board that sets member banks reserve requirements, controls the discount rate, and makes other economic decisions.

containment D

An important feature of American Cold War policy in which the United States used diplomatic, economic, and military strategies in an effort to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding its influence. obligation to prevent the spread of communism

How does globalization provide challenges to democracy? (Soros in TED) pg 507

Globalization refers to "the diffusion of interests and ideologies across national borders. Supporters of globalization believes that it will encourage "universal human rights" and "global economic development." On the other hand, critics believe that globalization will lead to a "one word government" where everyone has to answer to officials and bureaucrats and national sovereignty is obliterated. Others believe that it will lead to a world where countries are controlled by a few multinational companies. These companies would have lax environmental regulations, few job protections, low wages, and generally exploit workers in order to guarantee high profits for themselves. Soros states that the world is becoming "increasingly interdependent." While economic globalization is keeping up with this trend, political globalization is lagging behind. Mots and capital are able to "move freely across national boundaries," but, sadly, this has not happened for political institutions. He argues that while we have formed worldwide political organizations, they are dependent on how much power individuals states are willing to give up, which has limited their scope of influence. He proposes creating "a global open economy," which would encourage stable financial and political institutions. Not only that, but all countries would see their needs met instead of just those of industrialized nations. At the moment, industrialized nations control international markets, and they have "excessive faith in the magic of the marketplace," which is preventing them from pursuing global unity. Soros asserts that if the United States took the led on this issue, it would have a high chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the country "jealousy guards its sovereignty," and until this situation changes (which may never happen), "an open-society alliance" is extremely unlikely. If it ever did come about, Soros states that this could be a good "opportunity to reform the United Nations." -Bailey and Soros talk about globalization. Soros economic vs political globalization are out of sync. especially now in the world with COVID 19, importance of multilateral relationships (testing and vaccine research), important. can not only work within your border. relationships can be very important for disasters in the future. never know when you need someone's help. really thinks they should be a broad organization that deals with globalization. should include non governmental members and head of state. need to come together because it'll help advance ideas. "Washington will have to undergo a significant change of heart." -Bailey favors trade across borders. counters Trump's stance. free movement of goods. summarizes good things that have come from this. less child labor, faster economic growth, more trees, more productive workers, other...good to see both sides of the issue. Soros, an investor who made billions of dollars in currency speculation and is now a philanthropist who promotes democracy, believes that economic globalization and political globalization are out of sync: although capital and mots move freely across national boundaries, political institutions do not. A global "open society" would, in his view, insure that the political and social Neds of all countries are met (not simply the needs of industrialized nations, whose interests tend to dominate international mkts), and would foster the development of stable political and financial institutions. This would require a broad international organization, either as part of the UN or as an independent institution. It would have to be based on the idea that certain interests transcend questions of national sovereignty.

What are tensions between foreign policy making and democracy? Who are the key players in making foreign policy? (lecture and APT Ch.17).

What are tensions between foreign policy making and democracy? -Democracy and creating successful foreign policy are often at odds with one another. With foreign policy, you "need to speak with one voice." In other words, you need to be consistent in order to establish good relationships with allies and deter potential adversaries. When Trump was elected President, he declared that he was going to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. This, of course, did not happen as Congress refused to support this initiative, and it hurt U.S. relations with Mexico. Not only that, but being unable to speak with one voice often makes foreign policy more inefficient as it is difficult to come up with a decisive plan of action. In other words, the baseline of democracy is that power is not concentrated in one institution, meaning multiple voices have a say in policy making. Unfortunately, this often does not translate well for foreign policy. Furthermore, discretion is often key for foreign policy. During the Vietnam war, the Pentagon choose to "lie to the people" or spread misinformation because they believed it to be necessary for their foreign policy goals. This is not consistent with expectations of democracy, and it angered many citizens. Centralization is also important for good foreign policy. Decisions need to be made by small groups of people. For example, decisions about how to deploy troops are much more difficult when you have a large group of people in charge. This helps keep the process efficient, and it protects the secrecy of these discussions. Sadly, this is not consistent with the democratic idea of checks and balances and decentralization. Finally, with foreign policy, secrecy is often essential. Obviously, we do not want other countries to get their hands on war plans and other classified information. However, democracies are meant to be open with debates and struggles among institutions. With some information being kept from the public, these types of open debates are hindered. The way that our government is set up means that foreign policy is unlikely to be consistent. This is mostly due to the requirement of decentralized leadership and the necessity of classified information. -Difficult to speak with one voice. Buildup to the war in Iraq and the voices of dissent. Dissent within the Obama administration on Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran and Trump's White House on many issues. Foreign policy and democracy -Unlikely to be consistent: trade policy is a great example. Bipartisanship doesn't hold. -Requirement of decentralized leadership. Don't want president unilaterally making foreign policy (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, trade policy). -Classified information and the need for openness. CIA's secret budget, extraordinary renditions. Who are the key players in making foreign policy? (lecture and APT Ch.17). -The President and the executive branch are the key players in American foreign policy. Within the EOP, the National Security Council (NSC) is the principal foreign policy agency. They present to and develop foreign policy options for the President. Within the executive branch, the Department of State is the most important foreign policy department, and it handles a wide range of issues and services. Other essential department includes the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA (intelligence gathering), and the NSA. The constitution is rather vague about the limits of executive power when it comes to foreign policy, which has allowed the theory of unilateral presidential power to develop. This theory essentially states that the President has control over the entire executive branch, meaning it has almost unlimited authority in foreign policy making. Today, the President typically takes a leading role. For example, they often negotiate executive agreements or treaties with other nations, use executive order to change policy, or "mobilize public opinion to prompt action by Congress." They also are able to appoint people to departments and agencies in the hopes of influencing foreign policy by putting someone into office who holds their views. However, Congress and the Courts also play a part. Within Congress, committees such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House Committee on Foreign affairs are in charge of drafting foreign policy legislation. Congress also has the power to declare war on other nations, the Senate's power to confirm appointments of senior members of the president's foreign policy team, approve treaties, and the power of the purse. Regulations, laws, and presidential actions regarding foreign policy are also able to be declared unconstitutional by the federal courts if a case is brought to them (exercise judicial review). Interest groups outside of the federal government are also able to influence elected officials through lobbying in order to convince them to pass legislation that fits with their group's goals. Additionally, the media is able to influence foreign policy by bringing attention to certain issues, and how they represent them also makes a difference. Finally, "foreign policy decision are sensitive to public opinion." However, as public opinion is often difficult to discern (many Americans are confused by foreign policy), it is not always able to have a huge influence. -President Trump, National Security Advisor: Mike Pompeo. other positions have had a lot of turnover: trump does not take advice well, need to have a stable foreign policy team/it is being hurt right now The president can negotiate treaties or executive agreements with other nations, change policy through executive orders or findings, mobilize public opinion to prompt action by Congress, and shape foreign policy by appointing people to agencies and departments that administer these policies presidents do not act on their own. The federal courts The federal courts exercise judicial review, determining whether laws, regulations, and presidential actions are consistent with the Constitution. Groups outside the federal government Interest groups (including those representing foreign governments) work to convince elected officials and bureaucrats to implement foreign policy changes in line with their group's goals. The media coverage is a prime source of information about domestic and foreign policy for most Americans, but opinions are not driven solely by the media's representation of an issue. Public Opinion Foreign policy decisions are sensitive to public opinion, but public opinion is not always reflected in foreign policy because public opinion is difficult to measure. Politicians sometimes follow their own agendas. Many Americans lack knowledge about other countries. Intergovernmental Organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, and International Organizations America's relationship with the rest of the world is not just about government action. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are private institutions (rather than governments) that promote growth, economic development, and other agendas throughout the world. Members provide information and humanitarian assistance and carry out other activities that the United States is unwilling to. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations are composed of sovereign states. FOREIGN POLICY MAKERS The president and the executive branch The president is the dominant actor in American foreign policy. The principal foreign policy agency in the EOP is the National Security Council (NSC), which focuses on developing foreign policy options for presentation to the president. The Department of State is the principal foreign policy department in the executive branch and undertakes a wide range of services. The Department of Defense follows the concept of civilian control, carrying out military actions ordered by civilian leaders. The Department of Homeland Security was founded after the 9/11 attacks to provide domestic security. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA are primarily responsible for government intelligent gathering. How Much Foreign Policy Power Does the President Have? The president's dominance in foreign policy lies in the theory of unilateral presidential power and the constitutional ambiguity regarding limits of executive powers. Congress Several groups within Congress participate in making policy, including the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which write legislation that deals with foreign policy. Congress holds three types of influence over foreign policy: the power of the purse, the power to declare war on other nations, and the Senate's power to approve treaties and confirm the appointments of senior members of the president's foreign policy team. The president is the dominant actor in American foreign policy.35 The president can negotiate treaties or executive agreements with other nations, change policy through executive orders or findings, mobilize public opinion to prompt action by Congress, and shape foreign policy by appointing people to agencies and departments that administer these policies presidents do not act on their own. Staff throughout the executive branch play key roles in defining as well as implementing policy options, Within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the principal foreign policy agency is the National Security Council (NSC), which develops foreign policy options and presents them to the president. The principal foreign policy department in the executive branch is the Department of State. The Department of Defense carries out military actions as ordered by civilian authorities Department of homeland security: after 9/11 created. The department's responsibilities are to secure America's borders, prevent future terrorist attacks, and coordinate intelligence gathering. Agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) are primarily responsible for government intelligence gathering. imperial presidency?These complaints reflect a simple truth: presidents dominate the making of American foreign policy. Congress holds three types of influence over foreign policy. The first is the power of the purse Second, the Senate has the power to approve treaties and confirm the appointments of senior members of the president's foreign policy team Third, the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war on other nations media public opinion interest groups Instruments of Foreign Policy Policy making institutions-Relative roles for the President, Congress, and Courts.-State Dept., CIA, NSC, and Pentagon also play key roles.-Trump's team is conservative, strongly anti-Islam: Robert O'Brien—National Security Adviser; Mike Pompeo—State; Chad Wolf (acting)—Homeland Security; Richard Grenell (acting)—Director of National Intelligence, Mark Esper --Defense. Four of the five have turned over in the past year. Tools of foreign policy making:-Diplomacy, the United Nations, international monetary system (IMF, World Bank), economic aid, collective security, and military deterrence.

What does it mean to be American? What are the implications for civil rights of how you answer this question? (Warshawsky and Jones, et al. in TED). pg 34

What does it mean to be American? -Warshawsky does not believe that there are any physical attributes that make you American. Instead, he believes that the answer to the question "must be found in the realm of ideology and culture." In other words, he believes that there is an "American way of life" that is centered "around a commonly held set of ideas." Belief in equality, religious freedom, a common language, property rights, limited government, and liberty are the main ideals shared by Americans. He also does not believe that simply moving to the U.S. makes you an American. He argues that a Chinese or Mexican citizen can not simply pick up their things, move to the U.S., and then immediately become American. While our country has always been a "nation of immigrants," he does not believe that we should have to adapt to other groups of people when they come to America. Instead, immigrants should have to fully adapt to our way of life in order to truly become "an American." Finally, he asserts that while there may not be a direct answer to what it means to be American, we should not stray too far from "the principles of the Founders." If we do, "we will cease to be 'American' in any meaningful sense of the word." -liberalism, being an American means assimilating to this culture, anyone can become an American but have to do this. -On the other hand, Jones believes that what it means to be an American is constantly evolving. He discusses Americans' views on complex subjects through the results of opinion survey data. According to Jones, when new groups come to America, it takes at least one generation for them to adapt to our way of life. In turn, these immigrants "change the nature of what it means to be American." He calls this "a pattern of the classic American bargain." In other words, later generations of Americans will contain new features from this combination as they change each other. Growing diversity in our society suggests that the question of what is means to be American will only become more complex. Not only that, but increased polarization surrounding these topics also means that this question will most likely not be completely answered anytime soon. However, Jones finds hope in the fact that most immigrants have been able to adapt to American society, as the data shows, and they have, in turn, had a mostly positive effect on our country's growth. In the end, he argues that the answer to this question "depends on when it is asked" and who you ask. What are the implications for civil rights of how you answer this question? (Warshawsky and Jones, et al. in TED). The events of September 11, 2001, created for most Americans a profound sense of national unity. Jones argues that survey data reports that "Americans continue to grapple with issues of security, tolerance, religious freedom, and pluralism-matters that lie at the heart of what it means to be American." Public opinion data show the country embracing diversity and tolerant,e but also divided along sharp political lines. The authors suggest that these political differences may create problems beyond the inevitable tensions that emerge in a diverse and dynamic society. In their conclusion, they argue that what it means to be an American has been evolving. They portray a pattern of "the classic American bargain" where new groups "become American" over a generation or two, adopting the language and culture and customs of Americans. These groups, in turn, change the nature of what it means to be an American, and later groups become American in this newly revised seas, and they themselves revise what it means to be American. what it means to be American depends on when the question is asked. Warshawsky argues that American identity centers around a commonly held set of ideas that can be considered the American way of life. This way of life includes belief in liberty, equality, property rights, religious freedom, limited government, and a common language for conducting political and economic affairs. Although America has always been a nation of immigrants, from the original European settlers to the mass immigration of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he sees assimilation into American political culture as crucial to American national identity. He also notes that America, including the scope and reach of government, has changed dramatically over time. Warshawsky asks whether these changes have also changed what it means to be an American. He argues this is a difficult question but concludes that straying too far from the principles of the Founders mean "we will cease to be 'American' in any meaningful sense of the word." we should not have to change our society to fit immigrants, they should have to become American. hated this.

Great Society and New Deal programs

During the Civil War era, social policies usually targeted widows of veterans and the "deserving poor." These policies were usually funded by private charities, such as churches. However, this changed after the Great Depression. President Herbert Hoover had decided to stick to minimal government intervention. However, the people did not believe that his policies had done enough to help them get out of their desperate economic situations, so they elected FDR as President. FDR promised "a new deal for the American people in which the federal government would actively confront the problems of the depression." In the 1930s, he initiated his New Deal programs, which created Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The main goals of these policies were to create job programs, support farmers, reinvigorate the business sector, and fund emergency aid for the poor. Perhaps the most important contribution of these programs was the creation of Social Security. Today, this program is viewed in mostly a positive light by most Americans and both political parties. In the end, FDR changed U.S. social policy forever. While some of these programs faded over time, most of them have become an integral part of our social policies. Continuously, the next leap for social policy came during the Great Society during the 1960s. During this time, President Lyndon Johnson created Medicaid, Medicare, Model cities, VISTA, food stamps, the Secondary Education Act, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and public housing. These policies were influenced by two factors, the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty. During this time, African Americans advocated for fair treatment in housing and education, among other things, so these policies aimed to address these racial inequalities found in our society. However, these social policies faced a lot of resistance from conservatives, and funding for these programs was hindered by the costs of the Vietnam War. Great Society (1960s): Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, VISTA, Model cities, public housing, Secondary Education Act, Office of Economic Opportunity. APT stock market crash and Great Depression created a desperate economic situation Republican president Herbet Hoover stuck to minimal govt intervention Democratic candidate FDR promised: "a new deal for the American people" in which the federal government would actively confront the problems of the depression." -policies enacted between 1933-1935 -support for farmers, reinvigorating business sector, emergency aid for the poor, job programs, created social security, National Labor relations act. (details pg 577) The role of the federal government in social policy was forever changed. Although some aspects of the New Deal, such as the jobs programs, were never repeated on such a broad scale, most of its other programs became the cornerstone of social policy for subsequent generations. The next major expansion of social policy came during the Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson in the mid-1960s. -the civil rights movement, Civil Rights Act 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965 -The other important aspect of Johnson's Great Society included the War on Poverty and programs concerning health, education, and housing. (Brought economic development and jobs to depressed areas) (details pg 578) -problems: conservative backlash and Vietnam War

Segregation

Separation of people based on racial, ethnic, or other differences

entitlements

These are "policies for which Congress has obligated itself to pay X level of benefits to Y number of recipients." Must meet "requirements specified by law." States also have some discretion with entitlement programs, for example with Medicaid. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps. APT any federal program that provides benefits to American who met requirements specified by law -Medicaid (poor people's health insurance) but states also have lots of discretion

What is the "blame game" and how is it played? (lecture) How to stop the blame game/Which political reforms are most likely to improve the quality of our political process? (lecture)

Which political reforms are most likely to improve the quality of our political process? Political reforms usually look to improve the government's responsibility or responsiveness and encourage political participation. In terms of improving responsibility, campaign finance reform is often considered. (see TED debate above, would not be as influenced by interest groups). Furthermore, strengthening political parties would encourage connections between officials and citizens and allow citizens to hold them accountable (although be careful what you wish for, as parties are stronger than they have been before and lots of gridlock in government). Next, adjusting terms limits in the House from 2 to 4 years and 6 to 8 years in the Senate would make politicians focus on making better policies instead of having to listen to their constituents in order to get reelected. (team ticket voting required) In terms of political participation, making it easier to vote is usually the first idea. For example, the government could establish a national Election Day every year, put elections on the weekend, or allow same day registration. In terms of enhancing responsiveness, term limits would encourage politicians to meet their constituents demands as they would have less time to do so. A balanced budget amendment (see above). Lobbying reform. election reform to promote third parties (redistricting reform: bipartisan commissions) -The "Third Way" -government investment in the infrastructure of the economy and politics, but decrease government involvement in other areas. review notes: Lecture notes REFORMS -enhance responsibility. idea of responsibility and responsiveness=how congress should act. campaign finance reform would lessen the influence of interest groups, weaker parties but careful what you wish for (to decrease polarization). instead of two year term for house members, have 4 years to keep them on a more accountable cycle=less change of divided govt too. easier to get things done. depends on how much checks and balances you want. -make it easier to vote: elections days, same day registraiton -could try to make govt more responsive, term limit, balanced budget amendment (not gonna happen anytime soon), lobbying reform, election reform to promote third parties, redistricting reforms: bipartisan commissions -the third way: online responsiveness -balanced budget amendment -term limits -Lobbying reform -Election reform to promote third parties-Redistricting reform: bipartisan commissions Possible Reforms Enhance responsibility: -Campaign finance reform -stronger parties -coordinate presidential and House elections (4 year term for House, 8-year for Senate; "team ticket" voting required). Encourage participation: -Civic journalism -make it easier to vote (national holiday, weekend elections, same day registration) What is the "blame game" and how is it played? (lecture). Can the government govern? -Divided government and the "blame game." Lack of accountability. Paralyzes action on things like entitlement reform. Divided government (with Ds controlling the House and Rs the presidency and the Senate) make it harder to get things done. -Declining trust in government. -Rise of "politics by other means." Growing power of the courts, alternative media (esp. the Internet, Wikileaks, etc.), and indictments against politicians. lecture notes -divided govt (blame game) makes it harder to get things done. but if you look at ability of govt to respond to pandemic, pretty impressive/spending packages. execution leaves something to be desired, large scale. hiccups: not small businesses getting the money -can come up with comprehensive policy responses if needed -declining trust in government. smaller portion says that they believe the govt to do what is in their interest. believe they are serving powerful lobbyists instead. makes it more difficult to govern if people do not believe in it -right of politics by other means. growing power of groups to go through courts or the media (internet). decreased ability fo govt to be successful. direct tax on politicians themselves, putting charges against them to get them out of power blame game online description: The Political Blame Game in American Democracy looks at the forces that have developed over the past fifty-plus years and created a dysfunctional political system in the United States. It argues that the current level of partisan polarization is actually the culmination of a number of forces at work during the past few decades. These include a perception by each party that the other is using unfair political tactics; the subsequent creation of a culture of blame, with each party blaming the other for the dysfunction; a decline in political norms, leading to childlike behavior by politicians and political candidates; and a culture of payback in which the opposition argues that their opponents are responsible for the decline. These four factors culminated in the 2016 presidential campaign, where they were exemplified by Donald Trump, and have continued to have a significant ongoing impact on the political landscape of the United States.

prisoners' dilemma

Even when it is mutually beneficial, cooperation is difficult to maintain. This concept is illustrated in the prisoners' dilemma. In this situation, both prisoners have the incentive to snitch on the other because it would allow them to get away with a shorter sentence. However, if neither of them snitch, then they will get a better sentence than if they both snitched. Unfortunately, both prisoners often act in their own self interest, which obviously leads to a "collectively suboptimal" outcome. This game has its roots in Game Theory, which is an important economic concept. a particular "game" between two captured prisoners that illustrates why cooperation is difficult to maintain even when it is mutually beneficial (people acting in their own self interest can lead to outcomes that are collectively suboptimal Game Theory) tragedy of the commons collective action problem, Olson?

mandatory and discretionary spending D

-mandatory: expenditures that are required by law, such as the funding for social security -discretionary: expenditures that can be cut from the budget without changing the underlying law (other than defense, entitlements, and interest on the debt) - Growth in Mandatory Spending, Categories of Spending as Percentages of Total Spending, 1963-2010 (mostly social security and Medicare because of aging population/baby boomers) -important because harder to address deficit without hurting entitlements. no one wants to touch SS, but largest segment of spending

free rider problem

For a group, the problem of people not joining because they can benefit from the group's activities without joining. Olson (see above)

What is the problem that the nation currently faces with entitlement programs, especially Social Security? What can or should be done to save Social Security? What are the advantages and disadvantages of privatization, or even partial privatization? (lecture, John in TED) pg 462-75

What is the problem that the nation currently faces with entitlement programs, especially Social Security? -With Social Security, the main problem lies in the soon to retire Baby Boomer generation. Social Security is a "pay as you go" system, which means that current workers pay taxes that go to the current retirees. The money is not "saved" like many people believe that it is. In comparison to others, the Baby Boomer generation is very large. This mean that, as this generation retirees, there will not be enough cash inflow from the current workers to fund their retirement (because there are less people). (intergenerational transfer of wealth has led to an increase in poverty rates of children just as elderly are doing better) (current workers will not get back what they put in, older people have though). The government has been aware of this issue for a while. In 1983, the government created a Social Security Trust Fund to finance this shortage in the future. This was set up by increasing payroll taxes; unfortunately, the government spent the money instead of saving it (the trust fund is going to run out soon). This means that we are back to square one. Not only that, but there is a high intergenerational transfer of wealth due to the fact that Social Security benefits can not be passed from one person to another. Furthermore, current workers, who have been paying into the system, are unlikely to get the full benefits promised to them in the future, which is causing citizens to become angry. Finally, 60% of the budget is "spent on entitlements," which is adding to the federal deficit as the government must borrow from foreigners to pay for the rest (because citizens are demanding their money and politicians do not want to anger them more). A new solution needs to be found quickly; otherwise, there will not be enough money for this program to pay all of its obligations (not bankrupt though). Medicare, insurance provided by the government for the elderly, is also in danger due to the increasing age of the Baby Boomer generation. As medical costs continue to rise, it will be increasingly difficult for the government to pay for the insurance of the growing number of retirees. The ACA also decreased the funding going to this program. In the end, something needs to be sooner rather than later for these programs in order to preserve the benefits they give to Americans. -Besides social security, which is the main thing to know, I would also know that there are others like Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc. There are many others, and you don't have to know the fine detail of any of these, but just good to know which programs are considered entitlement programs. -we can not put more money into trust fund (2035 will run out) because we are already paying obligations with the trust fund money. 5. Occupational Licensure Licensure laws create government requirements for being allowed to practice a profession. These requirements exist even though the market would produce certification options if consumers desired such information. Who Wins: Workers who have already obtained licenses. Who Loses: People wanting to work who can't because they don't have a license, and consumers who have to pay higher prices for services. What can or should be done to save Social Security? -The Democrats and Republicans have different ideas on how to go about fixing Social Security. Democrats would like to slow the growth of current benefits by using a chained CPI system, gradually increase the retirement ago to 70, increase the income ceiling and raise payroll taxes by 3%, and maintain the "the basic structure of a public social insurance system." On the other hand, Republicans want to cut future benefits, maybe raise the retirement age, privatize part of Social Security while keeping the other part of the program under government control, use 2% to 6% of each citizens' Social Security taxes to set up individual investment accounts, and fund the program by slowing the growth of benefits or by borrowing. Finally, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform also released a plan in 2010. This included making the retirement benefit formula more progressive, increase taxes and pay level subject to payroll tax, cut some benefits by indexing the retirement age to life expectancy, index benefits to chained CPI, and increase benefits for poorer citizens. In the end, the solution will most likely involve some combination of cutting benefits and increasing payroll taxes. What are the advantages and disadvantages of privatization, or even partial privatization? In TED, John discusses plans to fix Social Security that involve Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs). He is in favor of these accounts because they would allow citizens to have control over a portion of their SS savings. This means that it would be possible for citizens to invest their accounts and get more money than they would have under the normal plan (would also allow them to pass on money to their family when they die if they do not use it all). It would also mean that the government would not be responsible for as many obligations as it is today. (also could give them a smaller amount than they had planned for if they retire during a recession). However, he acknowledges that none of these current PRA plans propose a way to handle the transition from the current system to the new one. Regardless of if the privatization was partial or not, the transitions proposed right now would leave even less money for the next couple generations of retirees. -all plans "require large amounts of general revenue money to cover the annual cash flow deficits." -"some plans do specify sources for the needed general revenues, but these are handicapped by the fact that no Congress can bind the hands of a future Congress." Social Security regressive taxes fund the system. 6.2% of income up to $132,900 (2019) and another 1.45% on all income for Medicare. Equal 7.65% paid by employers. -helped reduce poverty among elderly Intergenerational transfer of wealth. Poverty rates of children and elderly. Current workers are unlikely to get back what they put in. However, a worker who retired in 1990 got back all of his or her contributions, plus interest, by 1999. The older you are, the higher your "rate of return" on your Social Security taxes. 60% of the budget is spent on entitlements (limits action on deficit reduction without tackling entitlements). Baby boomers. The number of workers per SS recipient has fallen from 15 in 1950 to a little under three today. In twenty more years, it will only be 2.1. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson/Bowles) -"The Moment of Truth" report, December, 2010. -Cut benefits:-Index retirement age to life expectancy (would increase to 69 by 2075) -Make the retirement benefit formula more progressive (reduce benefits for wealthier retirees). -Index benefits to chained CPI rather than CPI-W. -Increase taxes: Increase pay levels subject to payroll tax (so that 90% of all pay is taxed). -Increase benefits: offer minimum benefit of 125% of poverty for an individual with 25 years of work. John He weights into the debate over this issue by outlining some principles for what SS reform should look like from a conservative perspective. John is a strong proponent of Personal Retirement Accounts (PRA), which would allow workers to invest a portion of their SS taxes in individual accounts that they alone would control. However, as he notes, none of the proposed reforms address the "transition problem." That is because SS is a "pay as you go" program-the payroll taxes paid by today's workers fund the SS benefits of today's retirees-if today's workers are allowed to take a portion of their payroll taxes and put it in a PRA, it means there will be even less money to pay for the current obligations for today's retirees than under the current system, at least for the next several decades. John writes, "neither the current system nor any of the proposed reforms comes close to closing the gap." APT As of the 2019 fiscal year, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up nearly half of all federal spending ($2.1 trillion out of $4.4 trillion). With an aging population and health care costs that continue to grow as a percentage of the economy, these policies will take an even greater share of the budget in the future. "third rail" politics bc politicians that touch it face death -it is popular bc of its universal quality, almost everyone participates and receives benefits -also popular bc it works. more efficient than privately managed pensions -Social Security has accomplished its central goal of helping most Americans have an adequate retirement income Social Security is funded by a payroll tax of 6.2 percent on income up to $128,400 (in 2018) with an equal 6.2 percent that is paid by employers. (regressive tax bc poor and middle income household pay higher percentage of their income than rich)(but poor and middle income households receive greater percentage of their income in benefits than rich) -in 1983, retirement age changed from 65 to 67. early retirement optional if they want to receive permanently lower benefits. if delay retirement, you get more. long term problems: -Unless certain fundamental issues are tackled, the program will be unable to cover its obligations. -baby-boom generation is starting to retire -This trend means that there will be fewer workers to support the increasing number of retirees. -Not exactly. Social Security is not a self-funded pension but a "pay as you go" system in which today's workers support today's retirees through the payroll tax discussed earlier. -Therefore, the huge increase in the number of retirees will strain the system because each worker will have to pay higher taxes to maintain the same level of Social Security benefits. Of course, benefits could be cut, but the third-rail status of the program has prevented that, at least up to now. -intergenerational transfer of wealth is a problem. should working single mothers surviving on minimum wage be forced to support those living comfortably in retirement. -govt originally saved money to solve this problem, but then spent it all and gave boomers IOUs (trust fund) -Democrats criticize Republicans any time they try to reform Social Security, claiming that the program is on strong fiscal ground (only need to make small changes)—while ignoring that the need for $2.8 trillion from general taxes over a 16-year period will further strain the system and that a huge shortfall remains, even after generating that additional money. Republicans argue that the system is in crisis and that privatization is the only way out. Solutions: There is a surprising amount of agreement among all the serious plans that saving Social Security requires a mixture of benefit cuts and tax increases. -one ex: Raise payroll taxes by 1 percent and increase the income ceiling that is taxable.(see pg 596) -bipartisan commission Obama, rejected -controversial privatization plan by republicans Democrats' Plan - Raise payroll taxes by 3% and increase income ceiling that is taxable. - Chained CPI to slow growth of current benefits. - Gradually increase the retirement age to 70 (also Rs agree). - Maintain the basic structure of a public social insurance system. Republicans' Plan - Establish individual investment accounts ranging from 2% to 6%. - Cut future benefits (raise retirement age?). - Fund by borrowing or slow the growth of benefits. - Privatize part of Social Security while retaining some public guarantees.

What would Mancur Olson say about the ability of interest groups to serve as a check on majority tyranny? What are the ways that groups can solve the collective action problem? (lecture, APT, and Olson in TED)

What would Mancur Olson say about the ability of interest groups to serve as a check on majority tyranny? He would most likely disagree with this idea. He describes how large interest groups have trouble organizing due to the collective action and free rider problems. The collective action problem is when it is beneficial for a group of people to work toward the same goal, but they are disincentivized from doing so. For example, when an interest group is able to convince the government to pass legislation that is beneficial to a large group of people, they are unable to prevent anyone from reaping the benefits. In other words, other groups are able to free ride off of their hard work. Not only that, but this means that it is more beneficial for individuals to not join interest groups because they know that other will do it for them, they will not be able to be excluded from the collective good, and they do not have to put in the work to get there. In other words, while it may be beneficial for everyone to work toward the same collective goals, the problem is that there are not always enough incentives for collective action. In other words, Olson implies that interest groups are not as powerful as some believe, so he would most likely say that they do not serve as a check on majority tyranny. What are the ways that groups can solve the collective action problem? (lecture, APT, and Olson in TED) According to Olson, the collective action problem can be solved by either making interest groups smaller or using selective incentives. The first idea is self-explanatory. The smaller the group, the easier it is to control and organize, and there will be less of an incentive to piggy back off of others as there will be less people to count on. Furthermore, selective incentives could include informational, material, solidary, or purposive benefits. Informational could include access to certain documents or data that could be of interest to you as an individual or that could be useful to your professions. Next, the experience and satisfaction that come with working with similar minded people, even if the group is unable to accomplish their goal, is usually called a solitary benefit. On a similar note, even if the goal is not reached, the "satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people" is deemed a purposive benefit. Finally, material benefits include physical benefits that are derived from joining a groups, such as a complementary t shirt or coffee mug. These benefits "are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group." Another selective incentive that could possibly be used is coercion. This is essentially requiring participation in the organization, which will often elimination free riding. An example of this could be an employment opportunity mandating that you be apart of a labor union. (lecture: group sponsorship (groups without real members, people just write checks). (not my own words: like collective action problem, the prisoner's dilemma shows how people acting in their own self interest can lead to outcomes that are collectively suboptimal) Olson would argue is not sufficient for them to sacrifice time or money for the effort to succeed, especially if the individual believes that he or she will benefit from the collective good even if they do not contribute. Olson identifies "selective incentives" as one way in which these larger groups are able to overcome the incentive for individuals to free ride. -collective action, free rider problem (dirty dishes in the kitchen) -example: wikipedia donations -How to solve the problem? (could make it private/people have to pay for membership, but closes it off) -prisoner's dilemma (Game theory) 2 ideas to solve problem by Olson: smaller groups or selective incentives (discussed in lecture, know them) it is far easier to organize groups around narrow economic interests than it is to organize around broad "public goods" interests. Why do some groups organize while other do not?-the nature of collective goods, according to the economist Olson, explains this phenomenon. When a collective good is provided to a group, no member of the group can be denied the benefits of the good. For example, if Congress passes a law that offers subsidies for a new kind of energy technology, any company that produces that technology will benefit from the subsidy. The catch is, any company will benefit even if they did not participate in the collective effort to win the subsidy. He argues that "the larger the number of individuals or firms that would benefit from a collective good, the smaller the share of the gains...that will accrue to the individual or firm." Hence, the less likely any one member of the group will contribute to the collective effort to secure the collective benefit. For smaller groups, any one member's share of the collective good is larger and more meaningful; thus it is more likely any one member of the group will be willing to make an individual sacrifice to provide a benefit shared by the entire group. An additional distinction is that in a large group, there is often a tendency to assume someone else will take care of the problem-this is known as the "free rider" problem or , as Olson puts I, "let George do i." This is less likely to happen in smaller groups. The logic helps to explain the greater difficulty so-called "public interest groups" have in organizing and staying organized to pursue such collective goods as air pollution control and consumer product safety. These goods benefit large numbers of people, but the benefit to any 1 person, Olson would argue is not sufficient for them to sacrifice time or money for the effort to succeed, especially if the individual believes that he or she will benefit from the collective good even if they do not contribute. Olson identifies "selective incentives" as one way in which these larger groups are able to overcome the incentive for individuals to free ride. -collective action, free rider problem (dirty dishes in the kitchen) -example: wikipedia donations -How to solve the problem? (could make it private/people have to pay for membership, but closes it off) -prisoner's dilemma (Game theory) 2 ideas to solve problem by Olson: smaller groups or selective incentives (discussed in lecture, know them)

Is anonymous campaign funding a problem? (Campaign Legal Center and Riches in TED) pg 414-26

-The Campaign Legal Center believes that campaign funding is a huge problem in America. They discuss the significant impact of "dark money" in campaigns. While most money must be disclosed, the portion that it not, or "dark money," increases "the risk of corrupt activity and influence" in our politics. As more people demand for donations to be disclosed, the more pushback they receive from these dark money groups (501c4s). It is clear why people who are writing billion dollar checks to buy off officials would want to donate anonymously, but the Campaign Legal Center argues that it is our duty to fight against these groups and preserve democracy. If citizens do not know who the candidate is getting their money from, they are unable to "evaluate the full context of the message." For example, if they had learned that a candidate was getting money from a group that was known to be corrupt, they might not have decided to trust that candidate. It also allows them to discover if certain candidates are overly influenced by interest groups. Not only that, but voters have a right to know who is making donations and where they are making those donations to. While there are some rules in place regarding donations to TV ads, the Campaign Legal Center claims that they are simply not enough as many ads were funded in 2010 that did not give any information about their donors. Furthermore, the justices decision in Citizen's United actually said that these groups should be required to disclose their donations. Unfortunately, the Federal Election Commission has interpreted the law in such a way that essentially makes the ruling useless. Also, the commission has not truly enforced its own interpretation, which has made it even easier for these groups to get away with this. They also counter the idea that disclosure is a violation of the first amendment because disclosure prevents the spread of free information, which hinders speech. They also say that the Supreme Court has allowed disclosure exceptions for those who are actually able to demonstrate that they would be in dander, so this argument is also invalid. They concluded by asserting that there is no right to anonymous speech in the Constitution, and that this should be a nonpartisan issue for both parties to address. -While this may seem like the obvious answer, Riches offers some interesting counterpoints. He argues that forcing the disclosure of all donations often prevents the public from focusing on the messenger. If a candidate gets money from different groups, citizens may simply choose to focuses on which groups could be influencing the candidate instead of focusing on the candidate's message (which may have not been influenced at all by these groups). He gives the example of the "ratification debate of our own Constitution," which was actually published under an anonymous name in order to prevent "ad hominem attack." If we force disclosure, the political process will only become more complicated and polarized, and citizens will grow even more tired of because they will no longer know where to look to. Furthermore, preventing citizens from donating anonymously allows those who disagree to retaliate and target both the donor and the speaker. In other words, requiring disclosure endangers many citizens. For example, he discusses how attorney general of Alabama tried to force the NAACP during the civil rights movement to give him a list of the addresses and names of all of its members (stopped by the Supreme Court as a violation of its members' first amendment rights). Furthermore, if people are required to disclose their donations, we will also most likely see a decrease in political participation. Finally, as money if often thought of as speech, adding restrictions to donating would muddle regulations surrounding speech. This would make it even more difficult to know what speech is permitted and what is not. As "private association is a fundamental part of our nation's history," preventing it would undermine "robust and free speech," hindering democracy. He ends by stating that overall effect of forcing disclosure would be a silencing of opposing views, and that the courts may be the best way to fight this. -campaign finance law complexities, one political stoped trying to organize a protest because her emails were labelled as a political committee and she thought that she was going to get in trouble because she had not disclosed it (she had not thought of it as a political committee and had therefore not intended to break the law) Rich argues against disclosure (3 main arguments): bc (421) prevents public disclosure from focusing on the messenger (would instead focus on who is donating and not the messenger), allows retaliation at speakers by those who disagree, muddles regulations so that no one knows what speech is permitted and what is not (1st amendments). Proponents of anonymous (un-disclosed) speech, such as Riches of the Goldwater Institute in this chapter, who believe anonymous speech (including the provision of funds in campaigns) should be protected, say the issue is simple: we should care more about the message than who is delivering it. Supporters of this view note the prevalence of anonymous speech during the American Revolution. Better for democracy that the ideas be heard and voters can then decide. Moreover, it can sometimes be risky if one's support for particular causes are revealed. They point to Brendan Eich, the widely respected inventor of Javascript, who resigned under pressure as CEO of Mozilla in2014 for a $1000 donation he had made 8 years earlier supporting California's Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. Supporters of anonymous speech say that because govt officials take actions and make decisions that affect the livelihood of organizations and individuals, these organizations and individuals must be able to spend funds in campaigns-maybe even to defeat these officials-without fear of reprisal. They worry that disclosure databases, rather than being of everyday use to voters, provide a tool for govt officials and other powerful political figures to monitor their supporters and opponents debate has flared over campaign donations and spending that do not require disclosure of those spending or contributing the funds. Proponents of disclosure such as the Campaign Legal Center in this chapter note that although most funding must be disclosed, the amount that is undisclosed, often referred to as "dar money," is also significant. Their chief arguments are that voters have. aright to know who is peaking through these funds and that non-disclosure increases the risk of corrupt activity and influence. Proponents of anonymous (un-disclosed) speech, such as Riches of the Goldwater Institute in this chapter, who believe anonymous speech (including the provision of funds in campaigns) should be protected, say the issue is simple: we should care more about the message than who is delivering it. Supporters of this view note the prevalence of anonymous speech during the American Revolution. Better for democracy that the ideas be heard and voters can then decide. Moreover, it can sometimes be risky if one's support for particular causes are revealed. They point to Brendan Eich, the widely respected inventor of Javascript, who resigned under pressure as CEO of Mozilla in2014 for a $1000 donation he had made 8 years earlier supporting California's Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. Supporters of anonymous speech say that because govt officials take actions and make decisions that affect the livelihood of organizations and individuals, these organizations and individuals must be able to spend funds in campaigns-maybe even to defeat these officials-without fear of reprisal. They worry that disclosure databases, rather than being of everyday use to voters, provide a tool for govt officials and other powerful political figures to monitor their supporters and opponents CLC argue in favor of donor disclosure: seems like obvious answer.

What is the "multiple traditions" approach to understanding American civic identity? (Smith in TED)?

According to Smith, "the multiple-traditions thesis holds that Americans share a common culture but one more complexly and multiply constituted than is usually acknowledged." In other words, the definitive feature of American culture is not one set of traditions, such as being liberal or republican. Instead, it is the "inconsistent combinations of the traditions" and conflicts that often follow. No one tradition has ever completely dominated American culture, and citizens often embrace the "best features of each" or argue over contradictions found within them. Among these traditions is Ascriptive Americanism, which is the organization of society into a hierarchy. When thinking of civic identity through the "multiple traditions" approach, it is obvious that our country's institutions and laws were not "meant to confer the equal civic status they proclaimed for all Americans" as this tradition used to be very strong (along with others). However, they also did not fully conform to the tradition of Ascriptive Americanism as other traditions did and continue to exist. To conclude, American civic identity is a compromise between these traditions fighting for control. (see ascriptive Americanism and liberal tradition above) Often, groups will develop "essentialist ideologies," which essentially allows them to glorify their ascriptive traits and degrade others. For example, Hispanics and other new immigrants have received hostility from blacks. Counters de Tocqueville Although liberal democratic ideas and practices have been more potent in America than elsewhere, American politics is best seen as expressing the interaction of multiple political traditions, including liberalism, republicanism, and ascriptive forms of Americanism, which have collectively comprised American political culture, without any constituting it as a whole. Though Americans have often struggled over contradictions, among these traditions, almost all have tried to embrace what they saw as the best features of each. at its heart, the multiple-traditions thesis hold that the definitive feature of American political culture has been not its liberal, republican, or "ascriptive Americanist" elements but, rather, this more complex pattern of apparently inconsistent combinations of the traditions, accompanied by recurring conflicts. purely liberal and republican conceptions of civic identity are seen as frequently unsatisfying to many Americans, bc they contain elements that threaten, rather than affirm, sincere, reputable beliefs in the propriety of the privileged positions that writers, Christianity, Anglo-Saxon traditions, and patriarchy have had in the U.S. "the multiple-traditions thesis holds that Americans share a common culture but one more complexly and multiply constituted than is usually acknowledged. Most members of all groups have shared and often helped to shape all the ideologies and institutions that have structured American life, including ascriptive ones. A few have done so while resisting all subjugating practices. But members of every group have sometimes embraced "essentialist" ideologies, valorizing their own ascriptive traits and denigrating those of others, to bleak effect. Cherokees enslaved blacks, blacks have often been hostile towards Hispanics and other new immigrants. While liberalism points to notions of equality, Smith argues that there is another very different, tradition in American political thought that has been influential. "ascriptive Americanism" In this way of thinking, society is a hierarchy, where some groups are on top and others are below Those on tope are deemed to be deserving of the rights and benefits the liberal tradition can offer; those below are not. examples include the treatment of racial minorities, especially African Americans, and the structure of laws that denied women the same opportunities as men. He notes that those holding these illiberal views were not on the fringes of society but, rather, were probably the majority view at times. he argues this impact should not be minimized. Researchers at universities and other institutions aimed to show through science the inferiority of some races and group to others. Moreover, the same individuals expended great intellectual energy to make these illiberal views seem acceptable and consistent with the liberal beliefs that they held simultaneously. American political culture combines multiple traditions of thought.

Jim Crow laws

After the civil war, Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1866 and 1875. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck them down later in 1883. This meant that the government would not be able to enforce these laws, and the ruling signaled to southern states that it would not be able to interfere in their handling of the newly freed slaves. This gave birth to segregation or the Jim Crow laws. Essentially, these laws meant the blacks were separated from whites in every aspect of society. For example, blacks were separated in schools, hospitals, hotels, apartments, restaurants, cemetery plots, elevators, transportation, and neighborhoods. In another court case, it was determined that the idea of "separate but equal" was okay, which allowed this injustice to continue for many years. The reality of the situation was that the separate institutions, for example schools, were inherently not actually equal. Civil Rights supports eventually starting chipping away at these laws with a variety of court cases. Eventually, the Supreme Court destroyed the idea of "separate but equal" through the Brown v. Board of Education case, which determined that separate schools for blacks were in fact not equal, so this doctrine had no place in education. However, the desegregation of schools did not actually happen for many years as the court lacked the power to truly enforce its ruling. When the government eventually had to step in, there were mass protests in the south, but this actually caused the Civil Rights movement to really take off. Lecture slides: Civil Rights History -Reconstruction era. Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. Supreme Court struck them down in 1883. -Green light for Jim Crow laws, segregation. -Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), "separate but equal" is OK. -Nearly a complete disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Grandfather clause, intimidation, literacy tests, white primaries, poll taxes, loyalty oaths. Equality of Opportunity -The 14th Amendment and the battle in the courts for equal protection of the laws. -Early segregation cases. Missouri and Texas. Started to chip away at "separate but equal" standard. -Brown v. Board of Education (1954). "In the field of public education, separate but equal has no place." Brown II (1955)--desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Massive resistance in the South. -Court-ordered bussing started in the 1970s but backed away from in past 15 years. Court also struck down voluntary plans: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). APT civil rights passed had no enforcement provisions, so "black codes" passed State and local laws that mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the South, many border states, and some northern communities between 1876 and 1964. Jim Crow laws forbade interracial marriage and mandated the complete separation of the races in neighborhoods, hotels, apartments, hospitals, schools, and restrooms, at drinking fountains, and in restaurants, elevators, and even cemetery plots. in transportation too Supreme Courts validated this with "separate but equal doctrine" Lecture Outline: -Jim Crow The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Brown v. Board of Education

After the civil war, Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1866 and 1875. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck them down later in 1883. This signaled to the southern states that they government would not enforce these laws or be able to interfere in their handling of the newly freed slaves. This gave birth to segregation or the Jim Crow laws. Essentially, these laws meant the blacks were separated from whites in every aspect of society. For example, blacks were separated in schools, hospitals, hotels, apartments, restaurants, cemetery plots, elevators, transportation, and neighborhoods. In another court case, it was determined that the idea of "separate but equal" was okay, which allowed this injustice to continue for many years. The reality of the situation was that the separate institutions, for example schools, were inherently not actually equal. Civil Rights supports eventually starting chipping away at these laws with a variety of court cases. Eventually, the Supreme Court destroyed the idea of "separate but equal" through the Brown v. Board of Education case, which determined that separate schools for blacks were ,in fact, not actually equal. There was evidence revealing that schools for blacks were much more run down than white schools and that blacks were often denied important opportunities in education in comparison. In the end, the judges stated that the "separate but equal" doctrine had no place in education, and that all schools must desegregate. The Court initially delayed its ruling in order to give it more power, and they released a statement saying that it should be implemented "with all deliberate speed." However, the desegregation of schools did not actually happen for many years as the court lacked the power to truly enforce its ruling. When the government eventually had to step in, there were mass protests in the south, but this actually caused the Civil Rights movement to really take off. Lecture slides: -Brown v. Board of Education (1954). "In the field of public education, separate but equal has no place." Brown II (1955)--desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Massive resistance in the South. -destroyed the separate but equal clause Lecture outline 1954 - The Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, declared that racially segregated facilities are inherently unequal and ordered all public schools desegregated. "with all deliberate speed" Jim Crow The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Challenging "Separate but Equal" in Education -The NAACP, led by its chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall (later a Supreme Court justice), fought segregation by pointing out the various ways in which states kept blacks out of all-white law schools. -In a series of Supreme Court cases, it established the foundations for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. -Brown v. Board of Education applied the Fourteenth Amendment to establish that "separate but equal" was inherently unequal. The Push to Desegregate Schools -Brown v. Board of Education II (1955) addressed the implementation of desegregation and required the states to "desegregate with all deliberate speed." -In 1971, the Court shifted its focus from de jure segregation, segregation mandated by law, to de facto segregation, segregation that existed because of housing patterns, and approved school busing as a tool to integrate schools.

Public goods

Goods that are neither excludable nor rival in consumption

How has the role of the United States shifted over our history in terms of relations with other nations? What principles should guide our involvement in foreign conflicts? (Lecture) humanitarian's/other -multilateralism! can have opinion, but back it up. use others too. Lack of consensus on intervention -When to intervene in overseas conflicts? Duties as world power. Humanitarian concerns vs. "national interest." Tough situations like Syria: no good answers. -Switching of roles for liberals and conservatives on interventionist vs. isolationist tendencies when it comes to humanitarian justification. Can humanitarian or moral considerations provide the decision rules? -international law -non-violent alternatives -civilian immunity (no civilian casualties)

How has the role of the United States shifted over our history in terms of relations with other nations? -Originally, Unilateralism: simply means that the U.S. goes it alone if it needs to further its interests. will act with other countries if it needs to, but prefers not to isolationism: prefers to not interact with the rest of the world. -Washington and Jefferson favored unilateralism, do not make allies with the rest of the world. wanted to establish the country/become independent, so made sense at the beginning. -Jefferson said we want to take a place in the world, but still do not want entangling alliances because want to be able to do what we want. -Monroe doctrine: this sphere of the world will be under our influence, if Europe stay out we will stay out of their sphere. (through 1800s) -starts to emerge as more of a world power by the late 19th century. President Wilson tried to use our influence after WWI to prevent armed conflict on that scale again. League of Nations. he tried to convince U.S. to lead and join, but failed, so we ended up retreating form the world into an isolationist form. retreated from work stage until WWII. -during WWII, stepped in. were reluctant at first -after WWII, were dominant military and economic power in the world. because so much of the rest of the industrialized world was destroyed, we were largely unscathed physically. 2/3 of world's monetary gold, 1/2 of worlds manufacturing capacity was in U.S. nukes, much better shape with casualties too. -Cold War: deepening of tensions btw Soviet Union and U.S. containment: obligation to prevent spread of communism, and preventing another world war. -Marshal plan, meant to rebuild Europe: justified on humanitarian grounds/people damaged by war but that did not sit well with citizens so switched to fighting communism, spent billions. Germany now one of our strongest allies. -Cold War continued until 1970s. mcCarthyism=low point=communist leaders in our government, had no justification for his claims, red scare, destroyed hundreds of careers for no reason. -in terms of foreign policy, military actions to stop spread of communism: Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam ended up bringing end of Cold War consensus (dems and repubs had agreed), this broke down because war was not winnable, lost lives, lost money. protests expanded across country and divided country deeply. -detente or deterrence: Richard Nixon, after Cold War, tried to improve relations with China: thought that he could put pressure on Soviet Union to agree to their terms on Nuclear agreement (mutually assured destruction, meant to reduce nukes). china was never friends with society union , so US joining with them was their greatest fear, had some success. decreased number of nukes through strategic arms treaties. -Cold War still depend, Reagan years. but fault lines in Soviet Union began to show. Iron Curtain: line between communist countries and democratic in Europe. pan-european picnic=thousands of people fled Austria. Berlin Wall came down, end of iron curtain -post Cold War: who are the enemies?: clarity of Cold War period replaced by a time with less clarity. Russia and China are adversaries, not open conflict military. China is a large economic adversary. trade war. rouge states of Iran an North Korea toward top of list. remaining parts of ISIS and ISIL and terrorist groups around the world. but other parts of the world=fuzzy -started joining international organizations: NATO -today, trump has worsened relations with most of our allies (Europe). Current foreign policy issues -Mideast, Israel and new state for the Palestinians. -Relations with the Arab world. -Foreign trade war with China. -Problem nations: Iran and North Korea. -Immigration policy and the border with Mexico. -International cooperation on COVID-19. What principles should guide our involvement in foreign conflicts? (Lecture) humanitarian's/military when do we send foreign troops overseas? -still world's military power, with those powers come certain obligations, such as NATO. Trump has expressed desire to back away from those obligations, more of a unilateralism, pressure on unilateralism. ongoing civil war in Syria=no good answers, no easy way. sometimes has gone in and pulled out or not gone in. hard to decide. on thing that has happened in past couple of decades, in Cold War: liberals would say we should not get involved, conservatives in favor of stopping communism. but now liberals likely to favor humanitarian intervention, Republicans more America first and national interests only. Afghanistan united effort by both parties after 9/11 stopping terrorism/war on terror. no clear rules. turned against Iraq can humanitarian or moral considerations provide the decision rules?!!!!!!!!!! If national security is hard to justify when we get involved today (as communism is not around), maybe humanitarian? -international law (banning genocide, internet obligations made through UN to battle famine) -non-violent alternatives (negotiations, diplomacy rather than military force) -civilian immunity (no civilian casualties, drone attacks=effort made to limit additional casualties to people not tied to terrorism) meshing of two perspectives!!!! foreign intervention: -notion of nation building. is part of our goal to spread influence of democracy, is this a legitimate goal if some countries resist? Iraq and example of limit or a success story? Afghanistan? too early to tell, corruption, stolen elections, limited support from the people. open ended commitment of troops with no clear end in sight. evidence has come out in recent years that like Vietnam Americans were lied to about Afghanistan=serious overstating of our success=military experts have serious misgivings about our accomplishments and what we were able to accomplish. ongoing foreign policy issues -above APT States should, whenever possible, work alone to define and implement their foreign policy, working with other nations only when absolutely necessary. -should avoid making alliances and agreements with other nations, concentrate on defending America's borders, and let the people in other countries work out their problems for themselves History of U.S. foreign policy -Unilateralism and isolationism. -Washington and Jefferson: admonition against "entangling alliances." -Monroe Doctrine (1823): regional spheres of influence. -Emerging as a world power in late 19th century. WWI and failed League of Nations. Retreated from world stage. -No large standing army until after WWII. Reluctance to enter WWII. World War II -U.S. became the dominant economy in the world. History of foreign policy, cont. History of foreign policy, cont. -U.S. was clearly the dominant military power after the war. U.S. suffered relatively little damage (350,000 killed vs. 29 million for the Soviet Union). Cold War and Containment -George Kennan "X" article: the need to contain Communism. Combination of military buildup and economic aid. 1947--Marshall Plan. Shifted from justifying in humanitarian terms to "fighting communism." McCarthyism. Korea and Vietnam. -Vietnam and the breakdown of the Cold War consensus. 58,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese killed. Domestic protest. Key issue in 1968 presidential election. Kent State shootings. UW also at the center of protests: Sterling Hall. History of foreign policy, cont. -Détente and deterrence-Nixon and the "China card." -Nuclear policy--mutually assured destruction (MAD). Strategic arms treaties with the Soviet Union. -Cold War deepened in the 1980s. Post-Cold War -Iron Curtain falls: Pan-European Picnic, August, 1989, in Hungary, then the fall of the Berlin Wall three months later. -collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe .-The Iron CurtainPost-Cold War Foreign Policy Who are the current enemies? -Russia is an adversary (2016 election interference), but not open military conflict. China is still a concern, but also not an enemy in term of military conflict. "Rogue states" (Iran and North Korea), ISIS and terrorists. Lack of consensus on intervention -When to intervene in overseas conflicts? Duties as world power. Humanitarian concerns vs. "national interest." Tough situations like Syria: no good answers. -Switching of roles for liberals and conservatives on interventionist vs. isolationist tendencies when it comes to humanitarian justification. History of American foreign policy The Founding to World War I Until 1917, American foreign policy was primarily but not completely isolationist. America's distance from Europe prevented conflict, so isolationism made sense. The Monroe Doctrine established that the United States would remain neutral in European conflicts, and that colonization or occupation of areas of North and South America by European nations would be viewed by the United States as acts of aggression. The Rise of Internationalism World War II marked a shift in policy priority, as the United States became increasingly internationalist, supported by both realists and idealists (though for different reasons). During the Cold War, and with concerns rooted in the domino theory, American policy focused on the containment of Soviet expansion. America maintained large military forces, which were intended to deter war with the Soviet Union through the threat of mutually assured destruction. Beginning in the early 1970s, President Nixon began a process of détente with the Soviet Union. After the Cold War: Human Rights Trade and Terrorism The Bush Doctrine, the policy behind the Iraq invasion, stated that the United States would not wait until after an attack to respond but would use military force to eliminate potential threats before they could be put in motion.

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

In response to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the federal government created TARP - Troubled Assets Relief Program. In order to strengthen the financial sector, this bill was signed into law on October 3rd, 2008, and it included a rescue plan with over $700 billion. Originally, it intended to buy toxic debt and equity from financial institutions, but it ended up providing capital to banks and contributing to consumer credit plans. One of its goals was to encourage banks to resume lending again, and it has been mostly successful in achieving this. Finally, it did not initially intend to help homeowners avoid foreclosures, but, more recently, it has turned toward this goal. Today, the government has actually turned a profit on this program. $700 billion rescue plan, signed into law on Oct. 3rd, 2008. Original plan was to buy toxic debt. Instead, provided capital to banks. Also consumer credit plans. Resisted helping homeowners avoid foreclosures, but recently have moved in that direction. Ended up turning a profit on the $70 billion.

How much of a threat is ISIS? To what extent should we continue to focus on the threat of a terrorism with military force or should we shift national security policy in a more balanced direction? (Olsen and Pillar in TED). pg 516-35

Olsen firmly believes that ISIS is "the most urgent threat to our security in the world today." He describes its rapid spread and terror attacks that have recently taken place in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino. Olsen argues that ISIS has started to control the "center of the Middle East" by taking advantage of the instability in Syria and Iraq. While ISIS has lost territory, he asserts that it has made up for this increasing "its ability to communicate to and inspire followers anywhere in the world," which raises the threat of terrorism in every country. It is able to "mobilize potential operatives in the United States and elsewhere" through radicalized media platforms, which has proven to be surprisingly effective. The recent attacks have also demonstrated that they are now able to "execute sophisticated attacks in Western Europe," and they are encouraging followers to "stop looking for specific targets" and to "hit everyone and everything" instead. He believes that finding a way to fight against "the radicalization of people inside the U.S.," increasing intelligence action and surveillance, and military action are all necessary into order to end this organization. Regarding military action, he believes that U.S.'s efforts to target ISIS leaders has been successful, and he believes that special opts sent to Syria will play an important role in continuing this effort. Furthermore, he commends the coordination among countries in handling airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Overall, he believes that focusing on the threat of terrorism should be the sole focus of national security policy, and that we should continue to follow the course of military action we have taken. On the other hand, Pillar asserts "that proposed action against ISIS must be understood in the larger context of the history of the American military abroad." Before WWII, America "had a record of unbroken military success, combined with infrequent wars." Unfortunately, since that time, success in military intervention has become less common. However, America's growing importance in the world has encouraged it to become more involved in conflicts. In other words, the confidence that early victories in foreign conflicts gave to Americans has caused them to favor military conflict as the primary way of interveining. Today, Americans have grown up with a "country perpetually at war." Unfortunately, the conflicts that the U.S. has won in the past using military force have not had as many "nationalism-soaked problems" as many due today. These types of conflicts are incredibly difficult to solve using military force alone. Pillar argues that U.S. military intervention is also now seen as "threatening rather than helpful" in many situations. He states that ISIS was created from U.S. intervention in Iraq, and that they will continue to exist even if we attack their physical territory because they have moved much of their campaign online. In the end, he believes that continued military use would "play into ISIS's hands" and increase radicalization, meaning. While terrorism and fighting ISIS should still be an important part of national security policy, he believes that non violent solutions should be found. -a little bit outdated, but important bc always some sort of threat facing America (Cold War with North Korea right now). ISIS as an example, how big of a threat, how do we balance handling this? inside and outside of our country? history of ISIS and what America has done to combat it.

isolationism D

Should We Intervene? Isolationism is the idea that the United States should refrain from involvement in international affairs. APT States should, whenever possible, work alone to define and implement their foreign policy, working with other nations only when absolutely necessary. -should avoid making alliances and agreements with other nations, concentrate on defending America's borders, and let the people in other countries work out their problems for themselves A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations

the Monroe Doctrine D

The Monroe Doctrine established that the United States would remain neutral in European conflicts, and that colonization or occupation of areas of North and South America by European nations would be viewed by the United States as acts of aggression...The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. A statement of foreign policy which proclaimed that Europe should not interfere in affairs within the United States or in the development of other countries in the Western Hemisphere.

the civil rights movement for African Americans

The civil rights movement for African Americans was brought about by a series of events; including, Congress striking down the white primary in 1944, the executive order issued in 1948 by Truman that integrated the U.W. armed services, Jackie Robinson making strides in baseball, and the Brown vs Board of education case. Overall, this movement took place from the 1950s through the 1960s, and its goal was to guarantee equal social and political rights for blacks and end segregation. The civil rights movements was a social movement that was a reaction to the consequences of the divisions created from slavery. Before the civil war, slavery was an essential part of the southern economy. After the war, Congress passed laws protecting the rights of newly freed slaves, however, these laws proved to be ineffective. Poll taxes, the grandfather clause, and residency requirements continued to keep blacks from voting. Furthermore, in 1883 the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Acts passed in 1866 and 1875, which signaled to southern states that the government would not enforce these ideals. This encouraged the creation of the Jim Crow laws or segregation. This essentially meant the blacks were separated from whites in every aspect of society. In another court case, they determined that this idea of "separate but equal" was okay, which allowed this injustice to continue for many years. The reality of the situation was that the separate institutions, for example schools, were inherently not actually equal. Eventually, the Supreme Court destroyed the idea of "separate but equal" through the Brown v. Board of Education case, which determined that separate schools for blacks were in fact not equal, so this doctrine had no place in education. This sparked mass protests in the south, and it caused the Civil Rights movement to really take off. Martin Luther King, Jr. lead this movement, and blacks experienced horrible physical and verbal abuse as they participated in non-violent protests. This form of protesting included collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action (civil disobedience). After March on Washington and the "I have a dream" speech, Congress finally passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which legally prevents "discrimination in employment based race, sex, religion or national origin. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court, and it was eventually applied on a case by case basis. Today, we also have the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action to continue combating the inequalities faced by blacks and other minorities. Jim Crow-The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Civil rights movement -Non-violent protest. Four distinct steps: ---Collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification, direct action (civil disobedience). -The "I have a dream" speech, March on Washington, Aug., 1963. Civil Rights legislation. ---1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII. Bars discrimination in employment based on race, sex, religion or national origin. Law was upheld on the basis of the commerce clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Ollie's Barbeque (1964) ---1965 Voting Rights Act ---Fair Housing Act of 1968 Affirmative action brought about by: -Congress stuck down white primary in 1944, Jackie Robinson broke color lines in baseball, President Truman issued an executive order integrating the U.S. armed services in 1948, and finally Brown vs Board of education The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, aimed at ending segregation and guaranteeing equal political and social rights for blacks, is the most famous example of a successful social movement Lecture outline: African Americans-The most divisive civil rights issue with the greatest long-term impact has been slavery and its legacy. Slavery and Its Impact-Slave labor was critical to the economy in America, particularly in the South, where slaves worked on plantations as well as in many parts of the service economy. Conflicts over the legality and expansion of slavery persisted from the Founding through the Missouri Compromise, leading up to the Civil War. Following the Civil War, Congress passed a series of constitutional amendments to give former slaves equal protection under the law. Voting Rights-Nonetheless, blacks were almost completely disenfranchised through poll taxes, residency requirements, the grandfather clause and other forms of disqualification. Jim Crow-The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Lecture slides: -Tension between civil rights and civil liberties: example of "hate speech." -Equality not mentioned in the original Constitution (14 th Amendment is key for many civil rights). The Bill of Rights focused on civil liberties. Equality figures prominently in the Declaration of Independence. -History of race relations in the U.S. ---Legacy of slavery. The Civil War and the Civil War Amendments (13-15). Civil Rights History -Reconstruction era. Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. Supreme Court struck them down in 1883. -Green light for Jim Crow laws, segregation. -Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), "separate but equal" is OK. -Nearly a complete disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Grandfather clause, intimidation, literacy tests, white primaries, poll taxes, loyalty oaths. Civil Rights History, cont. -Only a few thousand black voters were registered to vote in many of the Deep South states. -Northward migration of blacks. Integration of the armed services in WWII. -Emmit Till (1955), widespread lynchings and church burnings. The case against the defendants in the Birmingham church bombing (1963) that killed four African-American girls was retried in 2002 and Frank Cherry was convicted on 4 counts of first degree murder. Jim Crow-The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Civil Rights History -Reconstruction era. Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. Supreme Court struck them down in 1883. -Green light for Jim Crow laws, segregation. -Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), "separate but equal" is OK. -Nearly a complete disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Grandfather clause, intimidation, literacy tests, white primaries, poll taxes, loyalty Equality of Opportunity -The Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. -Rosa Parks, 1955; Greensboro sit-ins, 1960; Ole Miss James Meredith, 1962; Birmingham, 1963. JFK took a public stand, Medgar Evers assassinated the next day. -Letter from the Birmingham jail: Distinction between just and unjust laws. Have an obligation to break unjust laws. Comparison to pro-life movement. Civil rights movement -Non-violent protest. Four distinct steps: ---Collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification, direct action (civil disobedience). -The "I have a dream" speech, March on Washington, Aug., 1963. Civil Rights legislation. ---1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII. Bars discrimination in employment based on race, sex, religion or national origin. Law was upheld on the basis of the commerce clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Ollie's Barbeque (1964) ---1965 Voting Rights Act ---Fair Housing Act of 1968 Affirmative action

"inside" and "outside" strategies for interest groups

There are insider and outsider lobbying strategies. Insider interest group strategies involve gaining access in Washington or directly appealing to politicians. This often involves delivering research, regulation, or legislation directly to legislators. They could also take the government to court or testify before congressional committees. Finally, inside strategies often work better if more than one interest group works together. Outsider strategies look toward the public, and the often include grassroots lobbying or "going public" in an attempt to put public pressure on Congress. Grassroots lobbying, or using "interest group members in lobbying efforts," often involves making telephone calls or sending letters. It could also involve appealing to the media or organizing mass protests. Inside strategies are the tactics used within Washington by interest groups to achieve their policy goals. -Direct lobbying, or attempts to influence policy by speaking with elected officials or bureaucrats, is very common. While interest groups focus on officials who are sympathetic to the group's goals, they will also talk to fence sitters and policy opponents. Because access to officials is so important, groups tend to keep their lobbying efforts low key, with the hopes of leaving favorable impressions. -Drafting Legislation and Regulation Interest groups sometimes draft legislative proposals and regulations, which they then deliver to supportive legislators and bureaucrats as part of their lobbying efforts. -Research Interest groups often prepare research reports on topics of interest to the group. Members of Congress are more likely to accept a group's legislative proposal if they believe the group's staff have some research to back up their claims. -Hearings Interest group staffers often testify before congressional committees in order to inform members of Congress about important issues to the group. -Litigation Groups can sue the government on the grounds that the government's actions are not consistent with the Constitution or misinterpreted the provisions of the existing law. Even when an interest group is not directly involved in litigation, amicus curiae briefs provide some clues as to what position a given organization supports. -Working Together Interest groups also can work together in their lobbying efforts. Generally, such collaboration is short term and aimed at achieving a specific outcome. Outside strategies Outside strategies are the tactics employed outside Washington by interest groups seeking to achieve their policy goals. -Grassroots lobbying relies on participation by group members, such as in a protest or a letter-writing campaign. This is effective because elected officials hate to act against a large group of citizens who care enough about an issue to express their position. -Astroturf Lobbying For grassroots lobbying to be effective, the letters should come from constituents, rather than interest group-coordinated Astroturf lobbying, which is commonly ignored by politicians. -Mobilizing Public Opinion Sometimes, interest groups will attempt to change what the public thinks about an issue, and thereby stimulate a policy response by elected officials. -Electioneering involves supporting candidates for election. Federal laws limit groups' electioneering efforts. Most interest groups are organized as 501(c)(3) organizations, which makes donations to the group tax deductible, but limits the group's political activities. To get around these limits, they may form a separate political action committee (PAC) or a 527 organization. PACs can raise money to contribute to campaigns or to spend on ads in support of specific candidates, but the amount of money spent on federal campaigning is strictly limited. 527s are not subject to contribution limits or spending caps but cannot directly endorse or oppose a candidate. -Cultivating Media Contacts Media coverage publicizes a group's concerns without costing that group any money. Bypassing Government: The Initiative Process Interest groups also may propose policy by bypassing the government entirely, by helping to support an initiative or referendum. Lecture Interest Groups' Strategies -Lobbying strategies: insider (gaining access) vs. outsider (grassroots lobbying or "going public"). Encourage people to submit comments on rule changes (Devin Judge-Lord). Expand the scope of conflict (Schattschneider). APT deciding how to lobby inside strategies, which are actions taken inside government (whether federal, state, or local), and outside strategies, which are actions taken outside government When interest group staff meet with officeholders or bureaucrats, they plead their case through direct lobbying, asking government officials to change policy in line with the group's goals. -important to maintain access to officials -lobby at a wide range of officials Inside: Interest groups sometimes draft legislative proposals and regulations, which they deliver to legislators and bureaucrats as part of their lobbying efforts. Interest groups often prepare research reports on topics of interest to the group. Interest group staff often testify before congressional committees. Another inside strategy involves taking the government to court. To increase their chances for success, interest groups can work together in their lobbying efforts, formulating a common strategy and future plans. Outside: Grassroots lobbying, or using "interest group members in lobbying efforts," often involves making telephone calls or sending letters. It could also involve appealing to the media or organizing mass protests. Directly involving interest group members in lobbying efforts is called grassroots lobbying. (send letters, make telephone calls) Mass protests Astroturf lobbying -One strategy related to grassroots lobbying involves trying to change what the public thinks about an issue in the hope that elected officials will see this change and respond by enacting (or opposing) new laws or regulations to keep their constituents happy. -Interest groups get involved in elections by making contributions to candidates, mobilizing people (including their own staff) to help in a campaign, endorsing candidates, funding campaign ads, or mobilizing a candidate's or party's supporters.(but limited by government) -Media coverage helps a group publicize its concerns without spending any money -A final outside strategy for interest groups bypasses government entirely: a group can work to get its proposed policy change voted on by the public in a general election through an initiative or a referendum. -the solution to lobbying is more lobbying

What are the main features of health care reform (Obamacare)? What are the main arguments why this reform was necessary? What are the argument against health care reform and alternatives to the Affordable Care Act ? (APT Chap 16, Obama and Haislmaier in TED)

What are the main features of health care reform (Obamacare)? The main features of the ACA included young adults being allowed to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they were 26, the individual mandate (which required everyone to buy a form of insurance the government deemed acceptable), subsidies for people who buy insurance through the exchanges, employers having to either pay a fine or provide health care if they had at least 50 employees, closing the "Medicare prescription doughnut hole," subsidies for families who "make up to 4x the poverty rate," and not allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditions. What are the main arguments why this reform was necessary? Nature of the problem: inefficiencies in the way we provide healthcare. it hurts the competitiveness of American companies. auto industry spends more on healthcare per car than it does for steel so major component. Toyota in Japan, govt pays for healthcare for their workers. puts us at a competitive disadvantage. these companies supported Obamacare bc wanted less of a burden. republican reformers have argued to make health care more efficient would be to introduce more market forces (third party payments: you are not directly paying for your healthcare and have no idea what it is going to cost) you don't price compare before you go to the hospital bc prices are not transparent. how you buy a car, compare prices, not how you pay for healthcare. how to introduce market forces? how to make it more like a free market? need more transparency in health care prices/resisted by hospitals and providers. we spend more than any other country and have worse health outcomes. final problem: people who have insurance like it, have top end. problem is bottom who are not covered at all. majority of American are opposed for medicare for all (single payer) because did not want quality of care to go down (because those with good insurance get good coverage right now). inefficiencies: costs too high, not enough coverage, need for computerized health records, best practices are not widely implemented (differ across the country). (80 percent of healthcare costs come from 20% of people) -severe problems with medicaid and medicare. -amount spent on healthcare by the federal govt will only continue to grow as prices increase. -RESPONSE TO COVID 19 SLIDES (end of social policy) -did not want to increase the deficit. -Medicare=unfunded liabilities of $37.7 trillion (boomers) -The cost of health care to Americans has been rising for the past several years, and many citizens can not afford coverage. According to Obama, this reform was necessary in order to "reduce the rate of uninsured Americans," and combat rising healthcare prices. This law has succeed in bringing this rate down from 16% to 9%, which means that 20 million more people have coverage today. Not only that, but this law has "expanded access to basic preventive services," lowered costs in Medicaid and Medicare, and slowed rising costs of private insurance. Finally, it has improved the quality of health care by reducing the "frequency of hospital-acquired infections" and "hospital readmission rates." He believes this law has allowed Americans to feel more secure in their lifetime coverage, and that it has allowed the federal government to "bring the rise of health care costs under control" through a variety of new tools. -defends necessity of passing ACA. uninsured rate was high, cost of healthcare threw the roof, reform needed especially as the recession was still goin on, continuation of govt subsidized healthcare, set toward socialized healthcare but not quite, wanted more people covered an insured than before. he goes into details about what effect the ACA had, goo things. states needed to expand Medicare, still room for improvement. What are the argument against health care reform and alternatives to the Affordable Care Act ? (APT Chap 16, Obama and Haislmaier in TED) Haislmaier counters every claims Obama makes. He discusses the fact that many people were forced to give up insurance that they liked because the government deemed that it was "not good enough." Not only that, but as insurance providers were forced to narrow their networks to meet the government's requirements, many people lost their connections with doctors they had seen for years (many providers also went out of business, inconvenient). Not only that, but these inflexible rules have actually made the costs of premiums rise by "more than 10% a year." This law has also negatively affected the middle class by increasing taxes, and it has takes away citizen's freedom by forcing them to buy insurance through the "individual mandate." "Market-based" reforms are typically proposed as alternatives the the ACA. This means that the government should encourage competition among insurance providers in order to lower costs. Lower costs and efficiency could be improved through state-level regulation of the markets, and they could also use tax policy to encourage this competition. -impacts of ACA was not doing what Obama said it does, affecting middle class more than he said it was. better approaches (patient centered free health care system, opposite direction of Obama) Health Care Reform Features Other features: - Individual mandate (not enforced starting in 2019). - Subsidies for 22 of the estimated 28 million who buy insurance through the exchanges. People who make up to 4x the poverty rate ($88,000 for a family of 4, $44,000 for an individual) would get subsidies. Pay no more than 10% of income at the top of that range, less at the bottom end. - Employers with at least 50 employees have to provide health care or face a fine of $2,000 per employee. - Cannot deny coverage because of preexisting conditions. - Young adults can stay on their parents' policies until age 26. - Closes the Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole." APT The long-term fiscal problems of Medicare and Medicaid are severe. Central to President Obama's 2008 campaign platform was reforming America's health care system. Upon election in 2009, he outlined several goals: controlling health care costs, providing health insurance for more Americans (as close to universal coverage as possible), and paying for the program without adding to the deficit. He then urged Congress to hammer out the details. see pg 598 Obama and Haislmaier in TED -According to President Obama's article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the law has succeeded: it has reduced the rate of uninsured Americans from 16% to 9%, allowing 20 million previously uninsured to obtain coverage. It has expanded access to basic preventive services. It has slowed the rate of growth of health care costs, reducing increases in the cost of private insurance and actually lowering costs in Medicare and Medicaid. And it has improved outcomes, lowering hospital readmission rates and the frequency of hospital-acquired infections. Because of the ACA, argues Obama, "Americans can now count on access to health coverage throughout their lives, and the federal govt has an array of tools to bring the rise of health care costs under control." -Nonsense, responds Haislmaier and his co-authors, contesting nearly every claim about the ACA's success. Millions of people lost insurance they liked, and many people had their relationships with doctors disrupted as insurers narrowed provider networks. The costs of insurance grew, with premiums for many plans increasing by more than 10% a year, in part by imposing inflexible rules that prevent people from buying the kind go coverage they want, rather than what the federal govt says they need. The ACA increased taxes, including those on middle class families, by $770 billion over 10 yrs. And the "widely despised" individual mandate takes away any element of individual choice. These authors propose an alternative reform that uses "market-based" reforms reliant on competition tax changes, and state-level regulation to improve efficiency and lower costs. If there sone place in which the 2 readings agree, it is that health care reform will continue to be a controversial and contested policy.

Is income inequality a problem? Is it a threat to democracy or the engine of economic growth? Would reducing regulations help income inequality and promote growth? (Williams, Will, and Hinkle in TED)

Williams believes that income inequality is a problem because it is a threat to democracy. He presents a list of astonishing statistics that highlight the wealth and income gaps in our society. He argues that these inequalities are connected with "more crime, less happiness, poorer mental and physical health, less racial harmony, and less civil and political participation." Not only that, but he demonstrates that people who have extremely low levels of income have low mobility, less access to the health care system, and less access to high quality education. This puts them at a permanent disadvantage, and they are unable to become truly productive members of society. He also demonstrates that all income classes in a society with wide disparities are worse off in some way. Furthermore, he cites a study that reveals that many Americans are unaware of how large these issues are in our country, and that many citizens want "a more equal distribution." In other words, he believes that it is our duty as Americans to address these problems that are clearly shown in the data. If we do not, the foundation of democracy will start to crumble. On the other hand, Will believes that "income inequality in a capitalist system is truly beautiful because it is the engine of economic growth." He believes that the fact that people can become billionaires in America encourages new innovations and investments in products. These rich people were able to become as well off as they are today because they contributed something substantial to our economy, such as iPhones. These inventions, in turn, allow them to form companies, which create jobs for thousands of Americans. The companies owned by billionaires in America then compete with one another for monopoly power, which keeps consumer prices down. They also bring in investments from foreign countries, which allow American workers to have higher wages than workers in other counters (like China). If we did not allow billionaires to keep their wealth, there would be no motivation for people to create new products and make other large contributions to our economy. Also, America has always specialized in this type of economy, so he believes that changing this would be a huge mistake. In the end, while reducing restrictions on monopolies would create more inequality, he believes that this is necessary for economic growth. Finally, Hinkle believe that current regulations are hindering economic growth. While the government has been on a deregulatory trend over the past couple of decades, there are still many unnecessary restrictions left, and he believes that removing them is actually the best way to tackle inequality and improve growth. First, he believes that patents have been given out too freely. Some companies are able to get broad patents even if they do not make a product. The primary goal of these companies is to prevent others from making products, which clearly hurts innovation. Furthermore, many American companies have been founded by immigrants and their children. Currently, he thinks that our immigration laws are too strict, especially for high-skilled workers, which has also prevented economic growth. Next, he argues that too many American occupations require "a permission slip from the government." This impedes economic growth by raising prices for consumers, acting as a drag on employment, and creating barriers to entry for those with lower levels of education. Finally, he asserts that high zoning regulations in cities with higher levels of income are driving people away from the most productive parts of society. Overall, he believes that removing these unnecessary regulations will help improve economic inequality and growth because they will encourage "more entrepreneurship and job creation." Depending on the free market to promote wealth and growth is a libertarian perspective that has come into the political debate recently.

hyperpluralism

a theory of government and politics contending that groups are so strong that government is weakened see above

dark money?

dark money: some groups do not have to disclose their donations or donors (501(c)4s), go to help candidates. (lots of money in our process) -main problem of campaign finance today? Responses to IG Problem -Campaign finance reform (TED debate, dark money). see above

affirmative action

see above: A policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities (equality of outcome above)

mutual assured destruction D

the idea that two nations that posses large stores of nuclear weapons-like the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War-would both be annihilated in any nuclear exchange, thus making it unlikely that either country would launch an attack first. -in 1950s America started creating large stores of nuclear weapons. the idea that even if the Soviet Union unleashed an all-out nuclear assault on U.S. forces, enough American weapons would remain intact to deliver a similarly devastating counterattack.

Strict Scrutinty Test

Under this test, there must be a "compelling state interest" to discriminate among people if race is involved. As the "suspect classification" (strict scrutiny or the highest level of protection/hardest test) under the Fourteenth Amendment, this test grants racial minorities the strongest protection. Unfortunately, this test has not yet been applied to women. The strict scrutiny test gives racial minorities the strongest protection as the "suspect classification" under the Fourteenth Amendment, but it has not been applied to women. This test stipulates that there must be a "compelling state interest" to discriminate among people if race is involved.

The "reasonable basis test"??

If a law treats individuals unequally, the "reasonable basis test" is used by the courts to determine its legality. Specifically, if a law's purpose is deemed to be "reasonably" connected to a legitimate government interest, then it is constitutional. A test applied by courts to laws that treat individuals unequally. Such a law may be deemed constitutional if its purpose is held to be "reasonably" related to a legitimate government interest. rational basis test: the use of evidence to suggest that differences in the behavior of two groups can rationalize unequal treatment of those groups.

TANF (welfare reform)

In 1996, TANF (Temporary assistance to needy families) replaced AFDC (Aid to families with dependent children). This welfare reform bill eliminated many national guarantees and gave more power to the states. Its main goal was to encourage more people on welfare to enter the workforce. It set a five year total limit on welfare, and it required citizens on welfare programs to find a job after two years on benefits. Otherwise, they would get locked out of welfare. One the other hand, it provided temporary aid for poor families with dependent children and pregnant women. It helped pay for their utilities, food, shelter, and other expenses. Using federal block grants, this policy was left the states to administer. APT The 1996 welfare reform bill, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), gave more power to the states and eliminated all national guarantees. Welfare reform - TANF (Temporary assistance to needy families) replaced AFDC (Aid to families with dependent children) in 1996. Five-year total limit on welfare, have to find work after two years of benefits. Administered by the states with Federal blocks grants. Difficulty in welfare reform.

income inequality (see TED debate) -trickle down republican idea -warren and sanders campaigns (wealth tax)

In America, we have growing income and wealth inequality. 22.3% of the income in 2017 was earned by the top 5% of households. From 1979-2015, the income of the top 1% grew by 233% in comparison to only 12% for the middle class. The wealth gap in the U.S. is even worse. 67% of the nation's wealth is owned by the top 5%, and the bottom 40% actually have a negative net worth. This is mostly due to rise of billionaires in America. Buffet, Gates, and Bezos actually have more wealth than the bottom 50% of households ( and other CEOs are about 2/3rds of the top 1%). Bush-era and 2017 tax cuts, the Wall Street boom through the 1990s, and the fact that wages have failed to keep up with productivity growth have also contributed to this wealth gap (as this increased the number of CEOs and their wages?). In the end, it is clear that income inequality is prevalent in America. Social welfare policy is usually created in order to address these inequalities. Typically, fixing income inequality is favored by Democrats, who advocate for redistributive policies. republicans tend to focus on growth and trickle down economics -Republicans, on the one hand, argue that the best way to address poverty is through supply-side tax cuts that promote the creation of capital, investment, and jobs, and thus ensure a healthy economy (see Chapter 15) (believe income inequality is necessary) -Democrats, on the other hand, argue that making the wealthy pay a larger share of their income in taxes could fund programs to help the poor directly and it would be more efficient than waiting for the trickle-down effects of tax cuts for the wealthy. Is the growing gap a problem? see other! ----Pareto efficiency criterion says no (if a change in policy makes someone better off without making someone worse off, we should do it: free market efficiency). ----"trickle down" effect, incentives for poor. ----Was at the core of Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign and is a big issue in the 2020 campaign: Warren's wealth tax. Income Inequality -Why is the gap growing? CEOs are about 2/3 of the top 1%, Wall Street boom through the 1990s, Bush-era tax cuts and the 2017 tax cuts, failure for wages to keep up with productivity growth. -In 2017, CEO compensation as a multiple of the average employee compensation in the U.S. is a multiplier of 360 ($13.9 million versus $38,613); was 40-1 in 1980. In comparison, the multiplier is 21 for Canada, 11 for Germany and Switzerland, 25 for Britain, 10 for Japan, and 22 for Australia. ----If minimum wage had risen as fast as average CEO pay, it would now be more than $70/hr. -Top 25 hedge fund managers made $672 million each in 2017 and $515 million each in 2018. APT growing income and wealth inequality in US -people in top 1 percent benefitting disproportionally from income increases. Income Inequality -Growing inequality: the top 5% of households (more than $237,034 a year) earned 22.3% of the income in 2017. Average income of the top 1% grew by $1,293,000 from 1979-2015 (233%) to $1,844,700 compared to a $7,400 increase or 12% for the middle 1/5 to $58,500. -Wealth gap far greater. Median net worth of U.S. households is $97.323; top 5% have 67% of nation's wealth (about $4 million median). Bottom 40% have negative net worth. ----In 2018, the wealthiest 400 people in the nation were worth $2.9 trillion (bottom person had $2.1 billion); 3 wealthiest (Bezos, Gates, and Buffet) have more wealth ($345 billion) than the bottom 50% of households. In 2015, the top 10 percent of households—those earning more than $124,810 a year—earned more than half of the income, which is the highest proportion since 1917 (see Figure 16.1); and in 2015, the top 1 percent—those earning more than $443,000—earned 22 percent of the nation's income. social welfare programs very important for reducing this Republicans, on the one hand, argue that the best way to address poverty is through supply-side tax cuts that promote the creation of capital, investment, and jobs, and thus ensure a healthy economy (see Chapter 15) (believe income inequality is necessary) Democrats, on the other hand, argue that making the wealthy pay a larger share of their income in taxes could fund programs to help the poor directly and it would be more efficient than waiting for the trickle-down effects of tax cuts for the wealthy.

just and unjust laws

In a letter from Birmingham jail during the Civil Rights movements, Martin Luther king outlines the difference between just and unjust laws. He argues that everyone should obey just laws, but that they also have the obligation to break unjust ones (through nonviolent protests and actions). He argues that "a just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God" (religious component, he is a minister). unjust law is inconsistent with this. (unjust law-is a code that the majority inflicts on the minority that is not binding on itself, and also an unjust law decodes a law that the majority inflicts on the minority that the minority had no say in making (because not allowed to vote) (both of these explanations are political)). On the other hand, if a law is not created by a group of people, but it directly affects their basic human rights, then it is unjust. Along these lines, laws imposed on minorities by majorities are unjust if they are not also followed by the majority group. (ex laws denying equal treatment to homosexuals) (pro-life/pro-choice movement) opinions on just or unjust laws differ. -legal and moral argument to disobey unjust laws. -he would be the first to advocate for obeying just laws (pro-life movement/non violent protests, say they are tying to break unjust laws) how to distinguish: first, a just la

Reconstruction

the period after the Civil War in the United States when the southern states were reorganized and reintegrated into the Union resulted in green light for segregation and Jim Crow laws. plessy vs ferguson. (because struck down civil rights acts of 1866 and 1875).

misery index

unofficial statistic that is the sum of monthly inflation and the unemployment rate. The index helps determine how the average citizen is doing economically. Tradeoffs between the Goals -Inflation and unemployment. Weakening of the tradeoff since early 1980s. The "misery index." -lecture notes: hard to maximize all of these goals at the same time. has existed for some time, but has weakened over time. when inflation is high, unemployment is low=did this until 1980s where they do not move in opposite directions as much anymore. fairly explicit over time. part of our normal economic cycle. misery index is sum of unemployment and inflation rate. spikes during recessions.

Upon what principle is affirmative action based? (lecture and APT Ch. 14).

I'm assuming that what he means by that phrase is that it is based on leveling the playing field or the equality of opportunities. (see above and below) purpose of affirmative action is to level the playing field. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that, at least on paper, all Americans would enjoy equality of opportunity.

Keynesian counter-cyclical policy

The tools of economic policy includes fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy involves spending and taxing powers. Its main purpose is to smooth out economic cycles. One method of using fiscal policy is based on Keynesian economics, which involves "countercyclical taxing and spending." Keynesians believe that when aggregate demand is low, it is the government's job to stimulate the economy through increased spending or tax cuts. On the other hand, the government needs to raise taxes or cut spending when AD is high (or when it is heating up, bc do not want inflationary pressure). This is meant to keep the economy at a steady level (prevent it from becoming off balanced). They call this "fine tuning the economy." In addition to taxing and spending, the government. can lend or borrow. Keynesian economics argues that policy makers can soften the effects of a recession by stimulating the economy when overall demand is low—during a recession, when people aren't spending as much—through tax cuts or increased government spending.

the trade deficit

A goal of economic policy is a balance of payments, which is essentially "the difference in value between payments in and out of a country," or the trade deficit. This has also grown in recent decades as the U.S. is a net borrower (we buy more from foreigners than they do from us). In order to help the trade deficit, the U.S. government can try and weaken the dollar. This means that it would be more expensive for citizens to buy foreign goods, but it would make our goods cheaper to other countries. Many people today debate whether or not the trade deficit is a problem. President Trump ran on a platform of addressing the trade deficit. He promised to renegotiate trade deals and make sure the U.S. got better agreements for its domestic companies. Another strategy for addressing the trade deficit could include foreign protectionism, which is essentially imposing restrictions on imports from other countries; unfortunately, this often does not work as the trade ware with China has demonstrates. Whether or not the trade deficit is a problem depends on who you ask. Some people believe, like President Trump, believe that America is getting the short end of the straw when it comes to trade deals, which is why the trade deficit is negative. However, others believe that it is not necessarily a bad thing. Some economists believe that the trade deficit is actually measured wrong. Many companies report making their products in countries that have lower taxes, even if their products are actually made in the U.S. Furthermore, while it is true that America does not specialize in mass production of cheap manufacturing goods like China, it does specialize in services. As America is a more developed country, it has moved from making goods that are typically made by developing countries to providing services typically found in developed countries. This means an emphasis on higher education and other service positions, so if the trade deficit is measured based on those method instead, our deficit would be much less negative. the amount by which the cost of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports. -large in US, love food, world's largest debtor nation -if this is driven by more foreign investments in America than America has invested overseas, then economist say that this is not a problem. But if it is just being spent on conceptions, then it is. The main target of trade policy is the trade balance

What contributions did interest groups make to the quality of democracy in early U.S. history? (deToqueville in TED) pluralism: ted debate. notion that goes back to James Madison: in Federalist 10 he talks about idea of factions. he saw factions as being an inherent quality in politics, people will organize around their self interests, wanted to set up a form of government that would control the effects of those factions who are competing against one another. pluralists are democratic theorists: dominate theory of making sense of politics, updated Madison's ideas. argue that most of political outcomes in American politics can be seen as the outcome of the competition of different groups. whatever group can organize the most political support for a side of an issue will have the most influence. both share idea that interest groups are "legitimate voice for intense preferences." not illegal. this is the best and right way to have voice heard in political system. address majority tyranny: concern of Madison's. interest groups can do this through overlapping memberships and groups checking each other, huge number of groups will be at odds with one another and many people apart of different groups. unlikely that any one set of groups will always be on majority side. intensity of preferences are reflected through groups: empirical argument. way it works. people who care enough will organize and participate in groups. organize potential interests: groups also can speak for unorganized groups (movement to organize for migrant agricultural workers/speak for others to make sure their interest were being represented). positive impact.

As every American grows up, they learn that they have to rely on themselves in order to get what they want. When they become old enough, they join with others in order to fight for what they believe in, as is the American way. deToqueville argues that interest groups have historically been "an important check on a majority's power to suppress a political minority." This means that it is almost impossible for any one group to dominate the political system as no group can be excluded. (pluralist perspective, seen above). Once a majority party takes power, the minority party is able to fight it with all of its might (encouraging competition and lessening the moral authority of the majority), which prevents it from completely taking over. Originally, citizens were not very involved in politics. He argues that allowing these groups to exist has provided "a political outlet for all types of political perspectives to be heard," which has encouraged political participation. Not only that, but they have encouraged compromises on individual issues as each group must present their side, build support among their peers, and work with other groups. While many Americans have similar goals, interest groups have provided different paths for them to follow in order to achieve them. In the end, he believes that interest groups have had a very positive impact on American society throughout history. (encouraged legal and peaceful associations)(place for individual independence but through group activity)(allows those with the same goal to work together and achieve change) -right to associate allowed for all perspectives to be heard. 394, (show their numbers, lessen the moral authority of the majority, hope to bring majority over to its side in order to exercise its power). voices heard and can convince people and become the govt. He pointed out that allowing citizens to associate in a variety of groups with a variety of interests provides a political outlet for all types of political perspectives to be heard. It also enables compromises to be reached as each interest group attempts to build support among shifting coalitions on individual issues. "There is a place for individual independence," he argued, in the American system of government. "As in society, all the members are advancing at the same time toward the same goal, but they are not obliged to follow the exact same path." The right of political association-joining together-has long been a cornerstone of American democracy. Tocqueville, argued that the right to associate provides positive impact of interest groups on American politics pluralist freedom of association necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority Madison: saw factions as something that must be controlled through federal system. -David Truman and de Tocqueville (TED) argue that interest groups are legitimate voices for intense preferences.

Equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity

Ensuring equality of outcomes means that you are trying to make sure that everyone ends life at a similar point (usually income wise). This is usually thought of in the context of government policies that try to give advantages to minorities that have previously been discriminated against (affirmative action see above or redistributive policies) or redistributive policies (take wealth from one group and give it to another). Equality of opportunity means that you are trying to ensure that everyone's chance to advance in life is equal (leveling the playing field). The Civil Rights movement for African Americans got rid of unjust segregation laws and provided more equal opportunities for this minority group across the board (Voting Rights Act 1965 too). (see examples below and definitions above) Equality of Outcomes -Quotas and affirmative action ---Lyndon Johnson and the metaphor of the athletes. Executive Order 11246 (1965). "Set asides" for "small disadvantaged businesses." Interpreted as minority owned. Expanded under Nixon. ---Passive (make size of the applicant pool more diverse) and active affirmative action (race is a "plus factor" in the hiring or admissions decision). ---Public opinion reveals a racial divide on the issue. White respondents very opposed (by 3-1 margins in most polls), black respondents support (by about 2-1). Equality of Opportunity -The Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. -Rosa Parks, 1955; Greensboro sit-ins, 1960; Ole Miss James Meredith, 1962; Birmingham, 1963. JFK took a public stand, Medgar Evers assassinated the next day. -Letter from the Birmingham jail: Distinction between just and unjust laws. Have an obligation to break unjust laws. Comparison to pro-life movement.

How is globalization good for you? (Bailey in TED) pg 510-15

In the 2016 presidential election, trade was a central part of Donald Trump's platform. He criticized the Trans Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying that they were "horrible deals." He claimed that these agreements allowed other countries to export more to the U.S. than they were importing to it, which meant that they were taking advantage of us and hurting American jobs. Not only that, but countries like China have looser environmental standards, lower labor costs, and less regulation, which encourages companies to "shift jobs overseas." As globalization has increased, many workers who are employed by these companies have lost their jobs. However, "free trade has been a centerpiece of global economic policy for decades." Supporters argue that enacting protectionist policies for specific industries affected by globalization ends up hurting the economy more overall. In other words, the loss of jobs in these sectors is not worth creating trade barriers (tariffs) to protect because the positive gains in those sectors are offset by the larger negative effects on the general economy. Tariffs (taxes on imports) create inefficiencies, increase costs of goods, and reduce citizens' overall wealth. Bailey is in favor of globalization, and he believes that it is extremely beneficial. In his article, he examines different research on the results of the growing "free movement of goods, capital, and even people, across borders." He claims that the research demonstrates that globalization has had positive effects on almost every aspect of society: world trade, economic growth, child labor, likelihood of military conflict-free trade, general equality, job prospects, productivity, environmental protection, overall wealth, individual income, and life expectancy. In the end, he argues that "all of this open movement of people and stuff across borders" has clearly paid off. (other quotes below) -since 1950, world trade in goods has had more than a 30-fold increase, during a period in which global population grew less than threefold. -massive increase in trade was kicked off in 1948 by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which began the liberalization process of lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers. As a result, autarkic national economies became more integrated and intertwined with one another. The World Bank despots that openness to trade-the ratio of a country's trade (exports plus imports) to its gross domestic product (GDP)-has more than doubled on average since 1950. Immigration has also contributed significantly to economic growth and higher wages. some 40% of Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children.

civil rights (see below)

In the Fourteenth Amendment, civil rights are embedded in the equal protection clause. They guarantee citizens' freedom from discrimination by both individuals and the government. THE CONTEXT OF CIVIL RIGHTS Civil rights protect all persons from discrimination both by the government and by other individuals. Initially, African Americans were the focus of civil rights protections, but the protections have expanded to cover other racial and ethnic groups, women, the elderly, the disabled, and gays and lesbians. Civil rights differ from civil liberties, as civil liberties refer to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, such as the freedom of speech or religion.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 (see descriptions of discriminatory voting requirements above)

In the South, discriminatory literacy tests and other voter registration laws prevented many black citizens from voting until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Not only were these obstacles directly eliminated by this act, but federal marshals were granted the abilities to enforce it (they were charged with overseeing elections in the south) . (not my words after this) The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

different health care options

Medicare: is an insurance program for the elderly (above 65) and people with disabilities. Medicaid: is an insurance program for the poor (you need to be below a certain income level to qualify for this). Private insurance (with govt. subsidies for Obamacare depending on income, often received through your employer, and kids can not stay on their parents' plan until age 26). insurance market system Charity Out-of-pocket payments

Don't Ask Don't Tell -obama appealed in 2010

President Clinton's attempt to end the ban on gays in the military was the "most significant unilateral action taken by a president in the area of civil rights for gays and lesbians" at the time. However, he faced strong resistance from all sides of the political agenda. This cause him to create the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise, which essentially meant that gays could participate in the military as long as they did not tell anyone about their sexual orientation. The military would "stop actively searching for and discharging gays" from the ranks, but if they were discovered, they could get discharged or disciplined. Of course, this was a horrible compromise, and it failed to appease any side. attempted to end the ban on gays in the military, but because of strong resistance, compromised with "don't ask, don't tell," which was repealed by Congress in 2010. The most significant unilateral action taken by a president in the area of civil rights for gays and lesbians was President Clinton's effort to end the ban on gays in the military. Clinton was surprised by the strength of the opposition to his plan, so he ended up crafting a compromise policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which pleased no one. Under this policy, the military would stop actively searching for and discharging gays from the military ranks, and recruits would not need to reveal their sexual orientation. But if the military did find out (without conducting an investigation) that a person was gay, he or she still could be disciplined or discharged. repealed in 2010

the social safety net; the Democrats', the Republicans', and the Obama debt commission's plans to save Social Security

The social safety net -The U.S. has a variety of Welfare Programs, which are used to "protect low-income Americans from poverty and hardship." If an American falls on hard times, then these programs are meant to be a "social safety net" to catch them and help them get back on their feet. -The Democrats and Republicans have different ideas on how to go about fixing Social Security. Democrats would like to slow the growth of current benefits by using a chained CPI system, gradually increase the retirement ago to 70, increase the income ceiling and raise payroll taxes by 3%, and maintain the "the basic structure of a public social insurance system." -On the other hand, Republicans want to cut future benefits, maybe raise the retirement age, privatize part of Social Security while keeping the other part of the program under government control (this is the main difference), use 2% to 6% of each citizens' Social Security taxes to set up individual investment accounts, and fund the program by slowing the growth of benefits or by borrowing. -Finally, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, set up by Obama as a nonpartisan commission, also released a plan in 2010. This included making the retirement benefit formula more progressive, increasing taxes and pay level subject to payroll tax, cutting some benefits by indexing the retirement age to life expectancy, indexing benefits to chained CPI, and increasing benefits for poorer citizens. -In the end, the solution will most likely involve some combination of cutting benefits and increasing payroll taxes.

Obergfell v. Hodges

This was a landmark case for same sex marriage. There were conflicts in lower courts on how to deal with same sex marriage, so the Supreme Court decided to step in. In Obergfell v. Hodges in 2015, they overturned lower court rulings by upholding same sex marriage. They stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause guaranteed marriage to same-sex couples. Today, because of this case, same sex marriage is legal everywhere in the U.S. Expansion of same-sex marriage -Following the Windsor and Hollingsworth cases, the Supreme Court allowed appeals courts decisions to strike down bans on same-sex marriage to stand. This expanded SSM to 35 states. Winning streak for SSM was broken when the 6th Circuit Appeals court upheld the ban on SSM in KY, OH, MI, and TN. -SC addressed the conflict in the lower courts and upheld SSM in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Marriage is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

the "ownership society"

When President George W. Bush gave a speech in 2003 in support of his proposed tax cuts, he used the words "ownership society." In an attempt to moved toward market based society policies, he encouraged citizens to take "responsibility for their own social welfare." Instead of relying on the government, he wanted citizens to take more control over their lives and personal welfare. This meant a greater reliance on market forces and non-governmental charities (reduction of social policies). The term used to describe the social policy vision of President George W. Bush, in which citizens take responsibility for their own social welfare and the free market plays a greater role in social policy. Bush and "faith-based" social services and the "ownership society." More reliance on non-governmental charities and market forces.

How is income inequality related to social policy (Lecture)

Yes, it is a very general question but you are on the right track. Think about how some of these programs are put in place to try and alleviate some of the problems of income inequality. Also think about how these programs fail to do so, because they are not in any way perfect. New Deal programs, reducing income inequality is usually the goal of social policies. -income inequality debate above Republicans tend to be against the welfare system. They believe that it can be abused by those who do not benefit society. In other words, they believe that a welfare system would disincentivize people from joining the workforce. Instead, they would simply live off of the payments given to them by the government, and most of these funds would have to be paid for by the wealthy and productive members of society. On the other hand, Democrats tend to favor the welfare system. They believe that it provides an even playing field for citizens and helps to solve income inequality. They believe that redistributing the wealth will help those in the bottom percentile become more productive members of society as they will finally have the means to support themselves. This will, in turn, help solve the dramatic income inequality in America. -social security has helped reduce income inequality for the elderly, problems today but still have worked -medicaid and medicare, problems today but still have worked (Obamacare needed though) -some programs fail because they are not perfect lots of social policy is aimed at alleviating x: medicaid example: serving lower income populations with healthcare. aimed at helping lower income individuals who would otherwise not be able to afford coverage. you think of other programs as well, TANF. welfare state, close opportunities gaps that you see because of those inequalities.

balance of power

distribution of military and economic power that prevents any one nation from becoming too strong -is this idea in international relations, historically, there would be like. 4 or 5 major powers in international system: China, Europe, U.S., other. what matters is no power is every going to dominate international system. historically, countries would align with each other and try to temporarily form an alliance to prevent other countries from taking over the world (allies vs nazis) prevent Germany from taking over. balance of power shifts: ex after WWII shifted to Soviet Union and U.S. think about how alliance politics works.

What are the tools of U.S. foreign policy? (APT, Chap 17)

Tools of foreign policy making:-Diplomacy, the United Nations, international monetary system (IMF, World Bank), economic aid, collective security, and military deterrence. Diplomacy Diplomacy is the process of negotiation on international issues between national leaders. Trade and economic policies Foreign policy is also aimed at sustaining economic growth, as well as creating foreign markets for the goods produced by America's domestic industries. The main tools of trade policy are tariffs and trade agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization created in 1995 to oversee trade agreements between nations by facilitating negotiation and handling disputes. The United States has granted many countries most-favored-nation status, providing the lowest possible tariff rate. WTO members must give one another this preferred status. The United States can use free-trade agreements—tariffs or sanctions—to bargain with countries for concessions in other areas. Foreign aid Foreign aid includes money, products, or services given to other countries or to the citizens of these countries. It can be driven by humanitarian efforts, to stimulate economic growth, or to facilitate international agreements. Alliances and treaties A treaty is a formal written agreement between nations involving security, trade or economic development, human rights, or other important policies. An alliance is an agreement between two or more countries pledging support if one of those countries is attacked. Military force Used throughout the world as a deterrent, America's military force is a fundamental tool of foreign policy. The size and power of America's military provides numerous options for policy makers, but military force is expensive to maintain and not all-powerful. Foreign policy includes military operations, economic interactions, human rights policies, environmental agreements, foreign aid, helping build or sustain democratic systems, interventions in civil wars and other conflicts, and international efforts to limit weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including nuclear weapons. Drones are an effective tool. Drone attacks allow the United States to combat terrorists throughout the world without putting American troops at risk. Drone attacks are also less expensive than conventional forces. Some people foresee that the very advantages ascribed to drones—that they are relatively inexpensive and require no human pilots—could likely lead decision makers to use drones more quickly than they might use conventional weapons. In a similar vein, there are those who believe that drones remove the personal element from warfare, making it easier to disregard the moral implications of an attack. APT TOOLS: -Diplomacy has often been a limited but useful foreign policy tool. The process of diplomacy involves using personal contact and negotiations with national leaders and representatives to work out international agreements or persuade other nations to change their behavior. Threats of military actions or economic sanctions, or incentives such as economic assistance -Diplomacy has its limits. The various parties in a conflict have to be willing to make a deal and to accept American efforts to negotiate. -Trade and economic policies can be crucial instruments of foreign policy: they can sustain economic growth in the United States and elsewhere, as well as create foreign markets for the goods produced by America's domestic industries. -tariffs (tax on the import or export of certain commodities) and trade agreements (a trade agreement sets tariff levels or limits the quantities of particular items that can be imported or exported) low tariffs on exports help American producers sell items overseas -lately, have been lowering tariffs and establishing free trade zones, agreements to eliminate all tariffs on imports and exports among specific nations -Foreign aid is money, products, or services given to other countries or the citizens of these countries. -A treaty is an agreement between two nations to work together on economic or security issues. An alliance is an agreement that commits nations to security guarantees, which are assurances that one country will help another if it is attacked. Alliance=NATO-formed by the North Atlantic Treaty after WWII to provide collective security against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. After the cold war, focused on coordinating military forces toward common goals (intervention in the Libyan civil war). Treaties=nuclear=capping the size of nuclear forces. America's military forces serve throughout the world as a deterrent to conflict

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

A 2010 landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money to groups that make independent political expenditures. (not my words) -review session: most important ruling was that for profit and non profit organizations can make contributions to independent expenditures instead of having to do things individually (where there were limits). cannot give money to specific people, but can give money to groups (of course those groups are associated). allowed corporations and unions to donate money when they could not before. -Before, with 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, this prevented these organization from making direct donations that either supported or criticized a specific candidate. It also stopped them from making electioneering donations within 60 days of an election or within 30 days of a primary. The Supreme Court rules that this was a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. -controversial decision -fueled rise of Super PACs, impact on campaign finance

unilateralism D

A philosophy that encourages individual nations to act on their own when facing threats from other nations. Should We Act Alone? The goals behind many foreign policy actions are varied and complex, and, as such, debates over policies are framed in terms of general principles or rules. Unilateral action occurs when one country does something on its own, without the assistance or coordination of other nations.

Affirmative Action (political divide as well: repubs against affirmative action, dems favor) what we have right now: idea of race as a plus factor. left up to the states.

Affirmative action, the practice of developing policies that favor groups that have previously been discriminated against, has become a controversial debate in the United States. There is clearly a racial divide in public opinion on the issue. Black citizens tend to support these types of policies by a 2-1 margin, but white citizens tend to oppose them by a 3-1 margin. Some white citizens believe that affirmative action is "preferential treatment" or "reverse discrimination," which is why they tend to be more against it (see above). This practice was created in order to ensure the equality of outcomes for minorities in America. Originally, affirmative action included rigid quotas in higher education; however, this was later deemed illegal by the Supreme Court unless it was directly making up for past discrimination. It also included "set asides" for "small disadvantaged businesses" during the Johnson administration, but this was also struck down by the Supreme Court unless there was evidence of actual discrimination (and not just patterns). Today, there is both active and passive affirmative action. Making the size of the applicant pool more diverse is considered passive affirmative action, while making race a "plus factor" in the admissions or hiring decision is considered active affirmative action. In 2014, a state referendum was passed in Michigan banning affirmative action. This was a case brought to the Supreme Court, but they decided that it was okay to leave this issue to the states. Initially, the Court was very supportive of affirmative action, but they are now becoming less supportive as they are moving toward a color-blind approach. (see debate below) Lecture slides: Equality of Outcomes -Quotas and affirmative action ---Lyndon Johnson and the metaphor of the athletes. Executive Order 11246 (1965). "Set asides" for "small disadvantaged businesses." Interpreted as minority owned. Expanded under Nixon. ---Public opinion reveals a racial divide on the issue. White respondents very opposed (by 3-1 margins in most polls), black respondents support (by about 2-1). Court Cases on affirmative action in higher education -Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Bakke (1978), rigid quotas not allowed (unless making up for past discrimination), but race could be a factor in admissions decisions. -Proposition 209 in California in 1996. -Conflicting lower Court cases sorted out by the Supreme Court in 2003; accepted the Univ. of Michigan law school's "holistic approach" but rejected the more rigid approach to undergraduate admissions. But Fisher v. Texas (2013), remand to district court to consider whether plan was "narrowly tailored" under the "strict scrutiny" standard. Policy was upheld in Fisher II in 2016 in a 4-3 vote. 2014 Michigan case (Schuette): state referendum banning affirmative action is OK (6-2 vote); leave it up to the states. Sotomayor's dissent. Harvard case up next. Court Cases on affirmative action in employment and contracting -U.S. Steelworkers v. Weber (1979), racial quotas are OK to make up for past discrimination. -Richmond v. Croson (1989). Set-aside programs are illegal unless actual discrimination is demonstrated (rather than patterns of discrimination). Started the shift toward a color-blind jurisprudence. -Adarand Construction v. Pena (1995), struck down set-aside programs in federal contracting (Croson applied to state+local). A policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities Two other areas where the Supreme Court has helped advance women's rights are affirmative action and protection against sexual harassment. Lecture outline: Affirmative action takes various forms: The most passive form is extra effort to recruit women and minorities. A more active form is to include race or gender as a "plus factor" in admissions or hiring decisions. The strongest form is the use of strict quotas to admit or hire a specific number of applicants from underrepresented groups. -Affirmative action has been a controversial policy. Many whites view this as "preferential treatment" and "reverse discrimination." -The Supreme Court helped define the boundaries of this policy debate. While initially supportive of affirmative action programs, the Court has been less supportive as it moved toward a color-blind approach. In the landmark case University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled that rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional, but it allowed race to be a "plus factor" used in admissions decisions.

health insurance exchanges

America has a health insurance exchange market. This means that consumers are able compare and buy individual health insurance plans on an online market. In recent years, this market has grown, which means that the number of private health insurance carriers has increased. However, these markets are regulated by the states. When citizens choose to get health insurance this way, the ACA now makes the government provide subsidies for people who earn below a certain level of income.

classical liberalism vs. ascriptive Americanism

Classical liberalism: This train of political thought focuses on "the individual and minimizing government intervention in daily life." Private property, individualism, equality, liberty, democracy, and protection of religious freedom are all powerful ideas within the "American liberal tradition." Ascriptive Americanism: Smith argues that there is a "different, tradition in American political thought that has been influential," Ascriptive Americanism. With this train of political thought, some groups are below and others are on top in America. In other words, "society is a hierarchy." Those below are thought to not be deserving of the benefits and rights that the liberal tradition can offer, but those on top are. This view is consistent with the horrible treatment of minorities that has been observed in America. While some people believe that these views have only ever been held by small parts of our society, he asserts that it has actually been the dominant viewpoint in the past. There was a time when universities supported research that attempted to find scientific evidence of the superiority of different races. Continuously, "the same individuals expended great intellectual energy to make these illiberal views seem acceptable and consistent with the liberal beliefs that they held simultaneously." In other words, America is home to more than one tradition of thought. Despite the fact that many Americans have followed the liberal tradition, others are willing to violate the idea of universal rights in order to maintain their status and social roles. The effects of Ascriptive Americanism are demonstrated through the inequalities still found in our society today. review session: ascriptive Americanism: TED book, smith argues that while classical liberalism is important to understanding what it means to be an American, ascriptive is also important=world based on hierarchy should get better treatment under the law if higher, Jim Crow laws, fair pay laws?. he is itnot arguing for this, but he is saying that you can not simply ignore it, need to look at U.S. history through both lenses. benefited top of hierarch instead of bottom. it is not so much that you are an American because of what you believe in , instead you are based on your physical traits. Many adherents of ascriptive Americanist outlooks insisted that the nation's political and economic structures should formally reflect natural and cultural inequalities, even at the cost of violating doctrines of universal rights. We instead perceive America's initial conditions as exhibiting only a rather small, recently leveled valley of relative equity nestled amid steep mountains of hierarchy. ascriptive outlooks have offered creditable intellectual and psychological reasons for many Americans to believe that their social roles and personal characteristics express an identity that has inherent and transcendent worth, thanks to nature, history, and God. Those rationales have obviously added those who sat atop the nation's political, economic, and social hierarchies. Scholars have argued that American political culture centers around commonly held beliefs....American political life has been guided by the "liberal tradition." philosophy that focuses on the individual and minimizing government intervention in daily life. Within the liberal tradition, the beliefs in equality, private property, liberty, individualism, protection of religious freedom, and democracy are especially powerful... While liberalism points to notions of equality, Smith argues that there is another very different, tradition in American political thought that has been influential. "ascriptive Americanism" In this way of thinking, society is a hierarchy, where some groups are on top and others are below Those on tope are deemed to be deserving of the rights and benefits the liberal tradition can offer; those below are not. examples include the treatment of racial minorities, especially African Americans, and the structure of laws that denied women the same opportunities as men. He notes that those holding these illiberal views were not on the fringes of society but, rather, were probably the majority view at times. he argues this impact should not be minimized. Researchers at universities and other institutions aimed to show through science the inferiority of some races and group to others. Moreover, the same individuals expended great intellectual energy to make these illiberal views seem acceptable and consistent with the liberal beliefs that they held simultaneously. American political culture combines multiple traditions of thought.

reverse discrimination

Discrimination against the majority group -- think Bakke college quotes, looking for minority students and picking them over white students even if the white students actually have more qualifications. illegal, but colleges can look at race as a plus factor. as long as they take a wholistic approach. girl claimed she was not accepted into a college because of this.

How did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. view white moderates and white churches in the struggle for civil rights? (see above for these two) How did he distinguish between just and unjust laws? How did he urge his followers to change the unjust laws? (lecture and King in TED)

How did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. view white moderates and white churches in the struggle for civil rights? -King states that he is "gravely disappointed with the white moderate." Overall, their response to civil rights movement seems to be, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods." He is shocked that they have failed to understand urgency of their situation and have instead, condescendingly, told him to "wait for a more convenient season." He is angry that they are trying to put a "timetable" on other citizen's freedom. Overall, he thought that they would be more supportive of their fight, but instead they seem to prefer an "absence of tension" to the true "presence of justice." -Furthermore, his is also "disappointed with the white leadership and the church." He loves the church, and when the conflict and protests started, he thought that they would be supportive of their fight. Shockingly, they have actually been one of the most vocal opponents. They have been "misrepresenting its leaders." Not only that, but they have refused to "see the justice of their cause." Some leaders have simply refrained from getting involved and have completely ignored them. Others have criticized members of their church who do not follow segregation rules because it is "the law." King praises anyone who is not giving attention to the church right now, and he states that the church will need to change or it will perish. -most of the letter from Birmingham jail excoriates white moderate, who he says are more concerned with keeping order and stability than with protecting African Americans from being brutally murdered and imprisoned. does not understand white moderates who say they are will them but refuse to do anything. saying this is why we have to do nonviolent direct action (no one is going to do this for us) so have to take our own initiative. How did he distinguish between just and unjust laws? -Distinction between just and unjust laws. Have an obligation to break unjust laws. Comparison to pro-life movement. (see above)! How did he urge his followers to change the unjust laws? -nonviolent protests: four steps (see above) (lecture and King in TED) King also disappointed with the white leadership and the church. he is a man who loves the church. however, when he was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, he felt that they would be supported by the white church. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent and secure behind stained-glass windows. they have failed to see the justice of their cause and have not had any deep moral concern for them. many religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law. stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. says the church is going to need to adjust or it will die. commends anyone who does not conform to the church in this hour. King is gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the KKK but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peach which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods"; who paternalistically believes that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom, who advices the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding form people of ill will. he had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they block social progress

How does the right of association serve as a check on majority tyranny? What are the other contributions that interest groups make to the political system? (Truman and deToqueville in TED)? pg 392-403

How does the right of association serve as a check on majority tyranny? As every American grows up, they learn that they have to rely on themselves in order to get what they want. When they become old enough, they join with others in order to fight for what they believe in, as is the American way. The right of association, according to deToqueville, serves as a check on majority tyranny because it provide "a political outlet for all types of political perspectives to be heard." This means that it is almost impossible for any one group to dominate the political system as no group can be excluded. (pluralist perspective, seen below). Once a majority party takes power, the minority party is able to fight it with all of its might, which prevents it from completely taking over. (see Truman's check on the majority in the question below this) What are the other contributions that interest groups make to the political system? (Truman and deToqueville in TED, see one above)? (deToqueville) Not only that, but they have encouraged academic debate and compromise because each group must present their side, build support among their peers, and work with other groups. While many Americans have similar goals, interest groups provide different paths for them to follow to get there, which encourages political participation. In the end, deToqueville takes a pluralist position in this debate, and he firmly believes that interest groups have had a very positive impact on American society. -Truman agrees with deToqueville, and he also takes a pluralist perspective. The plurality theory states that "the competition among groups in society for political power produces the best approximation of the overall public good." He believes that this has been a prominent part of American society. Interest groups give citizens "security in an uncertain world," and they also provide "a means of self-expression." Furthermore, he counters the argument that interest groups create a rigid system controlled by a few powerful factions by stating that people often belong to more than one group. This means that there is balance as no one is completely controlled by one group or the other, and, in turn, no group is able to completely take over the political process. On the other hand, he argues that since groups always have the potential to form or become larger, they are able to exert an influence on the political process (no matter how small they are). In the end, interest groups encourage compromise and balance in public policy. Review session: detoqueville interest groups allow Americans to express their opinions, minorities are able to get together and check the majorities power, and if the minorities are able to be heard then they will be able to convince some of the majority Truman: people have different background and views, they will balance out interest groups and politics. one dominant view will arise/it is the best view/everyone is better off Truman: Going back to Madison in his famous Federalist 10, however, the argument that competition between interests should be encouraged has also been powerful in American thought. The claim of this theory, pluralist theory, is that the competition among groups in society for political power produces the best approximation of the overall public good. Truman argues that such groups have been a common and inevitable feature of American politics. Groups form to give individuals a means of self-expression and to help them find security in an uncertain world. In fact, the uncertainty of the social environment, and the resulting threat to one's interests, is a chief motivation for groups to form, and "taming" this environment is a central concern for group members. Rather than leading to a system rigidly ruled by a few dominant powers, Truman, suggests the reality is more dynamic. What critics of group influence fail to recognize is the fact that people have "multiple or overlapping membership" in groups so that "uno tolerably normal person is totally absorbed in any group in which he participates." There is balance, in other words, to the views any one member bring to the organization and ultimately to the political process. Further, the potential for a group to form is always present, and "sometimes it may be this possibility of organization that alone gives the potential group a minimum of influence in the political process." These features of the interest group system push toward compromise and balance in public policy. -counter's federalist 10 -he says that people have overlapping memberships in various organization, little danger for majority tyranny -emphasizes the power of unorganized interests, which he says political system responds to deToqueville: The right of political association-joining together-has long been a cornerstone of American democracy. Tocqueville, argued that the right to associate provides an important check on a majority's power to suppress a political minority. He pointed out that allowing citizens to associate in a variety of groups with a variety of interests provides a political outlet for all types of political perspectives to be heard. It also enables compromises to be reached as each interest group attempts to build support among shifting coalitions on individual issues. "There is a place for individual independence," he argued, in the American system of government. "As in society, all the members are advancing at the same time toward the same goal, but they are not obliged to follow the exact same path." -positive impact of interest groups on American politics -pluralist -freedom of association necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority -Madison: saw factions as something that must be controlled through federal system Truman: Going back to Madison in his famous Federalist 10, however, the argument that competition between interests should be encouraged has also been powerful in American thought. The claim of this theory, pluralist theory, is that the competition among groups in society for political power produces the best approximation of the overall public good. Truman argues that such groups have been a common and inevitable feature of American politics. Groups form to give individuals a means of self-expression and to help them find security in an uncertain world. In fact, the uncertainty of the social environment, and the resulting threat to one's interests, is a chief motivation for groups to form, and "taming" this environment is a central concern for group members. Rather than leading to a system rigidly ruled by a few dominant powers, Truman, suggests the reality is more dynamic. What critics of group influence fail to recognize is the fact that people have "multiple or overlapping membership" in groups so that "uno tolerably normal person is totally absorbed in any group in which he participates." There is balance, in other words, to the views any one member bring to the organization and ultimately to the political process. Further, the potential for a group to form is always present, and "sometimes it may be this possibility of organization that alone gives the potential group a minimum of influence in the political process." These features of the interest group system push toward compromise and balance in public policy. -counter's federalist 10 -he says that people have overlapping memberships in various organization, little danger for majority tyranny -emphasizes the power of unorganized interests, which he says political system responds to David Truman and de Tocqueville (TED) argue that interest groups are legitimate voices for intense preferences.

the CARE Act

In response to the COVID pandemic, the federal government has passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and. Economic Security Act. This fiscal policy includes over $2.3 trillion in order to stimulate the economy. It was signed into law by President Trump on March 27th, 2020, and it passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Any individual earning less than $75,000 will receive cash payments of $1,200, $260 billion is going toward unemployment benefits, $58 billion is going toward airlines, $454 is going toward state and local governments, $100 billion is going toward hospitals, $16 billion is going toward stockpiling protective equipment and medicine, $9 billion is going toward school lunches, and $15 billion is going toward food stamps. One of the most important aspect of this bill was the $350 billion that was meant to go toward small business loans; however, that fund quickly ran out and desperately needs more money. It is unclear if this huge bill will be enough to help the economy stay afloat during the pandemic. (see more below) ............................................................................................. COVID response, monetary policy (the FED) -Quantitative Easing: open-ended purchase of Treasury securities and government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. -Lending to securities firms to maintain liquidity in the corporate, money market, and municipal bond markets. - $2 trillion for overnight and short-term repurchase agreements for banks and lower the "discount rate" for overnight loans to banks from 1.75% to .25%. -direct lending to corporations, small businesses, and municipal governments Response to COVID pandemic, fiscal policy -The $2.3 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan support (96-0 in Senate, voice vote in House) and signed into law by Pres. Trump on March 27, 2020. -Cash payments of $1,200 to individuals earning less than $75,000 ($300 billion) -$260 billion for unemployment benefits -$350 billion for small business loans (ran out of money last week, should be replenished by tomorrow). CARES act -$58 billion for airlines -$100 billion for hospitals -$454 billion for state and local governments -$190 billion for real estate investors and hedge funds that invest in real estate. -$16 billion to the Strategic National Stockpile of medicine and protective equipment. -$15 billion for food stamps and $9 billion for school lunches. $260 billion for unemployment benefits-$350 billion for small business loans (ran out of money last week, should be replenished by tomorrow).CARES act $58 billion for airlines $100 billion for hospitals $454 billion for state and local governments $190 billion for real estate investors and hedge funds that invest in real estate. $16 billion to the Strategic National Stockpile of medicine and protective equipment. $15 billion for food stamps and $9 billion for school lunches.

GDP, the economic meltdown of 2008-2009? examples of how tools of economic policy are used.... finish response to crisis??

It is important to understand what "money" actually is in order to truly understand the economic meltdown of 2008-2009. America has a paper money system, meaning the currency is not backed by gold like it used to be. Instead, this is a system of trust between the U.S. government, the banks, and U.S. citizens. In 2008, the housing bubble that had been created finally popped. Investors had been told that their investments were safe in the U.S. housing market, but, clearly, that was an illusion. Throughout the years before, the banks had started lending to bad borrowers as the demand for mortgages rose. They diversified the bundles in mortgage backed securities, which they sold to investors; however, the diversification was not enough to prevent the crisis from happening. People started defaulting on their ballooning mortgages, which caused housing prices to fall and more and more people started to panic. Credit markets froze, which essentially meant that banks were refusing to make loans to people due to the fact that the housing crisis was making them go bankrupt. This is where the paper money system comes into play. When people deposit their money in a bank, the bank does not keep it. Instead, it loans it out to people in order to make a profit. During the crisis, the bank had made a ton of loans in the form of mortgages, but thousands of people across the country defaulted on these loans. This meant that the banks didn't have any money, so they started going out of business, hurting the economy as no one was able to get a loan. The government ended up bailing out investment banks because of public panic. However, credit markets remained frozen and stock markets plunged, so the government was forced to start directly investing in banks. Today, the government and the FED have policies to better prevent this type of financial crisis from happening again, such as TARP. (see more responses below) responses to crisis: TARP - Troubled Assets Relief Program. $700 billion rescue plan, signed into law on Oct. 3rd, 2008. Original plan was to buy toxic debt. Instead, provided capital to banks. Also consumer credit plans. Resisted helping homeowners avoid foreclosures, but recently have moved in that direction. Ended up turning a profit on the $70 billion. -Bailout of Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Citigroup. Open-ended commitment that was unprecedented. "Too big to fail." -Monetary policy: Fed dropped the FFR to 1% and then to 0-.25%, provided liquidity to financial markets. "Quantitative easing" pumped $3.5 trillion into the economy from 12/2008 through 2015. (another $4 trillion or more on the way for COVID relief - more on that later). Response to economic crisis, cont. -Fiscal policy: stimulus package enacted early in 2009: $787 billion that was equally split between tax cuts, aid to the states, and domestic spending on infrastructure, green energy, and extended unemployment benefits. Classic Keynesian policy: increase aggregate demand. Problem is that it came on the heels of massive deficit spending in the previous eight years. -Jobs growth has been steady. Unemployment is down to 3.6%, which is considered below "full employment." The private sector has added jobs for 109 consecutive months — more than 20 million new jobs in all — the longest period of sustained job growth on record. Today there is some concern that banks are repeating the same behavior that got us into the mess in the first place. To some extent this is true, but there are more regulations in place to prevent another crisis. Bernie Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. -The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law (2010). -Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-Addressed "too big to fail." -More transparency in derivatives markets. -Increased regulation of credit rating agencies. -In 2018 Congress increased the size of banks subjected to enhanced regulation from $50 billion to $250 billion. Lecture Notes Unlike crisis of COVID today, this one was harder to pinpoint the problem. Housing crisis. housing construction and prices increased (prices going up much more quickly than consumers could afford), new industry for financing mortgages, much more aggressive in lending to people than it had been before. Prime=people who had best credit to get mortgage, pretty confident will be repaid. subprime=aimed at people who had not bought houses before=viewed as riskier investments. finance sector bundles together high risk with thousands of others and sold those as safe investments. big short. collateralized debt obligations. when some of these started to fail, bought houses they could not afford, and industry was not checking people to see if they could actually pay it back. banks had said they were safe for investors, but not actually AAA. actually pretty risky. when this became obvious. everyone is trying to sell at the same time, but banks could not keep up with these debts, institutions started going under, panic stock market collapsed, consumer prices went down....other online Recent economic crisis: 2008-2009 -Nature of the problem:-Started with the subprime housing mess and the bursting of the real estate bubble. Created lots of "toxic debt." Banks couldn't unload the debt, which led to huge paper losses. -Credit default swaps (insurance on debt) compounded the problem: nobody knew which institutions were in trouble. Created a massive credit freeze. Banks wouldn't even lend to each other. "The Big Short." -Stock market collapse, consumer spending dropped, unemployment up, volatility of oil prices. A dramatic example of cooperation between the Fed and Treasury is the 2008 economic crisis. Problems in the subprime, or high-risk, mortgage market; the collapse of housing prices; and the tightening of credit markets had been putting pressure on the economy through the spring and summer. -bailed out investment banks -panic -despite Bush policies passed in an attempt to help, Stock markets plunged worldwide and credit mkts remained frozen. govts started directly investing in banks. president Obama took office -treasury plan: The plan focused on four problems: frozen credit markets, weakened bank capital, a backlog of troubled mortgage assets on bank balance sheets, and falling home prices. -FED started directly injecting money into the economy -public perceived it as a bailout of Wall street. were angered that not enough was being done to help the average American.

What are the recent Court rulings on same-sex marriage? (lecture) civil rights for LGBTQ below

Same-sex marriage cases Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative that passed in California that banned same sex marriage. This was overturned in 2013 in Hollingsworth v. Perry because it violated equal protection under the law. The justices stated that supporters "did not have standing to defend the law" and "it did not even meet the "rational basis test." Same-sex marriage cases, cont. -Also in 2013, U.S. v. Windsor struck down DOMA, the act that denied federal recognition of same sex marriage, because it was "a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." -This case also had implications for U.S. federalism. The justices stated that the DOMA act wrongly undermined states' decisions on marriage. Instead of the federal government making the decision, it should be up to each state to decide how they viewed same sex marriage. -After these two cases, lower appeals courts were allowed to "strike down bans on same-sex marriage," which allowed it to exist in 35 states. However, this became a problem when bans were upheld in TN, OH, KY, and MI in the 6th Circuit Appeals court. Final case -Due to the conflicts in lower courts on how to deal with same sex marriage, the Supreme Court decided to step in. In Obergfell v. Hodges in 2015, they overturned the lower court rulings by upholding same sex marriage. They stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause guaranteed marriage to same-sex couples. Today, because of this case, same sex marriage is legal everywhere in the U.S.

sexual discrimination and harassment

Sexual discrimination and harassment is actually much more common today than people realize. While huge strides have been taken, but there is still a long way to go. You can create laws, but unless you have successful lawsuits, the laws will not hold enough weight to truly make a difference. In 1989, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a woman worked for a large, male dominated company. When she was up for promotion to partner, 88 other people were up for promotion, and all 47 that ended up getting promoted were men. She sued because she had always had great reviews, and she had been expecting to get promoted. In the court case, it came out that some of her superiors had said she was too macho and suggested that she put on some makeup if she wanted a promotion. This quality would, of course, not actually make her more qualified for the job. These were clearly sexist comments, so the court ordered them to have a retrial based on the discrimination she faced in her reviews. Another case, Harris v. Forklift system, defined what qualified a hostile workplace environment, which holds today. If there is an environment that becomes toxic, that it against the law. The company had argued that it couldn't have been that bad because she was still coming to work, but the judges said that "Title VII comes into play before harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown." Repeated and unwanted conduct is not allowed today and also constitutes a hostile workplace environment. Furthermore, quid pro quo behavior is now an important standard for workplace discrimination. In other words, "sexual favors for professional advancement" and or the "punishing of workers who rebuff sexual advances is illegal" (Paula Jones and Bill Clinton, settled it out of court because he didn't punish her/had offered her opportunities for career advancement). Out of this case, the courts determined that the repeated and unwanted standard does apply to a single act if it is horrible enough. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber 92007), court decision misinterpreted the law in their decision: Overturned in the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" in 2009 (180-day statute of limitations reset with every paycheck)(see above). First law signed by President Obama. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of gray areas in workplace discrimination laws today. Generally, a single act can constitutive harassment if the one time is egregious enough (attempted sexual assault). Next, generally, even if managers did not know about it, employers are "liable for harassment by an employee." The exception so far has been a public school. However, today there must be some direct connection between the person being harassed and the employee. Finally, even if there is no follow through, generally quid pro quo harassment is considered illegal. Again, these are general standards. They do not always apply, and they may not apply in the future (or change). #MeToo movement The Stonewall rebellion much more common today than people realize Workplace Discrimination -Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989). -Hostile workplace environment. Harris v. Forklift System (1993): "Title VII comes into play before harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown." -Quid pro quo behavior: sexual favors for professional advancement; punish workers who rebuff sexual advances. Paula Jones case and Bill Clinton. -Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (2007). Overturned in the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" in 2009 (180-day statute of limitations reset with every paycheck). First law signed by President Obama. Workplace Discrimination -Many gray areas: ---can a single act constitute harassment? ---Is an employer liable for harassment by an employee if management didn't know about it? Yes (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998), unless you are a public school district) Gebser v. Lago Vista School District, 1998). Clarified in favor of corporations in 2013: the accused employee must have management responsibility over the person making the complaint. ---Can quid pro quo harassment be illegal if there is no follow-through? Yes (Burlington Industries, 1998), but extent of this ruling isn't clear.

deterrence D

The United States also formed alliances with other countries, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. The goal of these organizations was the maintenance of collective security, based on the principle that "an attack against one is an attack against all." The aim was to deter Soviet attacks throughout the world by formalizing America's commitment to defend its allies. the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. "nuclear missiles remain the main deterrence against possible aggression"!!!!!! (after Nixon combined deterrence with detente, meaning (Détente (French pronunciation: ​[detɑ̃t], meaning "relaxation")[1] is the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation, through verbal communication. The term in diplomacy originates around 1912 when France and Germany tried, without success, to reduce tensions.[2] Most often the term is used for a phase of the Cold War. It was the policy of relaxing tensions between Moscow and the West, as promoted by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Leonid Brezhnev, 1969 - 1974. With the United States showing weakness at the top that forced Richard Nixon out of office, Brezhnev used the opportunity to expand Soviet influence. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 decisively ended any talk of détente.[3][4]) while still using organizations and missiles as deterrence)

protectionism

The idea under which some people have tried to rationalize discriminatory policies by claiming that some groups, like women or African Americans, should be denied certain rights for their own safety or well-being. women were too frail in the business world and needed to be protected by men. protectionism served in many court cases to deny women rights

inflation

The increase in the price of consumer goods over time double-digit inflation can have serious effects on the economy. because the entire economy is not indexed to inflation, some people will experience an erosion of their purchasing power. investors will demand higher interest rates to compensate for possible future inflation, and businesses will be less likely to take out these loans. tradeoff between unemployment and inflation below: misery index

Pluralism/critiques of pluralism (responses to IG problem: pluralists=do nothing, everything is OK) PACs (political action committees) D

This theory is the opposite of hyper pluralism. (see above) James Madison led this theory, which states that people often have overlapping memberships in different groups. These open groups, in turn, should be able to compete and check each others' power (one best idea will be heard and implemented). States that interest groups are beneficial for democracy by allowing everyone to voice their opinion (see checking majority tyranny above) and encouraging compromise and robust debate. In TED, de Tocqueville and David Truman also use this theory to argue that "interest groups are legitimate voices for intense preferences." Through the pluralist perspective, they argue that examining interest groups allows society to measure the intensity of certain preferences, which can have an influence on public policy. Finally, since groups always have the potential to form, interest groups "provide the basis" for taming and organizing these interests, and it means that even small groups are able to influence the policy making process. -One critique of pluralism is that interest groups do not provide equal access for citizens. In other words, they believe that poorer social classes are excluded by these interest groups because they do not have the time or the money to invest in them. This means that they are typically dominated by the wealthy, which gives these individuals a permanent advantage in society. Another critique, according to Theodore Lowi, is that the government places too much value on the opinions of these groups. In other words, interest groups, who do not always represent the majority of society or the common good, are able to exert a lot of power on Congress because they have come to be seen as falsely "legitimate." PACs (political action committees) (an outside strategy of interest groups) Electioneering involves supporting candidates for election. Federal laws limit groups' electioneering efforts. Most interest groups are organized as 501(c)(3) organizations, which makes donations to the group tax deductible, but limits the group's political activities. To get around these limits, they may form a separate political action committee (PAC) or a 527 organization. PACs can raise money to contribute to campaigns or to spend on ads in support of specific candidates, but the amount of money spent on federal campaigning is strictly limited. 527s are not subject to contribution limits or spending caps but cannot directly endorse or oppose a candidate. Intensity of preferences reflected through groups. - Interest groups provide the basis for organizing potential interests. A theory of government that holds that open, multiple, and competing groups can check the asserted power by any one group. Interest Groups and Democracy -Madison and the pluralists - David Truman and de Tocqueville (TED) argue that interest groups are legitimate voices for intense preferences. - Overlapping memberships and groups check each other. PACS: Political Action Committees, raise money for candidates &/or parties

the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

Under this act, discrimination in employment based on religion, race, sex, or national origin is barred. The Supreme Court upheld the law on the grounds of the commerce clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.) Despite the law's guarantees, "blacks continued to fall behind in the equality of their outcomes." A policy of affirmative action was initiated by President Johnson in 1965 in an attempt to combat these equalities. However, they remain an issue even today. (see below) APT In the United States, individuals' civil rights are monitored by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan, independent federal commission that was established by the 1957 Civil Rights Act. President Lyndon Johnson, a former segregationist, helped push through the Civil Rights Act when he became president. The act barred discrimination in employment based on race, sex, religion, or national origin; banned segregation in public places; and established the EEOC as the enforcement agency for the legislation.

the Social Security Trust fund

With Social Security, the main problem lies in the soon to retire Baby Boomer generation. Social Security is a "pay as you go" system, which means that current workers pay taxes that go to the current retirees. The money is not "saved" like many people believe that it is. In comparison to others, the Baby Boomer generation is very large. This mean that, as this generation retirees, there will not be enough cash inflow from the current workers to fund their retirement (because there are less people). The government has been aware of this issue for a while. In 1983, the government created a Social Security Trust Fund to finance this shortage in the future. This was set up by increasing payroll taxes; unfortunately, the government spent the money instead of saving it. "Special issue" government bonds, or IOUs, were given in place of the spent surpluses. Unfortunately, these government bonds can not be traded on the open market, unlike regular bonds. Many people have angrily called these bonds "worthless," which is untrue. The government does have to pay back these IOUs, but they will have to do so by raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money. As the government continues to spend the trust fund money instead of saving it, the fund will eventually run out, and we will be back to square one.

What did the Civil Rights Act mean for African Americans and women? (lecture and APT Ch. 14)?

describe history: African Americans then women Right to vote Fights for equality on all fields (voting for African Americans voting right act)(less dependence on men) (workplace discrimination) Still not completely solved today, #MEtoo movement

distributive, regulatory, and redistributive policies Lowi article ??

distributive: these policies only benefit a specific group, but they are funded by collecting money from the general public. funds for public education/safety. neutral redistributive. these policies take wealth from some groups and give it to others in an attempt to close the gap between income inequality. social security, less poverty among elderly. help groups who are worse off by transferring funds from groups that are better off. dems like, repubs do not regulatory: these policies benefit society as a whole, but they often focus on regulating one group, which can often harm or hinder that group. Another description is that they are policies that govern behavior, stay off the grass. federal government regulating the quality of food and water, huge impact on economy and environment. can address market failures, such as pollution. can harm individual firms. republicans do not like, dems do Government regulation has a huge impact on the economy. For example, the federal government regulates the quality of food and water, the safety of workplaces and airspaces, and the integrity of the banking and finance system. In general, regulations address market failures such as monopolies, imperfect information, and negative externalities (which we'll discuss later in the chapter). There are two main types of regulation: economic and social. Economic regulation sets prices or conditions for entry of firms into an industry (monopolies), whereas social regulation addresses issues of quality and safety (externalities: pollution vs R+D). redistributive -Federal taxes: their redistributive nature—that is, whether a specific tax is regressive, neutral, or progressive. Distributive policy collects from the many and benefits the few, whereas regulatory policy focuses costs on one group while benefitting larger society. Redistributive policy shares the wealth and income of some groups with others.

indexing

periodic process (automatic) of adjusting social benefits or wages to account for increases in the cost of living (inflation) An important goal of economic policy includes stable prices. Inflation and deflation are problems because the entire market is not indexed together, meaning wages (and priced goods) are not always automatically adjusted to changes in prices in the economy. If there is inflation and indexing does not occur, people in debt or borrowers are able to pay off their loans easier, but lenders or savers loose money. This hurts a country's investments and overall GDP growth. Republicans tend to focus on stable prices and indexing. Deflation can also be a problem because as the dollar looses its value, you loose your purchasing power as a consumer. It also means that borrowers' debt increases, and more people will default on their loans. This will hurt consumption and investments, which, in turn, hurt GDP growth.

diplomacy

the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad. THE TOOLS OF FOREIGN POLICY Diplomacy-Diplomacy is the process of negotiation on international issues between national leaders.

the United Nations D

tools in foreign policy making (see above). (we are a member) The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. An international organization formed after WWII to promote international peace, security, and cooperation. Foreign policy makers: Intergovernmental Organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, and International Organizations -America's relationship with the rest of the world is not just about government action. -Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are private institutions (rather than governments) that promote growth, economic development, and other agendas throughout the world. Members provide information and humanitarian assistance and carry out other activities that the United States is unwilling to. -Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations are composed of sovereign states.

the federal debt and deficits Recent controversies with debt slides!!! -Debt as a drag on the economy when it hits 90% of GDP? Argument based on a famous 2010 paper that made an Excel coding error and has other methodological problems. -Raising the debt ceiling has become a political hot potato. In August, Pres. Trump and congressional leaders reached an agreement to extend the debt ceiling through July, 2021. -Measuring deficits and debt as % of GDP.

-Additionally, another goal of economic policy is balanced budgets. If the difference between spending and revenue is negative, then we have a deficit. In the U.S., we have had deficits for many consecutive years, and the accumulation of these deficits is called debt. Balancing the budget has not been a central goal of policy makers since 2001. While there has been talk about reducing the deficit in future years, the debt has largely been ignored. Is the federal debt a problem? We have gone from "the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation." Economists believe that we should be concerned about this because we are spending our loans on consumption instead of investments (this would not be a problem if we were investing in capital or education but we are not). Foreign government currently hold 40% of our public debt. One thing is certain, borrowing from foreigners can not continue at this race indefinitely. Eventually, we will have to start paying other countries back, so this debt will become a burden on future generations (Federal debt per U.S. citizen is around $60,000). Otherwise, they will refuse to lend to us or increase interest rates on borrowing (bad for our economy). The "crowding out" of private investments is also occurring because of this, meaning the money we are spending on the interest of the debt accounts is taking away funding that could be used for private capital. The debt is unlikely to decrease anytime soon, especially due to the rising government expenditures due to COVID-19. -Finally, the last economic goal is a balance of payments, which is essentially "the difference in value between payments in and out of a country," or the trade deficit. This has also grown in recent decades as the U.S. is a net borrower (we buy more from foreigners than they do from us). In order to help the trade deficit, the U.S. government can try and weaken the dollar. This means that it is more expensive for citizens to buy foreign goods, but it makes our good cheaper to other countries. Some countries use foreign protectionism, which is essentially imposing restrictions on imports from other countries; unfortunately, this often does not work as the trade ware with China has show. -Many people today debate whether or not the trade deficit is a problem. President Trump ran on a platform of addressing the trade deficit. He promised to renegotiate trade deals and make sure the U.S. got better agreements for its domestic companies. Another strategy for addressing the trade deficit could include foreign protectionism, which is essentially imposing restrictions on imports from other countries; unfortunately, this often does not work as the trade ware with China has demonstrates. Whether or not the trade deficit is a problem depends on who you ask. Some people believe, like President Trump, believe that America is getting the short end of the straw when it comes to trade deals, which is why the trade deficit is negative. However, others believe that it is not necessarily a bad thing. Some economists believe that the trade deficit is actually measured wrong. Many companies report making their products in countries that have lower taxes, even if their products are actually made in the U.S. Furthermore, while it is true that America does not specialize in mass production of cheap manufacturing goods like China, it does specialize in services. As America is a more developed country, it has moved from making goods that are typically made by developing countries to providing services typically found in developed countries. This means an emphasis on higher education and other service positions, so if the trade deficit is measured based on those method instead, our deficit would be much less negative. deficits: the amount by which a govt's spending in given fiscal year exceeds its revenue. Debts: what we owe, has accumulated over years of running budget deficits

What are the goals, tools, and politics of economic policy? (APT, ch. 15 and lecture). Politics -FED is independent, congress and the president want to influence? -you have to know what the democratic and Republican Party thinks about each of those goals. balance of payments=republican party in favor of free trade, trade deficits -with fiscal policy, Democratic Party favors counter cyclical policies in which govt is more involved, republican favors market regulation and lower interest rates

Basic economic goals for the United States includes promoting social goals (such as spending, taxation, redistributive policy, and the welfare state), maintaining a national market economy (regulating the market, promoting the market, and protecting property rights), and protecting private property public order. The first goal of economic policy is full employment. Full employment does not mean that everyone has a job. There will always be frictional unemployment, which means people who are looking for a job. In other words, unemployment will never be 0%, but there is a natural rate of employment or full employment that can be reached. Achieving full employment is important because unemployment comes with a lot of costs, such as spending more money on social welfare programs and having lower taxes. In 1945, the Full Employment Act was proposed, which would have established a "federally guaranteed right to employment." However, it was deemed as too radical. Instead, the 1946 Employment Act was passed, which established the Council of Economic Advisers. This group would serve as advisors to the President, who would then, in addition to the national budget, be required to submit an annual economic report. The NAIRU point is often used to measure the rate of full employment. NAIRU, or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, is the point at which "the lowest level of unemployment that can exist in an economy before inflation begins to rise." If unemployment goes below that point, then inflation starts to rise. -Another important goal includes stable prices. Inflation is a problem because the entire market is not indexed to it, meaning prices can rise without rises in paychecks. This means that people in debt or borrowers are able to pay off their loans easier, but lenders or savers loose money. This hurts a country's investments and overall GDP growth. Democrats tend to favor full employment, while Republicans tend to focus on stable prices. Deflation can also be a problem because as the dollar looses its value, you loose your purchasing power as a consumer. It also means that borrowers' debt increases, and more people will default on their loans. This will hurt consumption and investments, which, in turn, hurt GDP growth. -The environment and equity and growth and efficiency are often two sets of economic goals that compete with one another. People would like their grandchildren to have higher standards of living than them, so growth is important. Efficiency is often thought of as the best way to achieve economic growth or GDP growth. However, these goals often harm the environment and increase income inequality. (Gertner) For example, harvesting fossil fuels may be a positive factor in GDP, but it has a negative impact on the environment, which, over time, will have a negative impact on the economy. Not only that, but growth based models often increase inequality. Some governments want to focused on reducing this in their economic policy goals. However, that means that they will not be able to focus as much on growth and efficiency because redistributive policies are often inefficient, which means that they reduce growth. There are also tradeoffs between other economic policy goals, such as inflation and unemployment (although this has lessened) and policies to ease the trade deficit (protectionist policies make it less negative but hurt economy as a whole). -Additionally , another goal of economic policy is balanced budgets. If the difference between spending and revenue is negative, then we have a deficit. In the U.S., we have had deficits for many consecutive years, and the accumulation of these deficits is called debt. Balancing the budget has not been a central goal of policy makers since 2001. While there has been talk about reducing the deficit in future years, the debt has largely been ignored. This debt will become a burden on future generations because we will eventually have to start paying other countries back. Otherwise, they will refuse to lend to us or increase interest rates on borrowing. The "crowding out" of private investments is also occurring because of this, meaning the money we are spending on the interest on the debt is taking away funding that could be used for private capital. The debt is unlikely to decrease anytime soon, especially due to the rising government expenditures due to COVID-19. -Finally, the last economic goal is a balance of payments, which is essentially "the difference in value between payments in and out of a country," or the trade deficit. This has also grown in recent decades as the U.S. is a net borrower (we buy more from foreigners than they do from us, more negative than it should be though because final value approach). In order to help the trade deficit, the U.S. government can try and weaken the dollar. This means that it is more expensive for citizens to buy foreign goods, but it makes our good cheaper to other countries. Some countries use foreign protectionism, which is essentially imposing restrictions on imports from other countries; unfortunately, this often does not work as the trade ware with China has show. Will help one sector, but hurt the economy as a whole. -The tools of economic policy includes fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy involving spending policy and countercyclical taxing. Its main purpose is to smooth out economic cycles. On method of using fiscal policy is based on Keynesian economics. Keynesians believe that when aggregate demand is low, it is the government's job to stimulate the economy through increased spending or tax cuts. On the other hand, the government needs to raise taxes or cut spending when AD is high. They call this "fine tuning the economy." In addition to taxing and spending, the government can lend or borrow. Another method of using fiscal policy is based on supply side economics. This theory states that tax cuts and fewer regulations can be used to "stimulate the supply side rather than the demand side." This method will create a larger supply of goods and services, which will reduce prices and increase employment. A theoretical relationship between government revenue and rates of taxation, the Laffer curve, is a fundamental construct of this theory. It implies that there could be a time when cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue. However, when applied, this theory did not demonstrate positive results. Instead, it led to an explosion of deficits. Today, the Keynesian theory of economics is traditionally used. -Another tool of economic policy includes monetary policy. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. It is governed by the Federal Reserve Board. Six Governors of the 12 Federal Reserve banks serve on the Board (and they rotate), and it is led by the Chair (currently Jerome Powell). This organization is independent from Congress and the President, meaning it is not as easily influenced by politics (not subject to congressional or presidential oversight) and because the board members serve 14 year overlapping terms. The chair is appointed by the President every four years, so there is a little bit of influence there (but president can not get rid of the chair or order them to do anything). The FED is in charge of monetary policy. This includes influencing interest rates and controlling the money supply, which, in turn, determine inflation and economic growth. With interest rates, the FED can only indirectly have influence (on short term) because expectations for inflation set long term interest rates. In other words, if people expect inflation to increase a lot over a long period of time, they will demand higher interest rates. However, they can influence the discount rate, which is the interest rate the FED charges to member banks for short-term loans. This has an indirect impact on consumer rates (in the short run) because if member banks are able to get loans at a lower interest rate, they will have less of an incentive to charge borrowers higher interest rates. This can encourage investments and economic growth. The FED also has tools to control the supply of money, which directly affects inflation. For example, the reserve requirement is the amount set by the FED that banks must keep in their reserves. If the FED lowers the reserve requirement, that means that banks are able to lend out more money, which increases the money supply and increases inflation. On the other hand, the FED can also use open market policies. This includes buying and selling government securities or treasury bonds. Selling bonds takes money out of the economy and decreases inflation. When the FED buys bonds on a large enough scale, it is said to be "printing money" or using quantitative easing to spur economic activity. The FED has also influenced the federal funds rate, the overnight rate that member banks lend to each other, which can have indirect affects on consumer rates. Tools of monetary policy Discount rate (set by Fed), interest rates charged to member banks for short-term loans from the Fed to member banks. Federal funds rate (set by market but influenced by Fed), interest rate for loans among member banks. Indirect impact on consumer rates. Reserve requirements (10%)--powerful tool, rarely used. Banks' ability to create money. Open market policies: selling (contract money supply) and buying (expand money supply) government securities. Used to influence federal funds rate and, more indirectly, long term rates. Quantitative easing (QE2, QE3) - "print money." Trump withdrew controversial nominees Herman Cain and Stephen Moore in 2019. Targets of monetary policy: - money supply and the interest rates, which are crucial in determining economic growth and inflation. Monetary policy, cont. Interest rates. Can only affect indirectly. Long term interest rates are set by expectations for inflation. Impact of money supply and interest rates on the economy: - what is "money"? Role of banks. "Ah-hah" moment, like the decline in the value of stocks of 22.6% in a single day ("Black Monday" in 1987). This is why the credit freeze in 2008-2009 was so damaging. Depends on faith in the system. "Bitcoin" and other blockchain cryptocurrencies are worth about $202 billion. - money supply and growth and inflation. Monetarist theory. - interest rates--impact on rate of investment and the rate sensitive sectors of the economy (housing, construction, consumer durables). According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices and employment will increase.[3] The Laffer curve, a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and government revenue which suggests that lower tax rates when the tax level is too high will actually boost government revenue because of higher economic growth, is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics.[4] Fiscal policy - Countercyclical taxing and spending policy. Try to smooth out economic cycles. - Keynesian policy of "fine tuning" the economy. Based on state of aggregate demand (AD): stimulate the economy when AD is low (during a recession) through tax cuts or increased spending. When AD is high, need to cut spending or raise taxes. - Also borrowing and lending (in addition to taxing and spending). Fiscal policy, cont. Supply side economics - Different theory about how to use fiscal policy, especially tax cuts. Use tax cuts to stimulate the supply side rather than the demand side. - The Laffer curve: relationship between tax rate and total revenue. - Didn't work out as expected; instead had an explosion of deficits. Proposed 2020 budget: $3.6 trillion revenue, $4.7 trillion spending, deficit of $1.1 trillion. Patterns of federal spending.Where does the money go? - NAFTA, TPP, and other trade agreements. GATT and WTO. - U.S. has gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. Is this a problem? Financing our debt; foreign governments hold 40% of our publicly held debt. Foreign financing of our debt cannot continue at this pace indefinitely. APT Goals: fixing income inequality (dems), full employment, stable prices (FED), promotion of the free mkt and growth (protecting property rights to encourage competition and innovation, guaranteeing the security and transparency of capital mats with oversight through the Securities and Exchange Commission/a secure banking system through the Federal Deposit insurance corporation and the Federal Reserve System) Tools: -Keynesian economics argues that policy makers can soften the effects of a recession by stimulating the economy when overall demand is low—during a recession, when people aren't spending as much—through tax cuts or increased government spending. -supply side economics politics: Congress, power of the purse, fiscal policy, taxing and spending. Budget making was initially decentralized, it was difficult to coordinate spending between committees and subcommittees, so gave budget power to President. Then set up Congressional Budget Office so no longer as reliant on President. see specifics 541 As we discussed in Chapter 12, the president is unable to accomplish much single-handedly on the economic front: Congress, the Fed, and broader domestic and international economic forces all exert an equal or greater influence on the health of the economy. However, the executive branch has a large advising structure that helps the president formulate economic policy. But can influence through executive orders -If the president's party controls Congress, then the president's budget becomes the starting point for congressional negotiations over the budget. If the opposing party controls Congress, then the president's budget is usually considered "dead on arrival" and Congress creates its own document.

goals of economic policy making

Basic economic goals for the United States includes promoting social goals (such as spending, taxation, redistributive policy, and the welfare state), maintaining a national market economy (regulating the market, promoting the market, and protecting property rights), and protecting private property public order. The first goal of economic policy is full employment. Full employment does not mean that everyone has a job. There will always be frictional unemployment, which means people who are looking for a job. In other words, unemployment will never be 0%, but there is a natural rate of employment or full employment that can be reached. Achieving full employment is important because unemployment comes with a lot of costs, such as spending more money on social welfare programs and having lower taxes. In 1945, the Full Employment Act was proposed, which would have established a "federally guaranteed right to employment." However, it was deemed as too radical. Instead, the 1946 Employment Act was passed, which established the Council of Economic Advisers. This group would serve as advisors to the President, who would then, in addition to the national budget, be required to submit an annual economic report. The NAIRU point is often used to measure the rate of full employment. NAIRU, or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, is the point at which "the lowest level of unemployment that can exist in an economy before inflation begins to rise." If unemployment goes below that point, then inflation starts to rise. -Another important goal includes stable prices. Inflation is a problem because the entire market is not indexed to it. This means that people in debt or borrowers are able to pay off their loans easier, but lenders or savers loose money. This hurts a country's investments and overall GDP growth. Democrats tend to favor full employment, while Republicans tend to focus on stable prices. Deflation can also be a problem because as the dollar looses its value, you loose your purchasing power as a consumer. It also means that borrowers' debt increases, and more people will default on their loans. This will hurt consumption and investments, which, in turn, hurt GDP growth. -The environment and equity and growth and efficiency are often two sets of economic goals that compete with one another. People would like their grandchildren to have higher standards of living than them, so growth is important. Efficiency is often thought of as the best way to achieve economic growth or GDP growth. However, these goals often harm the environment and increase income inequality. (Gertner) For example, harvesting fossil fuels may be a positive factor in GDP, but it has a negative impact on the environment, which, over time, will have a negative impact on the economy. Not only that, but growth based models often increase inequality. Some governments want to focused on reducing this in their economic policy goals. However, that means that they will not be able to focus as much on growth and efficiency because redistributive policies are often inefficient, which means that they reduce growth. There are also tradeoffs between other economic policy goals, such as inflation and unemployment and policies to ease the trade deficit. -Additionally , another goal of economic policy is balanced budgets. If the difference between spending and revenue is negative, then we have a deficit. In the U.S., we have had deficits for many consecutive years, and the accumulation of these deficits is called debt. Balancing the budget has not been a central goal of policy makers since 2001. While there has been talk about reducing the deficit in future years, the debt has largely been ignored. This debt will become a burden on future generations because we will eventually have to start paying other countries back. Otherwise, they will refuse to lend to us or increase interest rates on borrowing. The "crowding out" of private investments is also occurring because of this, meaning the money we are spending on the interstate on the debt accounts is taking away funding that could be used for private capital. The debt is unlikely to decrease anytime soon, especially due to the rising government expenditures due to COVID-19. -Finally, the last economic goal is a balance of payments, which is essentially "the difference in value between payments in and out of a country," or the trade deficit. This has also grown in recent decades as the U.S. is a net borrower (we buy more from foreigners than they do from us). In order to help the trade deficit, the U.S. government can try and weaken the dollar. This means that it is more expensive for citizens to buy foreign goods, but it makes our good cheaper to other countries. Some countries use foreign protectionism, which is essentially imposing restrictions on imports from other countries; unfortunately, this often does not work as the trade ware with China has show. APT low unemployment, low inflation, economic growth, falling budget deficits, and a healthy current account. Online Full employment, stable prices, balanced budgets and balance of payments, promotion of the free market and growth balance of payments: international money transactions

contributory and non-contributory (or means-tested) programs

Contributory (or non-means tested) programs: This means social programs that are funded by mandatory contributions or taxation. Only those who have contributed to the programs at some point in their lives are eligible to receive benefits. Social Security Non Contributory (or means tested) programs: This means social programs that provide benefits to people "on the basis of demonstrated need" instead of mandatory contributions. People could go their entire lives without every needing to use these programs. For exampled, TANF is only provided to people who meet certain requirements, such as having a low income level. Also, TANF does not require monetary contributions from the people it benefits.

What are the arguments for and against the welfare system? (APT Chap 16)?

Republicans tend to be against the welfare system. They believe that it can be abused by those who do not benefit society. In other words, they believe that a welfare system would disincentivize people from joining the workforce. Instead, they would simply live off of the payments given to them by the government, and most of these funds would have to be paid for by the wealthy and productive members of society. On the other hand, Democrats tend to favor the welfare system. They believe that it provides an even playing field for citizens and helps to solve income inequality. They believe that redistributing the wealth will help those in the bottom percentile become more productive members of society as they will finally have the means to support themselves. This will, in turn, help solve the dramatic income inequality in America and make our country better off as a whole. (trickle down economics do not work, see debate about income inequality) They define social welfare as having five components: health care spending; education spending; cash retirement benefits; other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned income tax credit (EITC); and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing. APT -Medicare and Medicaid -social policy aimed at helping the poor, they think of welfare. -Welfare is straight cash assistance for people who are not working and do not qualify for unemployment compensation -TANF

What are the different types of interest groups and what are their characteristics? What are the different strategies interest groups use to get what they want? (lecture and APT chap. 10)

What are the different types of interest groups and what are their characteristics? There are three types of interest groups-occupational (involved in some kind of economic interest, related to professions often, doctors and lawyers, organized around them, often have a professional component (professional development, get credentials to get there) and political action committee associated with that group (influencing politics)), non-occupational (related to a set of concerns, common cause, organized around good government issues=campaign finance issues/ways to get people voting, associated with a broad range of liberal and conservative issues), and single issue (just a single issue, like a group trying to protect access to abortion, NRA, Sierra Club on environmental issues, 1000s organized). As the name suggests, occupational groups tend to involve different professions. This could include the manufacturing sector, lawyers, or doctors. This group is the most common, and it tends to focus on economic interests. Next, non-occupational groups tend to involve a public interest. These "citizen" interest groups tend to cover broad topics, such as encouraging good government. Finally, single issue groups are also self explanatory. These groups form around a specific interest, such as pro-choice groups or the Sierra Club. These groups can be temporary, meaning they could form seasonally when issue are brought up, or permanent. In general, interest groups are "organized bodies of individuals who share some goals and who try to influence public policy," and their characteristics vary greatly. (huge growth of numbers of interest groups: expansion of govt, public interest groups, conservative groups, and cyclical patterns of formation). What are the different strategies interest groups use to get what they want? (lecture and APT chap. 10) -The three main strategies used by interest groups include lobbying, litigation, and election politics. There are insider and outsider lobbying strategies (see more below this paragraph). Insider interest group strategies involve gaining access in Washington or directly appealing to politicians. Outsider strategies look toward the public, and the often include grassroots lobbying or "going public" in an attempt to put public pressure on Congress. Litigation mainly involves using the courts to attain their goals. This could include trying to get a law struck down or simply using a case to gain public attention. Finally, election politics essentially means "electing sympathetic politicians." If they are able to get politicians that they want into office, then their group will not have to change a politician's mind once they get into office, and the elected politician will be more likely to listen to them. Inside strategies are the tactics used within Washington by interest groups to achieve their policy goals. -Direct lobbying, or attempts to influence policy by speaking with elected officials or bureaucrats, is very common. While interest groups focus on officials who are sympathetic to the group's goals, they will also talk to fence sitters and policy opponents. Because access to officials is so important, groups tend to keep their lobbying efforts low key, with the hopes of leaving favorable impressions. -Drafting Legislation and Regulation Interest groups sometimes draft legislative proposals and regulations, which they then deliver to supportive legislators and bureaucrats as part of their lobbying efforts. -Research Interest groups often prepare research reports on topics of interest to the group. Members of Congress are more likely to accept a group's legislative proposal if they believe the group's staff have some research to back up their claims. -Hearings Interest group staffers often testify before congressional committees in order to inform members of Congress about important issues to the group. -Litigation Groups can sue the government on the grounds that the government's actions are not consistent with the Constitution or misinterpreted the provisions of the existing law. Even when an interest group is not directly involved in litigation, amicus curiae briefs provide some clues as to what position a given organization supports. -Working Together Interest groups also can work together in their lobbying efforts. Generally, such collaboration is short term and aimed at achieving a specific outcome. Outside strategies Outside strategies are the tactics employed outside Washington by interest groups seeking to achieve their policy goals. -Grassroots lobbying relies on participation by group members, such as in a protest or a letter-writing campaign. This is effective because elected officials hate to act against a large group of citizens who care enough about an issue to express their position. -Astroturf Lobbying For grassroots lobbying to be effective, the letters should come from constituents, rather than interest group-coordinated Astroturf lobbying, which is commonly ignored by politicians. -Mobilizing Public Opinion Sometimes, interest groups will attempt to change what the public thinks about an issue, and thereby stimulate a policy response by elected officials. -Electioneering involves supporting candidates for election. Federal laws limit groups' electioneering efforts. Most interest groups are organized as 501(c)(3) organizations, which makes donations to the group tax deductible, but limits the group's political activities. To get around these limits, they may form a separate political action committee (PAC) or a 527 organization. PACs can raise money to contribute to campaigns or to spend on ads in support of specific candidates, but the amount of money spent on federal campaigning is strictly limited. 527s are not subject to contribution limits or spending caps but cannot directly endorse or oppose a candidate. -Cultivating Media Contacts Media coverage publicizes a group's concerns without costing that group any money. Bypassing Government: The Initiative Process Interest groups also may propose policy by bypassing the government entirely, by helping to support an initiative or referendum. is more likely to have a -Lobbying strategies: insider (gaining access) vs. outsider (grassroots lobbying or "going public"). Encourage people to submit comments on rule changes (Devin Judge-Lord). Expand the scope of conflict (Schattschneider). -Litigation: using the courts. -Election politics -- electing sympathetic politicians. Likely to have a bigger long-run impact than trying to change politicians' minds once they are in office (which is harder to do). APT Types of interests groups -institutional interest group: formed by nonprofits such as universities or think tanks -Businesses are for-profit enterprises that aim to influence policy in ways that will increase profits or satisfy other goals. ex: Google -trade or peak associations are groups of businesses that bang together to lobby for policies that benefit all of them. ex: national beer wholesalers association -Professional associations: represent individuals who have a common interest in a profession. -Labor organizations lobby for regulations that make it easy for workers to form unions, as well as other policies. -Citizen groups range from those with mass membership (such as the Sierra Club) to those that have no members but claim to speak for particular segments of the population. Characteristics -An organization of people sharing a common interest or goal that seeks to influence the making of public policy. -members can be individual citizens, local governments, businesses, foundations or nonprofit organizations, churches, or othersan interests group's employees or members may lobby on the group's behalf or hire a lobbyist or lobbing firm to do the work for themmay lobby their own work or work with other groups to enact compromise proposals-some interest groups have primarily political motives goals. ex: public citizen-some interest groups do more than just lobbying: NRA endorses candidates and contributes to campaigns-Interest group activity is almost hidden within other organizations. AAA Strategies: They use a variety of tactics, such as lobbying elected officials and bureaucrats, mobilizing group members and the public, and helping to elect candidates who support the organizations' policy goal

How does Theodore Lowi argue that the political relationships in the policy making process are determined by the type of policy that is at stake? (Lowi in TED)?

(not my words)He argues that what the social sciences lacked was a means to cumulate, compare, and contrast the diverse findings of these studies. We needed, in other words, a typology of policy making. He argues that different types of public policies produce different patterns of participation. Public politics can be classified as distributive, regulatory, or redistributive, each with tis own distinctive "arena of power." For ex, public policies that provide benefits to a single congressional district, group, or company can be classified as distributive. in the distributive area of power, policy beneficiaries are active in seeking to expand or extend their benefits, but there is no real opposition. Rather, legislators build coalitions premised upon "mutual non-interference" interests, and their representatives seeks particular benefits, such as a research and development contract, a new highway, or a farm subsidy, but they do not oppose the similar requests of others. The regulatory and redistributive policy arenas also display distinctive dynamics and roles that participants in the process play. his work was important not only for providing a classification scheme by which social scientists could think more systematically about different public policies, but for proposing that we study "politics" as a consequence of different types of public policy. Traditionally, social scientists have studied politics to see what kinds of policies are produced. -regulatory, redistributive, and distributive policies (see above) and different areas of power. different types of policy categories have different political tensions when they are in congress (redistributive=republicans do not like also regulatory). based off of base of political parties. welfare state=champion part of idea of Democratic Party. lowi, types of policies are going to shape how the political process (fly

monetary policy

-Another tool of economic policy includes monetary policy. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (FED). It is governed by the Federal Reserve Board. Six Governors of the 12 Federal Reserve banks serve on the Board, and it is led by the Chair (currently Jerome Powell). This organization is independent from Congress and the President, meaning it is not as easily influenced by politics because not subject to Congressional or Presidential review (the board members also serve 14 year overlapping and rotating terms). The chair is appointed by the President every four years, so there is a little bit of influence there (but once they are there the President can not order them to do anything or get rid of them). The FED is in charge of monetary policy. This includes influencing interest rates and controlling the money supply, which, in turn, determine inflation and economic growth. With interest rates, the FED can only indirectly influence the short term because expectations for long term rates are set by inflation predictions. In other words, if people expect inflation to increase a lot over a long period of time, they will demand higher interest rates. However, they can influence the discount rate, which is the interest rate the FED charges to member banks for short-term loans. This has an indirect impact on consumer rates because if member banks are able to get loans at a lower interest rate, they will have less of an incentive to charge borrowers higher interest rates. This can encourage investments and economic growth. The FED also has tools to control the supply of money, which directly affects inflation. For example, the reserve requirement is the amount set by the FED that banks must keep in their reserves. If the FED lowers the reserve requirement, that means that banks are able to lend out more money, which increases the money supply and increases inflation. On the other hand, the FED can also use open market policies. This includes buying and selling government securities or treasury bonds. Selling bonds takes money out of the economy and decreases inflation. When the FED buys bonds on a large enough scale, it is said to be "printing money" or using quantitative easing to spur economic activity. The FED has also influenced the federal funds rate, the overnight rate that member banks lend to each other, which can have indirect affects on consumer rates. monetary policy—control of the money supply and interest rates, which is primarily the domain of the Federal Reserve System, or "the Fed." Govt decisions about how to influence the economy using control of the money supply and interest rates

regulatory policy??

-The environment and equity and growth and efficiency are often two sets of economic goals that compete with one another. People would like their grandchildren to have higher standards of living than them, so growth is important. Efficiency is often thought of as the best way to achieve economic growth or GDP growth. However, these goals often harm the environment and increase income inequality. For example, harvesting fossil fuels may be a positive factor in GDP, but it has a negative impact on the environment, which, over time, will have a negative impact on the economy. In order to restrict industries' impact on the environment, the government can impose regulations. Regulatory policy includes imposing restrictions and controls on specific behavior or activities. For example, the government could impose rules on companies preventing them from harvesting those fossil fuels in order to protect the environment. However, that means that they will not be able to focus as much on growth and efficiency because this policies often hinder companies productivity. There are two types of regulatory policies: goal specific (worker safety) and industry specific (banking). Over the past 20 years, our government has been following a deregulatory trend. They have reduced regulations on telecommunications, public utilities, banking, airlines, and trucking. This means they favor efficiency over equity. How much regulation is needed? Some people argue that too many regulations make the government a "nanny state," which is horrible for the economy. On the other hand, citizens argue that there are many regulations, for example safety rules, that are necessary for the economy to function. The Trump administration has made this issue a central part of their political agenda, and they have attempted to roll back regulations over the past few years. Not only that, but growth based models often increase inequality. Some governments want to focused on reducing this in their economic policy goals. However, that means that they will not be able to focus as much on growth and efficiency because redistributive policies are often inefficient, which means that they reduce growth. Regulatory policy: Address the tradeoff between efficiency and the environment and equity. For example, the costs of tackling global warming. Two types: industry specific (banking, utilities, etc.) and goal specific (worker safety, clean environment, etc.). Deregulatory trend of the last 20 years: banking, trucking, telecommunications, airlines, and now public utilities. Efficiency over equity. How much is needed? "Nanny state" vs. necessary regulation. Big issue in the Trump administration. policy that results in government control over individuals and businesses. Examples include protection of the environment and consumer protection

fiscal policy

-The tools of economic policy includes fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy involving spending policy and countercyclical taxing. Its main purpose is to smooth out economic cycles. On method of using fiscal policy is based on Keynesian economics. Keynesians believe that when aggregate demand is low, it is the government's job to stimulate the economy through increased spending or tax cuts. On the other hand, the government needs to raise taxes or cut spending when AD is high. They call this "fine tuning the economy." In addition to taxing and spending, the government. can lend or borrow. Another method of using fiscal policy is based on supply side economics. This theory states that tax cuts and fewer regulations can be used to "stimulate the supply side rather than the demand side." This method will create a larger supply of goods and services, which will reduce prices and increase employment. A theoretical relationship between government revenue and rates of taxation, the Laffer curve, is a fundamental construct of this theory. It implies that there could be a time when cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue. However, when applied, this theory did not demonstrate positive results. Instead, it led to an explosion of deficits. Today, the Keynesian theory of economics is traditionally used. fiscal policy—taxing and spending policy that is created by Congress and the president Govt decisions about how to influence the economy by taxing and spending.

supply-side economics

-The tools of economic policy includes fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy involving the spending and taxing powers (Congress). Its main purpose is to smooth out economic cycles. One method of using fiscal policy is based on supply side economics. This theory states that tax cuts and fewer regulations can be used to "stimulate the supply side rather than the demand side." This method would create a larger supply of goods and services, which would reduce prices and increase employment. A theoretical relationship between government revenue and rates of taxation, the Laffer curve, is a fundamental construct of this theory. It implies that there could be a time when cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue (see below). However, when applied, this theory did not demonstrate positive results. Instead, it led to an explosion of deficits. Today, the Keynesian theory of economics is traditionally used for fiscal policy. APT The theory that lower tax rates will stimulate the economy by encouraging people to save, invest, and produce more goods and services. Online An economic philosophy that holds the sharply cutting taxes will increase the incentive people have to work, save, and invest. Greater investments will lead to more jobs, a more productive economy, and more tax revenues for the government. a school of economics that believes tax cuts can help an economy by raising supply

selective incentives

-motiving people to join and participate in interest groups: solutions to free rider problem Selective incentives could include informational, material, solidary, or purposive benefits. Informational could include access to certain documents or data that could be of interest to you as an individual or that could be useful to your professions. Next, the experience and satisfaction that come with working with similar minded people, even if the group is unable to accomplish their goal, is usually called a solitary benefit. On a similar note, even if the goal is not reached, the "satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people" is deemed a purposive benefit. Finally, material benefits include physical benefits that are derived from joining a groups, such as a complementary t shirt or coffee mug. These benefits "are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group." Another selective incentive that could possibly be used is coercion. This is essentially requiring participation in the organization, which will often elimination free riding. An example of this could be an employment opportunity mandating that you be apart of a labor union. These selective incentives fall into three categories: benefits from participation, coercion, and material goods Participation: -Solidary benefits: satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people, even if the group's efforts do not achieve the desired impact -Purposive benefits: satisfaction derived from the experience of working toward a desired policy goal, even if the goal is not achieved. Coercion: -a method of eliminating non participation or free riding by potential group members by requiring participation, as in many labor unions Material: -benefits that are provided for individuals for joining a group, such as coffee mug or t shirt, that are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group

disparate impact??

A situation in which a protected minority group is excluded from employment opportunities despite the fact that the employment practices in question are "seemingly neutral." Certain employment tests are illegal if they are not directly related to job performance (like having to take a math test to become a janitor) and if they have a "disparate impact" on minorities. Originally, the burden of proof rested with the employer, who had to demonstrate that the test was related to the job. However, today it lies with the employee, who must prove that discrimination exists. Lecture notes: employment discrimination. idea is straightforward, but application is tricky. a law is illegal if it has a disparate impact or uneven impact on racial minorities even if appears neutral. a utility company that had employment tests that were used to keep African American workforce small, SAT type aptitude test=not related to job in question. so they could not hire as many minority applicants. deemed not okay with Supreme Court. does not say you can not have a test that has a disparate impact, but it is up to employer to prove there is not discrimination. need a PHD in stem fields (has a disparate impact on minorities but that requirement is needed). employer would need to show that the PhD was needed. overturned later in Wards Cove Packing vs Antonio. burden of proof now on employee, much harder standard, many cases employee would not have data or proof. overturned again in 1991 Civil Rights Act, now burden of proof on employer. (quote on slides) (two other cases).

What is hyperpluralism? pg 137 talk about reformers? Does this pose a problem for the implementation of policy that is in the general interest? (lecture) critics of pluralism.

According to Jonathan Rauch, hyperpluralism is when gridlock in government is due to intense interest group activity. Some people believe that interest groups provide the government with "more access to the people," while others claim that the "rich have too much access." However, Rauch vehemently disagrees with both of these statements. Instead, he believes that our ability to govern is being hindered by the rising number of influential groups, which he deems hyper-pluralism. This means that all parties are being harmed. Olson jumps in here by adding evidence demonstrating that many nations currently in decline contain strong interest groups. Most likely, these groups are able to exert their influence and convince the government to pass legislation that benefits them but harms the general population. This implies that interest groups have a devastating impact on the implementation of policy that is in the general interest. In response to the interest group problem, reformers advocate for lobbyist registration, lobbying reforms, and gift bans. Other solutions include campaign finance reform (TED debate, dark money), limiting the access of certain groups to the political system (deemed anti-democratic), getting ride of tax subsidies and loopholes that feed these groups, an adding more competition in the form of market forces. -basically, he says you have your pluralism theory. hyper pluralism is a critique of pluralism because he says strong interest groups generate gridlock. so many interest groups and competing ideas. collective action: Olson shows that countries with higher levels of interest groups have lower levels of economic growth. Responses to IG Problem -Pluralists--do nothing, everything is OK. -Reformers: --lobbying reforms, gift bans, lobbyist registration, limiting the revolving door. --Anti-democratic solutions: limit access of groups to the political system. --Campaign finance reform (TED debate, dark money). --Eliminate IG's "lifeblood," tax loopholes and subsidies. --More market forces: more foreign competition and deregulation. Hyperpluralsim -Jonathan Rauch--hyperpluralism ---Intense interest group activity leads to gridlock in government; the exploding number of groups chokes off our ability to govern. Standard view (more access to the "people") and left-populist critique (rich have too much access) are wrong . -Mancur Olson--The decline of nations. ---He extends this argument to the comparative context. Nations with strong interest groups are in decline compared to those with weak groups. Online search: Hyperpluralism. Definition. A theory of government and politics contending that groups are so strong that government is weakened. Hyperpluralism is an extreme, exaggerated, or perverted form of pluralism. Compare elite and class theory, pluralist theory, and traditional democratic theory.

color-blind jurisprudence??

Affirmative action, the practice of favoring groups that had previously been discriminated against, has become a controversial debate in the United States. It is often hard to determine where the line of benefits should fall. Racial quotas has been deemed ok by the Supreme Court in order to make up for past discrimination; however, they have struck down set-aside programs. The justices stated that these programs were only allowed if actual discrimination has occurred instead of just patterns. This started the turn toward the use of color-blind jurisprudence, and the idea has been gradually applied over a range of issues. Essentially, it means that they believe that "race should not be considered in determining the outcome of certain kinds of cases." For example, when racial gerrymandering started to occur, (describe) the Supreme Court determined that it was illegal because race should not be a factor in drawing districts. universities should have a wholistic approach to accepting students. opposite of affirmative action. -the Supreme Court has been trying to gradually impose a color blind jurisprudence ever a variety of issues. race should not be a factor in certain kinds of cases. endorsed the most today. Lecture Outline: The Color-Blind Court and Judicial Activism -Recently, the Supreme Court has been gradually imposing a "color-blind jurisprudence" over a range of issues; that is, the Court has reasoned that race should not be considered in determining the outcome of certain kinds of cases.

What role did the "commerce clause" play in the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act? APT 5 and lecture

After the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, which bans discrimination in public accommodations, the law was upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis of the commerce clause. In the first case using this law, involving a hotel in Atlanta, the owner refused to rent rooms to African Americas. This business was located on an interstate highway and about 75 percent of its clientele was from out of state. The Court ruled that it was clearly engaging in interstate commerce, so Congress was able to regulate it (force them to serve African Americans under the Civil Rights Act). The judges maintained this stance on multiple other cases, and it eventually applied across a variety of industries. Lecture slides: The "I have a dream" speech, March on Washington, Aug., 1963. Civil Rights legislation. ---1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII. Bars discrimination in employment based on race, sex, religion or national origin. Law was upheld on the basis of the commerce clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Ollie's Barbeque (1964) ---1965 Voting Rights Act ---Fair Housing Act of 1968 In central cases, the justices ruled that Congress had the power to eliminate segregation in public places, such as restaurants and hotels, under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The first case involved a hotel in Atlanta that was close to an interstate highway, advertised extensively on the highway, and had a clientele that was about 75 percent from out of state. The Court ruled that this establishment was clearly engaging in interstate commerce, so Congress had the right to regulate it.

How did FDR's and Hoover's view of economic policy differ? (FDR and Hoover in TED)

After the Great Depression, the government's role in the economy was reevaluated. The incumbent President, Herbet Hoover, believed that the government's relationship with the private sector should not change. If the government got more involved in the market, he believed that this would be the end of the system. Not only that, but he believed that his government had actually handled the crisis fairly well, and that its relationship with the private sector had allowed it to develop important policies for handling crisis like this in the future. He emphasized the "exercise of individual initiation" and the "extension of freedom" that the current system offered. Finally, he believed that economic recovery was inevitable due to the strong nature of the American system, so there was no need to go and change (and possibly mess up) the system. Unfortunately, Hoover lost to FDR, who had a vastly different opinion on this subject. he believed that the protection of the well-being and overall welfare of American citizens should be the federal government's first priority. This meant that the government needed to play a more active role in the economy, such as through the introduction of public-works programs, an increased role in unemployment, and creating housing for the poor. He used his experience as the Governor of New York to demonstrate the success that these policies could have, and he believed that they were necessary for the nation to overcome to horrible effects of the Great Depression. He stated that increased funds to the states for these types of program were needed. Otherwise, he did not think that America would be able to bounce back. FDR: debate reached a peak during the Great Depression, as the nation struggled to define the govt's role in reviving the economy. FDR argued that the federal govt should play a role in unemployment insurance, housing for the poor, and public-works programs to compensate for the hardship of the Great Depression. Hoover, on the other hand, was very much opposed to altering the relationship btw govt and the private sector, which was "builded up by 150 yrs of toil of our fathers." It was the extension of freedom and the exercise of individual initiation, Hoover claimed, that made the American economic system strong and that would gradually bring about economic recovery. Roosevelt prevailed, and the resulting New Deal changed the face of the govt.

Separate but equal

After the civil war, Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1866 and 1875. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck them down later in 1883. This signaled to the southern states that they government would not enforce these laws or be able to interfere in their handling of the newly freed slaves. This gave birth to segregation or the Jim Crow laws. Essentially, these laws meant the blacks were separated from whites in every aspect of society. For example, blacks were separated in schools, hospitals, hotels, apartments, restaurants, cemetery plots, elevators, transportation, and neighborhoods. In another court case, Plessy v. Ferguson (1986), it was determined that the idea of "separate but equal" was okay, which allowed this injustice to continue for many years. The reality of the situation was that the separate institutions, for example schools, were inherently not equal. Civil Rights supports eventually starting chipping away at these laws and this doctrine with a variety of court cases. Eventually, the Supreme Court destroyed the idea of "separate but equal" through the Brown v. Board of Education case, which determined that separate schools for blacks were, in fact, not equal, so this doctrine had no place in education. However, the desegregation of schools did not actually happen for many years as the court lacked the power to truly enforce its ruling. When the government eventually had to step in, there were mass protests in the south, but this actually caused the Civil Rights movement to really take off. After end of slavery, south established this idea Principle upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation of public facilities was legal. In the 1930s, the NAACP, which was established to fight for equal rights for black people, started a concerted effort to nibble away at the doctrine lawsuits for blacks admissions into white schools Brown vs Board of education Lecture Outline: Jim Crow The national government did not enforce the equal protections for blacks, and the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The Supreme Court validated these practices in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. Progress toward equality began in the 1940s and continued in the 1950s with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), which rejected the "separate but equal" provision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

the NAIRU point

Basic economic goals for the United States includes promoting social goals (such as spending, taxation, redistributive policy, and the welfare state), maintaining a national market economy (regulating the market, promoting the market, and protecting property rights), and protecting private property and public order. The first goal of economic policy is full employment. Full employment does not mean that everyone has a job. There will always be frictional unemployment, which means people who are looking for a job. In other words, unemployment will never be 0%, but there is a natural rate of employment or full employment that can be reached. Achieving full employment is important because unemployment comes with a lot of costs, such as spending more money on social welfare programs and having lower taxes. In 1945, the Full Employment Act was proposed, which would have established a "federally guaranteed right to employment." However, it was deemed as too radical. Instead, the 1946 Employment Act was passed, which established the Council of Economic Advisers. This group would serve as advisors to the President, who would then, in addition to the national budget, be required to submit an annual economic report. The NAIRU point is often used to measure the rate of full employment. NAIRU, or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, is the point at which "the lowest level of unemployment that can exist in an economy before inflation begins to rise." If unemployment goes below that point, then inflation starts to rise. (ideal level of unemployment, will always have some level of unemployment in economy bc frictions or people looking for jobs) Non Accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Specific level of unemployment that exists in an economy that doesn't make inflation increase. Often represents equilibrium between state of the economy and labor market.

balanced budget amendment

Basic economic goals for the United States includes promoting social goals (such as spending, taxation, redistributive policy, and the welfare state), maintaining a national market economy (regulating the market, promoting the market, and protecting property rights), and protecting private property public order. -Additionally , another goal of economic policy is balanced budgets. If the difference between spending and revenue is negative, then we have a deficit. In the U.S., we have had deficits for many consecutive years, and the accumulation of these deficits is called debt. Balancing the budget has not been a central goal of policy makers since 2001. While there has been talk about reducing the deficit in future years, the debt has largely been ignored. This debt will become a burden on future generations because we will eventually have to start paying other countries back. Otherwise, they will refuse to lend to us or increase interest rates on borrowing. The "crowding out" of private investments is also occurring because of this, meaning the money we are spending on the interstate on the debt accounts is taking away funding that could be used for private capital. The debt is unlikely to decrease anytime soon, especially due to the rising government expenditures due to COVID-19. -more details under federal debt and deficits "a constitutional amendment requiring government to spend no more than it collects in taxes and other revenues," excluding borrowing, has been proposed, but it has not passed yet. -our debt is high and increasing -could increase the responsibility of our govt, possible reform, not likely

full employment

Basic economic goals for the United States includes promoting social goals (such as spending, taxation, redistributive policy, and the welfare state), maintaining a national market economy (regulating the market, promoting the market, and protecting property rights), and protecting private property public order. The first goal of economic policy is full employment. Full employment does not mean that everyone has a job. There will always be frictional unemployment, which means people who are looking for a job. In other words, unemployment will never be 0%, but there is a natural rate of employment or full employment that can be reached. Achieving full employment is important because unemployment comes with a lot of costs, such as spending more money on social welfare programs and having lower taxes. In 1945, the Full Employment Act was proposed, which would have established a "federally guaranteed right to employment." However, it was deemed as too radical. Instead, the 1946 Employment Act was passed, which established the Council of Economic Advisers. This group would serve as advisors to the President, who would then, in addition to the national budget, be required to submit an annual economic report. The NAIRU point is often used to measure the rate of full employment. NAIRU, or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, is the point at which "the lowest level of unemployment that can exist in an economy before inflation begins to rise." If unemployment goes below that point, then inflation starts to rise. the theoretical point at which all citizens who want to be employed have a job was not an explicit goal of economic policy until 1946, when Congress passed the Employment Act. Leaders were concerned that with millions of World War II veterans returning and the wartime economy gearing down, the nation might slide back into the economic depression that had created so much hardship in the 1930s. Council of Economic Advisors was created to provide the president with economic information and advice=largely symbolic. GI Bill -Today, the govt seeks to support the creation of as many jobs as possible by maintaining a strong economy. On a technical level, "full employment" does not literally mean that everyone is working. Instead, economists consider a 4 to 4.5 percent unemployment rate to be the level of full employment, or the "natural rate of unemployment." This accounts for the substantial portion of potential workers who are not looking for a job, and a certain amount of "frictional unemployment" when people are between jobs.

What techniques were used to prevent blacks from voting in the South before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965? (lecture and APT Ch. 14).

Despite the fact that blacks were granted the right to vote, a majority initially did not. This was mostly due to discriminatory literacy tests and other voter registration tests. The literacy test was the primary means of keeping blacks from voting. The tests were made incredibly difficult, and a majority of citizens, black or white, were unable to pass them. However, most white voters were able to go around these tests through the grandfather clause. This meant that if your grandfather was able to vote, then so could you (and did not have to take the literacy test). Unfortunately, black citizens had only recently been granted the right to vote, so unlike their white counterparts, they were unable to use this rule as a loophole. Another requirement that was used in the South was a loyalty oath. This forced black citizens to take an oath before voting saying that they supported segregation, and as many blacks refused to agree with this, they were barred from voting. Finally, poll taxes, intimidation, white primaries, and residency requirements were also used to discourage them from voting. Lecture outline: Voting Rights Nonetheless, blacks were almost completely disenfranchised through poll taxes, residency requirements, the grandfather clause and other forms of disqualification. Lecture slides: Nearly a complete disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Grandfather clause, intimidation, literacy tests, white primaries, poll taxes, loyalty oaths. -literacy tests were really hard, but if your grandfather was able to vote, so could you and didn't have to take it, meant most blacks were unable to vote because only recently granted the right to vote. white primaries=online hear. (loyalty oath: had to take an oath saying you were in favor of segregation)

Social Security

During 1935, as a part of his New Deal Policies, President FDR established Social Security. For enrolled workers, this was a guaranteed retirement program, meaning once you turned 65 you were eligible for payments from the federal government if you had contributed to the workforce. This is a "pay as you go" system, which means that current workers pay taxes that go to the current retirees, so the system is not funded directly by the federal government. Instead, the current workers pay into the system with regressive taxes called payroll taxes. This means that wealthier individuals pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than poorer individuals do. Up to $132,900 of income is taxed at 6.2%, and all income is taxed at 1.45% for Medicare. Finally, employers must contribute 7.65% of your paycheck to Social Security. This program has helped drastically reduce poverty rates among the elderly (now 10%, would be 50% without SS). Once you retire, you receive monthly, progressive benefits. This means that the poor receive a higher percentage of their income in benefits than the rich do. Individuals receive around $1,419 per month, with a max of$2,788, and couples receive around $2,448 per month month, with a max of $3,672. This program has been viewed in mostly a positive light by most Americans and both political parties. Unfortunately, there are a lot of problems with Social Security today. See above (FDR) 1935, guaranteed retirement payments for enrolled workers beginning at age 65; set up federal-state system of unemployment insurance and care for dependent mothers and children, the handicapped, and public health

Nonviolent Direct Action

During the civil rights movement, leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., developed the idea of nonviolent direct action as a form of protest. The idea was that protesters, in a "loving fashion," would openly break "unjust" laws to bring attention to the injustices created by them. This included four steps: collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action (civil disobedience). The first step involved researching and going over the facts in order to "determine whether injustices are alive." In an attempt to address these injustices, the civil rights leaders would then try and negotiate with the white leaders. If that failed, they would turn to self-purification. In other word, to make sure the protesters would be able to handle the verbal and physical abuse that would be thrown at them, they must be trained to take it without fighting back (because that would only make the situation worse and no progress would be made). Finally, they would turn to direct nonviolent action in order to spur change, such as participating in marches and sit-ins. APT? Strategy used by civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., in which protesters break "unjust" laws openly but in a "loving" fashion in order to bring the injustices of such laws to public attention. four steps to nonviolent campaigns: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) negotiation with white leaders to change the injustices; (3) self-purification, which involved training to make sure that the civil rights protesters would be able to endure the abuse that they would receive; and (4) direct action (for example, sit-ins and marches) to create the environment in which change could occur, but always in a nonviolent manner. Social movements Activists have been instrumental in pressuring the political system to change its civil rights policies, particularly for women and blacks. -Nonviolent Protests are when activists disobey governmental demands or commands as a strategy for forcing governmental. Martin Luther King Jr. laid out the four steps of nonviolent campaigns: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) negotiation with white leaders to change the injustices; (3) self-purification, which involved training to make sure that the civil rights protesters would be able to endure the abuse that they would receive; and (4) direct action (for example, sit-ins and marches) to create the environment in which change could occur, but always in a nonviolent manner. ---During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) organized sit-ins, which marked a shift in civil rights tactics away from the court-based approach and toward nonviolent civil disobedience.

set aside programs

Federal, state, or local grants that are provided to encourage and assist minority businesses declared illegal by the Supreme Court unless directly making up for past discrimination.

informational??, material, solidary, and purposive benefits

For interest group lobbying, to get people to join interest groups and overcome collective action problem (Olsen) Furthermore, selective incentives could include informational, material, solidary, or purposive benefits. Informational could include access to certain documents or data that could be of interest to you as an individual or that could be useful to your professions. Next, the experience and satisfaction that come with working with similar minded people, even if the group is unable to accomplish their goal, is usually called a solitary benefit. On a similar note, even if the goal is not reached, the "satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people" is deemed a purposive benefit. Finally, material benefits include physical benefits that are derived from joining a groups, such as a complementary t shirt or coffee mug. These benefits "are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group." (see coercion above) (side benefits if you pay) motiving people to join and participate: solutions to free rider problem These selective incentives fall into three categories: benefits from participation, coercion, and material goods Participation: -Solidary benefits: satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people, even if the group's efforts do not achieve the desired impact -Purposive benefits: satisfaction derived from the experience of working toward a desired policy goal, even if the goal is not achieved. Material: -benefits that are provided for individuals for joining a group, such as coffee mug or t shirt, that are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group Informational: self explanatory?

Intermediate Scrutiny Test reasonable basis grounds no longer justifiable for gender discrimination.

For many cases based on sexual orientation and all gender-based discrimination cases, the intermediate scrutiny test is the level applied when determining whether "unequal treatment is justified by the effect of a law." This means that the government policy must be "substantially related" to an "important government objective" to show just cause for "the unequal treatment of men and women." For women, this test gives them stronger protection than the rational basis test; however, it is not as strong as the strict scrutiny test. The middle level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justified by the effect of a law; this is the standard used for gender-based discrimination cases and for many cases based on sexual orientation. The new intermediate scrutiny standard meant that the government's policy must be "substantially related" to an "important government objective" to justify the unequal treatment of men and women, so the law was struck down. The intermediate scrutiny test gives women stronger protections than the rational basis test, but it is not as strong as strict scrutiny

the welfare state

Form of government that takes responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. It promotes and protects the social and economic well-being of people through programs such as pensions, unemployment compensation, and public housing. It also involves other policies that are based upon the ideas of equitable distribution of wealth, equal opportunity, and public responsibility for those who are unable to to provide themselves with the bare necessities. A government that undertakes responsibility for the welfare of its citizens through programs in public health and public housing and pensions and unemployment compensation etc. The welfare state is a form of government in which the state protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of the citizens, based upon the principles of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a goo

What are the problems in using GDP as a measure of the health of the economy? (Gertner in TED) divorce example

GDP, as a measure of the health of the economy, has many problems. GDP is a measure of the aggregate production of the economy, meaning that it includes measurements that are not necessarily positive in terms of health. For example, it includes unhealthy activities, such as the consumption of junk food. It also includes "high spending consumerism," which is when you buy an expensive item such as a car every few years (this is needed, but not representative of average growth). Finally, it includes waste, such as gasoline burned by cars sitting in traffic jams. In TED, Jon Gertner uses the example of the high-GDP man versus the low-GDP man to further illustrate that GDP is not a good measure of the health of our economy. High-GDP man works a lot and spends a lot. He has a car that gets horrible gas mileage, and he has a long commute to work, meaning he burns a lot of gas sitting in traffic and is often stressed (ie not good for his physical health). He and his wife do not have a lot of time to cook or clean, so they hire a maid and a cook. On the other hand, low GDP man does not mind taking the bus, cooking his own meals, or cleaning. He likes to hang his laundry on a close line, while high-GDP man buys a washer and dryer. Low GDP man likes to grow his own vegetables, while high-GDP man buys them prepackaged at the store. In the end, it is clear the high-GDP man is a better addition to the economy in terms of expenditures and salary, but it is difficult to say that his life is better than low GDP man as his life often includes aspects we would consider unhealthy. One way to more accurately measure the health of the economy could be to assign positive values only to factors that are actually beneficial. Tornados cause a lot of damage, but they also bring in revenue for construction companies. Instead of assigning this a positive value, we should give it a negative value or at least adjust it to account for the negative externalities. Not only does GDP often take negative expenditures into account, but it also often fails to take into account other valuable variables. Cooking your own dinner could count toward GDP just as easily as buying food at a restaurant, and it is often considered to be healthier. Finally, GDP fails to take into account other factors that are beneficial for the economy but difficult to measure. The HDI attempts to take these variables into account. It includes GDR, citizen's health (based on life expectancy statistics), and citizen's education (based on school-enrollment data and adult literacy rates). While I do not believe that this is the solution to the problem, I believe that it is a step in the right direction. Gertner: But is all growth good growth? He argues that GDP is an inaccurate measure of overall economic well-being. Higher GDP does not necessarily mean we are better off, bc it includes all types of spending-even spending that results from waste (gasoline burned by cars sitting in traffic jams), unhealthy activities (consumption of cholesterol-laden foods and the cardiologists' bills that often result), or high-spending consumerism (buying a new care every few yrs or the newest electricity-hog appliances). By comparing "high GDP man" and "low GDP many," he makes it clear that the person spending more and contributing more to the economy may not be acting in the nation's best interests. He also uses the analogy of a car dashboard that tells the driver only how fast she is going and conveys no other information about how the car is functioning. Political leaders would be better served by a "human development index" that would reveal the nation's performance according to measures of health, education, the environment, employment, material well-being, interpersonal connectedness, and political engagement, rather than simply growth. APT: These critics argue that a significant part of GDP actually captures a decline in well-being. For example, if we have to spend billions of dollars putting alarms in our homes and cars to warn against intruders, this does not signal an increase in the standard of living from the time when such alarms were necessary.

Olson's theory of interest groups

He describes how large interest groups have trouble organizing and staying organized due to the collective action and free rider problems. The collective action problem is, for example, when an interest group is able to convince the government to pass legislation that is beneficial to a large group of people. The interest group is unable to prevent anyone from reaping the benefits from their hard work. This means that groups do not need to participate in interest groups because they will not be able to be excluded from the new collective group provided by the government. A related idea, the free rider problem, is when people are not motivated to join a group because, as the collective action problem demonstrates, experience has shown them that someone else will likely do it for them. In other words, Olson implies that interest groups are not as powerful as some believe. (changed, see above) According to Olson, the collective action problem can be solved by either making interest groups smaller or using selective incentives. The first idea is self-explanatory. The smaller the group, the easier it is to control and organize, and there will be less of an incentive to piggy back off of others as there will be less people to count on. Furthermore, selective incentives could include informational, material, solidary, or purposive benefits. Informational could include access to certain documents or data that could be of interest to you as an individual or that could be useful to your professions. Next, the experience and satisfaction that come with working with similar minded people, even if the group is unable to accomplish their goal, is usually called a solitary benefit. On a similar note, even if the goal is not reached, the "satisfaction derived from the experience of working with like minded people" is deemed a purposive benefit. Finally, material benefits include physical benefits that are derived from joining a groups, such as a complementary t shirt or coffee mug. These benefits "are distinct from the collective benefits derived from the group." -collective action, free rider problem (dirty dishes in the kitchen) -example: wikipedia donations -How to solve the problem? (could make it private/people have to pay for membership, but closes it off) -prisoner's dilemma (Game theory) 2 ideas to solve problem by Olson: smaller groups or selective incentives (discussed in lecture, know them) Lecture Mancur Olson (TED) --The logic of collective action: difficulties that groups have of forming in the first place. -The free rider problem -Size of the group.

the problem of collective action

He describes how large interest groups have trouble organizing due to the collective action and free rides problems. The collective action problem is, for example, when an interest group is able to convince the government to pass legislation that is beneficial to a large group of people. The interest group is unable to prevent anyone from reaping the benefits from their hard work. This means that it is more beneficial for individuals to not join interest groups because they know that they will not be able to be excluded from the collective good, and they do not have to put in the work to get there. In other words, while it may be beneficial for everyone to work toward the same collective goals, the problem is that people know they can still gain the benefit without joining. (changed see above) A situation in which the members of a group would benefit by working together to produce some outcome, but each individual is better off refusing to cooperate and reaping benefits from those who do the work. Even when all members of an interest group agree on the desirability of a public good (government policy) and the costs of producing the good are negligible, cooperation is neither easy nor automatic

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (in workplace discrimination below)

In order to increase worker protections against pay discrimination, Congress passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This allowed citizens to "seek rectification under federal anti discrimination laws" if they faced pay discrimination. This law was passed in order to correct a previous Supreme Court ruling, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), which determined that the employee had to file a complaint within 180 days of the initial discrimination, or they would not be able to pursue a lawsuit. Essentially, Congress passed this law to say "no, that is not what we meant." They intended for individuals to be able to file for an equal-pay lawsuit anytime after the initial discriminatory wage decision was made. first law passed during obama administration. federal employees The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. each time a person is paid discriminatory wages, benefits or compensation, a cause of action arises and the victim has 180 days to file a complaint. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a law enacted by Congress that bolstered worker protections against paydiscrimination. The act allows individuals who face pay discrimination to seek rectification under federal antidiscrimination laws.

the 14th Amendment,

In the original Constitution, equality is not mentioned at all. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that states provided citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., and that they could not deny newly freed slaves the equal protection of the laws. In other words, today civil rights are "rooted in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Lecture slides: Equality not mentioned in the original Constitution (14th Amendment is key for many civil rights). The Bill of Rights focused on civil liberties. Equality figures prominently in the Declaration of Independence. APT the Fourteenth guaranteed that states could not deny newly freed slaves the equal protection of the laws and provided citizenship to anyone born in the United States, These amendments were ratified within five years of the war, although southern states resisted giving freed slaves and their descendants "equal protection of the laws" over the next 100 years. Lecture Civil rights are protections from discrimination both by the government and by individuals, which are rooted in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What are the arguments for and against affirmative action? (lecture and APT Ch. 14).?

Many white citizens believe that it is "preferential treatment" and "reverse discrimination." (see above) For example, a white student applied to a college and was denied. She brought her case before the Supreme Court and argued that the only reason that she did not get in was that the school gave preferential treatment to minority students who had lower scores than her (plus factor). Another argument is that affirmative action stirs resentment against minorities and then creates backlash against other important race-based policies. Others say that any classification be race is bad, so we should not make an acceptation here. Finally, Clarence Thomas believes that this practice promotes victimization and racial stereotyping. The idea that minorities need help in order to succeed in America gets passed down from generation to generation as these policies are upheld, which encourages the majority to stereotype them as weak and too dependent. On the other hand, many believe that simply establishing a "level playing field" is not enough because there is still evidence of a lot of discrimination today. For example, a study was done where the same resume was sent to different companies, and the applicant was much more likely to be denied if they listed their race as black. Others assert that we need to make up for past discrimination through these policies. In the past, qualified African Americans have been denied from jobs, so need to change this. Furthermore, if affirmative action promotes equality in professions, there will be more role models for minority children. Finally, blacks' socioeconomic status continues to lag behind whites', so affirmative action will help "diminish economic inequality between the races by helping to create a middle class within racial minorities." (benefiting our economy as a whole) -(face discrimination in look for housing) as long as discrimination exists, affirmative action will remain necessary. APT But even after the act was passed, blacks continued to lag behind whites in socioeconomic status; there was still a substantial gap between the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcomes. Obama: pg. 126 Lecture slides: Arguments in favor: -A level playing field is not enough. There is still discrimination: field experiments in employment and housing, implicit association tests. -Need to make up for past discrimination. -Helps provide diversity in the workplace and in higher education. -Provides role models for minority children in the professions. -Helps diminish economic inequality between the races by helping to create a middle class within racial minorities. Many whites view it as "preferential treatment" and "reverse discrimination." Lecture slides: Arguments in favor: -A level playing field is not enough. There is still discrimination: field experiments in employment and housing, implicit association tests. -Need to make up for past discrimination. -Helps provide diversity in the workplace and in higher education. -Provides role models for minority children in the professions. -Helps diminish economic inequality between the races by helping to create a middle class within racial minorities. Affirmative Action, cont. Arguments against: -reverse discrimination -any classification by race is bad -Resentment against affirmative action creates backlash against other race-based policies -it promotes racial stereotyping and victimization (Clarence Thomas's view)

Laffer curve D

See supply side economics The basic shape of the curve is intuitive, and the end points are noncontroversial: if the tax rate is zero, there will be no tax revenue; if the tax rate is 100 percent, nobody will work because they won't get to keep any of their money, so total tax revenue at that end of the curve is also zero.39 Laffer argued that if tax rates are too high (to the right of the peak in the graph), people will work less because a large percentage of their income is going to the government. In this situation, the government should cut taxes in order to raise total government revenue—a claim that seems counterintuitive.

de jure and de facto segregation

Segregation that is mandated by laws is referred to as de jure segregation. For example, segregation in schools was legally enforced in the 1960s in the American South. However, the Court shifted to de facto segregation in 1971. This meant segregation that occurred outside of the law, such as segregation in schools that was caused by housing patterns and other factors instead of laws. To address this issue, they "approved school busing as a tool to integrate schools." relation to actions or circumstances that occur outside of the law or "by fact," such as the segregation of schools that resulted from housing patterns and other factors rather than laws. Lecture outline: -The Push to Desegregate Schools Brown v. Board of Education II (1955) addressed the implementation of desegregation and required the states to "desegregate with all deliberate speed." ---In 1971, the Court shifted its focus from de jure segregation, segregation mandated by law, to de facto segregation, segregation that existed because of housing patterns, and approved school busing as a tool to integrate schools. APT De jure segregation is segregation by law; de facto segregation is segregation in practice. de jure: relating to actions or circumstances that occur "by law," such as the legally enforced segregation of schools in the American South before the 1960s. in 1971, court shifted from de jure to de facto de facto: relation to actions or circumstances that occur outside of the law or "by fact," such as the segregation of schools that resulted from housing patterns and other factors rather than laws.

lobbyists/lobbying

Using protests, reports, informal meetings, or other techniques to monitor and encourage policy developments is called lobbying. The end goal of this is to persuade elected officials to craft a regulation or enact a law. This is the main strategy of interest groups. Interest groups often use money, expertise, and people to support their lobbying efforts. All interest group lobbying is regulated in some way. For example, Lobbying firms must "file quarterly reports identifying their clients, specifying how much each client paid, and the issues they lobbied on." Furthermore, the number of lobbying groups in America has increased over the years. This is mostly due to the expansion of the federal government and the increasing number of policy areas that have been created. Finally, there are insider and outsider lobbying strategies (see below for more details). Insider interest group strategies involve gaining access in Washington or directly appealing to politicians. This often involves delivering research, regulation, or legislation directly to legislators. They could also take the government to court or testify before congressional committees. Finally, inside strategies often work better if more than one interest group works together. Outsider strategies look toward the public, and the often include grassroots lobbying or "going public" in an attempt to put public pressure on Congress. Grassroots lobbying, or using "interest group members in lobbying efforts," often involves making telephone calls or sending letters. It could also involve appealing to the media or organizing mass protests. lobbying involves persuasion and monitoring policy development by using reports, protests, informal meetings, or other techniques to convince an elected official or bureaucrat to help enact a law, craft a regulation, or do something else that a group wants. -interest group lobbying is regulated. Lobbying firms must file quarterly reports identifying their clients, specifying how much each client paid, and the issues they lobbied on. must file reports on staff members that spent more than 20 percent of their time lobbying congress, and total expenditures to lobbying firms- -lobbying involved billions of dollars-why so many interest groups and lobbyists and why are their numbers increasing? -this proliferation is related to the large size and widespread influence of the federal government.-when one group starts lobbying for something, an opposing lobbying group almost always forms as well-lobbying expenditures vary widely-a large portion of lobbying is done by the business sector Interest groups use three key resources to support their lobbying efforts: people, money, and expertise. pg 351 Lecture Interest Groups' Strategies -Lobbying strategies: insider (gaining access) vs. outsider (grassroots lobbying or "going public"). Encourage people to submit comments on rule changes (Devin Judge-Lord). Expand the scope of conflict (Schattschneider).

How did Abraham Lincoln differ from King in terms of his views on how to change policies he disagreed with? (Lincoln in TED)

Yes, Lincoln vastly disagreed with King in terms of his views on how to change policies he disagreed with. While King says that people have a "moral obligation" to disobey unjust laws, Lincoln argues that laws must always be followed. He states that if we decide not to follow laws, then civil society will cease to exist. Changing unjust laws must start within the system. What is ironic here is that while King encourages citizens to disobey unjust laws, he was actually instrumental in the initial attempts to put pressure on Congress in order to change segregation laws. On the other hand, while Lincoln asserts that unjust laws must be changed through the proper channels, the civil war began under his leadership because the "issue of slavery could not be solved within the system." Lincoln Lincoln argues that the laws must be followed, as without adherence to laws we have no civil society. Change, Lincoln stresses, must come from working within the system. King disagrees, arguing that while people have a moral obligation to follow just laws, they have an equally compelling duty to break unjust laws through nonviolent means. In his Birmingham letter, he outlines procedures for distinguishing between just and unjust laws, and for resisting those laws that are unjust. It is ironic that despite Lincoln's admonitions about working within the system, it was under his leadership Civil War happened bc issue of slavery could not be solved within the system. King, on the other hand, who argued in favor of breaking unjust laws, was actually instrumental in putting pressure on Congress (the system) to change those laws that he and others in the civil rights movement considered unjust.