Last week, Congress (finally) passed a budget. The 2-year budget is set to increase the nation’s debt by at least an additional $300 billion over the next two years, but at least there’s a long-term budget. However, not everyone is happy, and rightly so. The bill was passed swiftly, and as with the Affordable Care Act which Pelosi told citizens had to be “passed so we can see what’s in it,” the budget still holds surprises, even for those who voted on it. Representative Dave Brat, a Republican Congressman from Virginia, does not seem pleased. He said that even after having voted on (and passed) the budget, he is still finding surprises “buried” within the bill. Brat has endorsed what is commonly know as a ‘single subject rule’ for bills …show more content…
Sometimes, those amendments or additions serve to clarify or modify something actually in the bill, and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, other times, the additions to the bill have little to nothing to do with the task at hand. Much of the time, the additions on budget bills include spending for pet projects, or preservation of spending that is not useful (such as money being spent on M1A2 Abrams tanks the Army doesn’t need, for example.) It’s a dishonest and shady practice to say the least, and it has nothing to do with making America better. Most of the time, attaching amendments to bills is done because people know that what they’re proposing would NEVER pass if it were not attached to something that was almost sure to pass. A single-subject rule would have the impact of forcing bills to only be amended on the topic, which would make it easier for the average citizen to understand what the bills say. Such a rule could, conceivably, even cut down on pork spending, as it would become easier than ever to highlight absurd spending in
We see a great example of this in the article providing for the judicial branch. "The article is now over a dozen pages long, and most of the changes that have been made are of the type that would have been unnecessary had the framers of the constitution stayed with fundamentals, as did the framers of the United States Constitution. The judicial article of the United States Constitution is printed on one page." (Riethmayer, 1941) If the constitution were to be rewritten to be less wordy and provide more of a framework it would be beneficial for running the government under it and accommodating to the ever-changing and growing state of Texas.
The United States Constitution contains the “Necessary and Proper Clause” which grants Congress the power to enact statutory laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out the enumerated powers (US Const. art I, sec. 8, claus. 18). Texas has no equivalent to the “Necessary and Proper Clause” in its constitution. This limits the legislature to powers only specifically written, and thus driving the requirement for frequent constitutional amendments for even minor legislative changes.
This statement only says that the power has been designated to Congress. It does not stipulate how to use this power nor does it give instructions for the budgeting process. Even as the role of government continued to expand, there was still no procedure for drafting and implementing a budget. It became clear that this lack of protocol hindered Congress’s ability to govern the budget. As a result, Congress forged its own budget process. Congress has passed many acts and amendments, but to no avail because the process still lacks a stable and lasting way of budgeting. Government budgeting has changed, in that, there is a formal process in place now, but it is no more effective than when there was none because the changes made by law were aimed more at gaining and/or reclaiming power and not real budgeting.
And can Congress and the President ever compromise on a budget today?
Before there is a law, there is a bill – and bills have many phases to pass through before these may become laws. The course materials of week three point out that a bill can originate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate – but different versions of the same bill could begin simultaneously in both chambers of Congress (Unit 3 the Congress, 9). It is possible for the President – or someone else – to write a bill, but a member of Congress must introduce the legislation through sponsorship. New bills receive a number and receive assignment to the committee best suited to examine the bill. Project Vote Smart reveals “Bills may be referred to more than one committee and it may be split so that parts are sent to different committees” (Project Vote Smart 2010). If the bill passes through the committee – or committees – the bill may get a new number before passing on to floor action. But it is not necessary for the bill to receive a new number. The foregoing stages describe the initial actions of the Legislative branch in the procedure of a bill becoming law.
The political parties continually blame each other in a never-ending cycle, while the state of the economy keeps falling and the national debt keeps rising. Along with that, many functions of the government, such as tax reform and Social Security, have ‘leaks’ in them, where money is being lost. As researchers look into the crisis more and more, they keep finding scary results, such as the predicted debt in 2035 being 185 percent of the country’s (GDP). Despite the work of economists, an economic problem of this seriousness has not ever appeared before. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform worked to create a document that would lead Washington towards a solution, however this article has both advantages and disadvantages in it.
To understand the amendments better, it was apparent that language changes needed to be made. Since the amendments were written centuries ago, the language is very out dated. As our language has evolved, the exact meaning of their words has become more difficult to understand. Bringing the language to date would make the words and concepts used by the founders clearer to modern time, and therefore easier to understand for the society. Since our language has improved since the creation of the US Constitution, current readers are left to interpret the amendments in their own fashion. With an update of the language, clarity is assured for our citizens, and they can therefore have a clear understanding of what they are required to abide by.
“Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.
Children of the twenty first century spend nearly 13 years in school, preparing for what is college, one of the only ways to achieve the so-called “American Dream”. College is the best way to start an advanced career and go further than one possibly could if college degrees were not available, allowing people to achieve their view of the American Dream; whether it be large houses, shiny cars, multiple kids, or financial comfort, college is the stepping stone to achieve the American Dream. But all great things come with a price, college dragging along debt. Students who attend college struggle to find ways to pay for it, leading to applying for student loans. These loans a great short term, paying for the schooling at the moment but eventually the money adds up
“The Budget and Economic Outlook : Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020.” Congress of the United States
It tells us that part of the national debt problem is because congress is not doing they're job of enforcing the budget laws.
‘Beyond Budgeting is the set of guiding principles that, if followed, will enable an organization to manage its performance and decentralize its decision making process without the need for traditional budgets. Its purpose is to enable the organization to meet the success factors of the information economy (e.g. being adaptive in unpredictable conditions).’
A diverse array of arguments concerning the costly price of college and its equivalence to the ultimate result of attending persists along a vastly debatable spectrum of economic and social influences. Those seeking a better standard of living by the means of higher education often find themselves in conditions that are more adverse than their lifestyle prior to attending college. Efforts to dwindle the expenditure of college education have the potential to produce a heightened reality of the world, with intellectual knowledge as a pivotal key. The expensive cost and limitability of a college education has potential to invoke incentive to work harder in one’s studies; however, the cost can crush individuals enrolled, obtaining a college degree does not ensure employment, and an excessive number of individuals are hesitant to attend college in the first place due to the prevalent debt tied to its completion.
Line item budgeting categorizes various expenses and places them in list format on a document for budgetary purposes. This type of budgeting is considered the heartbeat of budgeting due to the systematic method by which it controls revenue and expenses, this is made evident when Tyer and Willand (1992), pointed out “Statutory or administrative controls could be imposed on the transfer of funds from one-line item to another, or between broad categories of expenditure.” According to Schick (1971), “line item budgets were attractive to legislative officials because they did not focus explicit attention on substantive policy issues or choices.”
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.