¶ … political contexts, both Presidents Bush and Clinton entered contentious budget negotiations with a Congress controlled by the opposition party in 1990 and 1995 respectively; however, each president experienced a different outcome. In Bush's case, he had to deal with both the Savings and Loan Crisis and a $2.8b debt -- the largest in the nation's history. Further, Bush entered negations hamstrung by a campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the American people. After a brief government shut-down, President Bush and Congress reached an agreement found in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, an act where not only government spending was cut, but also where Bush had to violate his campaign pledge and raise taxes. In President Clinton's case, he had to deal with the first full Republican Congress in forty years -- a congress which would demand a balanced budget where Clinton's budget projected a nearly $190b deficit by 2005....
After two "lengthy" government shut-downs, the government operated financially on a series of continuing resolutions until both parties relented and passed an omnibus appropriations bill in April, 1996. It seems that the decision to relent on ideological beliefs led to the success of Bush and the relative failure of Clinton, for better or for ill. Both presidents had the power to mobilize and move public opinion to their preferred policy preference, and in this, Clinton was the more successful -- Bush was unable to persuade the country of the need to increase taxes to reduce the debt; and Clinton was effective in painting the Republicans as obstructionist in the budget negotiations.
2. The Great Compromise made representation in the House of Representatives based on a state's population; and it gave each state equal representation in the Senate (two Senators per state). House terms are for two years and the shortness of…
