POLS210 – J. Palmer

Final Exam Question 10 Essay: FEMA

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

Identify one important agency within the federal bureaucracy, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Security Agency, or the Patent and Trademark Office, and explain its duties. In addition, explain how the performance of those duties can create controversies involving elected officials, such as Congress and the President, and among voters.

Final Exam Question 10 Essay: FEMA

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter consolidated many emergency/disaster assistance branches of the nation’s federal programs/entities into a Federal Emergency Management Agency—FEMA (Carter, 1979). FEMA assumed many of the duties of the former Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, the Federal Insurance Administration, the General Service Administration’s Federal Preparedness Agency, Housing and Urban Development’s Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, and the National Weather Service’s Community Preparedness Program (FEMA, 2010). By consolidating these entities and placing the duties under one agency the nation was given a centralized agency through which all disaster functions could be performed without the confusion related to having responsibilities shared across a splintered disaster planning/recovery system.

FEMA did not, however, truly become a fully functioning agency with the goal of disaster relief until the early to mid-1990s. This delay is in part related to some of the former agencies’ duties and responsibilities—notably Civil Defense. Though the “Cold War” had been dying over the 1980’s tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union existed until the fall of the USSR in 1991. Throughout that period Civil Defense remained a primary function of FEMA. Following the end of the Cold War, FEMA was able to refocus and reassign duties and funds to disaster relief; many of these changes took place in 1993 under the reform efforts of newly appointed FEMA director James L. Witt (FEMA).

Through the 1990s FEMA was capable of responding and providing assistance for many natural disasters—notably Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The next large test of FEMA’s abilities did not come until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Immediately following 9/11 FEMA changed focus to strengthen efforts on national level preparedness and homeland security. This near return to the days of Civil Defense came through the cooperation of President Bush’s newly formed Department of Homeland Security; FEMA was soon after placed under DHS. Though FEMA did still exist as FEMA under DHS, portions of FEMA’s responsibilities were stripped from FEMA and placed under other sections of DHS. FEMA was also given a classification of Emergency Preparedness and Response—these changes were essentially reversed in 2006/2007 following the events of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

FEMA has seen praise and ridicule from all over the nation since its inception. Though many praised Carter for consolidating those original departments and creating a centralized agency there were—and still are—those who saw the move as a waste and misappropriation of federal funds. These differing opinions seem to root in whether one believes the nation should provide assistance, and if so, to what extent. In 1992, FEMA saw mixed reviews with response to Hurricane Andrew. Though FEMA did arrive to provide assistance in the aftermath of Andrew, there were numerous complaints to the response time and organization (Associated Press, 2004).

The next large disaster FEMA faced were the events of 9/11. Publicly, FEMA did not face much criticism—aside from conspiracy theorists who question the FEMA presence on 9/10 for a scheduled bio-terror drill on 9/12 (“FEMA was in New York,”). Internally, however, FEMA criticized their response with regard to funding assistance for persons affected by disaster. FEMA provided financial aid to families who lost income related to the terrorist attacks through their Mortgage and Rental Assistance program; however the funds were doled out slowly as there had been no anticipation for such a high need (Chen, 2003).

Since 9/11 FEMA received major criticism for the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Though there were FEMA representatives dispatched to the areas prior to Katrina making landfall these preparations were not enough. Following the landfall and the increasing floodwater in the areas affected, additional resources were dispatched, however the event proved to be too great at the time for FEMA and other agencies. There are a great number of reasons—factual and suggested—as to why this incident proved to be too much and the response is seen as a failure.

The Katrina incident will likely be remembered by the emergency management community for quite some time—perhaps even longer than the events of 9/11—due to the scale and number of complaints coming from and going against the public and every level of government. Katrina has/had led to a number of arguments and reviews on local, state and federal levels with regard to responsibilities of preparedness, response and recovery within varying agencies and governing bodies. The overall controversy has also led to the firing and resignations of various members of public service agencies and has also altered the election of many officials in and representing those areas.

In 2007 new direction and control was given to FEMA through the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act. The Act returned many functions back to FEMA that had been absorbed by DHS. The Act also removed the Emergency Preparedness and Response function from DHS and placed FEMA in its stead. Though still a part of DHS, FEMA was returned to being a separate entity without fear of DHS making changes to its operations and structure as had happened following 9/11. (SEMP, 2008)

FEMA will undoubtedly receive more criticisms as the years continue—being an agency of the government with the mission of helping individuals during times of crisis opens the door for negative comments. With the recent changes, however, these criticisms should lesson as FEMA has a better defined direction and clearer authority. This conclusion has been echoed by many pundits and officials, including current FEMA Administrator, Craig Fugate:

“While we still have more work to do, I am confident that with the authorities and tools given us by Congress and the lessons we have learned through their application during disasters, FEMA will continue to be an agile and innovative Agency that is consistently improving its processes.” (Fugate, 2011)

Works Cited

Associated Press. “FEMA learned from Hurricane Andrew in 1992.” USA Today. 26 August 2004. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100228011442/http://www.usatoday.com:80/weather/hurricane/2004-08-26-charley-fema_x.htm
Carter, Jimmy. “Federal Emergency Management Agency” Executive Order 12127 of 31 March 1979. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12127.htm
Chen, D. ” FEMA Criticized for Its Handling of 9/11 Claims.” The New York Times. 8 January 2003. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/nyregion/08FEMA.html
FEMA. “FEMA History.” 11 August 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120719090409/http://www.fema.gov:80/about/history.shtm
“FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11.” Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fematape.html
Fugate, C. ” Written Statement of Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, ‘Five Years Later: An Assessment of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act’.” 25 October 2011. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/20111025-fugate-emergency-management-reform-act.shtm
SEMP. “The Incredible Expanding FEMA.” 15 September 2008. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=537

Final Exam Question 9 Essay: Public Policy

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

Lesson 7 presented several national policy matters that have developed over the past 10 to 20 years. Using these examples (from the Lecture Notes), please explain how public policy is formed in the American system of government. How is the problem identified? Who is responsible for determining solutions or setting the public policy agenda? (Hint: Read the examples and ask yourself these questions as you read the information presented about each.) Fully respond to the question and cite sources used.

Final Exam Question 9 Essay: Public Policy

Public policies are essentially the ideas and tools created to attempt to resolve a problem or fill a need that has been recognized by the government. Recognition of these issues can come from a variety of sources, such as external lobbying—from “grassroots” to corporate sponsored—and internal reviews. Once the issue has been recognized a political figure or group of political figures (senators, representatives, even the President) sets out to advertise the issue and draft proposals and resolutions for the matter. From this point, these drafts go through a process similar to the passing of a law, where the associated committees—elected or appointed, depending upon the issue, level of government or structure of the agency—review and vote up or strike down the proposals; following a passing the policy may become implemented if the associated governing head agrees.

Following the implementation of the policy more review is given to see if the plan is working as it had been designed without causing a greater detriment in any areas related to the issue—worries of financial burden are common. It is not unusual for a policy to be removed after it has been implemented, though it tends to be uncommon. Generally policies are revised to better accommodate and change in needs or regulation.

Works Cited

Unknown. “Unit 7: Politics and the Economy.” 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%207:%20Public%20Policy/Unit7_PublicPolicy.pdf

Final Exam Question 8 Essay: US vs. Lopez

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

Choose one of the Supreme Court cases presented in Lesson 5. Please describe the basic facts of this case, why this decision was important, and how it changed or impacted Americans. You are encouraged to use external sources (outside the Lecture Notes) to aid in presenting facts and opinions on the case. Prepare a fully developed essay and cite sources used to obtain full credit.

Final Exam Question 8 Essay: US vs. Lopez

United States vs. Lopez was a case brought before the Supreme Court, where a challenge was made to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. of San Antonio, Texas, had intentionally brought a .38 caliber weapon and five cartridges to Edison High School. Lopez was dismissed from school and charged under Texas law for possession of a firearm on school premises. The following day, however, these original state charges were dismissed in favor of federal charges under the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Lopez was found guilty and convicted in District Court. Lopez appealed to The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, claiming that the Act was unconstitutional as the law did not meet any of the requirements of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the District Court’s decision. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court. (United States vs. Lopez, 1995)

After review of the case, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in that at no point was it clearly stated how possession of a firearm on school property would have an effect on interstate commerce. Following this ruling the Act was revised do that federal charges could still be brought on the same basic premise—the revision made the act now read that:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (18 USC 922, 2010)

This revision has enabled the Act to work as it was originally intended, by imposing federal charges against any person—other than law enforcement—who brings a weapon onto school property. Additionally, since the revision, there has yet to be a case where the Act has not been upheld in court. The Act, however, now brings into question whether Congress can attach a similar stipulation for any item that has been handled through or could have an effect on commerce in order to regulate it.

Works Cited

United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549. U.S. Supreme Court. 1995. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). 2010. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00000922—-000-.html

lobbying

The following was originally published as a class assignment:

How does lobbying work in government? Please use examples.

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit. Post your response before Friday, and reply to the posts of at least two of your classmates before Sunday midnight.

To lobby the government is to attempt to present a concern or group of concerns to various individual or groups of legislators. Lobbyists can be individuals representing the public, civic groups, or business; there are also professional lobbyists that perform the communication between the individuals/groups and the legislators. Lobbyists can represent themselves in a public forum and/or have a single representative for private meetings with the legislators being lobbied. Lobbying can occur at any level of government and even within government houses with lower legislators attempting to appeal to the higher levels of government.

Lobbying has gotten negative attention over the years as many legislators have been influenced by lobbyists for a cause through the use of gifts and donations to campaign funds. To combat these negative practices there have been many resolutions passed to regulate lobbying practices. One of the most recent acts involving lobbying is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This act calls for punishment of former legislators abusing their privileges of visiting Congress for the purposes of lobbying. The act also changed how lobbying reports are disclosed by increasing the frequency of reports and lowering the amounts required to be reported for political contributions.

References

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (PL 110-81, 14 September 2007) 121 Stat 735. Retrieved 25 Oct. 2011 from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ81/pdf/PLAW-110publ81.pdf

[…sorry, can’t afford to go long-winded on this one… may do a complete revision later this week, if time allows.]

The following responses came from this forum posting:

Prof. Keith Carlson:
Are there any situations where lobbying is a good thing?

my reply:
…it’s all a matter of perspective, honestly.

…any person has the right to raise a concern with their government over an issue which they see to be unfair or wrong in some way. This person may also recruit others who feel the same way, so that there can then be a louder communal voice representing the cause. This newly formed group can seek out other groups of people sharing the same view and create a movement. The movement can then get greater attention and have stronger power in lobbying the government for change.

…this can be a good thing.

Women’s suffrage. Racial equality. These two issues are, for the most part, seen as good examples of how positive lobbying can be. The reason why these issues show cause for lobbying being a “good thing” is that we agreed on these issues.

…I do not dare go into giving any other examples as I do not know which way the compass points for the rest of the class…

…but, in my opinion lobbying is (almost) always a good thing as it has the potential of raising discussion.

Ryan McFarland:
Jeremiah, thank you for introducing that acts are now put in place to regulate lobbying. I did not know of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. It is interesting how people can be bought for as little as support in a campaign. What is our country coming to? What is the punishment for indivisuals who abuse their privileges?

Michael Baker:
Hi Jeremiah,

Nice post!, The Honest Leadership Act is interesting and I think it is very important in improving politics and accountability. I think with these acts, it will help curve bribery in politics which influences another party or organization to overlook the rules or
boundaries, rather than working with them. Bribery is the act of giving favor to someone in power so that your work gets done. It can be said without any doubt that bribery in no way is ethical or moral and it cannot hold grounds.

Resource Cited:
Encarta (, 2009). Define Bribery. Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/dictionary.

(…getting food on the table can be a) SNAP

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Choose one of the public policy issues discussed in Lesson 7 (poverty, corporate welfare, or outsourcing), do some additional research on your chosen topic, and present your findings here.

How did your chosen public policy come about?

What crisis created it?

Has this policy been effective?

How would you modify it if you were the president?

Remember to present facts, not opinion, and include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit. Provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

In an attempt to combat some of the issues of poverty and guarantee a certain quality of life among the impoverished various governmental policies agencies and resources have been established. The bulk of these public welfare policies and resources have roots in the programs created in Roosevelt’s New Deal response to the effects of the Great Depression. One such program is SNAP–the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

During the depression era two issues had risen relating to the consumption of agriculturally based goods; there were many families that were incapable of purchasing as many goods; accordingly, there had grown a surplus of goods in some areas as there were too few consumers making these purchases. In response, a Food Stamp Program–FSP– had been established where consumers could purchase an orange colored stamp for $1 redeemable as the equivilent value in cash for any food product.¹ Upon the purchase of the orange stamp, the patron would receive a blue stamp valued at $0.50 redeemable on the purchase of food goods which had been deemed as being in excess supply.²This program stimulated the purchase of goods that had been going to waste, and was doing so at a discounted rate, making the foods more easily available to those struggling to make grocery purchases.

This intial Food Stamp Program ceased in 1943 as the surplus had vanished and employment rates had once again risen.³ Another program did not come into being until 1961. The direction of this verison of the program was limited to certain areas; additionally the surplus stamp was now redeemable for certain perishable goods. In 1964 this smaller pilot program was revised to make food stamps available for use on all consumable food/drink items–excluding spirits and imports–and bring about clear definitions as to which governmental bodies were responsible for the funding and distribution of the stamps.⁴

During the 70s era, FSP was revised numerous times. Some of the changes which took place were the establishment of certain eligibility requirements and partial reimbursement from the federal government to the state agencies to defray the costs of administering the costs on a state level. More changes to FSP came throughout the 1980s and 1990s with additional changes to eligibility–with regard to the calculations of the family or individual’s income–and the change from a paper based system to an Electronic Benefit Transfer system similar to that of ATM/debit cards.⁵ In 2008 the program’s name was changed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to better reflect the current program and remove some of the stigma surrounding "Food Stamps".⁶ SNAP benefits may be referred to by varying names, dependant upon the state government.⁷

Some of the current eligibility requirements for receiving SNAP benefits are an income falling below predetermined levels according to family size; household members able to work must be employed–otherwise certain disability, educational, or caregiving requirements must be met. Certain aditional eligibility requirements–especially that of income and owned property–vary by state. [See Table 1 below for size/income eligibility. See Tables 2.1 & 2.2 for formulae used for benefits calculation.]⁸

SNAP benefits are an invaluable resource for America’s impoverished; helping to supply our nation’s families–most notably our nation’s children–with the means necessary to ensure a healthy diet free from hunger is of great importance. As with any assitance program, however, there are those who take advantage of the opportunity; therefore there is always room for improvement. Through the constant monitoring and review of SNAP transactions, as well as the frequent review of SNAP beneficiaries, we can keep the system open and freely available to those of need.

Table 1 — Household size vs. Income Eligibility

Household size	Gross monthly income (130 percent of poverty)	Net monthly income (100 percent of poverty)
1	$1,180	$ 908
2	1,594	1,226
3	2,008	1,545
4	2,422	1,863
5	2,836	2,181
6	3,249	2,500
7	3,663	2,818
8	4,077	3,136
Each additional member	+414	+319

[Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty⁹]

Table 2.1 — Maximum SNAP benefits according to Household Size

People in Household	Maximum Monthly Allotment
1	$ 200
2	$ 367
3	$ 526
4	$ 668
5	$ 793
6	$ 952
7	$ 1,052
8	$ 1,202
Each additional person	$

[Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty¹⁰]

Table 2.2 — Formulae used to calculate SNAP benefits received. (Other deductions may be eligible before arriving at net monthly income. These deduction very by state.)

Benefit Computation

Example

Multiply net income by 30%…
(Round up)

Subtract 30% of net income from the maximum
allotment for the household size…

$1,154 net monthly income
x .3 = $346.20 (round up to $347)

$668 maximum allotment for 4 – $347 (30% of
net income) = $321, SNAP Allotment
for a full month

[Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty¹¹]

[…I refrained from going into personal opinion on this post as the instructions asked me to; a personal opinion may come later, however, if time allows…]

References

USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "About SNAP." 12 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "Applicants and Recipients." 12 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/default.htm
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "Eligibility". 13 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

[EDITED 11/8/2011 to include comments received from classroom since intial post.]

The following comments were received:

Prof. Keith Carlson:
Great job on the topic.

Ryan McFarland:
Jeremiah, you really did a great job explaining the SNAP program. I must say the program has come a long way from when it first began, but as in all programs things need to be changed still. I am all about helping people put food on the table, but there are always some who use the money for other things. I have seen people spend the money on beer and food for themselves, not the family. I do not agree with the way the money is allotted. I have seen some families get a few hundred dollars and other familes get a great deal less. That family that got less help is STILL struggling to survive.

Great use of the charts to help us visualize the stats.

Cristopher Walker:
Jeremiah,
First off, thank you. That was a great post that really taught me more about the program than I learned through my own research. The SNAP program is one of the programs that I think our government does a pretty good job on. This program does help countless families across the country by fulfilling a basic need of nourishment. I also really enjoyed the graphs because they helped put into context the amount given per family of a specific size. The only improvement of the SNAP program that I can really see is to become more strict in the enforcement of the program. Many times people will not use the supplement in a intended way. basically selling the “supplement” for other non-authorized products. Usually this is done at the detriment of the individual abusing the systems family. Though this isn’t so much a policy change as more of a local law enforcement issue. Again, great posts.

Chris

…and Justices for all…

This writing was originally submitted as a response to a homework assignment:

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London (Top 25 cases, #12 in Unit 5), ruled in June 2005 that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply was dwindling.

Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system. In preparing your post, you might want to read the dissent opinion by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As part of your response, you may address the aftermath (city council elections/Pfizer abandons site/etc…); but remember what the primary question is for this week's Forum discussion question:

"Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system."

Remember to cite sources used and reply to at least two of your classmates' posts.

There can be a benefit to turning assignments in late–I have greater opportunity to build my work upon that of others (which is one of the elements of education–learning from and standing upon the shoulders of those who came before). I am also able to draw upon more information and sources that have come to pass, thus giving me the ability to form a better opinion–the true point of education and forward thinking–part of the point of the Constitution as well!–to be a continuing living thing which changes and adjusts to reflect the times and knowledge gained from our past, present, and future history.

This hunger or desire to learn and think also leads to activism–if defined as looking into and pursuing the interests of a "good", which may or may not be seen as a "common good" among varying parties. Activists–political, judicial and any other -al that can thought, created or named–will tend to lean "left", "right" or possibly somewhere in the middle. So, really, who then is an activist if we all have the ability to view any given person at any time as an atcivist? I suppose this is why at times news agencies try to clarify by saying "activists for the cause"; whatever the cause may be at the time. 'Tis hard to keep them straight without a scorecard–harder still, even then.

In the case of Kelo v. New London, I cannot clearly define any activist among the lot. Maybe if we introduce the pro- prefix to activist we can better define and label those involved…

New London sought out being proactive in the community's assumed times of economic hardship. New London looked toward acquiring land in order to hand it over to Pfizer for the creation of more jobs in the area…

[…Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Let's hear it for Jobs! (…in the morning!)]

The idea is good. Take advantage of eminent domain in order to give the local economy it's own "little blue pill" which should, in theory, be in the better interests of the local public–and possibly even the greater public, I mean we're talking about a huge drug company! The sad part is in order to do so we begin to challenge numerous rights of property.

In the materials for this week we are told that traditionally upholding the rights of the state is more conservative in thinking; that "judical restraint" and giving more literal interpretation to the laws is opposite to being a "judicial activist". Challenging the state, giving new interpretation to the law, and giving more liberty to the individual would then be "activist" (but, at the same time, looking out for the many rather than the few is also seen as a liberal thought–I'm confused!). Here, in this case, the waters are muddied.

The Supreme Court sided with the state's decision. The Court ruled that the greater interest of the public outweighed that of the individual. The benefit to the public through eminent domain benefitted the private entity.

…we have conflicting ideas here. Who is the activist again?

To see the activist in this case, we should turn to the additional materials supplied for this week, and not rely upon the loose defintions given in the regular reading. Former Justice O'Conner in this–and many other–case(s) is the activist–and in some ways, the anarchist. In her dissent, O'Conner shared her views in that the Court had paved the way for the governing bodies to lay claim to any land and reshape it however deemed fit. O'Conner stated that she would rather rebell against what the majority had said, and give the rights of the land back to those who had held onto it for so many years. O'Conner–the conservative activist.

So, the question arises as to whether having a judicial activist has some adverse impact on the judicial system. The answer? Yes.

I now pose the question as to whether these "adverse" affects are negative. In my opinion, no. Having a Justice challenging their peers is a necessary "evil" in playing "devil's advocate"–in keeping the scales balanced; and in many cases, O'Conner did just that. Granted, in some of the cases that appeared before her, such as Lawrence v. Texas–a case concerning sexual acts among homosexuals–O'Conner was capable of sticking with conservative views and being liberal with the law.

In Lawrence, O'Conner agreed that having laws in place that prohibited homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional; yet O'Conner refrained from siding that these acts are a natural right. Essentially, O'Conner stated that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment outlawing sodomy for homosexuals was unfair as acts of sodomy are legal between heterosexuals. Though O'Conner supported the Court's ruling on that particular element and concurred with the ruling, she did not support the overruling of a related judgement, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld existing laws that banned sodomy regardless of orientation.

In my example, we can see that it is possible for one to be an activist without going so far as to bring about true anarchy. We can also see how it is possible for this activist to posess some of the ideas of and act as an anarchist against their peers–be them co-workers or members of the same political party–in order to level the field.

Adverse impacts do present themselves from activists in any camp on any issue. The adverseness, however, isn't always negative.

References

Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. U.S. Supreme Court. 1986. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZO.html

Kelo v. New London. 545 U.S. 469. O'Conner, J. Dissent. U.S. Supreme Court. 2005. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_KeloVNewLondonDISSENT.pdf

Lawrence v. Texas. 539 U.S. 558. U.S. Supreme Court. 2003. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html

Unknown. "Unit 5: The Supreme Court." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_TheSupremeCourt.pdf

Lyndon B. Johnson (ordering pants is more entertaining…)

Originally posted in response to a class assignment:

Listen to one of the presidential speeches listed in Lesson 4. Summarize it, then discuss what you found most convincing or important about what was said. (Do not comment on the politics of the speaker, Democrat or Republican, but on the effectiveness of their arguments or vision.)

Was the presentation effective?

Why do you think this speech was chosen to be used in this class as an example of this president's legacy?

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a speech in which he shared information and viewpoints on the Vietnam War, US deficit and his decision to abstain from seeking re-election. Johnson, not necessarily known for his speaking abilities, seemed to deliver the speech without great emotion, and made attempts to share with the public his feelings that the war being waged in Vietnam was of importance and required many additional troops—this point had been made at the beginning and came back toward the conclusion of his address. In the middle of Johnson’s speech came talk of how the United States was facing a great deficit due to over-spending of the government. Johnson proposed that the government listen to his pleas to decrease spending and raise taxes—which shouldn’t have come at much cost considering the status of employment and wages amongst the public—to counteract this deficit.

What seemed to boggle my mind about the address was the transitions from Vietnam to the budget, and then finally returning to Vietnam. Johnson’s poor segue to the budget from Vietnam came directly on the heels of saying that there would be a need for the increase in spending to support our efforts and interests in the conflict. In an effort to change the view, there was an attempt to express that the world was looking upon the US during the conflict as a world power with an inability to keep its’ own budget in check. I would suppose that this maneuver was an attempt to garner the favor of those fearing the red menace; however to my knowledge many Americans had stopped buying into the domino theories of the spread of communism. Additionally the country was experiencing much civil unrest and was less than enthused with our involvement elsewhere.

Not only had the public began to lose favor of Johnson over Vietnam, but they were also beginning to see an end come to establishment of some of the plans that he and his predecessor, Kennedy, had been attempting to work on. Though Johnson had seen many of the “Great Society” dreams come to fruition attitudes had begun to change in the public and in the Congress.

In listening to Johnson, I heard a plea—a plea for the public to understand his vision, and a plea for the now Republican strong Congress to back him. In his plea, however, he also seemed to recognize his defeat.

Finalizing his speech, Johnson stated that his tasks were too great for him to take the time to run for a re-election. Though the words he spoke said that he had a greater interest in running the war than hitting the pavement for the next election parade, the undertone—the subtext surrounding his unwillingness to seek or accept nomination from the DNC—said that he saw that he was failing in the eyes of the public. The words also seemed to echo that he could see that he, himself, was failing as well—Johnson died a few days after what would’ve been the end of his second term, had he been re-elected.

Was Johnson’s speech effective? I don’t believe so. Johnson’s speech was, in my opinion, a downer. Granted, not every presidential address is a pep-rally; however, when facing troubles and low public opinion, one would think that including some high-points or bragging rights would give good balance. Instead, Johnson elected to keep to the topics he had in mind.

Johnson can be remembered for many different things throughout his Presidency. Some remember him as the Vice-President who had been thrust into the Presidency due to the tragic murder of Kennedy—and then some think that he may have played a role in that plot. Some may remember him for seeing some of Kennedy’s visions through, and for pushing his own agendas for education. Some may also remember him as pushing hard for the Vietnam War. Many don’t remember him at all.

I would suspect that Johnson, and this speech, were chosen as material for us to review in this class because Johnson is amongst one of the forgotten presidents. I would say that if one were to poll young school-age children (who have actually gotten a worthy course in US history) none would really know of LBJ, aside from the fact that he had finished Kennedy’s term. Even in some programs I have watched on television I have seen the documentaries jump from Kennedy to Nixon.

I believe that it is also possible that this speech was included in the material because of the many similarities that pundits have drawn between Johnson and President Obama. Obama, like Johnson, has challenges to face in the worlds of healthcare and education. Obama, like Johnson, has come into office with fairly high ratings and zeal. Obama, like Johnson, faces some civil unrest and a public which has fallen unsure in certain areas. The differences between the two, however, lie in the fact that Obama faces a poor economy and LBJ faced the Vietnam War. In Johnson’s fight in Vietnam he lost and is now a spec in our history. In Obama’s quest, will he favor any better?

Ultimately, however, I believe that the speech was included so that we may hear the final section, where the President announces that he is not going to seek re-election. I come to this conclusion as the material supplied for the class reads, “Note: Scroll to the very end to hear his decision.”

[…personally, I believe that likening W. to LBJ would be better. I see W. becoming a forgotten president, with the only memorable part being the events surrounding 9/11. Speaking of 9/11, W. and LBJ also have a bit in common with Vietnam and the “war on terror” …but who compares a Democrat to a Republican and vice versa?]

References

Johnson, L. B. “The President's Address to the Nation Announcing Steps To Limit the War in Vietnam and Reporting His Decision Not To Seek Reelection. Washington, D.C., 31 March 1968. Audio. Retrieved 11 Oct 2011 from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.php?id=28772&admin=36

Unknown. "Unit 4: The Executive Branch." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%204:%20The%20Executive%20Branch/Unit4_TheExecutiveBranch.pdf

…and to see what I'm referencing in the title of this post:

ʎʇıɹnɔǝs ןɐıɔos

This entry was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Lesson 6 discusses the Bush administration proposal to privatize Social Security. One aspect of that plan was to allow individuals to invest most, if not all, of their own money into investments, rather than into the Social Security System.

Was this proposal a good idea or not? Why?

Do some additional research on this topic (how Social Security can be changed or if it should remain as is) and include it in your discussion.

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Social Security being likened to a “third rail” is quite apropos; never have I heard a discussion of any part of the system without a heated debate among the participants. For that very reason I tend to stray away from conversations involving any part of Social Security and other government aid or assistance programs. Unfortunately, this task proves difficult at times as I am a part of and live amongst the communities which take advantage of these benefits.

A few months ago I had been stopped by a neighbor of mine who had wanted to ask whether I had heard any of the news surrounding the current discussions of Social Security reform, and whether I had an opinion. I told her that I had not even known that there was another debate going on, and I had even admitted that my ignorance was rather stupid as I should be aware. Later, I discovered that she had actually gotten some of her wires crossed and was actually referring to the news of a reform in the Commonwealth’s Medi-care/caid programs—something I should have been more abreast of, as these programs relate closer to the health and well-being of my children.

The neighbor, though, had every right to be concerned as she is legitimately—to my knowledge—taking advantage of disability benefits which are paid via the Social Security Administration. This woman, who is of the same graduating high school class as I, lives in fear of changes to any portion of the welfare system.

I, too, fear changes to welfare. For the short-term, my fears surround my children—the ability to receive medical care and afford food and housing; the long-term fears of my wife and I being able to care for ourselves when we are older I rarely think about—though thought has been given.

Having been told for well over fifteen years now of the possibilities of working well beyond our retirement ages should we choose to attempt to rely upon Social Security, my wife and I have become believers in paying into private retirement funds. Another reason for our personal desires to pay privately come from our lackluster work histories—our benefits from Social Security as it currently stands are well below what we foresee as being necessary due to our having not paid much into the system. Finally, we believe that it would be nice for us to not rely upon the government when we are elderly as we have had to rely so heavily upon the system during our youth.

In a sense, we are following Bush’s ideas by paying into a private system to have a better shot at retirement than if we relied solely upon the government.

Realistically, we are screwed either way.

Having stated that we have and continue to rely upon the government one could easily assume that we are a low-income family. We most certainly are. Unsurprisingly, we have had to withdraw monies from our private retirement funds to aid in covering current bills—I now have no retirement benefits and my wife has less than $200 saved. My wife’s retirement is building back extremely slowly as we cannot afford to save much more than 3% of her wages. I cannot see there being any retirement being built for me as I have yet to find a job that will work around my school schedule, my wife’s work schedule, or the children’s schooling and activities.

Ideally, the thoughts of having private retirement are excellent—relieving an (foreseeably) overburdened system of the excess weight by asking the public to save a portion of their own makes sense. The actual application of it, however…

Along with my personal example of how saving privately can fail—through the early withdrawal of funds—there remain questions surrounding other forms of failure—as was noted in this week’s material. If a private fund were handled through the investment into stocks or bonds that can fail, what then? What of investing into a private fund which is held by some institution which goes bankrupt? Who is going to come to the aid of someone who has had these misfortunes? Would someone burned by these failures be able to then rely upon Social Security? (Unit 6, 2010)

Shapiro noted that Bush’s generic plan did not give detail into these circumstances (Unit 6, 2010). We could assume that since the Social Security Administration was to keep operating as it had—though possibly paying out lesser amounts—that it would be made available to those who had the aforementioned misfortunes. My question then, if we make that assumption, is how much more of a burden would be placed on the system with the unknown number of cases requesting aid due to having private funds depleted or negated in some fashion?

Ultimately, there does need to be some sort of change made to the entire system. The only solution that I can fathom would be that of requesting that the public pay into a private fund of their choice (if the individual elects to) as well as a flat percentage of gross salary/wages per pay period into the SSA funds. I would also suggest changes be made to the Social Security Wage Base (SSWB)—the cap placed on the amount of monies that can be paid to the SSA. Two possible changes to the SSWB would be either the raising or elimination of this figure—ideas which have risen before (Miller, 2008). Another option that I might suggest would be setting the SSWB at a certain limit and then increasing the tax rate incrementally on a slope for individuals with an income above the SSWB—one caveat being that there would be a cap set for the amount paid back.

From what I have gathered, my thoughts on changing Social Security have even better potential to benefit than those thoughts proposed by Bush. Bush’s plan called more for a redirection of an individual’s funds into a fully private account rather than the more general SSA funds (White, 2011). Bush’s redirection would possibly cause more harm to the SSA as there would be less monies being deposited with a continued and possibly growing number of funds being withdrawn to pay for the benefits to widowers, children, and those receiving other SSI or medi-care/caid benefits. Bush’s plan also left the cap in place, whereas I propose raising the cap for funds to be paid in. My idea also gives the potential for allowing someone who may end up with less from a private fund to still draw from the SSA, while Bush never really covered that.

[…no, I don’t see my plan going anywhere as it calls for higher taxation of the wealthy.]

References

Miller, J. "Go Ahead and Lift the Cap." 2008. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html

Unknown. "Unit 6: The Bureaucracy." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%206:%20The%20Bureaucracy/Unit6_TheBureaucracy.pdf

Weisman, J. "Skepticism of Bush's Social Security Plan Is Growing." 2005. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2

011, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35231-2005Mar14?language=printer

White, D. "Common Sense Says No to Privatization." 2011. Web. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/SocSecReform.htm

…and on a different note, I kept trying to think of some way of referencing Tom and Dick Smothers… I couldn't… click here to see the joke I was desperately trying to work in.

Week 3 – (…posting this took an act of) Congress

This post was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Congress now has some difficult times ahead – and some difficult decisions to make for the American people. After reading Lesson 3, answer the following questions:

Given what you now know about how Congress works and how a bill is passed, what do you think the likelihood of success will be for President Obama to implement his agenda?

In retrospect, identify at least two past presidents and explain how well they were in implementing their agenda? (Please stay out of the politics and use the PROCESS of implementation as the foundation of your answer.)

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Prior to reading this week's material I had a general understanding of how bills may or may not become law thanks to Schoolhouse Rock! I remember seeing a poor, depressed Bill sitting there on the steps of Capitol Hill, explaining the processes he would have to go through in order to become Law, and the fears he had for being turned down in the House, Senate or even vetoed by the President. Sure, Bill told us that it was possible for him to be modified for re-introduction, or that if he went through everything just to become vetoed he could still become Law if the members of Congress had enough votes to overrule the veto. The troubled road that Bill was facing was understandably depressing; fortunately he seemed to pass quickly and was signed by the President. Congratulations, Bill, you are now a Law.

The way that our government has been established, with the system of “checks and balances” that attempt to keep fair and common interests in mind with the passing of laws, it can be difficult for any bill to pass whether or not the thoughts are introduced by a President and regardless of political affiliation. To postulate on whether the recent plans of our current President can become law is beyond my abilities and interests. I can say that in order for any plans to reduce taxes, create jobs and stimulate economic growth, the plans would have to go through the House and then Senate for review before being enacted by the President. Likelihood of this? I cannot say.

For the most part, every President has had issue with introducing his plans. There have been a few which have had various ideas go through with relative ease—these Presidents have usually had such success due to the nature and the state of the nation at that point. Presidents F. D. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson are a few that are known for having strong plans for aid to the public in their respective time-period's need—Johnson's work being an extension of the late Kennedy's plans.

Roosevelt managed to introduce, pass, and implement several plans for recovery during a great economic depression. Kennedy/Johnson managed to make more argument on the topics of rights and bring about aid and resources to everyone with focus on the young, elderly and underprivileged with programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

This post received the following comments:

From Joseph Butvilas:

Jeremiah,

     I have to admit that I laughed a little when you mentioned schoolhouse rock and what you remembered of how a bill becomes a law. While I have never personally watched the show, I am aware of what it is, and was amused to learn that it actually is a good learning tool.
     I do agree with you that every president has at least some trouble passing laws, but that is how it is supposed to be, right? With out the power of Senate and Congress coupled with the system of checks and balances, our government would be nothing more than a dictatorship. The president would have absolute power and it would negate everything our founding fathers envisioned for the United States.
     JFK and Lyndon Johnson were successful when it came to signing bills into laws. One key issue I think you may have overlooked is the Civil Rights Act. While it was John F. Kennedy's vision, he was assassinated before the bill could be signed into law. It was Lyndon Johnson who eventually followed through on it.

Very interesting post,

V/R,

Joe B.

From Harold Armstrong:

Funny you mention Schoolhouse Rock because as I post this it is actually on TV right now in Korea. I am although actually interested on what your views with President Obama introducing his Bill. While he managed to entise the younger voters to check his name on the ballet, I think his approach to getting bills signed off on is a little flawed. I find it funny that he thinks he can bully his bills into law. Honey is sweeter than vinegar there Mr Prez.

Marijuana

This entry was originally posted as a homework assignment:

In UNIT 1B, the concept of Federalism was discussed. Included in the readings were examples of issues that have arisen under the umbrella of state's rights. Pick one of the examples from the readings, or use one of your own, and discuss it here based on what you learned in Unit 1.

What is the issue? Describe it briefly.

Is it appropriate to be regulated by a state or should it be regulated at the national level?

Why is this issue important? How do you feel about it?

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive responses to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

Marijuana has to be, in my opinion, the one issue where conflict between State and Federal governments is well known. Though the public may not be well educated on the matter, myself included, the vast majority seems to have an opinion. Through some hasty research on the matter for this forum posting, I have a better understanding and some stronger opinions. I will concede, however, that the issue is not of great importance to me; therefore my knowledge is still lacking and I have no interest in researching the issue further for the sake of this writing.

Marijuana is classified, federally, as a Schedule I drug—one which holds a high potential for abuse and has no medicinal purpose. The federal government seems to wish to continue to keep this classification and enforce the penalties of use or possession of the drug, and has continued to do so in some part through the commerce clause, as noted in the text. By making an argument over the possibilities of a black-market (which, as many of us know, already exists—it would simply go through some interesting changes) the Supreme Court ruled the growing of one's own marijuana in a state which allows for medicinal use to be illegal.

For this post, we were asked to answer whether the issue is one which should be handled on a state or federal level. In thinking about this topic, I believe that I see evidence off our Supreme Court asking itself that very question. Rather than giving better argument on what may be a more obvious piece of federal law—rather than arguing that federal law sees the drug as being as dangerous as heroin—the Supreme Court uses the commerce clause. Why? Perhaps the Court feared taking that step which would actually challenge the boundaries of what rights the federal and state governments have.

Personally, I believe that the issue of the legality of marijuana in any form taken in any manner should be at the discretion of the states. I do, however, believe that a firm decision needs to be made at the federal level in either direction.

This assignment received the following comments:

From Ryan McFarland:

Jeremiah, very well stated, but where did you get your information from? I have say that because I deal with the drug marijuana day in and day out at work, I do not think leaving the law up to the state will be good enough. By giving each state a choice is only making the law more difficult. It needs to either be illegal or legal. By all means I feel it should be illegal, no matter what. In my state, Connecticut, they just decriminalized marijuana and we have to issue infractions for possession of marijuana. If your going to decriminalize the drug, why not make it legal, sell it in a store and tax the sale of it. Get something out of everyones habit. It would be a start if nothing else.

Ryan

From Prof. Keith Carlson:

Remember to cite your sources for all submitted posts in this course.Thanks!

From Jessica Meehan:

Hi Jeremiah!

I think you had a lot of very helpful information in your post. I agree that many people do not know many facts about this, myself for example, but we do seem to have somewhat of an opinion on this matter. I also agree that the goverment should have an opinion. I myself dont know enough about this issue to really make a firm decision whether it should be legalized for medical use or not. Good post!