National Health Care Insurance

National health was first seriously considered in the 1930s when Congress was legislating the New Deal social programs. However, universal health insurance was not adopted because of the strong opposition of the American Medical Association. They did not trust government intervention in their affairs and feared that regulations would limit their discretion and their earnings. As a result, the topic of health insurance rarely came up. However, during Bill Clinton's term, he established a health care reform task and attempted to get Congress to adopt legislation adopting universal health coverage in the United States. Ultimately however, his efforts had failed. In the 2008 presidential election, Democratic candidate, Barack Obama's platform promised reform in the health care system. After he was elected, Congress signed into law the Patient protection and Affordable Care Act. After the bill was signed into law, thirteen state attorneys announced that they would sue the national government to block enforcement of the legislation. This legislation marked the first major change in national health policy since the adoption of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

Those who may argue for national provision of health insurance may think about how national health insurance is a way for the government to promote the general welfare, that large percentages of uninsured citizens negatively affected all Americans. They may also think about how national health insurance for all is a logical extension of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the past, Medicare and Medicaid have been successful in assuring the health of older and poor Americans, so the national government should provide similar services to other Americans. In addition, they may argue that uninsured Americans increase the cost f care for all citizens. 

Those who argue  against national provision of health insurance may think about how national health insurance is inconsistent with the American value of personal responsibility. The national health insurance program can decrease individual accountability. They may also think about how health care is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. National health insurance can be considered an enrichment on state power. States may be more able to determine the needs of their citizens than the national government. In addition, health insurance companies use precise formulas to assure thy the system will remain financially solvent. Health insurance companies may be better equipped than national government to administer health care programs.

Should Former Members of Congress Be Allowed to Become Lobbyists?

Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by many different types of people and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups). The former members of congress can be effective lobbyists. They have tremendous knowledge on the intricate details of the legislative process, they have developed connections with many other members of congress, and have access to exclusive areas in the Capitol building such as certain gyms and restaurants. Their easy access to these areas makes their lobbying job easy and lucrative. However, this connection between Congress and the lobbying firms has not fared well with the public. They may see dishonesty and suspicious behavior in allowing former members to us e their unprecedented access to the advantage of their clients. Citizens also believe that buying this sort of access undermines the Democratic Process and limits citizens’ access to their legislators.
Those who may argue for allowing members of Congress to become lobbyists may think about how lobbying by former members of congress promotes healthy competition among interest groups. A better representation of a diverse array of interests may promote better public policy. Having members of Congress as lobbyist can actually allow more citizens voices to be heard in the legislative process. The may also think about how former members of Congress may provide better information thank other lobbyist. Former members may be better able to help current legislators craft policies that achieve their stated goals than other lobbyists. In addition, they may argue that there are already sufficient checks in place to limit the undue influence of lobbyists. Checks such as the Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Honest Leadership and open Government Act of 2007 limit the activities of former members and prevent them from receiving special treatment as lobbyists.
Those who may argue against allowing members of congress to become lobbyist may think about how lobbying by former members of Congress undermine the ability of ordinary citizens to influence the political process. Individuals may not be able to have their voices heard when forced to compete with the organized efforts and the money lobbyists of Washington. Former members of Congress’s personal knowledge, contacts, and any other special access give them an unfair advantage. They may also think about how members of congress may be biased toward information provided by their former colleagues and friends. Members of Congress may not do as thorough a job of researching and verifying information when it comes from lobbyists that are former colleagues which may negatively affect policy outcomes. In addition, they may argue that the appearance of impropriety undermines the public’s confidence in job performance of Congress. Even if there is no actual impropriety the public may not be able to trust that the members of Congress who are former or future lobbyists have their best interests at heart.

Are Third Parties Good for the American Political System?

           Most parties are rooted in social movements formed of activists and groups whose primary goal is to influence public policy, so to form a new party could be a difficult decision. Third parties usually originate for one of two reasons: to express an alternate political platform from those held by the major parties such as when the Dixiecrats, who believed in continued racial segregation, broke from the Democratic Party in 1948; or to launch an alternative candidate for public office, such as when Ross Perot founded the Reform Party in 1996, with the sole purpose of running for president. In these third parties, the e candidates that bear their standard, gain popularity and support based on dissatisfaction with the candidates and trends in the two major parties at the time. Despite their failures at the ballot box, they exert pressure on the major parties, and most influence election outcomes to some extent.
Those who may argue for the third parties in American politics may think about how third parties allow for greater diversity of opinions. They may often contribute a diversity of viewpoints and opinions. The issues promoted by third parties and the candidates that represent them can change political disclosure. They may also think about how third parties can provide useful solutions to political problems on the local and regional level. The smaller scale of third parties may allow them to address specific local and regional issues better than the major parties. The election of third party state governors, such as Jesse Ventura in Minnesota and Angus King in Maine, may suggest that third parties could be more successful on the state and local level than on the national level. In addition, they may argue that third parties encourage greater participation in the American Political system. The current electoral system can undermine participation by voters who might be inclined to support third parties, such as the Green party or the Libertarian Party. Electoral outcomes are representative of the interests and preferences of voters who support third parties.
Those who may argue against third Parties in American Politics think about how third parties act as spoilers rather than issue definers. It may not be realistic that a third party would get elected to the national level. The voting system in the United States may undermine the ability of third parties to affect the national agenda. They may also think about how third parties are often composed of political extremists who seek to undermine real politics. The rise of third parties such as the Dixiecrats or the American Communist Party undermine the ideal of compromise that characterizes the American political system. Emotional appeals used by political extremists my result in disenfranchisement and less participation in the political process. In addition, they may argue that third parties undermine the stability of the American political system. Political systems with large numbers of third parties may be more unstable than two-party systems. The greater instability in the political system can lead to lower levels of participation, higher levels of voter apathy, and greater polarization in American politics.

Do the News Media Have a Partisan Bias?

              There are some political scientists that argue that the content of news coverage accounts for a large portion of the volatility and changes in public opinion and voting preferences of Americans, when measured over relatively short periods of time. The objectivity of journalism reports the facts of an event without imposing a political or an ideological slant. Journalistic Objectivity is extremely important because of the enormous amount of Americans that rely on the news media to provide them with the information they seek in order to make political decisions. But, television hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC on the left and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly of FOX News on the right regularly inject opinion into their coverage of news events. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, most Americans believe that the news media today, have a partisan bias. Many Americans also believe that television news is becoming more conservative, for example: by the growing presence of FOX News. This growth has led to a sharp decline in the percentage of liberals who say they enjoy keeping up with the news. People straddling both sides, believe the media are biased against them. Conservative critics charge that the media have a liberal bias, as evidenced by the fact that journalists tend to vote Democratic. Liberals point out that the fiscally conservative corporate interests of companies that own the media lead to much stronger biases than do the personal beliefs of journalists.
              Those who argue for the existence of a partisan bias in the media, may think about how journalists have personal biases. They may say it is impossible for a journalist not to have a bias. Political beliefs and values of a journalist could consciously or unconsciously affect their reports of particular stories. They may also think about how news corporations are under pressure to make profits, and as a result narrowcast to a reliable audience. The trend toward polarization of the news media, for example between FOX and MSNBC, may serve to reinforce the political views of their respective audiences. The drive for profitability may encourage greater partisanship. In addition, they may argue that the fragmentation of the news media makes the development of biased new media sources inevitable. The increasing reliance on new media sources, such as the Internets and blogs, reinforce partisan bias in the news media.
              Those who argue against the existence of a partisan bias in the media may think about how most news outlets provide balanced and fair coverage. Newspapers and magazines exhibit the strong partisan bias seen on some television news networks such as FOX News and MSNBC. It is not fair to judge all news media outlets based on the biases of a few of them. They may also think about how accusations of bias misunderstand recent trends in broadcast and news media. The trend toward narrowcasting may open up the possibility for balance in the media, even if individual news sources become more partisan. New media can expand the marketplace of ideas and encourage greater political debate. In addition, they may argue that bias is a good story is not the same thing as a partisan bias. The news media’s emphasis on political horse races and conflict frame their coverage of particular events. Politicians use accusations of partisan news media bias as a strategy to deal with an assertive press

Should Civics be Taught in American High Schools?

              An education of civics is extremely important in political socialization. Many Democratic societies implement in some way or form civic education, to teach citizens about social norms, virtues, or the basic rules and principles of the democratic process. Most people have come in contact with civic education. For example, by the time a child reaches the first grade, they have most likely have received elements of a civic education whether it be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, learning about the Revolutionary war, the founding of our country, the Constitution, or even the struggle for civil rights. However, these efforts to educate the young may have proven to be futile according to a study in which only one quarter of all high school seniors reached proficiency in their American political knowledge. French political commentator Alexis de Tocqueville argued that without common values and virtues, there can be no common action or social stability.
              Those who believe we should teach civics in American high schools may think about how political participation, political socialization, and civic education are related. Knowledge of democratic institutions and processes may increase involvement in the American political process. They may also think about how civic education plays an important role in a democratic society. A civic education can increase cooperation, toleration of dissent and opposing views, and political compromise. It may prepare student for the realities of pluralistic democratic life. In addition, they may think about how civic education complements political socialization, believing that if schools do not provide for a common, basic understanding of political processes in the United States, no one will, that the common myths and beliefs that provide the foundation for political culture cannot be found outside of schools.
              Those who believe we should not teach civics in American high schools may think about how civic education is innately biased, believing that in our free multicultural society, certain values and social views should not be pressed upon individuals. They may believe that schools should not determine what social values are central to a civic education or that teaching one viewpoint may stifle the diversity of cultures and political views that strengthen American democracy. They may also argue that schools have more important responsibilities. With the competing demands placed on the education system today, including budgetary constraints, growing enrollments, and standardized testing, schools cannot realistically be expected to focus on civic education, that with these constraints, schools cannot do an effective job of civic education. In addition, they may argue that responsibility for teaching civics should fall to the family, believing that something as important as civic education should not be left to schools which have to balance a number of other competing goals. Other agents of political socialization, such as the family or religious establishments will be better suited to bear the primary responsibility for civic education. I believe civic education should be taught in American high schools. The topic is just as important as other core subjects because understanding political norms plays a key role in your life. People arguing against educating student in schools on civics say that schools may not be reliable for teaching students,  but in my opinion, schools may be more effective than learning in a home environment because teachers are better qualified and will definitely have the proper materials to educate students.

The Westboro Baptist Church

               What is religion? Religion can be defined as a system of beliefs that involve the worship of supernatural forces or beings. There are roughly 4,200 religions in the world, each with different sets of organized behavior, clergy, definitions of what constitutes as adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures (Ghosh, 2012). The Westboro Baptist Church is definitely unique in their practice and the way they express their beliefs.

                While people should be able to practice what they believe, there is a line that should be drawn when they slander and disturb those around them with their beliefs. The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, is known for its extremist ideologies, especially those against homosexuality (Whitlock, 2012). It is generally described as a hate group, and is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center (Larson, 2012).  My question is, what motivates the people in this church to perform all these slanderous acts? The people and groups they protest have done nothing to them, and yet the church goes out of their way to create problems for them. The Westboro Baptist Church seems to enjoy picketing everything, from homosexuality, to funerals, to Jewish institutions, to the service men and women of our country (Pettygrove, 2012).  Headed by Fred Phelps, and with about forty members (primarily members of his large family), they picket about six locations every day (McCargar, 2011).  Some of their pickets stretch to ridiculous lengths, protesting anything and anyone that they imagine relate to gay people, such as Kansas City Chiefs football games, Broadway musicals, random funerals, as well as live theater and pop concerts. They honestly believe that these events are “havens for homosexuality” (Yan, 2012). Recently, they protested outside a Lady Gaga concert in St. Louis with their “God Hates Lady Gaga” signs due to her support of gay rights (Yan, 2012). They blame every tragedy in the world on homosexuals, and believe that homosexuality should be considered a capital crime (Yan, 2012).

                 The church has been actively involved in the anti-gay movement since at least 1991 (Pettygrove, 2012).  While being filmed by documentary film-maker Louis Theroux, they picketed a local appliance store because it sold Swedish vacuum cleaners, which the church viewed as supportive of gays because of Swedish prosecution of Åke Green, a pastor critical of homosexuality (Theroux, 2007). According to WBC’s website, Sweden as a country has a "filthy manner of life" due to the legalization of homosexuality in 1944 and the yearly "fag pride parade" (Yan, 2012). So if it's Swedish, God hates it. In their anti-gay movement, they have also picketed productions of movies and plays about homosexuality such as The Laramie Project (Jenny, 2012). In addition, they have protested other churches, who they blame for the legitimizing of same sex marriages in that state.

                On January 15, 2006, the Westboro Church protested a memorial Sago Mine disaster victims, claiming that the mining accident was gods revenge against America for its tolerance of homosexuality (Macdonald, 2012).On October 17^th, 1998, Fred Phelps and his church broadcasted their “God Hates Fags” message at the funeral of Matthew Shepard (Nichols, 1997). Shepard was an American student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered because of his sexual orientation (Nichols, 1997). Two of his signs read “No Tears for Queers,” and “Fag Matt in Hell.” These people are not just targeting the victims of hate crimes, but their message is encouraging it. Basically, the Westboro Baptist Church is saying that Shepard deserved what happened to him and we should not feel any sympathy. Phelps, according to wire reports, has issued faxes condemning the hate crime victim for being gay (Nichols, 1997). He expresses no regrets about stepping on family feelings, he says, because the family has failed to "raise up a child" who follows "the Lord," and must therefore know that they too deserve God's blame (Nichols, 1997). In April 2008, Westboro picketed the funerals of three students who were killed in a house fire at the University of Wisconsin–Stout in Menomonie, Wisconsin, and in February 2009, the group protested at the funeral of a plane crash victim (Yan, 2012). Westboro even picketed the funeral of recording artist Michael Jackson after his death in June 2009 claiming a posthumous memorial of his career is really "worshiping the dead." Members of the Westboro Baptist Church recorded a song titled "God Hates the World", an adaptation of Jackson's "We Are the World" (Yan, 2012).

                The Westboro Baptist Church also pickets the funerals of fallen soldiers, sending out fliers asking their supporters to make statements at the funerals, about their attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States (Yan, 2012). The Phelps family never fails to give their truthful opinion. In July 2005, when the Church intended to picket the funeral of Carrie French, a nineteen year old ammunition specialist killed in Iraq, Phelps Sr. was quoted as saying, "Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is [that] the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime" (Yan, 2012).  The following month, when they protested at the funeral of soldier Edward Myers, who died in Iraq,  Shirley Phelps-Roper told a television reporter that Myers was “burning in hell.” And the best one of all, in the picketing of the funeral of Marine Matthew Snyder, the church held signs saying “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

                As if picketing anything to do with homosexuality and soldier funerals was not enough, the Westboro Baptist Church has also begun to picket Jewish institutions. Fred Phelps and his church member led a protest in 1996 at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. (History Anarchy, 2012). While picketing outside the Washingotn office of the Anti-Defamation League one day, Phelp’s daughter Margie told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the group is now focusing on the Jewish community because church members have been “testifying” to gentiles for 19 years that “America is doomed” and they haven't gotten the message (Fingerhut, 2009). Margie Phelps added, “one of the loudest voices” in favor of homosexuality and abortion is “the Jews, especially the rabbis” (Fingerhut, 2009).

                It is surprising to me that some people still hold some of these ignorant point of views. In the documentary Religulous, comedian Bill Maher travels to numerous areas to explore different religions and the mindset behind them. Using the fake title “A Spiritual Journey,” Maher is able to obtain interviews from the devoted religious members. The film explores the aspects of religion that do not add up, and basically mocks each person interviewed. Many parts of the documentary were unexpected. It was shocking to see that some people actually believe homosexuality does not exist. The man who believed this was interviewed, and had supposedly been homosexual at one point, and then turned heterosexual. Even he did not support homosexuality. We as a society should be encouraging people to follow their true sexual orientation and not condemn them for it. If someone has their own beliefs, no matter how bad they are, they are entitled to them. However, we must draw a line when certain people try to impose their beliefs on other people, especially if their impositions involve violent or hateful actions

The Bureaucracy and Policy Making

              Bureaucracies are a rational way for complex societies to organize themselves. Their features include: a chain of command in which authority flows from top to bottom; a division of labor whereby work is apportioned among specialized workers to increase productivity; clear lines of authority among workers and their superiors; a goal orientation that determines structure, authority, and rules; impersonality, in which all employees are treated fairly based on merit and all clients are served equally, without discrimination, according to established rules; and Productivity, whereby all work and actions are evaluated according to established rules. The overall responsibility of the Bureaucracy is to implement the many laws passed by Congress. Because Congress cannot involve itself f in every detail of every program, it sets general guidelines for agency action and leaves it to the agency to work out the details, which they execute through a process called implementation. Many informal and formal mechanisms such as rule making and administrative adjudication, help the bureaucracy and bureaucrats make policy

              Policy making and implementation take place on both informal and formal levels. Most of the decisions made are left to individual government employees on a day to day basis. Street-level bureaucrats and department of justice lawyers make policy on two levels. s. They could either exercise broad judgment in decisions concerning citizens with whom they interact or have their individual actions add up to agency behavior. In rule making, they perform a quasi-legislative process that results in regulations that have the characteristics of a legislative act. In their regulations, they make rules that govern the operation of all government programs that have the force of law. To force the compliance of federal laws by persons or businesses agencies resort to administrative adjudication, a quasi-judicial process in which a bureaucratic agency settles disputes between two parties in a manner similar to the way courts resolve disputes.

Should the U.S. have an open borders policy for migrants?

An open border is a border that allows free movement of people between different jurisdictions with limited or no restrictions to movement. A border can either be open due to the legislation allowing its people across its borders or it may be open due to a lack of adequate supervision of the border which allows the free movement of people across the border.  In modern countries, borders are either open or closed. Areas that have open borders such as the European Union and the American states, allow easy navigation in and out from one country to another. However, there are some countries that enforce closed borders, restricting the movement and entry of citizens. Recently, there has been a vocal movement to close the U.S border and to take steps in assuring it is tightly sealed, especially along the Mexican border. There are also those who argue that the government should not intervene in the border control issues, but should open the borders so for the labor market to determine the flow of immigrants into the country.

                People who argue against the open borders may believe that opening borders could stunt the economic growth and prosperity. In addition, they may also believe that American political culture must be protected, and having immigrants may alter American values and beliefs, and weaken the polity. They may also argue that policing borders is necessary to control drug trafficking and other illegal activity. People who argue for open borders think about how the free market is best equipped to regulate the flow of laborers from one country to another. They may argue that open borders promote cultural diversity, that American exposure to new beliefs and ideas may benefit democratic deliberation. In addition, policing borders is economically inefficient, and the amount of money the national government spends on border security could be better spent on other programs.

Congress

                Initially, the Framers’ idea of Congress’s authority was much narrower than it is today. Those who had attended the Constitutional Convention had only wanted to create a legislative body that would be able to make laws and raise and spend revenues. The changes in the demands made on the national government over time have allowed the executive and judicial branches to gain powers at the expense of the legislative branch, making it difficult for Congress to maintain its initial role.

                The Constitution created a bicameral legislature with members of each body to be elected differently, to represent different constituencies. Each state is represented in the Senate by two senators, regardless of the state’s population. The number of representatives each state sends to the House of Representatives, in contrast, is determined by that state’s population, so after every U.S. Census, district lines must be redrawn to reflect population shifts. Each state is allotted its share of these 435 representatives based on its population. After each U.S. Census, the number of seats assigned to each state is adjusted by a constitutionally mandated process.  After seats are assigned, congressional districts have to be redrawn by state legislatures to reflect population shifts to ensure that each member in Congress represents approximately the same number of residents.

Senators are elected for six-year terms, and originally they were chosen by state legislatures because the Framers intended for senators to represent their states’ interests in the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms by a vote of the eligible electorate in each congressional district. The Framers expected that House members would be more responsible to the people, both because they were elected directly by them and because they were up for reelection every two years. Congress is also given formal law-making powers in the Constitution. But, presidents issue proclamations and executive orders with the force of law bureaucrats issue quasi-legislative rules and are charged with enforcing laws, rules, and regulations and the Supreme Court and lower federal courts render opinions that generate principles that also have the force of law.

                Political parties are extremely important in the way Congress is organized. The Speaker of the House is usually a member of the majority party, and other leadership roles such as majority and minority leaders and whips are also controlled by the parties. The Speaker presides over the House of Representatives, oversees House business, and is the official spokesperson for the House, as well as being second in the line of presidential succession. After the Speaker, the next most powerful people in the House are the majority and minority leaders. The majority leader is the head of the party controlling the most seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The minority leader is the head of the party with the second highest number of elected representatives in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The official chair of the Senate is the president pro tempore, who is selected by the majority party and presides over the Senate in the absence of the vice president. The true leader of the Senate is the majority leader, elected to the position by the majority party. The minority leader and the Republican and Democratic whips round out the leadership positions in the Senate and perform functions similar to those of their House counterparts.

In addition to the party leaders, Congress has a several committees and subcommittees that cover the entire range of government policies. There are four types of congressional committees: standing; joint; conference; and select . Standing committees are the committees to which bills are referred for consideration; they are so called because they continue from one Congress to the next. . Joint committees are standing committees that include members from both houses of Congress and are set up to conduct investigations or special studies. They focus public attention on major matters, such as the economy, taxation, or scandals. Conference committees are special joint committees created to reconcile differences in bills passed by the House and Senate. A conference committee is madeup of members from the House and Senate committees that originally considered the bill. . Select committees are temporary committees appointed for specific purposes, such as investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Is Cloning Ethical and Should it be Pursued?

When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. The controversy over cloning begins with the ethics of it and confusion over how it works. The general questions raised may be some of the following: If you had a clone would it be your child or your delayed twin? Does a clone have a soul? What about all the duds? What about creating clones for organs? Who should decide who is cloned? Who should have access to cloning technology – only people with good genes? Who should pay for the cloning? Should we be able to use this technology to design our children? (Gattaca) Who does genetic information belong to? Should people with genetic diseases be cured? Should they have children?

In 2002, President Bush stated “Cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another” President Bush pushed for a complete ban; he believed human cloning was morally wrong. However, some lawmakers believe that human cloning is OK when it's done to advance medical science. A few scientists and doctors want to clone humans primarily for therapeutic research or reproduction. Scientists who do therapeutic research look for new ways of curing disease. Bush and other scientists and ethicists argue that it is not clear whether there will be medical benefits from therapeutic human cloning. The possibility of wiping out some diseases is the chief reason many scientists and politicians argue that totally banning human cloning is wrong. The leader of the U.S. Senate, Democrat Tom Daschle says that he is opposed to cloning humans, but he differs strongly with the president on the "need to allow science and research to cure disease." Beyond government lawmakers, many have come out supporting cloning research. More than 40 Nobel Laureates issued a statement saying that a total ban, like what the president wants would have a chilling effect on scientific research.

There are many medical advantages of cloning. Instead of creating cloned babies, researchers want to use somatic cell nuclear transfer, the same process used to clone Dolly the sheep in 1997, to create embryonic stem cells. The cloned cells would be genetically identical to the patient's own, so they could replace part of an ailing brain or heart without touching off a full-scale attack from the patient's immune system. But creating a cloned embryo requires human egg cells, and egg cells aren't cheap. I believe continued research on cloning should be allowed. If medical advances are possible, and no one is being harmed during the research, there are no cons.

Is Partisanship good for Democracy?

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation, usually referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. In recent years, the term bipartisanship has been used by many in American politics. During the 2008 presidential elections, both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama tried to lay claim to the label by emphasizing their ability to work across the aisle. And, after Barack Obama won the presidency, he appointed Republicans to several high-profile positions. However, many people criticize his claims of bipartisanship because he failed to consult in a meaningful way with Republicans in Congress on significant policy issues, such as health care reform. In the meantime, although both the Republican and Democratic leadership have repeatedly emphasized their bipartisan credentials, members of Congress have voted with their parties about ninety percent of the time in recent Congresses. The members of Congress view of their representational role as trustees, delegates, or politicos as influential to how they make policy decisions. Legislators can also take into account several other factors, including political party, constituents, colleagues and caucuses, staff and support agencies, and interest groups, lobbyists, and political action committees. When a bill is non-ideological or one on which a member has no real position, staff members may be the greatest influence on how a member of Congress votes. Then again, bipartisanship may not always be a good thing. For example, when Tom DeLay announced his retirement as House majority leader, he said, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”

If there is a case to be made for partisanship, it's that voters deserve a clear choice. Partisanship protects democracy, produces stronger policies, and reflects the will of the people. Those who may argue against partisanship may believe partisanship is undemocratic, that it results in a political gridlock, and that it does not reflect the will of the people. Partisan politics is often blamed for the messes in Washington. Each election may bring a new set of candidates makes its campaign promise to work with the other side, to reach across the aisle and to get something done. The problem with partisan politics, as it is perceived is that nothing will get done while both sides disagree and stand firmly on their platform. 

Obesity Is Becoming a Problem in Our Society

Overweight specifically refers to an excessive amount of body weight that may come from muscles, bone, adipose tissue, and water. Obesity specifically refers to an excessive amount of adipose tissue. Over two-thirds of adults in the United States are overweight or obese, and over one-third are obese, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Americans are becoming more obese by not eating properly and getting more sedentary. It is a growing health problem that needs to be addressed because obesity can lead to more health care costs and more complicated problems later in life. Scientific evidence clearly shows a link between poor diet and many degenerative disease, yet there seems to be a sense of apathy towards eating and feeling healthy. Although genes are an important factor in many cases of obesity, a person's environment also plays a significant role. Environmental factors include lifestyle behaviors such as what a person eats and how active he or she is.

Psychological factors also influence eating habits and obesity. Many people eat in response to negative emotions such as boredom, sadness, or anger. People who have difficulty with weight management may be facing more emotional and psychological issues; about thirty-percent of people who seek treatment for serious weight problems have difficulties with binge eating. During a binge-eating episode, people eat large amounts of food while feeling they can't control how much they are eating.

Obesity increases the likelihood of various diseases, particularly heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, osteoarthritis and asthma. Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive food energy intake, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, although a few cases are caused primarily by genes, endocrine disorders, medications or psychiatric illness. Evidence to support the view that some obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is limited; on average obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass.

The statistics for obesity rates today are shocking. 58 million people in the United States are overweight, 40 million are obese, and 3 million are morbidly obese. Eight out of 10 people over 25 are overweight. Seventy eight percent of Americans are not meeting basic activity level recommendations. Twenty five percent of all Americans are completely sedentary. There has been a seventy-six percent increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 since 1990. Eighty percent of type II diabetes related to obesity. Seventy percent of cardiovascular diseases are related to obesity. Forty-two percent breast and colon cancer are diagnosed among obese individuals. Thirty percent of gall bladder surgeries are related to obesity.

People overweight and obese and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system. Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.

Should the Federal Bureaucracy Play a Role in Funding Higher Education?

In the United States, education is usually a State or local responsibility. Usually, states, communities, and public and private organizations establish schools and colleges, develop curriculum, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2011-2012, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 87.7 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources. Over the past decade, college tuition has increased an average of 4.9 percent per year, meaning that a student who paid $3,000 per year in tuition in 2000 would pay $4,840 in 2010 for the same education. The rising costs have created increasing concerns about how many middle-class families will be able to pay for their children’s higher education.

There has long been a debate on the issue of how big of a role the federal bureaucracy should play in funding higher education. To address educational the funding dilemma, some educational policy experts argue that the best way to is to increase the federal Department of Education’s role in providing student loans, Pell Grants, and other programs designed to help students finance their educational aspirations. The expert observers suggest that the federal bureaucracy has unique knowledge and resources in the area of educational policy that make it well-suited to providing and administering a wide array of higher education programs. Other observers believe that it should not be the federal bureaucracy’s responsibility to administer programs to defray the costs of higher education. They argue that the federal bureaucracy is already too big and that expanding the purview of the federal bureaucracy will negatively impact American society. With this comes the questions of whether or not the federal bureaucracy is qualified to distribute education benefits to all Americans, or if the Department of Education be responsible for assuring that higher education is affordable for all Americans, and If not, where the responsibility should fall.

People who argue for the federal bureaucracy’s role in funding higher education may say that only the federal bureaucracy is best suited to offer certain services, that that federal bureaucracy has a responsibility to help citizens, and that the federal bureaucracy does not focus on earning a profit. Those arguing against the federal bureaucracy’s role in funding education may believe private banks and corporations can provide services more efficiently and less expensively than the federal bureaucracy, that it is not the federal bureaucracy’s job to administer higher education programs, and that students already receive money from their education. In my opinion, the federal bureaucracy should concern itself with issues of education. Ensuring and securing the education of the nation’s youth plays an important role in building the nation’s future.

The United States Monetary Policy

Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability. The official goals usually include relatively stable prices and low unemployment. Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. It uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment. Where currency is under a monopoly of issuance, or where there is a regulated system of issuing currency through banks which are tied to a central bank, the monetary authority has the ability to alter the money supply and thus influence the interest rate.

Developing countries may have problems establishing an effective operating monetary policy. The primary difficulty is that few developing countries have deep markets in government debt. The matter is further complicated by the difficulties in forecasting money demand and fiscal pressure to levy the inflation tax by expanding the monetary base rapidly. In general, the central banks in many developing countries have poor records in managing monetary policy. This is often because the monetary authority in a developing country is not independent of government, so good monetary policy takes a backseat to the political desires of the government or are used to pursue other non-monetary goals. For this and other reasons, developing countries that want to establish credible monetary policy may institute a currency board or adopt dollarization. Such forms of monetary institutions thus essentially tie the hands of the government from interference and, it is hoped, that such policies will import the monetary policy of the anchor nation.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve is in charge of monetary policy, and implements it primarily by performing operations that influence short term interest rates. Following a series of financial panics and banking runs, Congress passed--and President Woodrow Wilson signed into law--the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. The law created the Federal Reserve System, comprising twelve public-private regional federal reserve banks. Today, the Federal Reserve is tasked with managing U.S. monetary policy, regulating bank holding companies and other member banks, and monitoring systemic risk. 

Is the War Powers Act Constitutional?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. Through the Constitution, Congress is given the authority to declare war, to make the rules that govern the military, and to provide appropriations to the armed services, but the Constitution also designates the president commander in chief of the armed services. There are many that argue that the president’s constitutional jurisdiction over war powers has steadily increased since the nation’s founding.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval. The Act was an attempt to rein in the war-making authority of the president by demanding, among other things, that the executive notify Congress within forty-eight hours after deploying the armed forces in combat. The stated purpose of the act was to “fulfill the intent of the framers . . . and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the president will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities . . . and to the continued use of such forces.” While generally complying with the requirements of the War Powers Act, every presidential administration since Nixon’s has argued that the act infringes on the president’s constitutional duty as commander in chief. Consequently, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act remains contested. Some constitutional scholars maintain that Congress is within its right to exercise oversight in foreign policy matters, reining in the executive where necessary. Other scholars side with executive-branch officials who consider the War Powers Act an infringement on the president’s constitutional authority.

            Usually those who would argue for the constitutionality of the War powers Act would argue that the Act attempts to restore the balance of shared control of the military. In addition, the United States has not officially declared war since World War II. The war powers act reflects the will of the American people. Those arguing against the constitutionality of the War Powers Act may suggest that the Constitution clearly defines the role of the president in foreign policy along with defining the role of Congress in military action. The Supreme Court has upheld an expanded interpretation of the president’s authority in matters of foreign policy. All presidents since Mr. Nixon have challenged the law's constitutionality, and its provisions requiring troop withdrawal have never been activated. The debate over the constitutional separation of powers concerning the use of armed force abroad during the past three decades has been unimpressive on both sides. Few commentators have taken the time to look seriously at the historical aspect of the problem, and some act as if the 1972-73 debates were an issue of first impression. Throughout most of our history, both Congress and the President understood that decisions regarding foreign affairs were different from domestic issues and were the province of the executive except in areas where the Constitution had made a clear exception. But by the early 1970s, the theoretical and textual basis of that distinction had apparently been forgotten at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Legislators and their advocates looked through the Constitution and discovered there was no mention of "national security" or "foreign affairs." The theory quickly emerged that there should be no difference between domestic and foreign affairs and Congress was the "senior partner" in making policy for both. 

The United States Meat Industry

The United States meat industry has drastically changed over the years. The former small food retailers, meat processors, and farms have banded together into fewer and larger businesses. These large businesses gradually began abuse the increasing control and power in politics they wielded. From the unsanitary meat produced to the extensive environmental abuse, these businesses are ultimately devastating the American people and the Earth. The consumers in the United States should be made aware of the negative health, environmental, and animal welfare impacts associated with meat production.  The meat industry targets a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on their business interests. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions, the industry has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years.

            The United States is faced with many diet related disease such as obesity, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. These diseases can be derived from several different factors, but consumption of the meat produced in “unsustainable manners” is certainly one of them. The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) reports “Diets high in red and processed meats have been found to be associated with greater mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer, and higher rates of Type 2 Diabetes” (PSR, 2009). Red meat consumed by American is often high in saturated fats, and can lead to a greater risk in heart disease and stroke. The high saturated fats in these animals can be attributed to the grains they are fed (corn, soy, etc.) Large corporations looking to make money quickly have decided it was easier, faster, and more cost-effective to feed their livestock grain as opposed to a more sustainable grass fed diet (PSR, 2009). The grain diet has caused animals to have less Vitamin E and C, beta-carotene, and omega-3 fatty acids compared to their grass fed counterparts (PSR, 2009).

In addition to an unhealthy diet for the livestock, the meat industry has gone so far as to use antibiotic treatments in their livestock. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), sixty thousand Americans die each year from antibiotic resistant disease (PSR, 2009). Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic (Science Daily, 2012). While this may be partially due to inappropriate use or over use of antibiotics in medicine by humans, it is mostly due to inappropriate use in agriculture. Eighty Percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are used in the non-therapeutic treatment on livestock (PSR, 2009).  Since the discovery of how daily doses of antibiotics would make animals gain three percent more weight than they otherwise would, farmers have increased their doses (PBS, 2012). They may add antibiotics through feed and water to prevent disease and promote growth (PSR, 2009). It is difficult to obtain accurate information on the amount of antibiotics given to food animals because the meat industry does not publicize its use of antibiotics. However, according to PBS, “Stuart B. Levy, M.D., who has studied the subject for years, estimates that there are 15-17 million pounds of antibiotics used sub-therapeutically in the United States each year” (PBS, 2012). The disease may originate from the overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions of the livestock (PSR, 2009). Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs) are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. CAFOs cluster animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area, not allowing animals to graze freely in open pastures (EPA, 2012). The habitual feeding of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease contributes to the presence of resistant bacteria (PSR, 2009). The increasing concern about the growing level of drug-resistant bacteria has prompted the European Union and Canada to ban sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in meat animals. In the United States however, such use is still legal. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests significantly curbing the use of antibiotics in the animals we eat to “reduce the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials in food animals for the protection of human health“(PBS, 2012).

There is also a large concern for the use of cloned and genetically engineered animals. In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the commercial sale of meat and milk from cloned animals.  Because of the increased medical problems associated with experiments of cloning, large amounts of hormones and antibiotics are administered to both the mothers and the clones (PSR, 2009). There have been few studies made to determine the health risks of consuming products from clones and their offspring. The genetically engineered animals have potential food safety risks including the introduction of new allergens into the food system, the continuation of bioactive proteins after digestion, and the creation of potentially toxic effects from novel protein expression (PSR, 2009). Consumption of products from clones and their offspring along with genetically engineered animals has not been thoroughly investigated, and may therefore pose a potential danger (PSR, 2009).

In addition to the health concerns to humans, the meat industry also poses a threat to the environment. According to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the meat in our diets has released more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. The FAO found that the current production levels of meat contribute between fourteen and twenty two percent of the thirty six billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year (Scientific American, 2009). The two main issued of livestock impact in water would be contamination and overuse. Leaking manure lagoons or runoff from manure fertilized fields enter streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, contaminating drinking water. Contaminated water can lead to diseases or death to those who drink it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), warned that “E. Coli, salmonella, and Giardia found in dairy cattle waste can contaminate drinking water and cause acute gastroenteritis, fever, kidney failure, and even death.” Overuse of water in livestock production has also created a large problem. Taking 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat, we are seriously abusing our resources. In addition, feeding the livestock grain products also contributes to overuse of water, the livestock feed of   soy and corn require heavy irrigation (PSR, 2009). Water is not the only resource we are taking advantage of, meat and land in general is being over used, and this ultimately is harming the environment. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), reports “A recent United Nations report concluded that a global shift toward a vegan diet is necessary to combat the worst effects of climate change” (PETA, 2012).

In addition to the meat industry’s negative effect on human health and our environment, their disregard for animal welfare is appalling. Most of our meat comes from CAFOs which make up only five percent of livestock operation but yet produce fifty percent of our food animals. They are designed to produce as much product possible for the lowest cost possible. To do this, they put animals in confined areas where they are often unable to act out innate behaviors, mate naturally, and because of stress and overcrowding, engage in aggressive behaviors that result in extreme action by farm operators. Their tight living conditions can lead to an increased risk of disease that can spread rapidly through their herd or flock (PSR, 2009).  In addition to confinement and concentration of animals, the cloning and genetic engineering is problematic. Cloned and genetically engineered animals often have health issues, with prenatal deaths as high as ninety percent (PSR, 2009).

Most of the companies involved in the meat business, including the big meatpackers, are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. They are a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in Washington. The health, environmental, and animal welfare problems associated with the meat industry have had an enormous impact on our world. From human diseases to the degrading environment to the unfair treatment of animals, we have dug a hole that will be difficult to get out of. The expanding meat industry in the United States seems to be harming more than improving the world. The enormous power they wield in the government makes it difficult for the people to try to make a change.

Rights of Workers of the Meat Industry

Civil rights are the government-protected rights of individuals against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by governments or individuals. Throughout history, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees have been the foundation of efforts to expand upon the original intent of the amendment. Building on the successes of African American and women, other groups including Hispanics, American Indians, Asian and Pacific Island Americans, gays and lesbians, and those with disabilities organized to appeal for expanded rights and to lobby for anti-discrimination laws. A newer group that has often been ignored or disregarded is the workers of the meat industry.

Working conditions in the U.S. meat industry are so hazardous and the tactics that employers use to prevent workers from organizing so threatening that the industry consistently violates basic human rights. Workers in American meat industries perform dangerous, physically demanding and exhausting jobs in bloody, greasy surroundings. The workers not only contend with abuses and an unprecedented volume and pace in sawing and cutting carcasses, but they also experience constant fear and risk, not only for their health and safety but for their jobs if they get hurt or attempt to organize.  Many of the workers are undocumented immigrants, so employers intimidate them by threatening to call immigration authorities. Many injured workers, who not uncommonly lose a limb or suffer severe life-threatening injuries, don't get workers' compensation when injured, and government laws, regulations and policies and enforcement fail to protect them.

The workers of the meat industry need to make a big statement in order to gain the rights that they have been deprived of. In order to do this, they must apply both political and economic pressure. One tactic that could be utilized would be to boycott the meat industry. If they promote their cause to gain more support, a strike against the meat industry would seriously hurt the business, and these large industries would have no choice but to make a change. The political pressure they could apply could be to constantly appeal to government officials, and try to gain some supporters who have positions in office. Through these actions, they can definitely make a change and get the rights they deserve.

The Right to Privacy

                The right to privacy is the right to be left alone. It was not derived directly from the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights. However, there are many indications within the Bill of rights that imply that the Framers had expected that some areas of life should be off limits to government regulation.  The right to exercise private, personal beliefs is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment. It implies that persons can be secure in their homes and should not fear that police will show up at their doorsteps without cause. The Third, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments also contain aspects protecting one’s right to privacy.

                Birth control has been a controversial topic for some time. Some states often barred the sale of contraceptives to minors, prohibited the display of contraceptives, or even banned their sale altogether. In Griswald v. Conneticuit, Griswold gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. She was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. It was finally decided that together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, created a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore null and void. Other rights to privacy include the right to have an abortion, and practice homosexual acts.

The Rights Of Criminal Defendants

                The rights of those accused of crimes are protected by Article I of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees writs of habeas corpus, court orders in which a judge requires authorities to prove that a prisoner is being held lawfully and that allow the prisoner to be freed if the judge is not persuaded by the government’s case. In addition, Article I prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. Ex post facto laws make an act punishable as a crime even if the action was legal at the time it was committed, and bills of attainder are laws declaring an act illegal without a judicial trial. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments expand on these rights with different guarantees.

                The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the court has generally refused to allow evidence seized in violation of this safeguard to be used at trial. Over the years, the Supreme Court-through a number of decisions-has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow the police to search the person arrested, things in plain view of the accused person, and places or things that the arrested person could touch or reach or are otherwise in the arrestee’s immediate control. A warrantless search could occur if the police suspect that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime. Searches can also be made without a warrant if consent is obtained. In a situation where no arrest occurs, police must obtain a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate before conducting further searches. Ultimately, the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to deny the national government the authority to make general searches.

                The Fifth Amendment imposes a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to the rights of persons suspected of committing a crime. It provides for indictment by a grand jury and protection against self-incrimination, and prevents the national government from denying a person life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. It also prevents the national government from taking property without just compensation. The right not to incriminate oneself means that criminal defendants do not have to take the stand at trial to answer questions, nor can a judge make mention of their failure to do so as evidence of guilt. In addition, prosecutors cannot use as evidence in a trial any of a defendant’s statements or confessions that were not made voluntarily. In Miranda v. Arizona, a man accused of rape was interrogated without being told his rights. After his conviction, his case was appealed on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself had been violated because his confession had been coerced. A confession obtained in this manner was not truly voluntary; thus, it was inadmissible at trial. The Fifth Amendment also includes the double jeopardy clause in which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

                The Sixth Amendment sets out the basic requirements of procedural due process for federal courts to follow in criminal trials. These include speedy and public trials, impartial juries, trials in the state where crime was committed, notice of the charges, the right to confront and obtain favorable witnesses, and the right to counsel. The provision of the right to counsel has been interpreted differently over time. Initially it only meant that an individual could hire an attorney to represent him or her in court. After Congress realized most defendants were too poor to afford an attorney, they required federal courts to provide an attorney to those who could not afford one. The Sixth Amendment also requires an impartial jury, although the meaning of impartial continues to evolve through judicial interpretation.

                The Eight Amendment prohibits states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments has been a concept rooted in the English common-law tradition. With this concept, comes the debate of whether the death penalty is constitutional. The people who are for the death penalty may argue that the availability of DNA testing and careful application of the rule of law can ensure that only guilty people are put to death, and that the death penalty is a cost effective way to deter capital offenses. People who are against the death penalty may argue that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, that there is a possibility that an innocent person may be put to death, and that the death penalty has been applied unevenly with respect to race and gender. However, as of now, the Eighth Amendment’s ban against “cruel and unusual punishments” has been held not to prohibit imposition of the death penalty.