What Are Your Three Main Priorities As A Candidate?

Agricultural subsidies is a very complex and controversial economic topic today. It will continue to be a hot topic as government continues it. It is largely debated in the United States as well as in other countries. The reason it is so largely debated is because it literally have an effect on the entire world market. Not to mention that the farm has been booming the last 5 to 10 years. This topic also tends to draw strong opinions in our area in particular due to the large agricultural community in our region. However, even within different states there are many supporters as well as opponents to these government subsidies.

Overspending is a pertinent problem facing the lawmakers in Congress. In 2012 discretionary spending reached $1.3 trillion and mandatory spending $2 trillion, while only bringing in $2.5 trillion in revenue. Since the turn of the century back in 2000, non-mandatory spending by the government has topped out a whopping $16.1 trillion just in the past 13 years (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). This persistent overspending on programs and services that are not necessary to the functionality of the country is what is causing the deficit to rise year after year. To remedy this issue the government must either increase the revenue it brings in through taxes and trade or reduce the amount of money it spend or perhaps even both. In 2012 thirty-one cents of every dollar that Washington spent was borrowed (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). Most of which went to large programs such as Social Security and Medicare and if these large, growing programs, or just the budget in general, do not undergo financial reform it could spell disaster for the economy and fiscal state of the nation.

Today, career politicians are constantly looking for what will aid them in getting reelected. They become more loyal to their campaign fund contributers than to the people whom they represent. This increases the likelihood of having corrupted politicians in office, as they use the government as a vehicle to further their own career (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 123, 129). George Will, a well-known political journalist, was quoted as saying “[The] worst feature of professionalism in politics is that it obliterates the proper distance between the representatives and the represented” (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 125). Even James Madison agreed that legislators were meant to represent the people, not hold office as a career. In The Federalist No. 57 (1788), he wrote, “From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.” The lack of new faces in Congress today symbolizes that the American legislative branch is straying from its intended purpose.

The middle five includes: Veterans benefits and services, Transportation, Education, Justice, and Homeland Security. It is hard to look at these, and try to decipher which ones could be cut in order to provide more in other categories, because they all serve a different purpose in supporting each different goal of our preamble. One point that is evident is that there is not enough money going to education from the federal government. Referring back to Document D of the DBQ packet the federal government is contributing only 1.8% of the budget to the education system. Being able to fund education is so incredibly important because the education that is provided to the children in the US is what shapes and forms the future of America. Not being able to provide these kids with a proper education is a matter that will ultimately have a negative effect on the country. That being said it’s hard to decide where the money needed to better the education system should be taken from, seeing as the big five has already been deciphered, and the five different categories here in the middle cluster are all so important. The most substantial chunk of the money here in the middle five is going to veterans benefits and services, and at first thought, it does seem that maybe some money could be taken from there. However, when one thoroughly analyzes where that money is going to (medical costs, support for

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

Alabama Agriculture: Sustaining Future Generations, is the theme of this essay. A few way to sustain future generations of Alabama agriculture is, like farmers they pass there farm and knowledge down there family. Another example is when you go get a job that is related to agriculture like going to work at a cattle farm they teach you what you need to know to do this job. Those are two examples of ways that we can sustain agriculture for future generations.

Stephen Medvic, In Defense of Politicians, discusses why Americans feel that politicians are dishonest. In 2007, a Gallup poll about honesty and ethical standards for occupations, showed that only 12 and 9 percent of people felt that Congressmen and State office holders held high standards, (Medvic p. 2). In addition, Americans tend to like their representatives more than the members of Congress because they view them as actual people. Americans view Congress as a group of politicians who are greedy and not representing their interests, (Medvic p. 4).

Throughout the course of American politics, superstar senators have risen from the frameworks of capitol buildings on federal, state, and local levels. Some were ruthlessly manipulative in their desire to achieve success, choosing to push their own agenda for the sake of a spot in history. Others served a more earnest cause, putting their country before their party. From the founding fathers to post World War II America, senators of the extremely partisan kind worked in Washington, these men certainly were not the last of the “cut throat” politicians, their actions setting a precedent for future men and women in their partisan agenda. However, noble men who worked endlessly for the prosperity, safety, and unity of America are often swept

There is currently a surplus of $8 billion in the Pell Grant program. As Secretary of Education, would you support congressional efforts to use this funding to shore up Pell Grants or to support higher education programs serving low income and/or first-generation students?

To draw a modern-day analogy, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas used a procedural filibuster as a mechanism to shut down the federal government in opposition to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. While some argue his political intentions were admirable, his self-interested nature drove his use of underhanded political tactics to achieve his ultimate end. In turn, his actions proved destructive for the public good—costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Supporters of Senator Cruz argue that he chose the right course of action. “The loyalties of every Senator are distributed among his party, his state and section, his country and his conscience.” The competing pressures of party interests, public interests, and personal moral responsibility to vote in the interests of his conscience forces the Senator to compartmentalize himself. As a result, Senator Cruz acted upon his ideal of statesmanship by pursuing private interest instead of adhering to party loyalty.

As a result of this added financial strain, states have had to either cut funding for other services like education, increase taxes, or heighten eligibility requirements for these publicly funded healthcare programs (Emanuel, 2014).

Throughout the book Congress: The Electoral Connection there is a common theme that the author, David Mayhew, brings to our attention. He argues that the members of Congress have one exclusive goal, to get reelected; because of this goal, it effects their behavior and actions during their time in office. There are four reasons that Mayhew puts an emphasis on the goal of reelection, those being political reality, the lack of focus on parties but rather on individuals, the constant struggle for power and, in his opinion, most importantly it establishes an accountability relationship with an electorate. As the book progresses Mayhew provides an abundance of evidence as to why he believes this is the primary goal of the members of Congress.

Limiting what revenues can be used for funding puts unnecessary strain on the budget and causes different areas that are significant to suffer. Alabama’s highly restrictive fiscal environment is a significant problem.

As mentioned by Thompson (2010), in the Associated Press, “Lawmakers bridged a $19 billion shortfall, more than 20 percent of the $87.5 billion general fund spending plan”. This shows that the state was heading towards a financial crisis and more deficit creation. Moreover, Thompson (2010), in the Associated Press also points out that “It includes no tax or fee increases but uses a combination of cuts, funding shifts, delayed corporate tax breaks and assumptions about money the state hopes to receive”. The budget gave rise to other dependent costs such as delayed tax refunds. It was uncertain that the State will receive the required funds from the federal government to ensure that the important programs will function the way it used to be until the funds are received.

Historically, incrementalism has characterized public budgeting because at its core, budgeting has evolved: increased and decreased through gradual stages within the realm of the political arena. The need for this one step at a time type of response, found within incremental budgeting, would have likely been caused by the known fact that prior to the 1900’s public welfare programs, federal, states, and even city spending did not exist in the way in which is more than obviously observable in today’s society simply because America did not employ an actual budgetary system. Therefore, as with any unchartered territory, it was approached in stages, with caution, a little at a time in response to the growing needs of the public. Aaron Wildavsky made this case in his book “The politics of the budgetary process,” when he pointed out “budgeting is incremental, not comprehensive. The beginning of wisdom about an agency budget is that it is almost never actively reviewed as a whole every year in the sense of reconsidering the value of all existing programs as compared to all alternatives. Instead, it is based on last year’s budget with special attention given to a narrow range of increases or decreases.” (Wildavsky 1964, p. 15)