Congress Is The Most Unpopular Branch

Chapter 13 – Congress

Introduction
Congress is the most unpopular branch but also the most important one
To the Framers of the Constitution, the bicameral (two-chamber) Congress was the “first branch”
Expected Congress to wield most of the national government’s powers, including its most important ones like the “power of the purse” (encompassing taxation and spending decisions) and the ultimate authority to declare war
Understood Congress as essential to sustaining federalism (guaranteeing two senators to each state without regard to state population) and maintaining separation of powers (ensuring that no lawmaker be allowed to serve in either of the other two branches while n Congress)
Also viewed it as linchpin of system of checks
and balances, constitutionally empowered as it was both to override presidential vetoes and to determine the structure and the appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the one Supreme Court
Most Americans and experts think of Congress as not the first branch but as the broken branch
Unable to address the nation’s most pressing domestic, economic, and international problems
Unduly responsive to powerful organized special interests
Awash in nonstop campaign fundraising and other activities that many believe border on political corruption
Unlikely to fix itself through real reforms
Many analysts echo the popular discontent with Congress as the broken branch, but the experts focus more on two things; the first, a paradox, and the second a puzzle.
Paradox is that most Americans consistently disapprove of Congress yet routinely re-elect their own members to serve in it
The puzzle is why the post 1970 Congress has become ever more polarized by partisanship and divided by ideology, and whether this development reflects ever-widening political cleavages among average Americans, or instead constitutes a disconnect between the people and their representatives

Then
During 1890-1910, about 2/3 of all votes in Congress evoked a party split, and in several sessions more than half the roll calls found about 90% of each party’s members opposing the other party
During 1970s, such partisan polarization in Congress was very much the exception to this rule
Partisan Polarization: a vote in which a majority of Democratic legislators oppose a majority of Republican legislators
Well into the 1960s, Congress commonly passed major legislation on most issues on bipartisan basis, and there were liberal members and conservative members in leadership positions in both parties and chambers

Now
When 91st Congress ended in 1970, the more liberal half of the House had 29 Republicans and the more conservative half of the House had 59 Democrats.
By the time the 105th Congress ended in 1998, the more liberal half of the House had only en Republicans while more conservative had zero democrats
In the 2000s, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats became virtually extinct in both the House and the Senate
Eg: in 2010, the major health care reform bill proposed by Democrats passed in House without a single Republican member of House voting for it
Some scholars insist that the disappearing center in Congress reflects partisan and ideological divisions among average Americans, while other seem sure that we are instead witnessing a disconnect between a still nonideoligical and politically centrist mass public and its representative on Capitol Hill.
Whichever side is more right, three things remain clear:
First the Congress has never perfectly embodied the Founders’ fondest hopes for the first branch, not when the First Congress met in 1789; not during the decades before, during and just after the Civil War; not during the late 19th century through 1970; and certainly not since
Second, Congress is now home to ideologically distinct political parties that seem more unified than ever with respect to how their respective members vote, but the body still doesn’t come close to matching the near-total party unity that has been typical in the national legislatures of GB and other parliamentary
democracies
Third, Madison and other Framers expressly rejected a parliamentary system like GB’s in favour of a system featuring both a separation of powers and checks and balances

How things work - 328
The Powers of Congress
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises
To borrow money
To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states
To establish rules for naturalization (that is, becoming a citizen) and bankruptcy
To coin money, set its value, and punish counterfeiting
To fix the standard of weights and measures
To establish a post office and post roads
To issue patents and copyrights to inventors and authors
To create courts inferior to the Supreme Court
To define and punish piracies, felonies on the high seas, and crimes against the law of nations
To declare war
To raise and support an army and navy and make rules for their governance
To provide a militia (reserving to the states the right to appoint militia officers and to train the militia under congressional rules)
To exercise exclusive legislative powers over the seat of government (the District of Columbia) and other places purchased to be federal; facilities
To “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the execution the fore-going powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US.”

Congress VS Parliament
The US has a congress; GB has a parliament
A hint as to the difference between the two can be found in the original meanings
Congress derives from a Latin term that means “a coming together”, a meeting, as of representatives from various places.
Parliament comes from a French word, parler, that means “to talk”
There is still plenty of talking in the Congress, and certainly members of a parliament represent to a degree their local districts
But the differences implies by the names of the lawmaking groups are real ones, with profound significance for how laws are made and how the government is run
These differences affect two important aspects of lawmaking bodies: how one becomes a member and what one does as a member
Normally, a person becomes member of parliament by persuading a political party to put his or her name on a ballot
In the election, voters in the district choose not between two or three personalities running for office, but between two or three national parties
By contrast, a person becomes a canditiate for representative or senator in the US Congress by running in a primary selection
Except for a few exceptions, political parties execise little control over choice of who is nominated ro run for office
Voters select candidates in primaries because of their personalities, positions on issues, or overall reputation
As a result of the differences, parliament tends to be made up of people loyal to the national party leadership who meet to debate and vote on party issues, and a congress tends to be made up of people who think of themselves as independent representatives of their districts o r states and who, while willing to support their party on matters, expect to vote as their beliefs and interests require
0nce inside legislature, members of parliament discover they can make only one important decision – whether or not to support government
Parliamentary government consists of a PM and various cabinet officers selected from party that has most seats in parliament
As long as members of that party vote together, government will remain in power
Should members of a party in power decide to vote against their leaders, leaders lose office, and new government must be formed
Leaders of a party in parliament have a powerful incentive to keep followers inline
They insist that all members vote together; if someone refuses, party normally does not renominate the offending member in next election
Members of Congress do not select head of executive branch of government – that is done by voters when they choose a president
This makes them more powerful
Representatives and senators can vote on proposed laws without worrying their voters will cause the government to collapse and without fearing that a failure to support their party will lead to their removal from ballot next election
Congress has independent powers defined by Constitution, that it can exercise independent of presidential preferences
Because members of Congress are free of president, and not tightly disciplined by a party leadership, they are free to express their views and vote as they wish
A real parliament, such as in GB, is an assembly of party representatives who choose a government and discuss major national issues
Principal daily work is debate
Since MPs have little independent power, they get little in return. Poorly paid, may have no offices and no staff, etc.
A congress is a meeting place of the representatives of local constituencies – districts and states.
They can initiate, modify, approve, or reject laws, and they share with the president supervision of the administrative agencies of the government
They have high salary, generous health cae and retirement benefits, etc.
Shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that members of US congress are more concerned with their own constituencies and careers than with interests of any organized party or program of action
They know that worrying about voters they represent is much more important than worrying about whether the president succeeds with his programs
This means that Congress tends to be a decentralized institution, with each member more interested in their own views

The Evolution of Congress
Framers chose to make a Congress instead of a Parliament to avoid having all the power concentrated in a single government institution
Therefore, they created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature; with a House of Representatives, elected directly by the people, and a Senate, consisting of two members from each state, chosen by the legislatures of each state
Bicameral Legislature: a lawmaking body made up of two chambers or parts. Framers did not want to have all the power concentrated in a single governmental institution to avoid rule by an oppressive or impassioned majority (House of Representatives: elected directly by the people, and a
Though “all legislative powers” were vested in Congress, they would be shared with the president (who could veto acts of Congress), limited to powers explicitly conferred on the federal government, and, as it turned out, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional
For decades, critics of Congress complained that the body cannot plan or act quickly;
They are right, but two competing values are at stake: centralization versus decentralization
If Congress acted quickly and decisively as a body, then there would have to be strong central leadership, restrictions on debate, few stalling tactics opportunities, and minimal committee interference
If, on other hand, the interests of individual members – and constituencies they represent – were protected or enhanced, then would have to be weak leadership, rules allowing for delay and discussion, and many opportunities for committee activity
General trend has been toward decentralizing decision making and enhancing power of the individual member at expense of the congressional leadership
The HoR, though always powerful, often changed the way in which it is organized and led
In some periods, given its leader, the Speaker, lot of power; in other periods, given much of that power to chairs of the House committees; and other, has allowed individual members to acquire great influence
The House faces fundamental problems:
It wants to be big (has 435 members) and powerful, and its members want individual power and group powers. But being big makes it hard to be powerful unless some small group is given authority to run it
If a group runs the place, individuals lack much power
Individuals can gain power but at price of making House harder to run thus reducing collective power
Senate doesn’t face these problems
Small enough (100 members) to run without giving much authority to any small group
From the first, Senate was small enough that no time limits thad to be places on duration a senator could speak. This meant nothing like a Rules of Committee that controlled amount of debate
Senators weren’t elected by voters until 20th century; prior to which, they were picked instead by state legislatures
Big changes in Senate came from dispute over how its members should be chosen
For more than century after Founding, members of Senate chosen by state legislatures
Often intense political manoeuvring among leaders of factions, each struggling to vin the votes necessary to become senator
By end of 19th century, Senate known as Millionaires Club because number of wealthy party leaders and businessmen in it
Eventually, Senate finally agrees to a constitutional amendment that required a popular election of its members, and in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was approved by the necessary ¾ of the states
Ironically, no great change. Most original members regained votes
Other major issue in development of Senate was the filibuster
Filibuster is a prolonged speech, or series of speeches, made to delay action in a legislative assembly. It had become a common and unpopular feature of Senate life by end of 19th century.

Who is in Congress?
With power so decentralized in Congress, the kind of person elected to it is really important. Since each member exercises some influence, the beliefs and interests of each individual affect policy. Viewed simplistically, most members of Congress seem the same: typical representative or senator is a middle-aged white Protestant male lawyer. If all such persons usually thought and voted alike, that would be an interesting fact, but they do not, and so it is necessary to explore the great diversity of views among seemingly similar people.
Gender and Race
Gradually become less male and less white
Relatively small number of African Americans and Latinos in the House understates their influence, at least when the Democrats are in the majority.
Incumbency
Recent spike in first-termers in Congress is interesting, but most important change that has occurred in composition of Congress has been so gradual that most people haven’t noticed
In 2006 and 2010, there was an influx of freshmen members
But these periodic power-shifts accompanied by the arrival of scores of new faces in Congress should not obscure an important face that was documented by political scientists decades ago and is still true today;
Even in elections that result in the out party regaining power, most incumbent House members who seek re-election not only to win but win big in their districts.
While Senators have been somewhat less secure than House members, most Senate incumbents who have sought re-election have won it comfortably
House incumbents who seek reelection normally beat their opponents by 10 points or ore.
Political scientists call districts that have close elections (when winner gets less than 55% of vote) marginal districts and districts where incumbents win by wide margins safe districts
Party
Forty Congresses convened between 1933 and 2011. Democrats controlled both houses in 27 of these Congresses and at least one house in 30
In every election from 1968 to 1992, percentage of popular vote for Republican candidates to the House was higher than the percentage of House seats that actually went to the Republicans
Some argued that this gap occurred because Democratic-controlled state legislatures redrew congressional district maps in ways to make it hard for Republicans to win House seats
Partisan tinkering with district maps and their structural features of House elections isn’t a sufficient explanation of why Democrats dominated
To control redistricting process, one party must control both houses of the legislature, the governor’s office, and where necessary, the state courts.
These conditions simply don’t exist in most states
In the past, the Democratic party was more deeply divided than the Republicans because of the presence in Congress of conservative Democrats from the South
These southern Democrats often could vote with the Republicans in the House or Senate, thereby forming what came to be called the conservative coalition:
During the 1960s and 1970s, that coalition came together in about one fifth of all roll-call votes.
When it did, it usually won, defeating northern Democrats. But since the 1980s, and especially since the watershed election of 1994, the conservative coalition has become much less important
The reason is simple: southern Republicans have replaced many southern Democrats in Congress, and southern Democrats who remain are as liberal as northern Democrat.
The effect of this change is to make Congress, and especially the House, more ideologically partisan – Democrats are liberals, Republicans are conservatives – and this in turn helps explain why there is more party unity in voting – no matter which party is in charge.

Representation and Polarization
In a decentralized, individualistic institution such as Congress, it is not obvious how its members will behave. They could be devoted to doing whatever their constituents want, or since most voters are not aware of what their representatives do, act in accordance with their own beliefs, the demands of pressure groups, or the expectations of congressional leaders.
Members can influence legislation in many ways other than voting: they can conduct hearings, help mark-up bills in committee meetings, and offer amendments to the bills propose by others. A member’s final vote on a bill may conceal as much as it reveals: some members may vote for a bill that contains many things they dislike because it also contains few things they value
Representational View - reasonable assumption that members want to get reelected, and therefore they vote to please their constituents
This view has some merit under certain circumstances – namely, when constituents have a clear view on some issue and a legislator’s vote on that issue is likely to attract their attention
Such is often the case for civil rights laws: representatives with significant numbers of black voters in their districts aren’t likely to oppose civil rights bills; representatives with few African Americans in their districts are comparatively free to oppose such bills
From time to time, an issue arouses deep passions among voters, and legislators cannot escape the need to either vote as their constituents want, whatever their personal views, or as to anguish at length about which side of a divided constituency to support
You might think that members of Congress who won a close race in the last election would be especially eager to vote the way their constituents want
Research has shown this generally isn’t the case. There seem to be about as many independent minded members of Congress from marginal as from safe districts.
In general, problem with the representational explanation is that public opinion is not strong and clear on most measures on which Congress must vote
Many representatives and senators face constituencies that are divided on key issues
But power of interest groups to affect congressional cotes depends, among other things, on whether a legislator sees them as united and powerful or as disorganized and marginal
This doesn’t mean that constituents rarely have a direct influence on voting
Influence they have probably comes from the fact that legislators risk defeat should they steadfastly vote in ways that can be held against them by a rival in the next election
Organizational View - based on the assumption that since most constituents do not know how their legislature has voted, it is not essential to please them, but it is important to please fellow members of Congress
When voting on matters where constituency interests or opinions aren’t vitally at stake, members of Congress respond primarily to cues provided by their colleagues
This is the organizational explanation of their votes
Principal cue is party; as noted, what party a member of Congress belongs to explains more about their voting record than any other factor
Additional organizational cues come from opinions of colleagues, with whom member of Congress feels a close ideological affinity
Attitudinal View - based on the assumption that there are so many conflicting pressures on members of Congress that they cancel one another out, leaving them virtually free to vote on the basis of their own beliefs
There is evidence that the ideology of a member of Congress affects how they vote.
Congress has become increasingly ideological, that is, its members are more divided by political ideology than they once were.
According to attitudinal view, growing ideology and partisan splits among voters themselves have resulted in ever more partisan polarization among congressional leaders and senior members from safe districts where the only serious threats to an incumbent’s relection prospects are primary election challenges from the right or left.

The Organization of Congress: Parties and Interests
Party Organizations
The Senate
Majority party chooses usually person with greatest seniority to be president pro temper of the Senate
Usually an honorific position, required by Constitution so that senate will have a presiding officer when the VC of the States (according to Constitution, the president of Senate) is absent
Real leadership in hands of majority and minority leaders. Principal tasks of majority leader is to schedule the business of the Senate, usually in consultation with the minority leader
A whip, chosen by each party, helps party leaders stay informed about what the party members are thinking, rounds up members when important votes are taken, and attempts to keep a nose count of how voting on a controversial issue is likely to go
Each party also chooses a Policy Committee composed of a dozen senators who help party leader schedule Senate business, choosing what bills will be given attention
For individual senators however, key party organization is the group that assigns senators to Senate’s standing committees
Steering Committee: group that assigns senators to the Senate’s standing committees (this is the 22-member Democrat Committee)
Committee on Committees: group that assigns senators to the Senate’s standing committees (this is the 18-member Republican Committee)
House of Representatives
Party structure essentially same as Senate, with different titles
But, leadership carries more power in House because of the House rules.
The Speaker, who presides over the House, is most important person in that body and is elected by whichever party has a majority
This position is not merely honorific, because Speaker also the principal leader of the majority party
Though Speakers as presidents are expected to be fair, Speakers as party leaders are expected to use their powers to help pass legislation favoured by their party
They have informal powers
They decide who shall be recognized to speak on the floor of the House, rules weather a motion is relevant and relevant to the business at hand, and decide the committees to which new bills shall be assigned
They influence what bills are brought up for a vote and appoint the members of special and select committees
They also have informal powers
They control some patronage jobs in Capitol Building and assignment of extra office space
The Majority party elects a floor leader “majority leader”, and the other party chooses a “minority leader”
Each part has a whip
Party Voting
Effect of this elaborate part machinery can be crudely measured by extent to which party members vote together in House and
Senate
A party vote can be defined in various ways;
Two measures; by the stricter measure, party vote occurs when 90% or more of the Democrats in either house of Congress vote together against 90% or more of Republicans. A looser measure counts as a party vote any case where at least 50 of democrats vote together against at least 50% of Republicans
Congress member are not randomly Democrat or Republican, it reflects policy ideologies
Members may not have sufficient information, so naturally they look to fellow party members for direction
Supporting party position can, in the long-term, help members gain status and influence
Caucuses - an association of congressional members created to advance a political ideology or a regional, ethnic, or economic interest
Congressional caucuses are a growing rival to parties as source of policy leadership.
A caucus is an association of congressional members created to advance a political ideology or regional, ethnic, or economic interest

The Organization of Congress: Committees
Most important organizational feature of Congress is the set of legislative committees of the House and Senate
In the chairmanship of these committees, most of the power of the Congress is found
Number and jurisdiction of these committees are of the greatest interest to Congress members because decisions on these subjects determine what groups of legislators with what political views will pass on legislative proposals, oversee workings of agencies in the exec branch, and conduct investigations
There are three kinds of committees:
Standing Committees (more or less permanent bodies with specific legislative responsibilities)
Select Committees (groups appointed for a limited purpose, which do not introduce legislation and which exist only for a few years)
Joint committees (on which both representatives and senators serve)
Though members of the majority party could in theory occupy all the seats on all the committees, in practice they take the majority of seats, name a chairperson, and allow the minority party to fill in the remained of seats

How a Bill Becomes Law
Introducing a Bill
Any member of Congress may introduce a bill – in the House by handing it to a clerk or dropping it in a box; in the Senate by being recognized by the presiding officer and announcing the bill’s introduction
If a bill isn’t passed within one session of Congress, it is dead and must be reintroduced during the next Congress
Congress often initiates legislation (for example, most consumer and environmental laws), and even laws formally proposed by the president have often been incubated in Congress
Congress can also pass resolutions
Study By Committees
A bill is referred to a committee for consideration by either the Speaker of the House or Senate’s presiding officer
If a chairperson or committee is known to be hostile to a bill, assignment can be a crucial matter
Rules govern which committee get which bill, but sometimes a choice is possible
In the House, the Speaker’s right to make such a choice s an important source of his power
Simple Resolution: an expression of opinion either in the House or Senate to settle procedural matter in either body
Concurrent Resolution: an expression of opinion without the force of law that requires the approval of both the House and the Senate, but not the president
Joint Resolution: a formal expression of congressional opinion that must be approved by both houses of Congress and by the president; constitutional amendments need not be signed by the pre Appropriations Appropriations sident
Discharge Petition: a device by which any member of the House, after a committee has had the bill for 30 days, may petition to have it brought to the floor. If 218 members sign the petition can be voted on. If it passes, then the stalled bill goes directly to the floor for a vote
House Rules Committee: an arm of the party leadership, especially of the Speaker – reviews most bills and sets the rule/procedures under which they will be considered by the House. Though not as powerful as it once was, it can still block any House consideration of a measure) (traffic cop)
Restrictive Rule: an order from the House Rules Committee that permits certain kinds of amendments by not others to be made into a bill on the floor
Closed rule: an order from the House Rules Committee that sets a time limit on debate; forbids a bill from being amended on the floor
Open rule: an order from the House Rules Committee that permits a bill to be amended on the floor
Quorum: the minimum number of members who must be present for business to be conducted in Congress. This is half the membership (218)
Floor Debate
Once on floor, bills are debated
In the House all revenue and most other bills are discussed by the Committee of the Whole – that is, whoever happens to be on the floor at the time, so long as at least 100 members are present.
The Committee of the Whole can debate, amend, and generally decide the final shape of a bill, cannot technically pass it (which is done by the House itself)
Procedures more casual in Senate. Measures that have already been passed by House can be placed on Senate calendar without a committee hearing
There is no Committee of the Whole and no rule limiting debate, so that filibusters and irrelevant amendments, called riders, are possible.
Riders: amendments on matters unrelated to a bill that are added to an important bill so that they will “ride” to the passage through the Congress. When a bill has many riders, it is called a “Christmas-Tree Bill”
Filibusters can be broken if three-fifths of all senators agree to a cloture resolution
Cloture rule: a rule used by the Senate to end or limit debate
The increase in Senate filibusters has been made easier by a new process called double tracking
Double tracking: a procedure to keep the Senate going during a filibuster in which the disputed bill is shelved temporarily so that the Senate can get on with other business
Methods of Voting
Some observers of Congress make mistake of deciding who was for and who against a bill by final vote
Misleading; often, member of Congress will vote for final passage of a bill after having supported amendments that, if they had passed, would have made a bill totally different.
The House has three procedures for voting
Voice vote: a congressional voting procedure in which members shout “yea” in approval or “nay” in disapproval, permitting members to vote quickly or anonymously on bills
Division vote: a congressional voting procedure in which members stand and are counted
Roll-call Vote: a congressional voting procedure that consists of members answering “yea” or “nay” to their names
Voting in the Senate is simpler; it votes by voice call or by roll call; there are no teller votes or electronic counters
Teller vote: a congressional voting procedure in which members pass between two-tellers, the “yeas” first and the “nay’s” second
If a bill passes the House and Senate in different forms, the differences must be reconciled if the bill is to become a law
Once the bill is in final form, it goes to the president for signature or veto
Veto: literally “I forbid”: it refers to the power of the president to disapprove a bill; it may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. If both houses override, the bill becomes law without the president’s approval
Legislative Productivity
Political scientists have studied how productive Congress has been and whether post 9/11 Congress has performed especially well or poorly
First issue concerns how best to measure the body’s major and minor legislative productivity
Second issue is how best to evaluate changes in the legislation Congress produced from one time period to the next
Third issue is whether divided government decreases legislative productivity
Divided government: one party controls the White House and another party controls one of both houses of Congress
Divided government doesn’t inevitably lead to policy gridlock any more than having a unified government
Unified government: the same party control the White House and both houses of Congress
Fourth issue involves so called earmarks
Earmarks: “Hidden” congressional provisions that direct the federal government to fund specific projects or that exempt specific persons or groups from paying specific federal taxes or fees. They are legally binding, but few appear in a bill’s text; “hidden” in conference reports not subject to amendment
Fifth issue is how the post 9/11 Congress has legislated on matters directly relevant to homeland security, especially on its own
Reforming Congress
Over the last several years, many proposals have been made to reform and improve Congress. Some of these proposals have recently become law
Many would be reformers share the view that Congress is overstaffed and self-indulgent. It is, they complain, quick to impose new laws on cities, states, etc. but slow to apply these same laws to itself and its members.
It is quick to pass pork barrel legislation
Pork-barrel legislation: legislation that gives tangible benefits to constituents in several districts or states in the hope of winning their votes in return (highways, dams, post offices)
No perk is more treasured by members of Congress than the frank. Members of Congress are allowed by law to send material through the mail free of charge by substituting their facsimile signature for postage
But rather than sing this franking privilege to keep their constituents informed about the government, most members use franked newsletters and questionnaires as campaign literature
Franking privilege: the ability of members to mail letters to their constituents free of charge by substituting their facsimile signature for postage
Most members use franked newsletters and questionnaires as campaign
Thus the frank amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of member’ campaigns, a park that bolsters the election fortunes of incumbents

Chapter 14 – The Presidency

Presidents and Prime Ministers
Prime Minister is chosen by the legislature, not by the voters, and in turn selects the other ministers from the members of parliament
Prime Ministers are selected from people already in parliament- insiders
Presidents rarely are legislators before becoming president
Under constitution, no sitting member of Congress can hold office in executive branch
President’s party often does not have congressional majority, instead Congress is often controlled by opposing party – divided government

Presidents are often outsiders
People become president by winning elections, and sometimes winning is easier if ou can show voters that you aren’t part of “the mess in Washington”

Presidents choose cabinet members from outside the Congress
Under the Constitution, no sitting member of Congress can hold office in the exec branch.

Presidents have no guaranteed majority in the legislature
A president’s party often doesn’t have a congressional majority; instead, Congress often is controlled by the opposite party, creating a divided government.

Divided Government - a government in which one party controls the White House and a different party controls one or both houses of Congress (unified government: the same party controls White House and Congress)
Can produce partisan bickering, political paralysis, and policy gridlock
Gridlock: the inability of the government to act because rival parties control different parts of the government. It is a necessary consequence of representative democracy (system causes delays, compromises, coalition)
Divided government has done as well as a unified government in passing important laws, conducting important investigations, etc
Unified government is a “myth”, as partisanship can be divided too
Divided government made the 1948 Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe
Unified government did not agree with Clinton’s policy on gays in military

Is Policy Gridlock Bad?
We suspect that even Americans who hate gridlock and want more leadership aren’t ready to make sweeping constitutional changes or to stop voting for presidents and members from different parties
Suggests that we like idea of somebody being able to block a policy we don’t like, since all of us don’t like something, we all have an interest in some degree of gridlock

Powers of the President

Powers of President Alone
Powers shared with Senate
Powers shared with Congress as a whole
- Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces
- Commission officers of the armed forces
- Grant pardons for federal offences
- Convene Congress in special sessions
- Receive Ambassadors
- Take Care that the laws be faithfully executed
- Wield the “Executive Power”
- Appoint officials to lesser offices
- Make treaties
- Appoint ambassadors, judges, and high officials
- Approve legislation
Power of the president has grown, especially in war-time – to encompass the direction of the military forces, and management of the economy and the direction of foreign affairs
Greatest power of the president is in politics and public opinion
The American people (especially in times of crisis) look to President for leadership and hold him responsible for large portions of national affairs

The Electoral College
The people chosen to cast each state’s cotes in a presidential election. Each state can cast one electoral vote for each senator and representative it has. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, even though it cannot elect a representative or senator

The First Presidents
Those who first served as President were all active in the movement for independence or in the Founding, or in both
Establishing the legitimacy of the presidency was easy at first, as the national government had little to do (establish sound currency, settle debt accrued during the Revolutionary War)
1951, Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution: limiting all subsequent presidents to two terms

The Jacksonians
Broad changes began occurring roughly around the time Andrew Jackson was president (1829-1837). These changes altered relations between the president and congress
Jackson was elected as a military hero, and as the only official elected by the entire voting citizenry, he considered himself “The Tribune of the People”
He did not initiate many new policies, instead struck out against the ones he did not like (vetoed 12 acts of Congress, more than any previous combined)
Was a believer in a strong and independent presidency

The Reemergence of Congress
The end of Jackson’s second term brought Congress back to its power
Congress became leading institution, struggling with slavery/sectionalism
Only Lincoln broke new ground for presidential power
First elected in 1860 as a minority president
As President during the Civil War, he raised an army, blockaded southern ports, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves- all without congressional approval
After Lincoln, Congress reasserted its power (during Reconstruction and many decades after) and became the principal federal institution
Since 1930 however, the presidency has been powerful no matter who occupied the office, whether or not there was a crisis

The President’s Power to Persuade
Given the sketchy nature of the powers assigned to the President, it’s understood that he must rely heavily on the powers of persuasion to accomplish anything. This is where the Constitution provides him with some advantages:
He and VP only officials elected by whole nation, and he is the ceremonial head of state as well as the chief executive of the government
The president can use his national constituency and ceremonial duties to enlarge his power, but he must do so quickly: the second half of his first term in office will be devoted to running for re-election, especially if he faces opposition for his own party’s nomination

The Three Audiences
President’s persuasive powers aimed at three audiences
First – Washington audience of fellow politicians and leaders
Second – party activists and officeholders outside Washington – the partisan grassroots
Third – the public

Popularity and Influence
Object of all this talk is to convert personal popularity into congressional support for the president’s legislative programs (and improved chances for re-election)
President’s personal popularity may have a significant effect on how much of his program Congress passes, even if it doesn’t not affect the re-election chances of those members of Congress
Though they do not fear a president who threatens to campaign against them, they do have a sense that it is risky to oppose too adamantly the policies of a popular president
Politicians share a sense of common fate: they tend to rise or fall together
Presidential support rarely helps a particular member of Congress
Weakening party loyalty + enhanced ability of Congress members to build relationships with their constituents – has insulted congressional elections from presidential ones
The success of a president with Congress is determined by:
Success of “big bills” vs. “trivial bills” – bigger is better
Not taking a position on controversial measures
If a few bills he liked are passed, but most of the legislative program is bottled up by Congress, never to be voted on
“Honeymoon”: presidents popularity is highest right after an election
His ability to persuade is limited but important, but his bargaining chip is his ability to say no

The Power to Say No – Veto
If a president disapproves of a bill passed by both houses of Congress, he may veto it in two ways:
Veto message – a message from the president to Congress stating that he will not sign a bill it has passed. Must be produced within 10 days of the bill’s passage
Pocket veto – a bill fails to become law because the president did not sign it within 1 days before Congress adjourns
A bill not signed or vetoed within 10 days while Congress is still in session becomes law automatically, without the president’s approval
A bill returned to Congress with a veto message can be passed over the president’s objection if at least 2/3 of each house votes to override the veto (Congress rarely has the votes to override)
President must either accept or reject entire bill, and don’t have line-item veto power. Congress can take advantage of this by putting in items they wouldn’t otherwise approve
Line item veto – an executive’s ability to block a particular provision in a bill passed by the legislature

The Executive Privilege - the right to withhold information that Congress may want to obtain from the president or his subordinates. This claim is based on two grounds:
Separation of powers means that one branch does not have the right to inquire into the internal workings of another branch
Presidents have the right to obtain confidential and candid advice from subordinates
1974, Unites States v. Nixon: Supreme Court by a vote of 8-0, ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes and papers to the federal judge
1998 Clinton: federal courts held that these other officials with whom the Clinton had been close with, could not claim executive privilege

Signing Statements - a presidential document that reveals what the president thinks of a new law and how it ought to be enforced
To express presidential attitudes about the law
To tell the executive branch how to implement it
To declare that the president thinks some part of the law is unconstitutional

The Office of The President
Presidential appointment can be classified in terms of their proximity, physical and political, to the president
The White House
Offices in the West Wing, with titles that do not reveal the function they perform: “counsel”, “assistant to the…” and “special consultant”
In general: oversee the political and policy interests of the president
These aides do not have to be confirmed by the Senate
Pyramid Structure: a president’s subordinates report to him through a clean chain of command (hierarchy) headed by a chief of staff
Provides an orderly flow of information and decisions, but does so as the risk of isolating or misinforming the president
Circular structure: several of the president’s assistants report directly to him
Has the virtue of giving the president a great deal of information, but at the price of confusion and conflict among cabinet secretaries and assistants
Ad hoc structure: several subordinates, cabinet officers, and committees report directly to the president on different matters
Allows great flexibility, minimizes bureaucratic inertia, and generates ideas and information from disparate channels, but it risks cutting the president off from the government officials who are ultimately responsible for translating presidential decisions into policy and action
It is common for president’s to mix systems
Difficulty of managing large White House bureaucracy with limited time and energy makes relying on key subordinates heavily necessary
Typically, senior White House staff are drawn from the president’s campaign, and longtime associate
Those close to president influence him, thus embedding their beliefs and goals in policy

The Executive Office of the President
Agencies in the exec office report directly to the president and perform staff services for him bt aren’t located in the White House itself
The top positions in these organizations are filled by presidential appointment, and must be confirmed by the Senate
Of all the offices, the Office of Management and Budget is the most important in terms of the president’s need for assistance in administering the federal government
It studies the organization and operations of the executive branch, devises plans for reorganizing various departments and agencies, develops ways of getting better information about Gov. programs, and reviews proposals that cabinet departments want included in the president’s legislative program

The Cabinet
By custom, cabinet officers are the heads of the 15 major executive departments
The president appoints or directly controls vastly more members of his cabinet departments than the British PM
President must struggle with Congress for control of these agencies, while the PM has no rival branch of government that seeks this power

The Independent Agencies, Commissions, and Judgeships
President appoints to agencies and commissions that are not part of the cabinet- quasi-independent status
The different between executive and independent agencies:
The heads of executive agencies serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed at his discretion
The heads of independent agencies serve for fixed terms of office and can be removed only “for cause”
The president can appoint federal judges, subject to the consent of the Senate. Judges serve for life unless removed by impeachment and conviction (they represent an independent branch of government, so limits on presidential removal power is necessary for independence)
Acting appointments. And acting appointee holds office until the Senate acts on his or her nomination

Who Gets Appointed
Presidents cabinet officers and their principal deputies come from private businesses, universities, think tanks, law firms, labor unions, etc
Recently, presidents have placed in their cabinets experts with administrative experience, rather than for their political following
Important need for president to recognize and represent various politically important groups, regions, and organizations
White house Staff see themselves as extensions of the president’s personality and policies, department heads see themselves as repositories of expert knowledge – RIVALRY

The Presidents’ Program – Putting together a program
To develop policies on a short notice, a president will draw on several sources, each with particular strengths and weaknesses:
Interest Groups
Strength: will have specific plans and ideas
Weakness: will have narrow view of the public interest
Aides and campaign advisers
Strength: will test new ideas for their political soundness
Weakness: will not have many ideas to test; inexperienced in government
Federal bureaus and agencies
Strength: will know what is feasible in terms of governmental realities
Weakness: will propose plans that promote own agencies and will not have good information on whether plans will work
Outside, academic, and other specialists and experts
Strength: will have many general ideas and criticisms of existing programs
Weakness: will not know the details of policy or have good judgement as to what is feasible
Essentially two ways for a president to develop a program
Have a policy on almost everything.
Concentrate on three or four major initiatives or themes and leave everything else to subordinates
President must judge public and congressional reaction to this program before he commits himself fully to it (second method to develop a program)
Three constraints on his ability to plan a program
1. Limit of his time and attention span
2. Unexpected crisis (Obama campaigned against war in Iraq, but was forced to focus on economy)
3. Federal government/Federal programs can only be changed marginally
These constraints mean the president must be selective
Recent decades: much of his time and resources focused on: the state of the economy, and foreign affairs
Opinion Polls are important
Trustee approach (politicians): do what the public good requires
Delegate approach (politicians): do what your constituents want you to do

Attempts to Reorganize Executive Branch
Constant in presidential agenda: attempting to reorganize executive branch
Bush created new White House Office of Homeland Security (3rd largest cabinet department, encompassing 22 federal agencies)
If a president needs something done, it is often easier to create a new agency or reorganizing an old one, than it is abolishing a program or firing subordinates
Legally he can reorganize White House staff anytime he wishes, but if it is reorganizing in an important way Congress must be consulted
Legislative Veto: the authority of Congress to block a presidential action after it has taken place. The Supreme Court has held that Congress does not have this power. So today any presidential reorganizing plan would have to take the form of a regular law
Actual power of the president can only be measured in terms of what he can accomplish

Presidential Transition
Only Franklin Roosevelt has served more than two terms
Of the 8 presidents who died in office, 4 were assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy)
The Vice President
Vice president has automatically become president in title and in power, when the occupant of the White House has died or resigned
A rather empty job, only official task is to preside over the Senate and to vote in case of a tie (leadership powers in Senate weak, especially in divided government)
Succession
VP serves as “acting president” when president declares he is unable to discharge powers and majority of cabinet declares president is incapacitated. If president disagrees, Congress decides (2/3 vote)
VP acting then nominates a new VP and then confirmed by Congress
Impeachment: charges against a president approved by a majority of the House of Representatives
To be removed from office, impeached officer must be convicted by 2/3 vote of the Senate (presided over by Chief Justice)
Only 2 presidents have been impeached (neither convicted), Andrew Johnson 1868 and Bill Clinton 1998. Nixon would have been but resigned first
Johnson: political reasons, radical Republicans wanted to punish south after Civil War
Clinton: charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power
Standing in opinion polls actually went up
Hard to investigate high officials (president) when the attorney general (who does most investigations) is part of the presidents team
Less Congress do it (but even they may be under presidents party)

The federal government as a whole has become more constrained, so it isles able to act decisively. Presidents have come to acquire certain rules of thumb for dealing with their political problems. Among them are:
Move it or lose it (get it done early in the term)
Avoid details (better to have 3 or 4 top priorities)
Cabinets don’t get much accomplished; people do

Chapter 15 – The Bureaucracy

Introduction
Bureaucracy is a large, complex organization composed of appointed officials
Authority is divided among several managers; no one person is able to make all the decisions.
Many of the problems we blame on the bureaucracy, are in fact the result of what Congress, the courts, and the president do

Distinctiveness of the American Bureaucracy
In the US, three aspects of the constitutional system and political traditions to the bureaucracy a distinctive character
First, political authority over the bureaucracy is not in one set of hands but is shared among several institutions
Second, most of the agencies of the federal government share their functions with related agencies in the state and local government
Third, the institutions and traditions of American life have contributed to the growth of what some writers have described as an “adversary culture”, in which the definition and expansion of personal rights, the defence of rights, and claims through lawsuits as well as political action, are given central importance

The Federal Bureaucracy Today
The power of the bureaucracy depends on the extent to which appointed officials have discretionary authority – the ability to choose courses of action and to make policies not spelled out in advance by laws
The power of the federal bureaucracy has grown enormously. Congress has delegated substantial authority to administrative agencies in three areas
1) Paying subsidies to particular groups and organizations in society (farnersm veterans, scientists, etc)
2) Transferring money from the federal government to state and local governments
3) Devising and enforcing regulations for various sectors of society and the economy

Chapter 16 – The Judiciary

Introduction
Federal judiciary has played an increasingly important role in making public policy

Judicial Review
One aspect of the power of the federal courts is judicial review – the right of the federal courts to declare laws of Congress and acts of the executive branch void and unenforceable if they are judged to be in conflict with the Constitution

The Power of the Federal Courts – The Power to Make Policy
Courts make policy whenever they reinterpret the law or the Constitution in significant ways, extend the reach of existing laws to cover matters, not previously thought to be covered by them, or design remedies for problems that involve the judges’ acting in administration or legislative ways.
By any of these tests, the courts have become exceptionally powerful

Chapter 15: The Bureaucracy
Distinctiveness of American Bureaucracy
Political authority over the bureaucracy is not in one set of hands but is shared among several institutions
Constitutions permits both the president and Congress to exercise authority over the bureaucracy
Every senior appointed official has at least two masters:
One in the executive branch
One in the legislative branch
Often there is more than two as Congress is not a single organization but a collection of committees, subcommittees, and individuals
This divided authority encourages bureaucrats to play branches against the others and makes heavy use of the media
Most agencies of the federal government share their functions with related agencies in state and local governments
Internal revenue service (IRS) collects taxes from citizens, FBI looks into crimes for them, and Postal service delivers mail to them
The institutions and traditions of American life have contributed to the growth of what some writers call an “adversary culture” in which the definition and expansion of personal rights, and the defense against rights and claims through lawsuits as well as political action, are given central importance. Government agencies under heavy public scrutiny
Government by proxy: Washington pays state and local governments and private groups to staff and administer federal programs
Voters elect legislators who make the laws, but bureaucrats often pay other people to do the work (including state/local government, business firms, NPOs)
Programs run this way include Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, and even many military duties
Critics of this system argue it does not keep track of how the money we send to public and private agencies is used. President and Congress likes to keep federal bureaucracy small by giving jobs to people not on the federal payroll
Defenders of this system claim that the system produces more flexibility, takes advantage or private and nonprofit skills, and defends the principle of federalism embodied in our constitution
Growth of the Bureaucracy
Appointment of Officials
Because Congress was dominant branch of government for most of 19th and 20th century, congressional preference often controls appointment of officials
Congress is a collection of people representing local interest, appointments were made with rewarding local supporters of members of congress
Political appointment based on patronage became serious issue
Between 1816-1861, increase in federal employees was significant, Post Office accounted for 86% of growth
Civil War created many new offices as well
War was followed by rapid industrialization period, and these developments could not longer be managed by state governments alone
Creation of railroads, commerce among states, national economy
Service Role
1861-1901, 200,000 new federal employees, 50% due to Post Office
Pension plan began paying benefits to Civil War veterans
Department of Agriculture and Department of Labor became prominent
Role was agencies was primarily to serve, not to regulate
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created in 1887, federal government began to regulate economy
Commitment to laissez-faire was strongly held
Laissez-faire: an economic theory that government should not regulate or interfere with commerce
Gave Congress the power to regulate commerce among states
Reasons for service role: Values shaping the constitution were strong: belief in limited government, importance of states’ rights, and the fear of concentrated discretionary power
During wartime, almost every government agency argues its activities have some relation to the war effort, and wouldn’t want to vote against that effort
Change in Role
Today’s bureaucracy is a product of two events:
The Depression of the 1930s (New Deal program- Roosevelt)
World War II
Basic features of bureaucracy were set as a results of changes in public attitude and constitutional interpretation during these periods
Government now expected to play a role in economic/social programs
In 1930s, Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions, and upheld laws by which Congress merely instructs agencies to make decisions that “serve the public interest”
World War II
First occasion where the government made heavy use of federal income taxes on individuals and corporations, to finance its activities
Between 1940-45 total federal tax collections increased from $5billion to $44billion
End of the war brought no substantial tax reduction: country believed high level of military preparedness was necessary, and various social programs created during wartime should continue to be funded
WWII created first great financial boom for the government
September 11
Created new cabinet agency: Department of Homeland Security
Federal Bureaucracy Today
Excluding Postal work, roughly 2 million persons
Neglects roughly 13 million who work indirectly for Washington as employees of private firms or state/local agencies that are largely or entirely supported by federal funds
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) grew 90% from 1990-2009
The power of the bureaucracy depends on the extent to which appointed officials have discretionary authority
Discretionary authority: the extent to which appointed bureaucrats can choose courses of action and make policies not spelled out in advance by laws
The volume of regulations issued has risen must faster than the rate of government spending and the number of federal employees who write the regulations and spend the money
By this test, the power of the federal bureaucracy has grown enormously

Congress has delegated substantial authority to administrative agencies in three areas:
1. Paying subsidies to particular groups and organizations in society (farmers, veterans, scientists, schools)
2. Transferring money from the federal government to state and local governments
3. Devising and enforcing regulations for various sectors of society and the economy
How appointed officials use their power depends on 4 factors:
1. Manner in which they are recruited/rewarded
2. Personal attributes (socioeconomic background, political attitudes)
3. Nature of their job
4. Constraints that outside forces impose on their agency (interest groups, legislators, political superiors)
Recruitment and Retention
Federal civil service program designed to recruit based off merit, not patronage, and retain/promote employees based off performance, not political favoritism
Competitive service: the government offices to which people are appointed on the basis of merit, as ascertained by a written exam or by applying certain selection criteria (administered by Office of Personal Management OPM)
When competition exists, appointment must be one of top 3 scores
In recent years, competitive service system has become decentralized, so that each agency now hires its own people without an OPM referral
OPM system was often not relevant to the complex needs of departments
Agencies has a need for more professionally trained employees (lawyers, engineers, computer specialists) who could not be ranked on basis of some standard exam
Civil rights groups pressed Washington to make the racial composition of bureaucracy resemble racial composition of US
Employees hired outside of the competitive service are part of the excepted service
This now makes up almost half of all workers
Typically hired in a nonpartisan fashion
3% of excepted employees are appointed on grounds other than or in addition to merit. These legal exceptions exist to permit the president to select, for policymaking ad politically sensitive posts, people who are in agreement with his policy views
Presidential appointments authorized by statute
“Schedule C” appointments to jobs described as having “confidential or policy-determining character”
Non-career executive assignments (NEAs) given to high-ranking members of the regular competitive civil service or to person brought into the civil service at these high levels
These constitute the patronage available to the president
1883, Pendleton Act: begun a slow but steady transfer of federal jobs from the patronage to the merit system, passed by Republicans
Public outrage over the abuses of the spoils system (assassination of Garfield)
The fear that if the Democrats came to power on a wave of anti-spoils sentiment, existing Republican officeholders would be fired
By increasing coverage of the merit system, president could “blanket in” patronage appointees already holding office, making it difficult for the next administration to fire them
THE BUDDY SYSTEM
Name-request job: a job filled by a person whom an agency has already identified
In this respect, federal government very similar to private businesses
Agency must still send a form to the OPM, but is done in a way that the person named is the only one who will qualify
Political supported taken care of, hire people with similar policy views
“Old Boys network” moving in and out of high-level positions
FIRING A BUREAUCRAT
Very elaborate and time consuming process to fire
Federal executives bypass the system or force out civil servants by:
Denying them promotion
Transferring them to undesirable locations
Assignment them to meaningless work
Civil Service Reform Act 1978: congress recognized many high-level positions have important policy-making responsibilities and the president and cabinet needed more flexibility in recruiting/hiring
Act created the Senior Executive Service (SES): 8,000 top federal managers who can be hired, fired, and transferred more easily than ordinary civil servants. Members would be given bonus’ based on performance, and if fired were guaranteed position elsewhere in government
AGENCIES POINT OF VIEW
Most government agencies are dominated by people who have not served in any other agency + work for government service for a while
Advantages: top-tier bureaucrats are experts, and there will be high continuity despite which party is in power
Disadvantages: must win support of career subordinates, as subordinates have infinite capacity for discreet sabotage
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES
Social class, education, personal political beliefs
Minorities are heavily represented in the lowest grade levels and tend to be underrepresented at the executive level
Bureaucrats policy views seem to reflect the type of government work that they do
SABOTAGING POLITICAL BOSSES
While some will drag their heals if they don’t like their boss, most bureaucrats try to carry out the policies of their superiors even when they personally disagree with them
People can leak stories to Congress or the media, help interest groups mobilize against the agency head, and discover many procedural reason why new courses of action wont work
Whistle Blower Protection Act 1989: the law created the Office of Special Council, charged with investigating complaints from bureaucrats that they were punished after reporting to Congress about waste, fraud, or abuse in their agencies
Civil servants performing tasks that are routine, closely defined by laws and rules, or tasks that are closely monitored by others, will probably perform them in ways that can only be partially explained by their personal attitude
CULTURE AND CAREERS
Government bureaucrats in typical agencies don’t have a lot of freedom to choose a course of action (rules, laws, and routines)
Also by the informal understanding among fellow employees as to how they are supposed to act- culture of the agency
The Jobs that are career enhancing are part of the culture; the jobs that are not career enhancing (NCE) are not part of it
Strong culture makes it hard to change an agency
CONSTRAINTS
Biggest different from government agency and private organization
Typical government bureau cannot hire, fire, build, or sell without going through procedures set down in laws
How much money it pays members is determined by stature, not market
One of the biggest constraints on bureaucratic action is that Congress rarely gives any job to a single agency (EX: drug trafficking- Customs service, FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, etc)
Effects of these constraints
Government will often act slowly
Government will sometimes act inconsistently
It will be easier to block action than to take action
Lower-ranking employees will be reluctant to make decisions on their own (avoid trouble, let your boss deal with it)
Citizens will complain of red tape

Why are there so many Constraints on government agencies?
Many different goals and the complexity of the rules they must follow
Politics does not encourage people to make trade-offs; instead it encourages us to expect to get everything all at once
Iron Triangle: a close relationship between an agency, a congressional committee, and an interest group
An example of client politics
Department would do what the committee wants and in return get political support from an agency; the committee would do what the interest group wanted and in return get votes and campaign contributions
Many agencies have important allies in Congress and the private sector, especially those bureaus that serve the needs of specific sectors of the economy or regions in the country
Much less common today than once was the case
Number of variety of interest groups has grown so much that agencies almost always are subject to pressures from several competing interests instead of only one powerful interest
Growth of subcommittees in Congress has meant most agencies are subject to control by many different legislative groups, often with very different concerns
Courts have made it easier for all kinds of individuals and interests to intervene in agency affairs
Now: government agencies face a variety of competing groups and legislative subcommittees that constitute a fiercely contentious collection of critics
Hugh Heclo described typical government agency today as being embedded in an issue network instead of an iron triangle
Issue network: a network of people in Washington D.C. – based interest groups, on congressional staffs, in universities and think tanks, and in the mass media, who regularly discuss and advocate public policies
Networks are controversial, split along political, ideological, and economic lines
When president takes office, he recruits key agency officials from those members of the issue-network for sympathy to his views
Congressional Oversight
Main reason some interest groups are important to agencies is because they are important to Congress (access to Congress)
Congressional supervision of the bureaucracy:
No agency may exist (exception of few presidential offices) without congressional approval
No money may be spent unless it has first been authorized by Congress
Authorization legislation: legislative permission to begin or continue a government program or agency: states the maximum amount of money that an agency may spend on a given program
Even funds that have been authorized by Congress cannot be spent unless they are also appropriated. Appropriations usually are made annually, and originate with the House Appropriations Committee
Appropriation: a legislative grant of money to finance a government program or agency; money formally set aside for a specific use (often for less than amount authorized)
The Appropriations Committee and Legislative Committees
Agency budget must be authorized and appropriated- means each agency serves several congressional masters
Appropriation Committee:
Tends to recommend less money than agency requested
Marking up (revising/approving) agency budget gives it influence over the policies the agency follows
Has lost much power over government agency by:
Congress created trust funds to pay for benefits
Trust funds: funds for government programs collected and spend outside the regular government budget (Appropriation committee has no control over these expenditures)
Congress has changed authorization of many programs from permanent or multiyear- to annual authorizations
Huge budget deficits during 1980s and 2000s has meant much of Congress’s time has been taken up with keeping spending down (focus on target spending limit not merits of each agency)
Committee Clearance: the ability of a congressional committee to review and approve certain agency decision in advance and without passing a law
Although not legally binding, few agency heads will ignore the expressed wish of a committee chair that he or she be consulted before certain actions are taken
Legislative Veto: the authority Congress to block and presidential action after it has taken place. The Supreme Court has held that Congress does not had this power (Chadha decision)

Congressional Investigation
Congress may compel a person to attend an investigation by issuing a subpoena; anyone who ignores the subpoena may be punished for contempt
Congress can vote to send the person to ail or can refer the matter to a court for further action
Bureaucratic “Pathologies”
Five Major Problems with Bureaucracies
Red tape: complex bureaucratic rules and procedures that must be followed to get something done
Conflict: exists because some agencies work at cross-purposes
Duplication: two government agencies seem to be doing the same thing
Imperialism: tendency of agencies to grow without regard to the benefits that their program confer or the costs they entail
Waste: spending more than is necessary to buy some product or service
Most of these problems exist because of the nature of government itself
Reforming the Bureaucracy
National Performance Review (NPR): “reinvent government” led by Al Gore VP
Emphasized customer satisfaction (citizens who come into contact with federal agencies)
Called for less centralized management and more employee initiative, fewer detailed rules and more emphasis on customer satisfaction
NPR reinforced by Government Performance and Results Act 1993 (GPRA) requiring agencies to “set goals, measure performance. And report results”
Bush built on this with Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART): to link management reform to the budget process
Rivalry between president and Congress over control of the bureaucracy makes bureaucrats nervous about irritating either, so they issue rules designed to avoid getting into trouble
Divided government worsens this
Executive micromanagement: presidents of one party have tried to increase political control over the bureaucracy
Legislative micromanagement: Congresses of another party have responded by increasing the number of investigations and detailed rule making.
A weak, divided bureaucracy (US) and its inefficiencies may help protect our liberties

Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy: a country’s official position, practices, and procedures for dealing with actors outside its borders
Isolationism: a foreign policy view that nations should stay out of international political alliances and activities, and focus on domestic matters
Interventionism: a foreign policy view that the United States should actively engage in the affairs of other nations in order to try to shape events in accordance with U.S. interests
Intergovernmental organizations: bodies, such as the United Nations, whose members are countries
Nongovernmental organization: organizations comprising individuals or interest groups from around the world focused on a special issue
Multinational corporations: large companies that do business in multiple countries
Cold War: the half-century of competition and conflict after WWII between the US and the Soviet Union (and its allies)
Containment: the US Cold War policy of preventing the spread of communism
Bush Doctrine: policy that supports preemptive attacks as a legitimate tactic in the US war on state-sponsored terrorism
Crisis policy: foreign policy, usually made quickly and secretly, that responds to an emergency threat
Strategic policy: foreign policy that lays out a country’s basic stance toward international actors or problems
Structural defense policy: foreign policy dealing with defense spending, military bases, and weapons procurement
Truman Doctrine: policy of the US starting in 1947 that the US would aid free peoples to maintain their freedom in the face of aggressive communist movements
National Security Council (NSC): organization within the Executive Office of the President that provides foreign policy advice to the president
Department of State: the executive department charged with managing foreign affairs
Department of Defense: the executive department charged with managing the country’s military personnel, equipment, and operations
Joint Chiefs of Staff: the senior military officers from four branches of the US armed forces
Intelligence community: the agencies and bureaus responsible for obtaining and interpreting information for the government
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): the government organization that oversees foreign intelligence gathering and related classified activities
Director of National intelligence: overseer and coordinator of the activities of the many agencies involved in the production and dissemination of intelligence information in the US government, as well as the president’s main intelligence
Department of Homeland Security: the executive department meant to provide a unifying force in the efforts of the government to prevent attacks on the US and to respond to such attacks through law enforcement and emergency relief should they occur
Hegemon: the dominant actor in world politics
Internationalism: a foreign policy based on taking an active role in global affairs; the predominant foreign policy view in the US today
Free trade: economic system by which countries exchange goods without imposing excessive tariffs and taxes
Protectionism: the imposition of trade barriers, especially tariffs, to make trading conditions favorable to domestic producers
International Monetary Fund (IMF): economic institution that makes short-term, relatively small loans to countries to help balance their currency flows
World Bank: economic institution that makes large, low-cost loans with long repayment terms to countries, primarily for infrastructure construction or repairs
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): a series of agreements on international trading terms; now known as the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Most favored nation: the status afforded to WTO trading partners; a country gives the same “deal” to member nations that it offers to its “most favored” nation
Deterrence: maintaining military might so as to discourage another actor from taking a certain action
Compellence: using foreign policy strategies to persuade, or force, an actor to take a certain action
Coercive diplomacy: the calibrated use of threats of the use of force aimed to make another actor stop or undue an aggressive action
Preventive War: to use force without direct provocation in order to assure that a chain of events does not unfold that could put you at immediate risk at some later date
Propaganda: the promotion of information, which may or may not be correct. Designed to influence the beliefs and attitudes of a foreign audience
Diplomacy: the formal system of communication and negotiation between countries
Covert operations: undercover actions in which the prime mover country appears to have had no role
Foreign aid: assistance given by one country to another in the form of grants or loans
Marshall Plan: America’s massive economic recovery program for rebuilding war torn Western Europe following WWII
Economic Sanctions: restrictions on trade imposed on one country by another state or group of states, usually as a form of punishment or protest
Embargo: the refusal by one country to trade with another in order to force changes in its behavior or to weaken it
Nuclear triad: the military strategy of having three-pronged nuclear capability= land, sea, and air
Peace dividend: the expectation that reduced defense spending would result in additional funds for another program
Terrorism: an act of violence that targets civilians for the purpose of provoking wide-spread fear that will force government to change its policies
Weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons that can kill huge numbers of people at one time
Superterrorism: the potential use of weapons of mass destruction in a terrorist act
Rogue states: countries that break international norms and produce, sell, or use WMD’s
Antiterrorism: measures to protect and defend US citizens and interests from terrorist attacks
Counterterrorism: activities to stop terrorists from using force and responding when they do
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): multinational organization formed in 1949 to promote the Cold War defense of Europe from the communist bloc