Republicans construed Obama as suggesting government bailouts for new industries, or at the slightest a more lively federal government function in generating or supporting jobs -- concepts abominations to a lot of conservatives.
The Obama campaign countered the idea as political spin that does not replicate the president's feeling or meaning, pointing to full circumstances of the quotation as confirmation (Koch, 2011).
Discuss the process of how a Bill becomes a law in Texas.
To introduce a bill, first the sponsor must prepare a draft in a particular format and style. Staff at the Office of Legislative Counsel typically provide this service. In the House of Representative, members or delegates place a signed copy of their bill in the "hopper," a box located next to the rostrum at the front of the chamber. Senators either give a copy of their bill to the clerk or request recognition from the presiding officer and formally introduce their legislation in speech. The clerks then denote specific identifying numbers. Once it has been received in this chamber, a bill is assigned to one or more committees for consideration. After its proper introduction, the legislation debuts in the next issue of the Congressional Record. A copy also goes out to the government printing office so that the text will be accessible to other members and the general public (Monk, 2009).
The bill is assigned to the proper committee by the Speaker of the House or the current officer in the Senate. Quite often, the tangible referral choice is made by the House or Senate parliamentarian. Controversial bills such as the abortion issue at hand might be handed to in excess of one committee and it may possibly be split so that some positions are sent to diverse committees. The Speaker of the House might place time restrictions on committees (Raskin, 2010). Bills are positioned on the calendar of the committee to which they have been allocates. Not acting on a bill is the same as killing it. Bills in the House can merely be set free from committee with no proper committee vote by a liberation petition signed off by a bulk of the House membership.
After health-care reform failed, some analysts argued that the administration's fatal mistake was not trying to put together a bipartisan centrist coalition from the beginning. In fact, Hillary Clinton and other White House proponents courted Chafee and other moderate Senate Republicans throughout the process. Disagreement on core elements of substance and the few degrees of freedom available because of the deficit, not an unwillingness to reach out, prevented the construction of a broad coalition. The employer mandate issue illustrates the problem. Chafee opposed such a mandate from the beginning, and the few Republicans who had voiced some support for the notion backed off in the face of intense small business lobbying; yet the only way to fund universal health care in the absence of an employer mandate was through a huge new tax, a clear political impossibility (Monk, 2009). To have abandoned universal coverage would have required Clinton to back down on a core campaign promise, would in the view of many experts have made the reform ineffective in controlling medical costs, and would have led to the defection of a large number of congressional Democrats, probably enough to defeat such a plan (Browne, et al. 2005). To be sure, early in the process, when Republicans still feared being labeled obstructionists, the president could probably have put together a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats for a bare-bones proposal, but the substantive and political cost would have been very high. The core of the Democratic Party in Congress and in the electorate would not forgive a president for such preemptive capitulation. Putting together a bipartisan majority to support meaningful reform was never a realistic possibility. "It is a big myth that somewhere there is a political center that -- if the leadership would just get out of the way -- could govern," a senior House Democrat observed (Koch, 2011).
The lack of strong public support for such comprehensive non-incremental change was the basic problem, and if there was a fatal mistake, it was in not countering the opposition's public relations campaign quickly and effectively enough. Although certainly the proponents' campaign could have been better timed, planned, and run, the White House could not devote the single-minded attention to the issue its opponents could, its resources paled in comparison to those of its opponents, and it confronted a much more difficult job: to explain an extremely complex problem in a media environment hostile to complexity and to sell a complicated solution to a public disillusioned about government's ability to solve problems.
Discuss the informal and formal powers of the Texas Governor.
The bureau of Governor is tremendously weak in Texas. For the duration of elections in 1873, Democrats won back a lot of elected offices, notwithstanding pressure by the State Police. The Governor's seat was succeeded by a Democrat, but hurriedly quashed by the Texas Supreme Court (all Davis appointees). Irritated Texans turned down the offer to recognize the conclusion and when General Grant overlooked requests to launch federal troops to assist Davis, he unenthusiastically stepped down. In 1876 a new-fangled Constitutional Convention was held, and developed a constitution that damaged the State Government to a darkness of its previous self.
At the present the Governor's powers are limited to engagements to over 300 boards and commissions in Texas (just about 2500 positions), recruitment of the Texas National Guard and Texas Rangers, and the line article sanction. Pretty much every other office in addition to the board and commissions are chosen by the People. The Governor has to be an extremely fine persuader to get the Legislature (the law passing and budgetary ability) to do what he wants, but he has no official authority over them (Schattschneider, 2005).
The majority of appointees have 5-year terms and have to be accepted by 2/3 of the Texas elected representatives. In view of the fact that a Governor's term merely stays for 4 years, if a new Governor is chosen, he/she cannot employ new representatives, et.al. In anticipation of their terms have expired. In this fashion, the previous Governor maintains his legacy (Raskin, 2010).
Because of Perry's prolonged existence in office (10 years, more than any other Texas Governor), all of the boards and hires are crammed with his "Posse." This is where Perry's force lies. He in addition knows how to play the game. If a chosen official leaves office prior to his term runs out, for example a Texas Supreme Court Justice (he's selected 5 of them), Perry can furthermore make a scheduled time to these offices. He furthermore bowed the Legislature to his resolve by vetoing 86 bills (in excess of any other Governor in a particular session) in his first year in office, practically invalidating the whole session (Koch, 2011).
Other people have asked why the Governor's office does not have term restrictions. Perry has lived through 2 elected terms in addition to 2 years of Governor Bush's period when he left office to turn out to be President. No other Texas Governor has finished 2 successive terms in office. Consequently so far, there has been no need for term restrictions. however, I have a feeling, that there almost immediately will be demands for an alteration to the Texas Constitution to fix this state of affairs.
What if Texas used private contractors to administer state government? What are the problems with privatization?
Generating money from welfare reorganization is a temporary proposal. When a depression hits, and the requirements for government services increases, budget excesses will fade away. If not, obviously, states and private welfare contractors basically make a decision to ignore growing requirements.
A number of government officials are susceptible to the charge that they are leasing business wolves in the entry to make revenue by eviscerating reimbursements for the underprivileged.
In Texas, it is not about handing over who gets welfare to the private companies and then decreasing the caseload so they turnover, the interim representative of the Texas Department of Human Services. The state government makes a decision that is suitable. The wholesaler does the whole thing in addition. Corporations will have to earn their cash in Texas by reorganization programs, diminishing paperwork, dismissal people, and closing down offices (Koch, 2011).
Opposition for the Texas welfare agreement has the entire state in a chaos. Public workers are concerned about behind their jobs. And government organizations that more often than not work together are separated against each other as they struggle for an agreement that may predict the end of entire departments.
Is progressive taxation fair? What arguments could be made that it is fair or unfair?