democratproject-blog

[democratproject-blog]

So much yes.

[democratproject-blog]

In your view, who is to blame for the shutdown—the Republicans, the Democrats or the system itself?

The cause for this year's shutdown is that the Republican-dominated Congress did not approve the fiscal budget for the 2014 year, and I say that the Republicans are to blame because their reasons for disapproving the budget were entirely political. The new proposed budget, including Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act (Dubbed "Obamacare" by many) was not approved before the budget deadline. A very small percentage of Tea Party Republicans in Congress are preventing House Speaker John Boehner from bring a clean resolution (CR) up for voting, and they are the reason why the government is at a complete standstill. They insist that Obamacare be delayed or defunded, and have talked with Obama about this. However, seeing as this program was launched on October 1st, there would be a public outcry if this healthcare system were to be taken out of the picture.

Then, there's the issue of the debt ceiling. Here, Obama and the Republicans disagree once again- this time on the terms of raising the nation's debt limit, and whether the debt limit should even be a topic of discussion. The Republicans have told of multiple policies they wanted to put into effect before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling past October, these including long term debt ceiling increase with privatizing of Medicare/Social Security, medium term debt ceiling increase through cutting of good stamps, use of chained consumer price index, tax reform and enactment of block-grant Medicaid or a large raise in the retirement age, and short term debt ceiling increase with testing of social security, a small raise in retirement age and ending agricultural subsidies. Obama in turn has argued that the budget sequestration in 2013, automatic spending cuts to the federal government, already serve as a budget compromise.

The government shutdown caused by this has seen 800,000 federal employees on temporary leave, including those who work at National Parks and other landmarks.

Ironically, several Republican congressmen have shown outrage that national parks have been closed- a very strange step because the shutdown is what caused the closing of many governmental facilities in the first place. It seems that Republicans don't even understand what's going on, and they're just taking a ball and running with it. At the moment, the whole argument is essentially a matter of who compromises first. Both parties are unyielding in this affair, but the Republicans are more divided in opinion.

However, the shutdown is counterintuitive to what the Republicans seek to do: the shutdown has caused Americans losses of 160 million US dollars a day, and with the clock ticking towards the third week, this loss has caused many Republicans pain in their wallets.

The Democratic Party at this point is holding its ground (at least, regarding the budget) with the fact that the Affordable Care Act had been validated by the Supreme Court. A completely valid point, to say the least. With the new healthcare bill launched as planned on October 1st, it will only be more difficult for the government to defund the act or delay it. In this situation, the healthcare plan would also give better healthcare to lower income people, a move that is favored by many except the Republicans.

[democratproject-blog]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2011/02/22/democracy-versus-liberty/

[democratproject-blog]

[democratproject-blog]

A selection of photos relating to the recent 2013 Government shut-down

[democratproject-blog]

If you're wondering what Democracy, Republic or any of those political terms even mean, than watch this fun, creative and short video about it!

[democratproject-blog]

The Witty Winston Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

This quote was said by the famous Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister for the UK during the Second World War Period. He was exceptionally well known for his witty yet though-provoking sayings such as the one above. To fully understand this quote, we would need to quickly brief through some background context. This was said by winston churchill just a few years after the WWII ended. At that time, Germany, Italy, and Spain were following a Fascist Dictatorship structure (Typically a militaristic/low class ruler who rose to power), Japan and spain were under an Imperial Monarchy (where there is a high/low class system and the king/queen being decedents of the previous), and even China gearing towards Communism. It may be a stretch of generalisation, but each of these countries had, in the 20th century alone, gone through some form a major revolution (if not, many) against their country’s government. Spain went through a coup d tat, China went through the cultural revolution, and Germany had the whole “Nazi domination” thing going on during the 1940’s. And while some may make the argument that the US also went through it’s own phase in the 19th century (American Civil War), that was primarily due to economic differences and use of slaves.What all of this adds up to in one, simple conclusion is that other forms of government besides democracy don’t work and thus, can be considered worst than it in terms of efficiency.

Now, thats not to say that they are all flawed, but many of them did carry many. Now, Churchill’s quote primarily suggests that while democracy itself has it’s own types of weaknesses, it is by not the absolute worst. Or, put in another way, if democracy is the worst form of government, others would be considered to be even worse. This is both a humorous and slightly ironic statement about democracy in that even though it is labeled by many to be an unsatisfactory form of governance structure, it is still ultimately the ‘best’ form known to us that just ‘works’. Of course, everyone has their own entitlement to their views of democracy, but this was the primary though process behind this quote itself.

As a final point of clearing things up, it should be noted that the term' democracy' is in a slight way too broad of it's original meaning. Winston Churchill was referring to the US government and the official term applied to the nation are: Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic. While the meaning of democracy isn't entirely true to what it originally meant (as in a pure democracy with people voting for everything), it still does not detour from the point of Winston Churchill's statement: That Democracy is still the best option for us at the time. 

[democratproject-blog]

[democratproject-blog]

[democratproject-blog]

What are the reasons for the current partial shutdown of the American government?

As said by Ezra Klein, columnist for the Washington Post in his article titled Don't forget what the shutdown is really about, "This [government shutdown] is all about stopping a law that increases taxes on rich people and reduces subsidies to private insurers in Medicare in order to help low-income Americans buy health insurance. That's it. That's why the Republican Party might shut down the government and default on the debt."

There really is nothing to this shutdown.

A very small number of Tea Party Republicans in Congress are preventing House Speaker John Boehner from bringing a clean resolution (CR) up for voting, and they are the reason why the government is at a complete stop. They insist that Obamacare be delayed or defunded, and have talked with Obama about this. However, seeing as this program was launched on October 1st, there would be a public outcry if this healthcare system were to be taken out of the picture. The act's allegedly "unconstitutional" nature is a ridiculous notion, seeing as the act had been approved by Supreme Court Judges, and had been passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2010. The House Speaker, John Boehner, is now requesting that Obamacare be delayed or defunded from the budget, and of course President Obama is firm in his stance that this act be funded.

However, this healthcare debate traces back to 2008, when Obama ran for his first term as president. After becoming president, he put in good faith that this healthcare plan would pass. In 2010, his health care reform plan had been approved, and has not been put into action until this year. The bill has seen opposition particularly from Republicans because it imposes higher taxes on wealthy people- but the shutdown isn't just about the healthcare act anymore. Fast forward to 2013, and it's not all that simple anymore.

It's not just about Obamacare either- it's also about the budget ceiling. Republicans want several policies to be put into effect before any discussion of raising the debt ceiling past October, these including long term debt ceiling increase with privatizing of Medicare/Social Security, medium term debt ceiling increase through cutting of good stamps, use of chained consumer price index, tax reform and enactment of block-grant Medicaid or a large raise in the retirement age, and short term debt ceiling increase with testing of social security, a small raise in retirement age and ending agricultural subsidies. Obama in turn has argued that the budget sequestration in 2013, automatic spending cuts to the federal government, already serve as a budget compromise, and therefore does not wish to negotiate any further on this issue. However, he has said that he would be willing to negotiate almost any issue after a clean bill to reopen the government and increase the debt ceiling has been passed.

In early October, the House drafted a bill that would raise the budget ceiling without conditions through Nov. 22nd, but keep the partial govt. shutdown in place. If the bill is passed in both houses, many foresee the President signing it.

With the clock ticking at Day 15, it is difficult to say what the outcome of this lockdown will be.

[democratproject-blog]

Imagine you are an American citizen of voting age: Choose your party—the Democrats, the Republicans or a third party—and explain why.

Personally, I would side with the Democratic Party because it is based off a Liberal philosophy. Liberals tend to believe in the following:

Equality for people of different races, religions, ethnicities and sexual orientations

Education for all

Freedom of Speech

Environmental Health

Technological Advancement

Economic Responsibility (a.k.a. It's irresponsible to push the nation into higher and higher debt ceilings in order to keep the wealthy comfortable)

Fair Taxes (a.k.a. Higher taxes for higher income people, lower taxes for lower income people)

Worker's Rights

Widely Accessible Health Care

Women's Right of Choice (Especially with Abortion)

Multi-culturalism: The right of people to freely practice their traditions and feel pride in their background

Campaign Finance Reform

I'm all for all of these things. I have friends and relatives who fall under some of these issues, and if the US were dominated only by democrats and didn't have the checks and balances system, it would be a fairer place for lower income people, people of minorities, people of the technology industry... the list goes on. Of course, many of these issues haven't truly been acted on for a while, with some more prominent than others, but the fact that these principles are supported compels me. The Liberal way of thinking supports social responsibility and the good of the community, which brings me to my next point. Why didn't I choose the Republican Party?

Coming from a higher income family in Hong Kong, my family's wealth would definitely be increased by Republican tax ideals and their ideas of individual rights and justice. My family would be able to become wealthier. My dad's business would be able to flourish without much restriction. However, when thinking about the United States as a whole, the majority of the population is young, non-caucasian, female, of a different sexual orientation or a low income worker. These people are not helped by Republican ideals, and that's quite a lot of people. There is only a small percentage of wealthy property owners that benefit from these ideals. The general criteria for a person who benefits from republican ideals is that this person must be A. White, B. Male, C. Wealthy, and D. Heterosexual. Republicans (a large majority of them, at the very least) do not support abortions, gender sexual minorities, ethnic minorities or the rights of children and women. As a female person who also happens to be Chinese and who can hold an American passport, I want to have the right of abortion, the freedom to have legal relationships with people even of my own gender and of other genders, and the right to education. America has long been known as the country of opportunity, and Republican ideals do not suit my needs.

I did not choose a smaller or independent party because not only do I want certain ideals, but I also want them to be implemented, and that's exactly what is happening with Obama and his Affordable Care Act. Democratic thinking supports healthcare for all, and with this act, people can have insurance even with preexisting conditions. This is great for Americans because people with lower incomes that cannot pay medical fees often incubate their sicknesses for a long time, and this can culminate in hazardous health results. In the past, the Democratic Party has also ended women's suffrage with the 19th Amendment, ended unequal voting requirements with the Civil Rights Act, created jobs with the Clinton Budget in 1993, and ended the US Military policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regarding sexual minorities. 

[democratproject-blog]

Electoral College... Good or Bad?

To begin, lets talk about what the Electoral college is and why we have it. When the constitution was being written by our founding fathers (all the way back in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention), they decided on an indirect election system for the president. In the end, the delegates of the constitution decided that citizens of the country (the ordinary voters) chose electors, who would than elect for the president. This way, the people in each state would still have a say in who becomes the president, but the final decision would be made by people who were more informed about the candidates and the issues. Each of the 50 states have a certain amount of electoral college votes based on the number of representatives the state has in congress. So, no state can have fewer than 3 electoral votes since each state has at least two senators and one representative in the house of representatives. On the voting day, whichever party’s candidate wins the popular vote also wins the votes of all the state’s eleectors. In total, there are 538 electoral votes but the nominee running for president only has to win more than half of that, or 270 electoral college votes to become president. Of course, there has been some dispute over this system’s effective portrayal of the people’s votes. 

Now, while there are many reasons why people criticised this system, the two main reasons are one, that the electors (which again, are who the normal people actually vote for) change their mind and cast their electoral vote on the opponent candidate and two, the possibility of electing a minority president. Faithless electors, electors who whatever reason do not vote on the president they pledged to vote for, have actually been a common occurrence during election years. In almost every election since it’s beginning, there was at least one faithless elector who voted for the opponent. Going back to how a minor president might win, say for example a candidate wins several large states by just a few popular votes while the other candidate wins states by a large margin but they are relatively small. This allows for a president who would’ve won by popular vote (as in the final, total amount of votes within the nation) losing due to having less electoral votes. This has actually happened 3 times and has cause mixed criticism among the nation. Other reasons against this system is that people think it is unfair for a state’s electoral vote all go to the single winning party while the losing party gets none. Also, due to how the distribution of electoral votes are with each state, candidates often pay a great deal of attention to states with more electoral college votes as opposed to ones that have few. 

Despite all of these issues, there are still some pro-reason as to why the electoral college is good. For example, if we voted through popular vote, only areas with the highest population would matter, something the electoral college has done is eliminate the fair of a majority winning everything. Therefore, this system enhances the status of minority interests. Moreover, it would be inefficient for candidates to travel to every single state to convince them for their votes as there wouldn’t be enough time or money to do so. Moreover, it maintains a federal system of government and representation and contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system. 

Despite all of these reasons, in the end it would take a new amendment to be passed in order for some form of reformation for this system to occur. 

[democratproject-blog]

"Checks and balances"? "The separation of powers"? What is all this mumbo jumbo about?

                                The US government is unique in that each branch has power limited by the constitution in that every branch holds power over the others. The original intended purpose of this was that no branch would ever be more supreme than the other two, and have them cooperate with each other. As briefly mentioned in the last post about each branch’s  role and duty in the US government, their powers are restricted by the other branches. Here are some examples and scenarios of how each branch goes through the checks and balances system:

Let’s say that congress introduces and proposes a bill (which gets reviewed and accepted by both houses). The bill than gets passed to the president, of which he can choose to sign the bill or veto the bill. If the bill is signed, it becomes a law! If it is vetoed, the bill goes back to congress and only if two-thirds of the Representatives and Senators support the bill can the President’s veto be overridden. Finally, the Judicial branch, can review the law later and determine if it is unconstitutional in any way. 

In another scenario, the president (executive branch) wants to assign a new Supreme court judge to replace one due to an open spot. While the president can choose the judge, it relies on the legislative branch to approve the president’s choice before the prospect can be part of the judicial branch. Moreover, any actions from either branch can be reviewed the judicial branch to be unconstitutional. 

The president is the commander-in-chief of the US army, but only congress can formally declare war on another country. If however, the President of the executive branch feels that immediate action is in need to protect the nation, he may, under the “War Powers Act” (1973) use military forces for 60 days, and an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the president; regardless of Congress’s agreement/disagreement with the request. 

One final example, that has yet to actually happen, is if the president of the US does some act of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The president would than be impeached. This would result in he or she having to resign from office and have the Chief Justice of the United States preside over. This can only be done if the the House of senate (legislative branch) votes for the impeachment by a 2/3 majority win vote. Furthermore, if the president is impeached, the senate (legislative branch again) can further vote on additional punishments such as barring the individual from holding future federal office. 

As you have read, these are the primary examples of how each of the three individual branches “check” each other’s actions and powers, while maintaining “balance” within the whole system. It also illustrates the important ideal of “separation of powers” as each branch has their own special and distinctive duties and abilities. 

[democratproject-blog]

So... what are the duties of the American Government?

                 To avoid the risk of dictatorship or some form of tyranny of the government, the US federal government was divided into three branches with different powers. These are: legislative branch, executive branch and judicial branch. The constitution provides for this system so that no one branch has more power than the others. 

The first branch, mentioned in article 1 of the Constitution, is the Legislative branch. This is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives. There are 100 senators in the Senate (two from each state) and 435 representatives in the HoR (number is based on each state’s population). Their main duty is to see whether or not a proposed bill should become a law by voting on it. Of course, they have other powers including approval of an annual national budget for the government, ability to impeach federal officials, ability to approve a new federal judge (who is suggested from the president), declare war on another country, over-ride a veto from the president, and elect the President if there is a tie in the electoral college vote system. 

The second article of the Constitution is about the Executive branch.  It consists of the President, vice president, department heads (also known as cabinet members) and the heads of independent agencies (such as the CIA and EPA). This branch’s main concern is to be responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. Specifically speaking about the president, he or she is the head commander of the US military army. The president can also void any bill that comes along congress, while also recommending new ones (such as the national budget). He or she also gives speeches to Congress, which are called the “State of the Union Address”.                

Other powers include managing diplomatic/foreign policies, performing ceremonial duties, suggesting judges for a Supreme court, reprieves (which is a temporary delay in punishment) and pardons (complete forgiveness of a crime and its punishment).  

The third and final article of the constitution is about the Judicial branch. This branch consists of the entire court system and is headed by the supreme court. It should be noted that the Judicial branch has two court systems: federal and state. While each system hears certain types of cases, they both work dependently on one another. In brief, there are 4 different types of federal courts (including the US supreme court) and 5 different types of state courts (which includes the state supreme court). The federal court system deals with legal issues granted to it by the constitution while the state court systems deal with their respective state constitutions and legal issues not within the boundaries of the federal government. This means that a state court would have jurisdiction over a divorce case, while the federal court would have jurisdiction over a bill becoming a law. Looking at the US supreme court specifically, which is the highest judicial authority in the system, it have the power to overturn laws and executive actions that are unlawful or unconstitutional. This is known as judicial review and is the best-known power they have. 

[democratproject-blog]

The government shut down, summarized in a simple board game.

If this isn’t the best analogy for the government shutdown, I just don’t know what is.

Click here to watch the entire segment.