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.