Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button

5 Steps Of Local Government Elections

September 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

There are differences between the quite complex state or federal elections and local government elections. Here is a small guide about how local elections are carried out.

 

Facts about local government elections

 

I have been associated with in local government from a variety of angles since last 25 years. But most thrilling of the assignments that I have done is that of being the election officials.

 

As supervising the complete process wherein local citizens would come and work at the polls, make our whole system work. From electing a Coroner to the President, that is where the action is. This is a sacred responsibility!

Insight into local government elections

 

Step 1: To begin with, first the ballots are distributed.

 

Step 2: Once the prospective voter has “clearly stated their name” and been checked off the voter list, election official glues his initials to the ballot and hand over that to them.

 

Step 3: Before the voting actually starts the election official actually clears all their doubts so they are well equipped with the information required.

 

Step 4: Election official is sited at the end of the registration table with enough room for someone to stand and exchange in some small talk, and clearing anyone’s doubt or queries of any type!

 

Step 5: Once voting starts off, it would be the official responsibility to check if someone has any doubt or nothing untoward happens!

 

Indeed shouldering such a big responsibility has become a treasure of my sweet memories!

 

Filed Under: Election Information Tagged With: , , ,

New Power Dispute In Kenya Threatens Shaky Government

August 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Word from Nairobi that Prime Minister Raila Odinga had called on former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of Ghana to intervene in a disagreement that threatens to bring down Kenya’s still-shaky coalition government. Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki are again caught up in a power struggle that demonstrates the fragility of the reluctant coalition Annan arranged in 2008 to settle weeks of ethnic violence following a disputed presidential election.

The new crisis erupted after Kibaki overruled Odinga’s decision to suspend two cabinet ministers — one from each national party — whose departments are caught up in a corruption scandal. Both Kibaki and Odinga claim they have the exclusive power to suspend ministers under Kenya’s constitution.

“The office of a minister can only become vacant if the president so directs,” Kibaki said in a statement, according to a major news service.

But Odinga said Monday that he had the power to oversee government officials.

“The law is clear. On matters of discipline, suspension or interdiction of public officials including Cabinet ministers, the prime minister has exclusive authority,” Odinga said in a statement. “Legally and constitutionally, neither the president nor the prime minister is superior to the other.”

Kibaki had already suspended several workers in the scandals, which involved billions of dollars in missing funds and supplies in the agriculture and education departments.

But Odinga stepped in to suspend the ministers — William Ruto and Samuel Ongari — even though each has powerful tribal constituencies. That’s when Kibaki stepped in to overrule his prime minister.

The United States and Great Britain suspended education assistance to Kenya after auditors reported fraud in the government education program, CNN said.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

AP Comparative Government And Politics Notes: A Companion to The Ethel Wood Study Guide

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

AP Comparative Government and Politics Notes

Empirical data: based on statistics
Normative: requires value judgment opposed to empirical
Causation: the idea that one variable influences another
Civil society: the way in which citizens organize and define themselves and their interests
Informal politics: takes into consideration not only the ways that politicians operate outside their formal powers, but also the impacts that belief, values, and actions of ordinary citizens have on policy making.

APCPG compares countries in the following ways:

The impact of informal politics (see above).
The importance of political change (for example, superpower to developing).
The integration of political and economic systems (for example, communism as an economic policy and its role in government).

Keeping the latter in mind, AP Comp. Gov. categorizes China, Great Britain, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, and Mexico into the following categories:

Advanced Democracies- well established democratic governments and a high level of economic development: Great Britain
Communist and post-communist countries: Russia as a post-communist country, and China as a currently communist country
Less Developed and Newly Industrializing Countries- traditionally “third world”, divided into two groups (newly industrializing: experiencing rapid economic growth, have shown a tendency towards democratization and social/political stability; less developed: lack significant economic development, also tend to have authoritarian regimes). Mexico and Iran represent the newly industrializing, while Nigeria represents the less developed category.

Topic 2: Sovereignty, Authority, and Power

A common feature of most states; defined as long lasting organization that help to turn political ideas into policy.
Institutions make states themselves long lasting (such a parties, judicial systems, bureaucracies, etc.)
Sovereignty: the ability to carry out actions or policies within their borders independently from interference
A lack in sovereignty means the state lacks autonomy, and states lacking autonomy are often exploited (by people or institutions who wish to control the state for their own needs), resulting in a high level of corruption.
Nation: a group of people bound together by a common political identity
Regime: the rules that a state sets and follows in exerting its power. Two examples include democracies and authoritarian regimes.

Democracies base their authority on the needs of the people and can either be indirect, with elected officials representing the people, or direct, when individuals have immediate say over how many decisions that the government makes.

Parliamentary systems of democracy: where citizens vote for legislative reps, who in turn select the leaders of the executive branch

In this democracy the principle of parliamentary sovereignty governs the decision making process. Although theoretically untrue, no separation exists between the executive and legislative branches (as the legislative branch is controlled by the same party as the executive- the majority). There is a separation in the executive branch, however, between the head of state (symbolic) and head of government (runs the gov).

Presidential system of democracy: where citizens vote for legislative reps as well as executive branch leaders, and the two branches function w/ separation of powers

Head of state and head of gov are one person- the president, who is directly elected by the ppl. Policy decision making is slow b/c of the checks and balances btwn judicial, legislative, and executive branches. In order for the branches to be truly independent of each other, they must have independent bases of authority- which is debatable in Nigeria and Mexico (both have presidential systems).
Semi-presidential system: some countries combine the aforementioned systems, as illustrated in Russia’s 1993 Constitution, for example. A president coexists with a prime minister. France & India have semi-presidential systems.

In authoritarian regimes, decisions are made by political elite without much input from the citizens. May be ruled by a single dictator, hereditary monarchy, or a single political party.

Communism
Corporatism: An arrangement in which government officials interact with people/groups outside the gov. before they set policy (generally business and labor dealers or heads of patron-client systems that provide reciprocal favors and servicers to their supporters).

Common characteristics of authoritarian regimes:

Small group of elites wielding power
Citizens with little input regarding government
No constitutional responsibilities of leaders to the public
Restriction of civil rights and liberties
Totalitarianism: a particularly oppressive regime; generally have strong ideological goal
Military regimes: usually begins with a coup d’etat; usually lacks a specific ideology; may precede democracy (such as in South Korea and Taiwan in the 1990’s?!!!)

——————————————————————————————————————

Corporatism: a method through which business, labor, and other interest groups bargain with the state over economic policy
Emerged as a means by which authoritarian regimes tried to control the public by creating organizations to represent the interests of the public.
Co-optation: The means by which a regime uses to get support from its citizens.
Patron-clientelism: A form of co-optation in which the state provides specific benefits or favors to a specific person or small group in return for public support.
Pluralism: a basic principle of democracy; a situation in which power is split among many groups that compete for a chance to influence the gov.’s decision-making.
Political legitimacy: the right to rule as defined by a state’s citizens

Max Weber classified political legitimacy into three forms:

Traditional legitimacy: belief that tradition should determine who rules and how. For example, if a particular family has ruled for hundreds of years, the current members of the family are the legitimate rulers.
Charismatic legitimacy: based on dynamic personality, for example, Napoleon. Charismatic legitimacy generally does not survive its founder.
Rational-legal legitimacy: based on a system of laws and procedures. The rule may take two forms: common law (based on tradition, past practice, and legal precedents set by courts and past rulers; example is England) or by code law (based on a system of written rules; examples include Russia, Mexico, and China).

Factors that contribute to legitimacy in both democratic and authoritarian regimes:

Economic well-being: citizens often blame their gov. for times of economic hardship, obverse being true as well.
Historical tradition/ longevity:  if the gov. has been in place for a long time citizens and other countries are more likely to view it as legitimate
Charismatic leadership: charismatic leaders important in legitimacy
Nationalism/shared political culture
Satisfaction with the government’s performance/responsiveness in general
Political culture: refers to the collection of political beliefs values, practices, and institutions that the government is based on. Political culture may be analyzed in terms of social capital.
Social capital: the amount of reciprocity and trust between citizens and between the state. More social capital usually means democratic.

The number and depth of disagreements among citizens within a society forms the basis for dividing political culture into two types: consensual and conflictual.

Consensual political culture: citizens tend to agree on how decisions are made, what issues need fixing, and how problems should be solved (for example, citizens think elections are good and accept their outcomes). In short, consensual political culture accepts both the legitimacy of the regime and solutions to major problems.
Conflictual political culture: citizens are sharply divided. Examples include communism vs. capitalism or extremely prominent religious differences.

———————————————————————————————————————

Political ideologies: sets of political values held by individuals regarding the basic goals of government and politics. Some example:
Liberalism: places emphasis on individual political and economic freedom. Seek to maximize freedom for all; believe that citizens have a right to influence the decisions of the state.  Value equal opportunity.
Communism: generally values equality over freedom. Advocate the control of all resources by the state in order to ensure that a single monopoly does not manifest, in turn destroying all good within the state. Individual liberties must give way to the needs of society as a whole.
Socialism: shares the value of equality with communism, but is influenced by the values of liberalism. Socialists accept individual ownership and promote free market principles. Holds that the gov. has the responsibility to ensure some sense of equality, and does so through public benefits like healthcare. Minimally regulates economy.
Fascism: rejects value of equality; instead holds beliefs that some are superior, while others are obviously inferior. Believe that the gov. has the right to mold the state and eliminate all obstacles.
Religions: important source of group identity.

Topic 3: Political and Economic Change

Economic and political change often occur hand in hand, if they don’t obvious tensions crop up. For example, China’s recent economic evolution vs. their still largely authoritarian government. Types of change include:

Reform: does not advocate for the overthrow of basic institutions. Reforms want specific details regarding the state changed,  like the government to be more responsive to environmental friendliness.
Revolution: implies a basic revision or complete overhall of political/economic institutions. Often targets either economic or political change, but almost always end up substantially altering both.
Coup d’état: most limited of the three types; replaces old leaders with new leaders. Typically occur in nations whose government institutions are weak.

The latter three changes are almost always prompted by certain attitudes towards change. These include:

Radicalism: radicals believe rapid, dramatic changes are needed. Radicals are often the leaders of revolutions. Ex: 1917 Russian tsarist overthrow.
Liberalism: supports reform and gradual change. Believe in improvement or repair.
Conservatism: see change as disruptive, feels significant changes will have an undermining and unpleasant outcome.
Reactionary beliefs: oppose both revolution, reform, AND the status quo. Reactionaries want to turn back the clock to an earlier era they find pleasant and replace economic and political institutions that existed during that time.

Democratization: movement towards democracy. Free, regular, competitive elections is the requirement for a state to be considered a democracy. Liberal democracies display other characteristics such as:

Civil liberties: freedom of speech, belief, assembly, etc.
Rule of law: provides equal treatment of citizens and due process
Neutrality of the judiciary: checks on abusive power
Open civil society: allows citizens to live private lives and media independence
Civilian control of the military: restricts the likelihood of the military taking control of the government
Liberal democracies are also called substantive democracies
Illiberal/procedural democracies are nations in which regular and free elections held, but liberal democratic characteristics are lacking.

Huntington’s Three Waves of Democratization:

First wave: developed gradually over time
Second wave: occurred after the Allied victory in WWII, until the 1960’s. Was characterized by decolonization around the world.
Third Wave: current wave, began in the 1970’s. Characterized by the defeat of dictatorial or totalitarian rulers in South America, Eastern Europe, and some parts of Africa.
Causes of democratization: loss of legitimacy in authoritarian regimes; expansion of middle class; a new emphasis on human rights by the EU and the US; and the “snowball effect”
According to Huntington, the greatest obstacle to democratization is poverty, as it restricts the ability of citizens to participate in government.
Huntington states that a government can be declared democratic after two successive turnovers of power.
Democratic consolidation: the process by which a new democracy matures, requires willingness of the elite and active participation on the part of the people. In a consolidated democracy, all institutions and many people participate.
Political liberalization: an experience said to occur after a state has progressed from a procedural democracy to a substantive democracy.

———————————————————————————————————————

Does democratization follow capitalism? Does capitalism follow democratization? Are the two spurious?
Bourgeoisie: middle class businessmen
The ideology of liberalism has its roots in 19th century Europe. Bourgeoisie didn’t want their economic goals hampered by the government. Also wanted freedoms inherent within political freedoms. Radicals, like Karl Marx, advocated for equality rather than liberalism as liberals allowed too much inequality.
Command economy: where the government owns almost all industrial enterprises and retail sales outlets. In the USSR, this was managed by a party-dominated state planning committee in five-year plans.  This worked VERY well for communist countries, but problems resulted by the late 80’s when high gov. economic prosperity did not translate to higher living standards for citizens.
Economic liberalization: the process of limiting the power of the state over private property and market forces
Marketization: describes the state’s re-creation of a market in which property, labor, goods, and services can all function in a competitive environment to determine their value.
Privatization: the transfer of state owned property to private ownership
Most countries view a “mixed economy” (a cross between a market economy and a command economy) as the best means of economic prosperity. In a mixed economy the likelihood of depression is limited, although recessions and smaller economic downturns still occur.
Fragmentation: division based on ethnic or cultural identity.

Topic Four: Citizens, Society, and the State

Divisions between religion, ethnic groups, race, and social/economic classes

Bases of social cleavages:

Social class: differences between classes, like the working class vs. the middle-class, or peasants vs. property owners.
Ethnic cleavages: clearly the most divisive of cleavages currently; based on different cultural identities
Religious cleavages: closely intertwined with ethnicity although doesn’t have to be
Regional cleavages: often linked to economic development and political values; geographic conflicts may result
Coinciding and cross-cutting cleavages: coinciding cleavages are often explosively detrimental (when every dispute aligns the same groups again each other); cross-cutting cleavages divide society into many potential groups that may conflict on one issue or divide on another.
Political efficacy: a citizen’s capacity to understand and influence political events; a lack in efficacy may lead to citizens not voting and in some cases ignoring laws and regulations put forth by the government.
Political socialization: how citizens learn about the politics in their country.
Transparent government: a government that is open with its people regarding all affairs of the state.
Social movements: organized collective activities that aim to bring about or resist fundamental change in an existing group or society.
Civil society: refers to voluntary organizations outside the state that help people define and advance their own interests (churches, for example).
Cosmopolitanism: a universal political order that draws its identity and values from everywhere

Topic Five: Political Institutions

Political institutions: structures of a political system that carry out the governing
Unitary system: a distribution of power that is entirely concentrated in one central geographic place
Confederal system: spreads the power among many sub-units (such as states) and has a weak central government.
Federal system: divided power among the central government and the sub-units (examples include Mexico, Nigeria, and Russia).
Centripetal forces: bind together the people of a state; includes nationalism, fast communication, and institutions such as schools, military, and religion.
Centrifugal forces: oppose centripetal forces by destabilizing the government and encouraging the state to fall apart. For example, the Russian orthodox church opposed communism as it was banned under the ideology.
Separatist movements: when nationalities within a state demand independence.
Devolution: tendency to decentralize decision making to regional governments.
Ethnonationalism: the tendency for an ethnic group to see itself as a distinct nation with a right to autonomy and independence.
Forces that encourage devolution: ethnic, spatial (example: Puerto Rico is separated by the Caribbean yet is still part of the US), and economic.
Party coalition: in a country that has no clear majority party, a party coalition will form, where several parties join forces and are represented in different cabinet posts.
Bureaucracies: consist of agencies that generally implement government policy; usually a part of the executive branch

Basic characteristics of a bureaucracy as defined by Weber:

Hierarchical authority: a chain of command that is hierarchical; the top bureaucrat has ultimate control, and authority flows from the top down
Task specialization: a clear division of labor in which every individual has a specialized job.
Extensive rules: clearly written, well-established formal rules that all people in the organization follow
Clear goals: a clearly defined set of goals
The merit principle: merit-based hiring and promotion
Impersonality: job performance that is judged by productivity, not by how much work the individual gets done
Discretionary power: given to bureaucrats; the power to make small decisions in implementing legislative and executive decisions
Patronage system: a system in which political supporters receive jobs in turn for their assistance in getting the president elected.
Technocrats: civilian bureaucrats

All bureaucracies tend to have the following in common:

Non-elected positions
Impersonal, efficient structures: meant to be efficient in accomplishing their goals with little concern for feelings
Formal job qualifications: highly experienced and educated individuals are appointed, not friends. Otherwise the administration will fail in accomplishing their necessary goals.
Hierarchical organization
Red tape/inefficiency: Once the bureaucracy reaches a certain size, the orderly flow of business begins to break down
Bicameralism: a legislature having two houses; a unicameral only has one
Most common is bicameralism, and can be traced to Britain’s House of Lords and House of Commons
Bicameralism allows for one house to represent regional interests in a Federal system
Elite recruitment: identifying future leaders of the government
Constitutional court: rules on the constitutionality of laws and other gov. actions
Judicial review: the mechanism that allows courts to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality
Linkage institutions: groups that connect the government to citizens, such as political parties, media, etc.
Electoral systems: rules that decide how votes are cast, counted, and translated into seats in a legislature
First-past-the-post: system in which countries divide their constituencies into single-member districts in which candidates compete for a single representative’s seat.AKA plurality system, or winner-take-all system.
Proportional representation: creates multi-member districts in which more than one legislative seat is contested in each district
Under the proportional system, voters cast their ballots for a party rather than a person, and the majority party is then given a certain number of seats in the legislature they are able to fill.
Mixed-system: combines the two; Mexico and Russia use a mixed-system
Election of public officials: many legislative members in democracies are elected directly, and the members of the lower house are usually directly elected
Referendum: a piece of legislature or decision voted on by the public versus just by the legislative branch. A plebiscite is a ballot to consult public opinion in a non-binding way.
Initiative: a vote on a policy that is initiated by the people
Transmission belts: interest groups that convey to their members the views of the party elite
Corporatism: state and interest group autonomy mixed
Interest group pluralism: autonomy from the state
State corporatism: state determines which groups are brought in; neocorporatism/societal corporatism: which interest groups take the lead and dominate the state
Civil rights: usually refers to the promotion of equality
Civil liberties: promotion of freedom

Filed Under: Election Information Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

And The Government Wasteful Spending Just Keeps On Coming

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

One of the promises from the Republican party leadership after their big election wins this past Tuesday was the pledge to reduce the size and budget of the Federal government and to finally start cleaning up the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. They may want to consider the following recently reported samples of government waste as a starting point:

– An Associated Press article on October 28, 2010 investigated the widespread misuse of taxpayer dollars in the many “dysfunctional” housing authorities across the country. The result of their investigation uncovered the following:

* The head of the Philadelphia housing authority, the fourth largest in the country, maintained a secret slush fund of 0,000 to pay off a sexual harassment problem without the oversight board of the housing authority knowing about it.

* And Philadelphia was not even designated a problem housing authority by the department of Housing And Urban Development (HUD). The Department currently maintains a list of 146 housing authorities across the country that were in a troubled condition, a list that does not include Philadelphia.

* Some housing authority contracts are signed and approved without bidding.

* The New Haven housing authority in Connecticut had no written contracts at all.The Associated Press found that Federal housing money designated for one purpose is often used for a totally different purpose.

* Some housing authority of directors do not meet on a regular basis and many times when they do meet, meeting minutes are not kept.

* Many housing authority executives have little or no financial management or accounting experience, often resulting in deep financial problems before anyone notices, including the Federal government.

* Two employees of the Alamosa, Colorado housing authority were able to embezzle almost .7 million of housing authority funds before they got caught, often by simply writing housing checks out to their relatives. It was an easy way to embezzle since often board members regularly signed blank checks and relied on these employees to spend the money wisely, using the signed blank checks.

* In 2003, the Winter Haven, Florida housing authority was cited for not preparing monthly budgets, not adequately training its staff, and being cited for its board not having adequate monitoring and accountability procedures.
In 2010, seven years later, they are still on HUD’s troubled list.

* The findings show that current audits of housing authority operations cannot be done because audits from several years ago have not yet been completed.

* The inability of many housing authorities to manage their operations usually results in needy families not quickly finding the housing they need or never finding the housing they need.

* In Dallas, even if as needy family found housing, two out of three times the Dallas housing authority miscalculated the monthly rental rate to be paid.

This incompetence and criminal activity is funded by a billion Federal budget and many more billions from state and local governments.

– On November 3, 2010, the Associated Press reported that government owned mortgage buyer, Freddie Mac, posted a .1 billion loss in the third quarter of the year and has asked for another 0 million of taxpayer money to help its short term financial condition. It asked for .8 billion in the second quarter.

The article estimates that the combined bailouts for both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will eventually top out at about 0 billion. This works out to about ,300 for every American household. Most of the problem is due to the soured mortgages and mortgage securities that both agencies got involved prior to and during the “Great Recession.” Given the fragile state of the economy and the worst state of the housing market, the article quotes a housing expert who concludes that the financial condition of both is unlikely to improve dramatically any time soon. Thus, taxpayer subsidizing of these poorly performing government entities is likely to continue.

– A short article in the November 4, 2010 edition of the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times reported that the U.S. government will spend 1 million to expand, not build, its embassy in Afghanistan. The American ambassador there “described the work as a demonstration of America’s commitment to Afghanistan.” I do not know what it cost to build the existing embassy but if it costs more than a half a billion dollars to expand it, the original build cost out most have also been obscenely expensive. And given our government’s tendency to never hit a budget, there is a good chance that the 1 million is a low ball estimate. Do we really think that building a fancy building in the middle of the capital of Afghanistan is going to reassure the local population and government that we are not going to abandon them? I doubt it.

– A National Review Online article by Robert Bryce that was included in the November 5, 2010 issue of The Week magazine, talked about the state of the ethanol energy industry in this country:

* The Federal government pays an annual billion subsidy to American corn farmers to produce a “second rate fuel” to be added to gasoline.

* The ethanol/gasoline mixture approach has failed to reduce America’s appetite for imported oil, creates more pollution than straight gasoline, and reduces gas mileage.

* According to Mr. Bryce, environmentalists have concluded that ethanol is net negative from the environmental perspective since studies indicate that corn ethanol increases air pollutants by 7% over gasoline.

* Ethanol is corrosive to fuel lines of older cars, boats, law mowers, and other engines.

So why do we continue to use taxpayer money to fund an inferior fuel product while increasing the environment damage? Because our political class likes those corn farmer votes. In fact, they like those votes so much that the Obama administration recently approved increasing allowable amount of ethanol that can be combined with gasoline from 10% to 15% because those corn farmers have overbuilt their ethanol distillery capacity and need the extra volume to bail them out of their poor planning.

– A chart from the October 25, 2010 issue of Businessweek magazine, showed the TARP payback status of major financial institutions. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Hartford Financial, and PNC Financial Services have all repaid back their TARP loans already. We know from other news sources, most of them paid back their TARP bailout funds within months after receiving them, indicating that maybe they were that needy in the first place and were just looking for a free lunch at the expense of the American taxpayer. The Businessweek chart shows that Citigroup, GMAC Financial and Sun Trust banks have not paid back all of their TARP money with Citigroup having paid back about 75% and the other have not paid back any.

I am pretty sure that the financial system would not have collapsed if we had allowed these three institutions to go bankrupt due to the bad management of their leaders. The quick and total payback from the many other banks indicates they would have easily picked up the slack. Thus, the billion still owed by Citigroup, GMAC, and Sun Trust is wasted taxpayer money.

– A short article in the November 5, 2010 issue of The Week magazine, reported that the Public-Private Investment Program run by the Treasury Department, which helped private money-management firms invest in devalued mortgage securities, had an investment return of 36% over the past year, far surpassing the 10% return by stocks and the 8% return by bonds.

What is to be learned by this situation? There was no need for any government bailout of any industry. The free market is self correcting, whenever assets devalue, some investor, somewhere will step in and buy the assets, betting that he or she can manage the asset better and make a profit. It happened here in the mortgage industry. Once the sour mortgage securities hit a balanced market price, money professionals came in, bought up the distressed assets and made a financial killing for themselves. It’s called capitalism.

Same thing would have happened with the banks, investment firms, and the car companies. Eventually, the assets of these distressed companies would have become attractive enough to have been bought by willing entrepreneurs, wasting taxpayer money on the bailouts made no financial sense. However, from the political class perspective, the bailouts made political sense to step in and protect the companies from themselves and possibly generate some campaign donations and votes from those affected.

If you add up all of the waste and tax payer bailout listed above and throw in the amount of taxpayer money spent bailout General Motors and Chrysler, you find almost 0 billion of taxpayer money that has been wasted in one form or another. A lot of this money is a one time waste (e.g. the car company bailouts and the Afghan embassy) but much of it is annual recurring waste (e.g. the billions of dollars wasted subsidizing poor performing corn ethanol and the never ending subsidy of Fannie and Freddie.) In both cases, one time and recurring, serious government savings and waste is available to be reaped.

How could this reaping be done? Consider the following approaches:

* An article in the October 25, 2020 issue of Businessweek explained how American farmers are currently in a boom period with exports making American farming quite lucrative. One quote from the article states: “It is a perfect situation for U.S. farmers, the best since the early 1970s. Thus, given it is actually a boom period for U.S. farmers, this might be the best time ever to cut the ethanol subsidy to nothing, saving wasted taxpayer dollars and reducing the incremental harm to the environment. While the farming industry might gripe about losing their government corporate bailout, they cannot cry poverty since overall, farming is in the best situation in four decades.

* Anyway, since much of the farming today is done by farming conglomerates and not family farms, they should not be getting any government subsides to begin with. If this total cutoff is too drastic politically, then limit the subsidies to family farms only.

* Delay the build out of the Afghan embassy for now and maybe forever. The Obama administration has publicly stated it wants to start getting our troops out of the country by next summer. That will have a far larger impact on demonstrating our resolve to see the fight to the end then putting up a prettier and bigger embassy building. Save the money for now, until we know what we are doing in an overall strategy.

* Make the hard and difficult analysis and decisions on how to get the Federal government out of the mortgage business. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives, along with their oversight committees in Congress have proven time and again that they cannot manage their mortgage business, resulting in untold billions of wasted taxpayer dollars. Since the political class did not have the courage to address these two government atrocities in the financial reform bill legislation, rendering that legislation next to useless, the drain on taxpayer dollars by these two institutions needs to be readdressed. One alternative may be to write down and sell off their assets like the Treasury Department did with the Public-Private Investment Program. It may require the assets to be sold at a drastically reduced price but such a program would get the assets off of the government’s ledger, would shut down a taxpayer drain, and would finally turn the mortgage industry back over to the private sector who cannot help but do a better job. Even if they cannot do a better job, it is their risk and not the taxpayers’ risk.

* Implement a process that removes Congressional members from their committee posts if they do not adequately perform their oversight functions for their respective committees. For example, under this step, those members sitting on the financial committees overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been removed from their committee posts for not foreseeing the financial disaster that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Any Congressional committee member sitting on a HUD oversight committee would also be removed for allowing the nation’s housing authorities receiving Federal money to be so corrupt and incompetent.

* Implement a step that would allow only individual citizens to financially contribute to election campaigns. I am pessimistic that the political class has enough courage to shut down the wasteful ethanol subsidy since that might effect how much money a politician can get from the industry for their re-election. If you can remove that option of corporate campaign donations via something like Step 6, the political class might actually do the best thing for the country since it does not hurt them politically.

There you go, political class. Almost 0 billion in government waste, exposed, detailed, and a plan attached on how to achieve the savings. The election is over, the rhetoric is over, time for action.
 

Filed Under: Election Information Tagged With: , , , , ,

What is a political party? : A Level Government & Politics

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Political parties are organisations that:

 

These policies are mainly proposals to change the law or the way that the government works in some area. The party may have an overarching set of beliefs about politics – an ideology – that will help to decide which policies a party adopts.
. Pressure groups often have policies and even ideologies as well – political parties are different from pressure groups because they actually try to win political office, instead of simply trying to influence the government.

 

Parties are integral to British politics, and they perform several key functions:

Firstly, .

Party members try to identify which are the most important and pressing problems facing a society – whether they are economic, social or international – and consider the different options available for solving them.

Whatever the party decides is the best course of action becomes ‘party policy’.

At election time, parties publish

These are booklets that outline the party’s policies on all the major issues of the day. Even when there is no election coming up, parties are always on the look out for new and innovative policies to adopt. By performing this task of creating policy, parties help to keep the public informed about what problems are facing society and what the possible solutions might be.

Secondly, parties provide the needed to form a government. Winning elections and forming stable governments require huge amounts of planning and organisation. Party organisations are geared up specifically to meet these tasks. When in government, a party will work hard to keep its MPs united and well-organised – for example, through the whipping system.

Thirdly, parties . The largest parties in the UK all have a local branch in each of the Westminster constituencies, with members drawn from the local area. These local activists meet regularly with their party’s candidate/MP for that seat and help to keep him or her in touch with the concerns, issues and problems affecting people in the area. In practice, the local branch of a sitting MP’s party plays an important role in maintaining the link between the voters and the elected official.

Fourthly, parties give people . The leader of the largest party following an election is invariably appointed prime minister, so voters can have decide who to vote for on the basis of the character and beliefs of the party leaders.

Parties also  allow voters to make without having to do a lot of research into each of them.

Most voters know very little about their local candidates except which party they are standing for, and they use this single piece of information to make some likely assumptions about what sort of policies they will support if they are elected.

Parties are . Many MPs have previously worked and volunteered for their local or national party organisations, where they will have learned first hand about campaigning, how Parliament works, how to interact with the public and many of the other skills needed in politics. Most would-be MPs are expected to put in plenty of hours delivering leaflets and knocking doors before they will be considered as a candidate. In this way, parties provide ambitious politicians with a route to possible power.

Parties also , by joining the local party. Local parties regularly hold debates and discussions about all sorts of political matters and also campaign on issues of local and regional importance. While party members cannot expect to have a decisive influence on policy-making, their views are at least taken into account by the leadership. In this way, parties encourage people to get involved in the democratic process.

One of the most important functions of political parties is to aggregate (bring together) society’s desires. People want different things from their government. Elderly people might be most concerned with healthcare and pension provision, for example. Wealthy people may feel low taxes should be the priority. It is the parties’ task to bring together these competing interests and to create a policy programme that pleases as many people as possible. The party that can please the most people with its policies  will win the election (provided that the voters trust that party to deliver on its promises!)

 

 

This article has been put together by the distance learning organisation Start Learning who are experts in home study.

If you want to find out more about A Level Government and Politics or many other distance learning courses please browse their website: http://www.start-learning.co.uk

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , ,

United States Government Debt is Increasing Rapidly

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

United States government debt, also referred to as the national debt or United States total public debt, is the amount of money owed by United States federal government to holders of U.S. debt instruments.

The total Public debt includes state and federal debts which is owed to corporations, individuals and foreign governments. But, this debt excludes all social security debts and intra-governmental obligations.

Some of the federal securities held by the public include Bonds, Treasury Bills, United States Savings Bonds, Notes, TIPS and State and Local Government Series securities.

External debt includes debts which both the public and private sectors owe to foreign people and organizations. Foreign ownership of public debt is a substantial part of the total national debt.

When U.S. federal debt passed the trillion mark on 30th September 2008, public debt stood at .3 trillion.

Further debts included Social Security obligations, Medicare, Medicaid and others.

A division of United States Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of the Public Debt, calculates the amount of money owed by the government daily.

Budgeted and non-budgeted spending has pushed total debts upward by around 0 billion each year since 2003. The budget deficit fell from 8 billion in 2005 to 2 billion in 2007, but moved sharply up again to 5 billion in 2008.

There have been regular warnings from the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that debt levels are sure to increase dramatically due to social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and interest owed on outstanding debts.

There are estimates that benefits under entitlement programs could exceed government income by more than trillion in the next half century.

If the changes which they propose are not done, some experts claim that federal expenditures could surpass federal tax revenues by sizable margins in a shorter period than that.

Public debts have been a part of its existence since the United States of America came into being.

The first reported value of public debt was ,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. This was a combination of debts that were incurred during the American Revolutionary War and the creation and implementation of the Articles of Confederation.

Debt continued to increase over the next half-century.

It was brought down to zero for a short period in early January, 1835.

After that, the debts just kept increasing.

The Civil War in America was responsible for a huge surge where debts rose from million in 1860 to more than billion in 1863.

The following year, it stood at .7 billion.

There were a few fluctuations during the rest of the century. But, strong economic growth was recorded through most of the period from 1800 to 1912.

Then, debts started increasing again. It was around billion during the 1920s, the World War I period.

History repeated itself and debts grew to an alarming 0 billion by the end of World War II from a figure around billion in 1940.

Public debt and inflation soared in tandem during the nineteen-eighties. The nineties saw the debts increase by about two hundred percent within a decade.

Better results were achieved towards the close of the century.

But, debts then started climbing quickly again.

Public debt stood at about .9 trillion at the end of 2005. This was about 8.7 times the level of public debt in 1980.

For the greater part of the last half-century, America had enforced a debt ceiling. The Treasury could issue as much debt as the government required as long as it was within the specified ceiling.

Over time, the United States Congress passed new laws which caused fairly regular increases in the level of the ceiling.

Congress increased the debt limit to .815 trillion in September 2007.

In July 2008, the ceiling was again raised to .6 trillion with the passing of new laws to accommodate the bailout of mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Congress used to approve legislation for each debt issuance. It was decided that this was no longer possible because of the growth of fiscal operations in the twentieth century.

As debt is spiraling out of control you can take action and survive, and create your own personal financial security.

Public debts are of two main types:

1. Marketable and Non-marketable securities held by the public

2. Securities held by government accounts

Public debt holders cover a huge group of people that owning bills, notes and bonds.

The U.S. Treasury regularly publishes data providing information about the holders.

The foreign and international holders of the debt are also put together from the notes, bills, and bonds sections.

More than half of the total national debt is owed to the Federal Reserve and intergovernmental holdings.

According to reported figures of the US government in September 2008, it has supported its obligations to bailout home mortgage companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The balance sheet obligations of these two companies are over trillion. The Government does not account for these obligations in its current balance sheet.

The U.S. Treasury contracted to receive US$ 1 billion dollars in senior preferred shares and a warrant for 79.9% of common shares from each of these Government Sponsored Enterprises or GSEs.

This was done to maintain adequate capital ratios in the enterprises and ensure essential solvency. This is, effectively, nationalization of the companies.

Some people claim that some of these US governmental actions place taxpayers’ funds at some risk. The effects of the takeovers may not be predictable immediately. The overall picture will probably only come into focus later.

At the time of the takeover, more than 98% of Fannie’s loans were being repaid in a timely manner.

Both these companies are claimed to have had a positive net worth where their assets were valued much higher than their liabilities.

The Congressional Budget Office has directed incorporation of the assets and liabilities of these two companies into the federal budget. This shows the extent of governmental control over these entities.

Presently, foreign governments are said to have about 25% holding of total US debt.

This figure was about 13% in 1988.

US Treasury statistics indicate foreigner organizations and individuals held 44% of federal debt held by the public in 2006. Two-thirds of this was held by central banks of countries like China and Japan.

Although there was a fall in such investments in 2007 due to the depreciating value of the US dollar at the time, but foreign investors continued investing in US-dollar–denominated instruments.

This exposure is claimed by some to pose a threat of some scale to the US economy.

If the foreign investors start selling Treasury securities or stop purchasing them, some people claim that it might cause significant losses.

It seems that such losses may be a very unlikely situation but the possible effects from such a theoretical situation becoming reality must be considered when decisions are being made.

Central banks of Sweden, Russia, Italy and the United Arab Emirates reduced their dollar holdings marginally in 2006.

Kuwait and Syria discontinued pegging their currency exclusively to the dollar in 2007.

These occurrences may not be pointers to what could happen in the future.

Filed Under: Election Times Tagged With: , , , , ,

Sir James Whitney’s great work for Ontario: record and policy of the Whitney’s government. Ontario elections, 1914. Nine years of the square deal

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Sir James Whitney’s great work for Ontario: record and policy of the Whitney’s government. Ontario elections, 1914. Nine years of the square deal

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.

List Price: $ 17.75

Price:

Filed Under: Amazon Shop Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,