Democracy's Future

 

Thomas Jefferson once said: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” From wasting the labors of the people....All around us the government has made promises for our well being.  Many of those promises have not been followed through, it was more like an effect of "thank god the government cares." Fake.  There is other examples to back up this opinion:"The Bush administration made no secret of its intention to deal harshly with individuals, groups, or states who challenged U.S. global dominance"(p.325). I am so over this world dominance stuff. Sorry I will be blunt this time in my blog. I don't have any religious basis, but the government apparently is supposed to. Did the bible not thump that equility is a virtue? Why does the U.S. have to be dominant? Why can we not work with the better sources of life to create a better world? Unanswered questioned. Do not tell me its politics. The people running our politics are only people. Same Ivy league school as any doctor or lawyer, why can they not think for the better?  The media entirely plays into it as well:

"...The media and corporate interests more generally have vigorously tried to shape public opinion"(p.327).  Now we touch on the sense of greed. The president is a human. He is not all forbidding god or such. They are becoming greedy of their power as of the blogs I have previously posted show proof. I am both scared and disgusted by how "the people" have let things get this far. "Critical engagement can be both politically effective and politically infectious"(p.328) EVERYONE if you want your life to be the better and the best for your children then please vote. Go to conferences. Attend Colorado One. Talk to the people who control our government face to face.  I hope I live to see the day we become a whole nation once more.

Economic Policy

This week I want to take a more humorous look since we are talking about the economic policy.  John Vaillant can help me there: "Our listeners asked us: 'What is chaos?' We're answering: 'We do not comment on economic policy.'  Economic policy is hard to bring into a good light especially after the well known spoils of President Bush.  Fiscal policy is a major factor of the economic policy.  "Fiscal policy envisions government budgets as thermostats, adjusting automatically to counteract the economy's ups and downs...It also establishes the priorities and values of the government"(p. 302). Through fiscal policy I believe we can make a judgment on how the government operates.  Fiscal policy shows exactly what the government prefers to value even when they make promises on many fields and don't follow through. "President Bush offered the largest tax breaks to the rich and provided only modest relief to working the middle-class families who were most likely to spend it"(p.305).  Again I ask the question of why the heck did the American people vote bush in for two terms?  I can't even answer that myself.  Bush placed our economy into major debt in deficits.  It's sad to think that a student can take courses in micro and macro economics to understand the supply and demand base of the market and better understand how the system works more than the president and other officials. Along with this issue: "Firms must comply with fewer regulations, and those regulations that exist are not often vigorously enforced"(p.318).  There are not enough regulations on firms to restrict their doings. Placing us in further ground of no control. 

The Welfare State

"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."  The previous quote made by Thomas Sowell known as an American economist and social critic, makes a point in how Welfare is a control of the government. Through the reading there are points made at the start of how low American welfare percentages are.  Almost like a race to be better in one more thing.  However, when welfare becomes a problem and taxes are raised and the domino effect of the economy starts, employers will find a new means to meet their end. "Employers are tempted to move their investments to locations where tax rates are relatively low and welfare states are relatively small"(p.273).   This causes jobs to move out of our economy, making the unemployment rate sky rocket. With unemployment comes more need for welfare to support those who have lost their jobs. "Poverty rates are sensitive to political choices governments make about the welfare state"(p.294).  Can I blame the government then?  Every election year we come across the same talk such as lowering welfare and bringing jobs to the country.  Then once the president is placed in office they are distracted by all the other things that are required of him then to keeping their word from their campaign's.
"The economic boom of the 1990s has been replaced with stubborn unemployment...Where the opposite, states are eliminating programs, making eligibility requirements stricter, cutting benefits, and enforcing administrative rules more strictly in an effort to reduce spending"(p.291). During the age of Clinton, our economy was at its best. Then when hands where changed over to  Bush everything came falling down on our heads.  Is it poor government that holds us back? I believe so, the first time Bush stepped into office the economy began to fall. Then we vote him into office again? Are you kidding me? Did we not learn the first time?

Foreign Policy

There are two major forms of foreign policy taken to American expansion abroad: "economic penetration by multinational corporations into Europe and the  developing world, and political and military influence exercised by the American government" (p.246).  Through the American timeline, foreign policy has been growing and growing to create and American superiority.  "The goal of American policymakers for well over half a century has been to maintain U.S. global superiority" (p. 259).  There is some major problems with keeping this thought process. One is that many nations do not like the fact that the United States has held such a strong hand in military and economic welfare such as imports and exports, controlling a major amount of the worlds supply.  This led to a major mistake by a power hungry President, this mistake is known as Unilateralism. "The president [Bush] also decided that the United States would reject a UN treaty banning land mines, despite its upport by most nations of the world.  Another example of unilateralizm was the Bush administration's decision to reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, a tribunal created to try cases involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity" (p.260) By rejecting these courts, Bush put the American people in a horrible position of losing popularity.  It made us seem like a godly country instead of taking aid from the nations we considered to be allies.  Now the Allies are not very happy with our actions especially with the facts of us posting camp in Iraq's backyard.  American's are now more despised more than ever in mostly every country. William G. Hyland, the deputy national security adviser to President Gerald Ford states: “Protectionism is the ally of isolationism, and isolationism is the Dracula of American foreign policy.” The following statement is only a mere metaphor of Foreign policy but I felt it fit because America has isolated itself, which to me is a very big mistake.
My question: what was Bush trying to make a point of by throwing the American people into isolation instead of at least establishing a hand of help with allies? We are not a godly country, that is not why we fought the revolutionary war or the civil war. We wanted to create our own state of freedom and we did, getting help from Allies is not a contradiction to what this country is about. Actually denying the help is more disasterous than accepting.

Taking the Justice system as a whole and defining the near quality of it goes as follows:"The justice system is a system of written laws, legal procedures, and courts that resolve disputes and punish the guilty"(p.205).  Some say that the Judiciary System is a support of freedom.  In some ways it is, in others I beg to question some concerning differences that follow an iron hand rather than the thought of freedom.
Equality for instance. Judge Sturgess made a quote that hits it on the dot: "Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."  As in other blogs, I have expressed the lack of equality between the rich and the poor.  In a sociology class for instance I learned that if you are dressed nicely with a prestigous lawyer, you are more likely to get off easier than a person doing less but does not have a lawyer. "...The law can mask inequality by giving the impression that all citizens stand before the law as equals"(p.206).  The only way it seems that inequality can be abolished is if people were to become robots, with the constitutional rights written into the formula that maps their mind.  But we are only human, and humans are biased even if they think they are not.
Through the reading I also found an interesting fact: "Their [the courts] decisions usually follow and confirm reforms rather then cause them"(p.235).  It is the impression that the Judiciary system is more of a follower than a leader.  Laws are passed down from one level to the next until it gets to this system in which the appointed life term judges have to uphold those laws.
Now on to my critical question of the week:
How can the Judiciary system support freedom when it is not in control?
From everything that I have read so far on this system, I find the Judiciary system holds barely any control except to pass the law that was given to them and see it practiced accordingly. Still there are inequalities that are bothersome.

Congress

The guidelines of what congress is supposed to be about goes as follows: "Article I, section 8 enumerates Congress's powers to levy taxes, borrow and spend money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, declare war, support the armed forces, create cours inferior to the Supreme Court, and, more generally, 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other power vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof'"(p.174).  Overall Congress has held up to the majority of their Constitutional rights and laws.  Congress is the one that passes those acts proposed by the president and the people, however the question of influence is a forbidding factor.  "Those with the most political resources outside of Congress are in the best position to take advantage of Congress's accessibility, to cultivate relationships with its members, committee and subcommittee chairs, and party leaders" (p.201).  In respect to this factor, influencing Congress and Presidential matters shifts the judgment from one side to another to create acts that might not need to be placed. This leads me to a cousin side note.  My mother, Jayne Bail is a member of the Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.  She currently is on a trip to Washington D.C. for a legislation day where state affiliates get together to see Congressmen.  This may not be an area of interest to most but the view she expresses in her interview is just an example of how this system works.
Currently the mortgage industry is having major issues about the structure of their pay.  She and others in the committee set out to D.C. to stop section 14-01 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which regulates how a loan originator can be paid from a transaction.  They will ask Congress to impead the federal reserve board from trying to implement the regulation.  Under her perception, the act should not include the section because the act was passed without proof that there was abuse or dishonesty in the first place.
 "Congress is usually quite vague in its legislative instructions for agencies because it cannot anticipate all the contingencies and agency might encounter and because Congress hopes to avoid criticism and controversy by being too specific"(p.197).  The previous quote illustrates that it may seem that Congress is more worried about its own reputation then setting down clear stated rules. In addition the Federal Reserve Board has not provided clear regulations and procedures of how mortgage loan orginaters are supposed to be paid or structured. Ms. Bail's hope is to get Congress involved, especially those part of Congress that don't want to get involved and would rather avoid the subject and move on. (Jayne Bail)


References: "The Politics of Power," Katznelson
Interview with Jayne Bail, Main Street Lending Corp., Secretary of Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.

U.S. Presidency support and limit an ideal democracy.

 "When discontented groups express grievances, presidents often take to the media to mollify them"(p.163).   One way that the U.S. Presidency is known to support an ideal democracy is through sympathy.  Clinton was well known for his sympathetic ways which kept the peace of the public because they were under belief that it would be taken care of.  After sympathetically agreeing with groups to search into the problem, commissions are formulated  such as the Commission on Race. However, "after one year and many public meetings, the commission's report was ignored and quickly forgotten, like countless presidential commissions preceding it"(p.163).  So we can certainly say that the Presidency attempts to support an ideal democracy, but it seems that the majority of the time it reverts back to its own power of presidency as those groups are forgotten.
The limitations of the U.S. Presidency on an ideal democracy comes at a much heavier hand of information. "Presidents have expanded the power of the presidency by interpreting broadly their authority as commander and chief"(p.154). Through and through the presidents seem to limit themselves as they get almost power hungry, side stepping what a democracy is supposed to be rather and creating this mirage of a government rather than actually meeting it head on as was their assigned position. "They [the Founders] used the Constitution itself to expressly limit the powers of their own government officials"(Hornberger). These rules were set down for a reason. One because the population has never trusted a one supreme person making all the decisions, and two because democracy in any way that you look at it is a threat to freedom. 
Why do we allow the president to take more and more power away from the people?
My answer?....because the presidents one after the other have been able to increase their power without the people realizing.  Until now when the last two presidents are patronized for the way they handle the government. But nothing is being done to stop their power. They even have the ability to send troops across seas without congress conformation, although they do anyways but it seems like a show now instead of a need. 

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0100a.asp (Jacob Hornberger)