Intro to Congress
Your assignment is to find some current information/news from a reliable source about Congress. Write a short entry very briefly summarizing the content and describing the "SO WHAT". Include a link to your source of information. Assignment is 10 points and is due by 7:40 Monday morning. (Oct 22nd if you are wondering the date).
For example: their approval rating today, approval rating over time, the effect of Congress' approval rating on the upcoming election, the importance of the upcoming Congressional elections, who is up for election from Congress in Nov. , campaign spending to run for a House or Senate seat, etc.
Be careful you don't duplicate someone's brilliant posting.
Welcome to our study of Congress.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 9:52 AM
80 comments
80 Comments:
The New York times published on October 17, 2012 that there has been a rise in the number of women running for Congress. This group contains 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans running for Senate, and 116 Democrats and 47 Republicans running for the House of Representatives. However, for many, being a woman is not the only different thing about them.There is a pro wrestling entrepreneur, a leftist consumer advocate, a lesbian, a former police chief, and the first female Black Republican. This rise may be due to redistricting, which creates vulnerabilities for the incumbent, new seats, and often, more retirements. Presidential elections also help by drawing in more voters. Research shows that in the past few years, the number of women running for office significantly dropped, especially since 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected President. At that time a record number of 24 new women were elected to Congress. Currently the United States is tied for 78th, with Turkmenistan, for Women in parliament, according to the U.N. Women's 2012 rankings, where as Cuba is ranked 3rd. This means that the United States is significantly far behind many countries, even those that are less developed. It is critical the women run for Congress because of cases such as Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas's sexual harassment case where she had to testify in front of all white males. This increase of women running for office can definitely help raise where the United States stands in comparison to the world and create more equality and balance in Congress.
Torregrosa, Luisita Lopez. "Women Take Their Case to the Ballot." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. .
Herchran Singh
This comment has been removed by the author.
Throughout President Obama's term, Congress has lost many a percentage in its approval rating. Based on a gallop poll released by the Huffington Post on August 14, 2012, nine in ten Americans disapprove of Congress' job. As of right now, Congress is sitting roughly at a 12% approval rating (only the second time lower than 20%), compared to the 84
% approval in 2002. This is mostly due to the extreme split between Democrats and Republicans, who have failed to compromise in recent years. Despite the fact that Congress' approval rating usually falls before an election, these ratings are some of the worst in history.
This only proves the frustration the American public has with the partisan legislators in Washington. This problem needs to be fixed, because the constant gridlock that liberals and conservatives have been in is only dissuading Americans from voting, or bring active participants in politics. An intervention is needed to get the parties to cooperate if any improvement is to be seen in the state of our country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html
According to Huffington Post, at 10% approval, Congress is on its way to gaining the lowest approval rating that it has ever had during an election year. The all-time average approval rating is 33%, and the approval rating has only exceeded 50% twice. In general, Congress is not highly supported by the American people. The trend that follows low approval rates is a high turnover of seats in Congress, meaning that Congress will be a larger body in those years. Currently, Congress is ruled by a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House. This situation makes it more challenging to predict how the ratings may have an effect on the upcoming elections. The elections for Congress are important because the results determine how our country is run. It will be interesting to see whether Congress will be more dominant in Republicans or Democrats and whether or not this will be the same party as the new President.If the party majority differs from that of the President there could be a lot of conflict in the next presidential term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html
-Sarah Owens
The article from the Christian Science Monitor, "Why has the Wisconsin Senate race, once a lock for Democrats, tightened?" by Mark Guarino published 10/18/12, discusses how the senate race in Wisconsin between Democrat, Tammy Baldwin and Republican Tommy Thompson is now much closer than it used to be. Originally it was almost certain that Baldwin (D) would claim the seat. According to recent polls mentioned in the article, the two candidates are very close in support. The article suggest that the results in Wisconsin mirror the feelings towards the Presidential race. As Mitt Romney has gained more support after his first debate, the support for Republicans in Wisconsin has appeared to go up. The race for Wisconsin Senate seat is very important to Republicans as it could help them gain control over the senate. For this reason a lot of money is being put into the candidacy on both sides. The results of the senate race all across America will have a major impact on how easy it will be for a president to put his agenda into action and determine how liberal/conservative policies will be in the next term.
http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2012/10/why-has-wisconsin-senate-race-once-lock-democrats-tightened
~Carol Hickman
2012 has been called the most important election to date. When the tax cuts made from former president George W. Bush expire, the US faces a potential "train wreck". "...This is compounded by the sunset of the extension of the debt-ceiling agreement, which mandates huge, automatic, and largely indiscriminate, spending cuts with a major focus on defense if a deficit-reduction deal isn't reached." (Hunt 1). Obama and Romney can get through this problem with the help of congress. That being said, the choice of seats in the house have to be carefully crafted. In the Senate, about half of each party’s seats that are up for election are in play. That gives Republicans an advantage, since they have only 10 seats up, while Democrats have 23. It is important for the president to have members of the congress in the same party as him, (ie Obama under a democratic congress). If congress is in support of the opposing party, they are less likely to agree with the president, thus not doing exactly what the president may want. Since George W. Bush's tax cuts are catching up, it is important that the rolls in congress are filled carefully.
According the the Huffington Post, in recent study, only ten percent of Americans approve how Congress is doing. This is the lowest the approval rating has been in about 40 years. The Gallup poll's analysis concludes that the approval rating is so low due to an extremely divided house, where the Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Democrats control the Senate.
In response to the "SO WHAT?", this is very important for many upcoming elections, as the majority of Americans aren't happy with Congress, they will seek to find a way to get our government out of gridlock. This could either actually work, and get the approval rating back to above twenty percent, or it could just swap who's in control of what, and the government will stay divided, but opposite of before the elections.
In the article "GOP’s problems exposed in struggle for Senate", the possible outcomes of the coming Senate elections are focused on. The main point of the article is that the Senate takeover struggle of 2012 has shown a Republican party that is seemingly unable to control its base. The article states that “the party’s hands-off approach to primaries produced battered, weakened candidates who are struggling to pull away in races many Republicans thought were sure bets.” This means that the primaries are sometimes so hard fought that the Republican candidates end up broke and/or exhausted by the time that the race actually starts. The rest of the article focuses on how the Republican party seems to be weakened by its fear of tea party activists, conservative talk show hosts (like Rush Limbaugh), and rich backers with outside views. These groups can swing primary races from the more “moderate Republicans.” The Republican party seems to have more of a problem with divisions since these outside conservative groups are the main backers that provide the support they need in the primaries. Because of these events, the majority that the Republican party expected may not be a sure thing. The “so what" aspect is that the Republican party might let the majority in the Senate slip away. If this happens, a Democratic Senate will have a different agenda and pass different legislative materials than a Republican Senate. This could alter how our country functions in the near future and changes in our society could happen along with it. This could be even more so if Barack Obama is reelected. With a Democratic president and Senate, the shared views could produce many liberal bills passed.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82563.html
-Sarah Leichty
Throughout history, Congress has had changes, just as anything else does. It has gone from being filled with all white men to having a variety of ethnicities and both genders represented. While it's common knowledge that there is a mixture in Congress, not many people seem to know or care about the origins of women and people of 'color' joining Congress. It's something the American people have been accustomed to, as most Americans now did not go through the tough times there were to get to where we are now. However, in years to come something similar could arise once more and spark controversy on Congressmen all over again.
http://www.senate.gov/
Leah Klompenhower
Throughout all the years, the presidential inauguration could be heard or seen on Television, radio, live video streaming, etc. But for the first time ever Congress has made a new source to stay in touch with the inauguration, a Facebook page. The page it’s self will cover many facts about previous inaugurations, and a timeline that inductees; audio, video and photos of past ceremonies. It will also include information about the inauguration so that those who attend can be well informed about specifics of the event. This is a revolution in how the inauguration will be presented, by Congress creating a Facebook page and brining social media into the ceremony. This opens up many doors in the future regarding the inauguration. http://news.yahoo.com/congress-launches-inauguration-website-182323103--election.html
~Barry Sawyer
According to an article titled “Minnesota 8th District – Cravaack vs Nolan” from Real Clear Politics, the race between Chip Cravaack and Rick Nolan for the House of Representative seat of Minnesota’s 8th District is a toss -up and could go either way. Nolan carries some baggage, considering he is a former three term congressman, but interestingly enough, the seat is currently held by Cravaack. Chip Cravaack is the first Republican since 1946 to represent the 8th District. During the previous 54 years, the seat was held by Democrats John Blatnik and Jim Oberstar. The New York Times shows that 183 of the seats in the House are solid or leaning Democrat while 228 seats are solid or leaning Republican with 24 seats being a toss-up. These statistics show that the House of Representatives will most likely remain controlled by the Republican party. However, this close race in Minnesota’s 8th district between Chip Cravaack and Rick Nolan is relevant because while it is not a crucial deciding seat in order to sway the House of Representatives to a Democratic majority, it demonstrates that change does occur and districts are not stuck in their historically Democratic or Republican rut.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/house/mn/minnesota_8th_district_cravaack_vs_nolan-3363.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ratings/house
-Melissa Parry
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and Democratic activist, is running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Her battle against Republican candidate Scott Brown has been the most high-profile and expensive state race of the year. The latest surveys have been close, with Brown leading, but a win this year will help the Democrats control the Senate and possibly foretell a presidential run in the near future. Warren has been researching and studying bankruptcy ever since Congress revised bankruptcy laws in 1978; she has found that the people most filing for bankruptcy are middle-class, not poor. She disagrees with her perspective of the Republican view “What they say, in effect, is if you leave lots of money with the wealthiest and most powerful, the rest of you will be able to feed off the scraps…. It’s the wrong vision for America.” Warren faces some controversy in that she listed herself as Native American in law-school directories to show diversity among faculty in Harvard. Although she never embellished her background for personal gain, Brown supporters and campaigners are keeping the issue alive. Brown is facing arithmetic problems in that there are seven hundred thousand voters whom Brown did not face in the 2010 special election and are likely to vote Democrat, while Brown’s numbers are similar to those of John McCain in 2008. Even so, moderate Republicans have a history of doing well in Massachusetts. If Elizabeth Warren wins the election she will revitalize the Democratic Party and be one of the most socially conscious senators in Congress. A future campaign of Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 would be riveting to watch and bring out many social and domestic issues that have been pushed aside this election.
Toobin, Jeffrey. "The Professor." New Yorker 17 Sept. 2012: 66-73. Print.
Dimitra Andreadaki
On August 14, 2012 the Huffington Post released that following the recent Gallup Poll, only 10% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. This ties the lowest ever approval rating in the past 38 years. Another poll done by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling says that 60% of voters said that this is the worst Congress ever. One cause of the negative opinions of Congress is likely the poor economy. Another reason Congress is likely struggling to gain approval is that the control of Congress is divided amongst Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats hold majority in the Senate. It is hard to say whether the low approval ratings of Congress will harm Obama’s chances of re-election in November. Some will say that this reflects poorly on President Obama, but others will say that because Congressman Paul Ryan is the running mate of Romney, the low approval of Congress will be detrimental to Romney. Either way, the poor approval of the Congress is likely to play a key role in the upcoming presidential election.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html
There are currently 33 seats out of 100 in Congress that are up for election this year. According to realclearpolitics.com, the Democrats are going to have 23 seats up for election while the republicans only have 10. This website estimates that 37 seats are secured for the Democrats and 42 are secured for the Republicans. Of the 21 remaining seats, 9 are estimated to lean towards Democrats and only 1 is leaning towards Republicans. This leaves 11 toss-ups for the remaining senate seats. This website also estimates a republican majority in the House. If the Republican party is able to gain majority in the senate in addition to the house and if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election (Or vice-versa with the Democratic party), then that party will be able to accomplish a lot more much easier than if it the majorities are greatly divided amongst republicans and democrats. This may make Congress more successful and increase their very low approval ratings with the American population.
- realclearpolitics.com
Aaron Grad
In Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, a vast amount of campaign fundraising is taking place between incumbent Rep. Michele Bachmann and DFL challenger Jim Graves. Bachmann raised $4.5 million in the third quarter, more than that raised in Minnesota's seven other congressional races combined, while Graves raised $1 million in the same period, enough to catch the eye and win the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Personal wealth is becoming a more important prerequisite to a meaningful bid for Congress: on average in 2010, it cost $1.4 million to run for the House and $10 million to run for the Senate. Graves, a hotel magnate, has the personal funds necessary to back his own campaign, but self-funding goes against his values and traditionally such campaigns fair poorly. Some Congresspeople complain that the high level of fundraising required for reelection necessitates more time spent campaigning, taking away from time spent legislating.
The rising level of personal wealth necessary to run a successful Congressional campaign makes Congressional seats less accessible to vast swaths of middle- and low-income people, limiting the socioeconomic diversity and breadth of viewpoints that ensures fair representation in Congress of all constituents. Moreover, as stated in the article, more time spent campaigning means less time spent legislating.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/175032461.html?refer=y
Alex Cheng
The upcoming 2012 congressional elections are significant especially because of the expiring tax cuts that were put in place under President Bush’s administration. Bush’s plan was to cut $550 million in taxes in order to relieve the American people and business, and to put the American’s back to work. The tax cuts put our country in the biggest recession since 1929 during the Great Depression. Although both presidential candidates want to extend Bush’s tax cut plan, Romney also wants to increase tax cuts in corporate spending and domestic income. Romney’s plan leaves many Americans afraid that the nation’s economy will experience a downfall, like when Bush was President. With increased tax cuts proposed for the future, the Congressional elections are important as to which economic plan will take place during the next Presidency. According to an article titled Congressional Elections Will Define Next Presidency, on Bloomberg.com, “In the Senate, about half of each party’s seats that are up for election are in play. Those numbers give Republicans an advantage, since they have only 10 seats up, while Democrats have 23.” Whichever party dominates during the Congressional election will play a key role in the change in the nation’s tough economy because the President’s plan will have to be approved by the members. With the chance for a 50-50, Democrat-Republican, house and with the Republican’s having an advantage in the Senate, citizens will be left on their toes until after the elections to see which party dominates the legislative branch and to see how Romney or Obama will work with the potential chaos that may come with Bush’s plan expiring.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-06/congressional-elections-will-define-next-presidency.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/bushtaxcuts.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/opinion/miron-romney-economic-plan/index.html
Anna Hicok
Congress, with Obama as president, have been unable to make tax cuts to control the nation's debt. They hope that if Romney is elected, they will be able to pass their cuts and begin lowering the nation's debt.
This is largely a checks and balences caused problem. With the congress and president being different political parties with differing political views, laws are harder to pass. Regarding this article, Democratic Obama supports taxation, while the Republican congress opposes high taxes.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-19/republicans-said-to-discuss-revenue-options-for-fiscal-talks
Emily Sands
In an attempt to increase the amount of Democratic representatives from Maryland from six of the eight to seven of the eight, the Democratic Party leaders, along with Governor Martin O'Malley, are radically gerrymandering the districts. This has lead to Maryland becoming one of the most gerrymandered states, with the average compactness of its eight districts ranked worst in the nation.
While these actions may benefit the Democrats by giving them more representation, they will cause far more problems. For example, because the districts are purposefully designed to increase the representation of certain groups, they at the same time block the voices of others. Also, the district lines have split up diverse groups and recombined them with other, more powerful groups, meaning that they will be unfairly represented in elections and most likely their elected senator will not be able to accommodate the diverse needs of all the people in that district. Another disadvantage is that it decreases competitiveness because the districts have been redrawn so that the opposing parties will have less chance of gaining control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-maryland-redistricting/2012/10/19/dc06c282-1967-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
-Sam Bellows
According to Thisnation.com, the composition of Congress in terms of race and gender has been changing. Statistics have shown an increase in the number of women in Congress, mainly the House of Representatives, as well as African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. These changes may lead to differences in the way Congress functions and the decisions made. Since the representatives share similarities of the ideal beliefs of the area they represent, this may present different ideas promoted for the best interest of those demographic locations.
The increase in the number of women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians in Congress may also show the increase in diversity in America who choose their representatives based on the similarities to themselves, not only in governmental ideals, but also in physical similarity. This may be to boost morale and faith in Congress by having more diversity representing those considered minorities in numbers in the government representation.
http://thisnation.com/congress-facts.html
Katie Piens
In 2011 there was a bill passed to give horseracing owners a tax break in California. The Congressman wahoe was in favor for the bill to be pass later bought 7 race horses,after the fact. Carodza (Congressman) said that he along with the board of the directors check continuously with the committee to see if all was ethical.
If a Congressman is in favor for a bill to be past more than likely it will, especially if it effects a certian community of people. This, however was a tax break for horse racers.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/09/Conflicts-of-Interest-Is-Congress-Rigging-the-Game.aspx#page1
~ Anna Riley
This article discusses the current approval rating for congress and the approval ratings from years leading up to today starting from 1977. It talks about how the reason for the low approval rating for congress is caused by the current debt in the country and how citizens think they're handling it. Congress took all of there time to settle it and the settlement never fully satisfied each side. This upset the American citizens and caused a 66% disapproval of democrats in the situation and a 72% disapproval of republicans in congress. Overall the approval rate is 14% and the disapproval rate is 82%. The so what is that because the approval rate is continuing to decrease, it means that the American citizens aren't liking how Congress is handling serious topics in the country. This allows us to predict how radical of a change in the congress seats there will be. It also allows people to see distrust forming in the American people against congress which can lead to distrust in government and even more upset in congress seats. These numbers let people predict how congress will be seated in future years.
~Grace Allen
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20088388-503544/poll-disapproval-of-congress-hits-all-time-high/
Tim Lindquist-
The article titled: "Republicans will expand their majority in Congress on election day" Published: October 20, 2012 says that races for Congress show Republicans likely to gain 226 seats if the election were held today with 26 seats too close to call. The Democrats are favored in 183 of the 435 races for seats in Congress. Next it recaps to the previous election where Republicans took control of Congress in the 2010 elections and look to hold those gains this year. What this means it that if the Republicans keep there seats like they did in 2010 the favor would be towards Romney in passing any bills. In the case of Obama being reelected it would be a lot more difficult to get things passed for the Democrats. This article is a prediction of the party totals in congress on Election Day being 196 Republicans to 164 Democrats.
"Republicans Will Expand Their Majority in Congress on Election Day." Examiner.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. .
in the article "Democrats Believe They Can Hold The Senate Even After Romney Debate Win" from thehill.com, they discuss how the democratic party has been rising in the senate election polls. Although romney has been doing well in the presidential debates, many states such as Indiana, nebraska, maine, massechusetts, and nevada have been turning in the polls towards the democratic party.
this shows us that the presidential debate has little effect on the outcomes of the other elections going on around it and determine which party will control the senate. it is good that people are looking into the candidates themselves instead of just voting for the party that they support. this is important because through this we become more informed voters and therefore will become stronger as a country as well.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261129-dems-believe-they-can-hold-the-senate-even-after-debate
~thayer prum
In an article published by Athena Jones of CNN, she discusses how costly it truly is for a person to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. Ken Vaughn, a first-time candidate from Virginia, was running for a seat in the house and he invested $100,000 of his own money, about the money he put into his effort he said "It's not nearly enough to win, but it's enough to get started". Running for a seat in the house is very expensive to say the least. What’s truly ironic about Vaughn putting all that money into getting elected is that his campaigns central idea is to lower the national debt. How can we be lowering the national debt when we are fueling so much money into pamphlets, yard signs and bus trips just to get elected? The costs of getting elected into congress go up every year. In 2010,the average winning House candidate spent about $1.4 million on their campaign, that’s up 70% from two decades ago! One other point the article highlighted was that it is very hard for the newcomers in the race for congress to be elected because the incumbent usually “builds a war chest even if they may not need to use a penny of it”.
The “so what” of this article is that; the money spent getting elected into congress could easily be put to better use towards improving our economy. If the money that was spent on these campaigns was funneled into our nation’s economy, the representatives of congress would be helping the causes they get elected for and we wouldn’t be wasting money on the unnecessary bulk of campaign materials they use. If they really want to solve the nation’s debt crisis they should be spending some of the great heaps of money they use to get elected to help the nation’s debt.
Jones, Athena. "Political Newcomers Face High Costs and Difficult Odds - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. .
In the article “Minnesota Legislature: A handful of races could swing control”, author Bill Salisbury first discusses the battle for control over the U.S. Legislature is being missed and ignored by voters due to the excessive ads from Presidential candidates. As of now, the Senate is controlled by Republicans and the House is, too. As Salisbury explains, only a handful of DFLers would be needed in the House and Senate. He goes on to detail the strong desire of DFL leaders to take the majority back; however, Republicans are confident they can keep the lead. It will only take a few thousand votes to change it back to a DFL dominated legislature, though. There are three obstacles that Republicans face- a guaranteed turnover of one-fourth of the seats, the absence of Republican campaigning in Minnesota, and Democrats turn out in larger numbers in presidential election years. The stakes of the legislative elections are the possibility of a Democratic control enabling changes in state tax and spending, or gridlock if the Republicans stay in control. Minnesota’s ability to compete in the job market between other states is also on the line depending on which party has control after the next election. Overall, the main issues of the upcoming legislative elections are jobs, the economy, and the budget. All in all, this article informs readers about the November 6th elections, and reminds them to pay their share of attention to the congressional elections, not only the presidential election. They will affect tax rates, class sizes in school, and affordable health insurance, to name a few. To quote Larry Jacobs, the University of Minnesota’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, “The Minnesota state legislative races are the most consequential, uncovered political event in the state this year”. This is why the information in this article is important for all voters.
Source: http://www.twincities.com/elections/ci_21761855/minnesota-legislature-handful-races-could-swing-control
-Gunner Drossel
This comment has been removed by the author.
A short article on ThisNation.com begins by showing readers statistics describing the breakdown of race and gender in our congress today. In summary, there are far more white congressmen then there are black, Hispanic, or native-American and there are far more men elected then women. The article goes on to quote James Madison and make the point that all of these facts mean essentially nothing as all that matters is congress' ability to fairly represent. So what? Basically, the article is trying to urge voters and political writers to stop highlighting the gap between black and white, male and female, and simply look at what's important: the issues.
http://thisnation.com/congress-facts.html
Congress has recently been a battleground for the fight between Republicans and Democrats and it is most likely not going to change anytime soon. It is obvious to most Americans and all APLG students (who have read any comments on this blog) that the "public approval rating" of Congress is at a low point. The approval rating is so low because Congress is having a difficult time passing any legislation due to rifts between Democrats and Republicans. This rift is growing as moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are being replaced by more extreme representatives from both sides.
The gradual replacement of moderates forewarns of even more difficult times ahead for Congress. It will grow even harder to pass bipartisan legislation without the common ground, previously maintained by the moderates. This political climate has already discouraged voters and compelled some Americans to lose faith in the Legislative branch. However, if Americans want any change in the Congressional gridlock, they need to vote into Congress moderate representatives who are willing to compromise with the opposing party.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/politics/moderates-congress/index.html
-Nick Cox
According to the Campaign Finance Institute (which is a non-partisan, non-profit institute that conducts objective research and education, empanels task forces and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance in the United States) the price of winning a House have increased tremendously throughout the years. The website takes into account inflation of the US dollar and shows that the price to win a seat has almost doubled ($715,401 in 1986 and $1,434,760 in 2010). Why is this important? These statistics show that you have to be quite wealthy to run for a spot. One can relate this to poll taxing in which only candidates who could afford the tax could vote. Whoever can afford the campaign can run rather than that who is worthy of the position.
http://www.cfinst.org/data/VitalStats.aspx
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t1.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
This article on CNN gives examples of how the economy is slowly improving, such as rising demand for building and improvement in the housing market. It also states that the improvements may continue if congress makes careful decisions regarding the budgeting, especially when considering the political parties. The economy may get sent back into recession from the shock of budget cuts and hiked up taxes. However, there are those that say congress always moves at the last minute, and their slow reaction is nothing to be worried about. There is hope that after the election is over, "it will be time for politicians to stop being politicians and actually be leaders for once." So if congress can grow up and play nice, the country's economic upturn can continue and perhaps the country's opinion of politics and politicians may enjoy kickbacks from that improvement. If not, the country may become quite restless and unhappy by the next election, which will hopefully show through in who they vote for.
http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/10/17/economy-is-improving-dont-mess-it-up-congress/?iid=EL
_Montana_Smith_
An article on the Gallup website analyzes the approval ratings of congress over time and how they effect elections. Congressional approval is at record lows, however average rating over time is only about 33%. Record highs happen after crises like 9/11, during economic booms, and when one party has clear control over both the House and the Senate. Low ratings typically happen when both parties are split evenly, neither party gets as much done as they want to, so none of the voters are happy.
The article also states that low approval during election means that there will be a large turnover of members in both houses, especially after redistricting, as was done with all 435 seats after the 2010 census.
This article has no clear purpose, it is more an unbiased commentary on how the election will change based on approval ratings. However, it might be trying to show that the Gallup polls are relevant and can be applied directly to elections.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157475/congress-approval-poised-lowest-election-year.aspx
According to the article "Obama urges Congress to pass "no-brainer" mortgage relief" published October 21, 2012 Obama says that he is confident that by passing this, people struggling with their bills can refinance their loans and save around $3,000 a year. The article also gave facts that the building of new homes is back up to a steady rate, but Obama is still concerned about the homes that are at the brink of foreclosure.
"So What?"
This is an example of how having an advantageous Republican Congress is detrimental to the passing of bills. Without the help from them, nothing will go through, and improvements cannot be made. Obama said that this shouldn't have been a big issue and he felt that it would've & should've passed easily since it was a "no-brainer".
http://www.brecorder.com/money-a-banking/198/1249908/
-->Ashlan Olson
An article in the New York Times informs America that President Obama is having a harder time trying to pass some of his ideas. It starts off naming some accomplishments of the President over the last 4 years of his term. Some examples include ending the eight-year war in Iraq and marking the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator.
The article continues and begins to address the problem by pointing out the "hostile Congress" and poor economy. To be fair, President Obama has tried to fix the economy with his $447 billion jobs bill, but the Senate has opposed.
It's not a big a shock that the two parties have been quarreling on ideas for years now, but this issue makes it harder for the President to pass any new bills, or rather get much done at all.
Without the support of Congress, President Obama is trying to get by with performing mainly executive actions, which requires no to little Congressional say in it. Although, (as pointed out in the article) it's very difficult to solve unemployment issues without spending money, in which case, Congress would have to step in.
The "so what" of this article:
If Congress keeps blocking the President's bills, what in the world will be accomplished? Not much.
Also, in addition to the $447 billion jobs bill proposed by the President, he also proposes a plan to help students pay their college loans. So now, we're not just speaking about the economy as a whole in terms of helping the unemployed, we are talking about students that need help. This is pretty big since a lot of the baby boomers are getting old, so now the next generation is growing up and needing education. But in this poor economy, where the heck is the money going to come from? President Obama sees that the American people need help, so he offers his ideas -- which may not going to help anyone if Congress can't be on his side.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/politics/congress-and-economy-limit-obamas-domestic-agenda.html
:) My-Linh Vo
In the article "U.S. Satisfaction Stable at 30%" by Lydia Saad published on October 19, 2012 the satisfaction of American citizens is discussed. At this point in past elections an average of 37% of the U.S. population was satisfied by what was going on in the country, this year approximately 30% of the U.S. population is satisfied with what is going on. Although 7% doesn't seem like much this is significantly lower than past years. Some of the reasons that the satisfaction level may be so low is because of the on-going issues the country faces such as health care and foreign policy. When you look at the demographics of the poll, about 50% of the people satisfied are reported as democrats as compared to 29% independents and 7% republicans. Non-white satisfaction is at 51% compared to White being 22%. When looking at the demographics of the situation it suggests that since President Obama is in the house right now that democrats are more satisfied than republicans because Obama himself is a democrat. So although this satisfaction poll is very low, there have been years that the satisfaction was lower and the current president was re-elected. So even though at the moment Romney may be projected to have more electoral votes this race is far from being over.
"U.S. Satisfaction Stable at 30%." U.S. Satisfaction Stable at 30%. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. .
In the Article "In Sole Debate, Senate Rivals Don’t Agree on Much", published in the NY Times on Oct. 17th, the topic of discussion is the lack of agreement, or even reasonably close viewpoints displayed by the incumbent Kirsten E. Gillibrand, and her opponent, Wendy E. Long. Gillibrand, holds a significant lead, and in the only debate presumably secured her spot. However, the implications of this kind of policy, with neither side willing to give anything up in the name of compromise is a plague in American politics. The result is that not only will America find itself plagued with politicians who are unwilling to work across the aisle in order to pass policy, but that each and every election becomes crucial. If this new method of operation that politicians are beginning to operate under becomes the standard operating procedure of one, or both parties, American politics will become landlocked at all levels, leaving the average voter unable to see his or her votes affecting policy in a meaningful way. The new hard stances of both parties are beginning to render politics ineffective, and the trend will only become worse if the problem is not confronted soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/nyregion/gillibrand-and-long-clash-in-debate-for-us-senate.html?ref=congress
Dean Allen
According to "Harassment and Discrimination Cases Rise on Capital Hill," the number of discrimination cases jumped from 52 in 2007 to 142 in 2011. Claims include discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environments. Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 is designed to ensure that Congress abides by the same laws as the private sector reguarding discrimination, accessability and safety. However, inspection showed 154 barriers to accessing three Capital office buildings including six bathroom that do not comply with current requirements for disability access.
It is extremely hypocritical for Congress to not abide by its own laws. If equality cannot be reached in our nation's capital, can it be reached anywhere? Laws to protect equality already exsist, but the enforcement of such laws must be taken more seriously.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/congress-employees-harassment/index.html
Anna Riester
In the Washington Post, the article The Fix 60 discusses the upcoming elections in the House of Representatives and how they've been pushed out of the spotlight by the presidential and senate elections because "it seems far less likely to flip control." But in this article they state that there are 60 seats with a possibility of switching and they rank them from the most likely to the least likely. Even if the seats stay the same it doesn't make the elections any less important. As a part of Congress, the House of Representatives holds a great deal of decision power in policy making, especially regarding fiscal policy. If the party that holds the majority in the House is the opposite of the president's party, the president will have a tough time getting things done and will be stuck in a stalemate. So the outcomes of the elections in the House will have a great impact on the success of the president and how much he will be able to accomplish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/19/the-fix-60-the-most-important-house-races-in-the-country/
The current Speaker of the House is Rep. John Boehner, he was selected in the usual way: election by the whole house of representatives. His role as Speaker of the House is to lead the majority party and administrate activities. He is also the next in line for presidency after the Vice President.
"Leadership." United States House of Representatives. U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. .
Alexander Amundson
The current Speaker of the House is Rep. John Boehner, he was selected in the usual way: election by the whole house of representatives. His role as Speaker of the House is to lead the majority party and administrate activities. He is also the next in line for presidency after the Vice President. All of this is a lot of responsibility given to a man who was not directly elected by the people. Thus, voters who are voting for their representatives should take note that their representative will decide the Speaker of the House and the third person in line for presidency.
"Leadership." United States House of Representatives. U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. .
Alexander Amundson
In the article from the New York Times titled "Democrats Use Health Law to Assail Republicans", writer Robert Pear talks about how the Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act have been used by Democrats to attack Republicans on many different fronts. In particular, the Democrats have run many ads attacking Republicans for “voting to give themselves taxpayer-funded health care for life”. This kind of political attack effects the election by painting one candidate as a privileged miser who wants better services for himself than for the American people and by contrast, makes the other candidate look like a white knight defending all that is good and just in our society.
-Angelo "The Rainmaker" Jaramillo
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/us/politics/democrats-use-obscure-health-law-provision-to-attack-gop.html
The approval rating of Congress is at its all-time low of just a mere ten percent. According to the Gallup's article it is the lowest it’s been in 38 years. The analysis was done by Gallup and they are saying that the reason for the low ratings is unclear but it could be due to the majority rule of Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. Also with the upcoming election they’re unsure about what impact this could have. Some other polls that occurred after Gallup’s include the Democratic firm Public Policy Poll who concluded that 60% of voters said “This is the worst congress ever”. The ‘so what’ of this article comes from the fact that the election is nearing quickly and there could be some major changes in the Congress due to its current mass of disapproval.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Congress-Approval-Ties-Time-Low.aspx
~Connor Smith
Washington Post undertook a study of Congress members' disclosed financial information. Using the midpoints of provided ranges, the study shows that while some members of congress are multimillionares largely unaffected by the recession, others are greatly in debt. Using many examples, the article demonstrates the great variety of financial situations present. The data presented in this article help to dispel stereotypes held by voters while the specific examples help said voters to make more informed decisions as election day approaches. The large range of incomes also helps to dispel the generally negative view the public holds of "rich" congressmen, increasing confidence in the powerful legislative branch that sets the tone of American policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/capitol-assets-congresss-wealthiest-mostly-shielded-in-deep-recession/2012/10/06/5a70605c-102f-11e2-acc1-e927767f41cd_story.html
In a early commerical put out by Mitt Romney's campaign group, in which he attacks Obama for his inability to play well with others, and in this specfic case Obama's problems with congress. In this commerical Obama is shown by expressing his frustration with not getting along with congress or "not being able to change washington from the inside." Romney is seen in this commerical as one who can use the congress to his advantage and be a team player for the betterment of society.
The SO WHAT of this article is that Romney is being potrayed as a canidate that can take resources such as congress and use them to help better society. Also he is showing that Obama has had 4 years to change society and he is still being shot down by congress. The overall effect of this article is that Romney is showing that Obama can not play well with others and that Romney believes he can, and they are using Congress as a tool to show how they can help change america.
NATE JOHNSON
Heres the link everyone !!!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/mitt-romney-ad-massachusetts_n_1998052.html
A recent article in the Huffington Post, "Gay Congressional Candidates Running In Record Numbers" perpetuates the negative stereotypes of openly gay candidates who are currently running or are seeking to be reelected. In this day and age, a persons ability to represent their state/district should not be affected by their sexual orientation, race, and/or gender. The article itself focuses mainly on each candidates sexual orientation. Has their not been a past candidate or elected official whose homosexuality was hidden from public in order to maintain their position in Congress? Why has being gay in Congress gathered such attention? The article implies that being gay is not an issue in Congress yet concludes and centers on the fact that these candidates are gay and does not focus on the true issues of what the candidates stand for. We are a more diverse country than 200+ years and should base our judgement on candidates not on sexual orientation, race, or gender, but on what each candidate represents.
ClaireO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/gay-congressional-candidates_n_1933232.html
According to the article, "Telemarketers Get Higher Approval Rating Than U.S. Congress", published August 15, 2012 by Bloomberg.com/ Businessweek.com, congresses approval rating has dropped to an all time low since the website, in association with Gallup, started taking monthly polls 38 years ago. Congresses approval ratings have dropped as of the 2 months ago to 10% down from 16% in July and 17% in June. This put them below stockbrokers, telemarketers, journalists,lawyers,and funeral directors. The article went on to say that 83% of Americans disapprove of the way congress does it's job. Among those polled democrats had the lowest approval with 9% while republicans not being far behind with 10%, and independents with 11%. Congressmen have to blame hurtful press titles, arguing that their mistakes;however small they might be, are always front page titles. While other important figures who are involved in similar scandals are made into lesser stories. Another large chunk of disapproval comes from congress's lack of activity in on going lawmaking. As of the article date, only 79 bills were passed from the congress to the President for approval this year. This is similar to last years 90 bills passed into laws, being just barely above the lowest number of bills passed (88) since Congressional Records started keeping track in 1947.
Overall, it would be easy to say that we are going to see a large amount of turnovers in this years elections. When you're less approved than the annoying telemarketer always trying to sell you useless crap, you're not only making a few minuscule mistakes, but several large impacting mistakes. It is obvious that the public is unhappy with the job their current representatives are doing, and looking for fresh more efficient additions to congress. With these new representatives it would be probable to see a much more cooperative and productive term with the whoever is elected in the upcoming presidential debate.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/telemarketers-get-higher-approval-rating-than-u-s-congress.html
Timmy Tim Tim Moore
An article on CNN.com titled "Big bank CEOs to Washington: Avoid the fiscal cliff!" says that many Wall Street CEOs are urging Congress to take action before January 1st to avoid hitting this fiscal cliff. If they don't act accordingly by coming to a bipartisan consensus the result will be huge tax hikes, loss of jobs in the private sector, and the cutting of several programs which could lead to recession. So, if Congress does not act quickly, the economy could get even worse than it already is. This shows that electing people who represent the values of the people is just as important as electing people who can actually work together. Congress is not fulfilling their duty to the people if they are not able to work together efficiently.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/18/news/economy/bank-ceos-fiscal-cliff/index.html
An article published in The Week on October 5,2012 states that the military is facing budget cuts due to Congress' inability to reach a decision on how to reduce the "deficit-ridden federal budget". In 2011 the nation's debt ceiling was allowed to be extended under the condition that a group of both Republicans and Democrats would be able to figure out how to reduce the budget 1.5 trillion over 10 years. Negotiations over this goal collapsed last November, which triggered a set of automatic cuts to which both parties are responsible Some of these cuts relate to the military.
So what:
Congress'inability to come to a decision has the possibility to hurt America. The cuts to the military would weaken the country's ability to defend itself and to help other nations. If the military isn't able to spend a reasonable amount of money on equipment, companies that produce defense equipment and other military materials would have to cut workers. Cutting workers means more unemployment and a worsening ecomony. Also, the cuts in no way help to create a solution to the problem of the budget. The point of Congress' job in this economy is to help find a way to get America back on its feet, not to argue over whether or not a certain party is trying to reap benefits for itself.
"Downsizing the Military." The Week 5 Oct. 2012: 13. Print.
-Katie Ollenburg
Many House candidates spend six-figure-sums in a quarter on campaign funds. Money collected has grown in percentage by double digit margins and topped $1.1 billion dollars in 2010. The redistricting in the Inlands Southern California plays a big part in the huge campaign spending because they have added two new districts. Also, the new districts were drawn by independent commission and not the state legislature, thus making the race more of a contest because there used to be no competition due to gerrymandering. There is more money than necessary being spent on these races. The money could be spent in other areas in order to better our country.
This heavy campaign spending can also lead to disadvantages in the races. In California, their new top-two primary system forced candidates to compete for endorsements from a limited number of donors in their own party. In the 31st Congressional District, Representative Gary Miller brought in about $323,000 in the third period, while his opponent, Senator Bob Dutton, only raised $162,000. Overall, Miller has made $1.2 million for his campaign and Dutton has made $332,000 (this is including his $100,000 loan). As you can see, Dutton has a disadvantage, though he is sure that he will win next month.
http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/ben-goad-headlines/20121016-inland-campaign-cash-flying-in-newly-competitive-house-races.ece
Sorry! The one above is mine! :)
-- Kaitlyn Zander
The New York Times article "Women Take Their Case to the Ballot" states that the 2012 election is marked by a large surge in the number of women running for Congress. If these female candidates win their respective elections - an outcome which many polls have deemed likely - not only female presence but also general diversity will increase in both houses of the legislature. For example, one woman candidate, if elected, would be the first openly gay senator in the U.S., and another would be the first black Republican member of the House in history. The surge of women involved in politics can be attributed to several factors. The motivation for many women to run for office in the first place came from the fact that the number of women in Congress has been stagnant, even shrinking, for twenty years, and still others were motivated to run so that they could fight against extreme conservatives for women's abortion rights. This election year is a perfect year for these women to run for office; Congressional districts have been adjusted per the most recent U.S. census, which means incumbent candidates are more vulnerable, and in addition the presidential election causes citizens to be more attentive to politics in general, meaning women have a greater opportunity to gain voters' attention and support. This surge is an excellent demonstration of how the details of the Constitution are manifested in modern politics; the census keeps track of changes and shifts in the U.S. population, and these changes are then accounted for through redistricting, a process that evidently has a noticeable effect on elections for Congressional positions. The surge in female involvement is also significant because of its possible impact on the next Congress; the more female members there are in the House and Senate, the better these bodies should theoretically perform their designated task of accurately representing the American populace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/17iht-letter17.html?ref=congress
Ben Stevens
In a recent article about the upcoming Congress elections, I read that Republicans likely to gain 226 seats if the election were held today. It also says that in Congress Republicans gained the majority last election period and are looking to do the same this time around. The Democrats are guaranteed 154 seats and the Republicans are guaranteed 195 seats. That leaves 86 seats up for grabs. It is possible that 2 current R seats will be lost to the D candidates and 3 D seats will be lost to R candidates. This years Congressional elections will be close and it looks as if the Republicans will end up with the majority in the House after these elections.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-will-expand-their-majority-congress-on-election-day
Wesley Cammon
The Democratics are losing control of the Senate, whittling done their former "super majority" needed to pass legislature. This decrease will lead to and endless cycle of "brinkmanship" for Obama if he wins.
So What:
This article conveys the message that if the Democratics lose the senate voting for Obama would be pointless. The Republican congress would block everything he would try to accomplish. Also it means that his entire platform would be useless so it would be better to vote for Romney if you are looking for change.
-Naima Yusuf
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/29/obama-s-nightmare-reelected-in-2012-but-republicans-take-the-senate.html
The article "New rules upend house re-election races in california", discusses the new primary system and redrawn electoral map in California. The primary system now advances the top two vote getters to the general election no matter which party they are affiliated with. In some cases within the state, it's pitting two members of the same party against one another. Two of these cases have incumbents fighting for the same seat. As to the districts, those previously drawn were oddly shaped to protect incumbents. New districts are making it more evenly divided among Democrats and Republicans. In addition, a large number of House members will be retiring. In total, a large number of seats could change hands between parties this fall.
The change to the primary system and districts will make it easier for members to be elected based on their own ability and record, as opposed to party affiliation. The changes will give seats to new members and in many cases younger members compared to the old leadership it currently has. The change brings the possibilty for fresh views and ideas but may also send off some of the more experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/us/politics/new-rules-upend-house-re-election-races-in-california.html?pagewanted=all
alex ness
In a article entitled “Could congress go from bad to worse after election” published by CNN, it explains how important the upcoming election is for congress. It outlines how hard Obama will have to work to accomplish his policy goals. It also states that if Mitt Romney wins the election, gets a senate majority, and maintains republican control of the house, he will still have a tough time keeping his campaign promises and not having to compromise. Both of them would have to deal with the major healthcare reform. Obama continuing it, and Romney repealing it. There are many other issues that would need to be dealt with such as the Keystone pipeline and the student loan rate. “If the balance of power in the Senate shifts to the Republicans, as some political analysts expect, or Democrats and Republican end up with a near equal number of seats, partisan gridlock could become even worse.” This nation is more polarized than ever, and there is little hope for compromise after the upcoming election.
For the “SO WHAT”, If Obama wins the election, and passes more legislation through congress, he will be greatly affecting American voters. If Romney wins the Upcoming election, he will repeal the healhcare bill, and also greatly affect American voters.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/08/politics/congress-worse-election/index.html
Nathan Jones
My understanding of the assignment was to find an article that exemplifies congress' action, and gives a description of how that action worked. I started reading, and found an article that described the exact opposite. When congress becomes paralyzed, as it is now, it cannot voice it's opinion in matters that the supreme court deals with. In an unparalyzed congress, it can disagree with the supreme court's decisions in court cases by making laws that are more specific, or directly avoid the offensive outcome. But in a congress like the one we have now, they have no way of protesting those decisions.
--Micah Hunter Ray
According to a poll conducted by gallup on August 14, 2012, Congress' approval rating has hit an all-time low of 10%. Because the House has a Republican majority and the Senate has a Democratic majority, both liberals and conservatives have a reason to disapprove of the job Congress is doing. This split house has also resulted in a complete lack of compromise that has prevented legislation and budgets from being passed, a huge frustration among the American public. While Congress is not known for its high approval rating, the average approval is 34% since 1974, this extreme dislike of Congress is unsettling. Lucky for the American people, it is an election year, and hopefully the people will speak and elect leaders who will be willing to cross party lines to see what is best for the country.
~Lauren Reuland
According to Eric Singer, in Robert Silverblatt’s article on usnews.com, congress is “ruining stock prices.” His proof of this is that over the last 47 years, when congress is in session, the market goes up by 1% annually, when congress is on vacation, the market goes up by 16%. Singer has even created a mutual fund that pulls almost entirely out of the stock market when congress is in session and jumps back in when they are out of session. The only problem is that no one knows why this happens; financial experts like Singer only know the correlations.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2012/10/18/is-congress-ruining-stock-prices
-Jared Tanner
The Courier Post published an article entitled "Is Congress capable of bridging the gap?" in which the increasing differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats is outlined. The average percentage point difference between the parties on questions of values has doubled since 1988. Since Congress is split between the parties, with the House being Republican and the Senate being Democrat, very little is getting done in Congress. The parties are unwilling to work together, and most arguments end in stalemate. Frustration with Congress' inablility to get things done has caused the Congress approval rating to drop to record lows. This means that despite promises on both sides of the presidential election, it is unlikely that either candidate will be able to make much headway with Congress unliss something is changed. More people need to run for Congress, to get the uncooperative incumbents out. It doesn't matter so much as to whether these new candidates are Democrats or Republicans. It mostly matters that they are willing to reach across the aisle and work together to get things done.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20121021/OPINION02/310210004/Is-Congress-capable-bridging-gap-
-Hannah Tamminga
In the recent article posted on Bloomburg.com, “Approval of Congress Again Hits Record Low of 10 Percent,” the author states that an astounding 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the job that congress has been doing lately. This poor mark has come along with a string of poor approval ratings (16 percent in July, 17 percent in June). The SO WHAT of this article is that many Americans believe that congress is a giant gridlock that does not put out the results that are expected. These low ratings are somewhat expected though, coming at a time where the head officials in Washington are focusing on the upcoming election. The lawmakers in Washington also state that there is no reason for congress to act differently. These low figures do not necessarily mean that nothing is being accomplished in congress, just that their efforts are being placed into other areas.
Janek Walker
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/approval-of-congress-again-hits-record-low-of-10-percent.html
According to a New York Times article published on September 27th, the number of moderates in congress has been steadily diminishing for decades, reaching the most polarized point within the last century. So what? This coming term will see even more challenging decision than in the past. Many moderates are retiring, or facing difficult reelection races. If this proves true, Congress will either have to find some way to compromise, or face painful tax increases and military cuts. The next president will have to find ways to pull congress together. This could be point of resolution between parties, or a rude awakening to it's consequences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/us/politics/pool-of-moderates-in-congress-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-Ainsley Riebow
It's a close race for senate in Indiana. This mostly republican state is having trouble trying to decide between Republican Richard E. Mourdock and Democrat JOe Donnelly. Even though this is a mostly republican state, Donnelly has presented himself as a "practical, jobs-focused, partisan-line-crossing moderate" (Davey). The current Senator, Mr. Lugar, said that he would like Mr. Mourdock to win in order to contribute to Republican majority in the Senate; however, he also said that in order to be a good senator, Mourdock would have to change some of his policies. Both candidates have been accused for shifting from far right/left to the middle. In this costly compaign, its not clear who is going to win for Senate in Indiana.
Davey, Monica. "As Senate Race in Indiana Tightens, Candidates Seem to Move to Center." New York Times 21 Oct. 2012, New York ed.: A19. The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. .
The New York Times published on October 18, 2012 the final debate between Linda McMahon (Republican) and Christopher Murphy (Democrat) for one of Connecticut's seat in the Senate. The hot topic in their debate was women's issues and jobs. Mr. Murphy continually brought up that Ms. McMahon does not truly care about the women's issues or Connecticut's interests because all she wants is the seat in senate so it can then be dominated by the Republicans. Ms. McMahon, former professional wrestling executive, would then say that she is an independent thinker and emphasized that it is time for Connecticut to send people who know how to create jobs to Washington and not career politicians. She continued to say that Mr. Murphy only wants to hold office, however, she wants to make a change for the youth and the future. In a recent poll it was shown that 44% of voters favored Mr. Murphy while 38% of the voters favored Ms. McMahon, leaving 17% undecided. Later in the debate, Mr. Murphy ceased the moment when he saw Ms. McMahon not mentioning specifics in any of her plans so he called her out on it and she said she wasn't mentioning specifics during the campaign trail "..because they get demoguged..". Mr. Murphy then said "She says she’s going to get demagogued. Well, maybe that’s a different way of saying you’re going to lose votes. Well, you might lose votes when you take a position, but that’s our responsibility as candidates, to tell folks what we would do." Ms. McMahon then just went onto say that her jobs plan crushed all other issues and since Mr. Murphy does not have a jobs plan, she is the better candidate in her eyes. In the end of the debate, each candidate was asked to say one nice thing about the other. Mr. Murphy went first and said that Ms. McMahon is a very driven person and she has donated a lot to the Connecticut charities. Ms. McMahon then went and said: "I think one of the nicest things I’ve seen about Congressman Murphy are his two little boys. They are so cute."
The "SO WHAT" of this article is that this seat in the Senate means a great deal to the women of Connecticut because this whole race and debate has been about women's issues and rights. If they elect to go with Ms. McMahon the Senate will be dominated by Republicans and she will try to put her jobs plan that she has been bolstering about in place. If Mr. Murphy is elected he plans to dive straight into women's issues and solve them, however he does not have a jobs plan. The citizens of Connecticut are faced with a choice of two great candidates and this article attempts to highlight that and reduce the percentage of undecided voters because the winner will have an effect on Connecticut and its' citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/nyregion/mcmahon-and-murphy-in-connecticut-senate-debate-clash-on-womens-issues.html?ref=congress&_r=0
Ahmed Ahmed
In the article, "Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks", the U.S. military goes head to head with Congress over the issue of halting production of military tanks. The Army believes that the production of tanks should be stopped because they have enough for our defense needs, and companies can start producing them again once new technologies are developed. The military's main reason for this abrupt stop is that taxpayers would be saved $3 billion dollars. Congress is against this action because the production of tanks offers 16,000 jobs to civilians and involves 882 supplies, so cutting production would risk jobs and hurt the economy. The decision on tank production was decided with $181 million dollars going towards building tanks for a military that does not want them.
This decision is important because now that Congress decided to keep the production of tanks U.S. citizens won't get a cut off their taxes, but 16,000 people will keep their jobs.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?iref=allsearch
-Kelli Tobin
According to a gallop poll from Huffington Post on August 14th 2012, just one in ten Americans approve of what the Congress is doing. Right now, Congress is tying the lowest approval rating in 38 years. Throughout Obama's term as President, Congress has lost many percentages in their approval ratings and they are only continuing to drop. The approval rate for Congress has yet to pass 20% in more than a year and seems to be much lower than the personal approval rates for most of Congress. Although, before the year 2007, it sank below 20% only twice.
There are many reasons for these harsh views, and the diminishing economy is one of the largest factors. This is also blamed on the extreme difference of views between the Republican and Democratic party, who have not been able to compromise in the past years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html
-Reina Owecke
Congress right now has a all time record of lowest approval by Americans on doing their job. Generally approval ratings are much lower in the months leading to election day and this means that there is a higher turnover of the seats. In addition, the redistricting of all 435 seats of the house in this year's census will have a major factor on the turnover of the seats as well. Even though the presidential race is the big picture to most people, the upcoming congressional election will impact how the country is governed for the next 2 years. This is decided if the president gets a congress that is the majority of the same party as theirs or of the opposing party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157475/congress-approval-poised-lowest-election-year.aspx
According to a post from Planet Washington, Congress' approval rating has now tied its record low of ten percent. The article goes on to extrapolate that this dismal approval rating comes from both the poor state of the economy as well as congress being so evenly split between two major parties thus causing Americans of each party to disapprove of a large faction of congress. The extremely low approval rating show that Americans want to see a change in the actions the government, at least congress is engaging in. However, as congress is roughly evenly divided between the parties, and as each side's loyalists put the blame on the opposing side, the composition of congress is not predicted to go through any major renovations. Because of this, not many of the changes the Americans' surveyed have showed they want are likely to take place.
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2012/08/congress-approval-rating-down-to-10-percent.html
~Danny Luedtke
According to CNN article "Thanks, but no Tanks" Congress is urging the military to produce tanks despite the military leaders wanting to stop production. Congressmen claim this will hurt the economy.
Congress also frequently claims that they should listen to military leaders, and are in this case ignoring them. This lowers their credibility and approval rating.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?iref=allsearch
Rayyan Mikati
[sorry, it asked for my google account and I didn't realize my comment didn't publish until now.)
Source: Bradenton Herald
http://www.bradenton.com/2012/10/22/4248022/wyoming-democrat-wages-lonely.html
Democratic Congressional candidate Chris Henrichsen is quickly learning why Wyoming is one of the most conservative states in America. He is struggling to keep his campaign alive in a solidly red state. Henrichsen is showing signs of discouragement. At a speech at the University of Wyoming, he said to the two dozen attendees that there aren't many Democrats in Wyoming and that he feels like a state running mate for President Obama.
This race can help to maintain the Republican supermajority in the House of Representatives, allowing Republicans to pass and veto what they wish at the House level.
Jacob Pintos (The Wyoming one)
Farmers have been suffering for a long time. Especially in Wisconsin where this year has been particularly tough. MILC has been helping farmers all throughout the country that have been suffering. MILC is part of a farm bill that is reinstated every five years. This year congress is having a hard time passing it again. Democrats do not want to cut food stamps (which make up 80% of the money from teh bill) whereas republicans want more cuts. If this bill is not passed, Farmers throughout the country will have a very hard year ahead of them.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20121022_Congress_has_failed_to_act_before_the_dairy_farm_bill_expired.html
Larsen Orchard
The article written on the CNN "Political Ticker" is essentially showing a larger problem in the campaigns of today's politics: the excessive name calling that occurs from opponents during elections and the lack of actual work getting done that is in the interest of the people. The article highlights upon one race in particular between incumbent Keith Ellison and challenger Chris Fields. Divorces, kids, and the like are all brought up but little policy--this show that such name calling which is also present in the presidential race-- is inhibiting congress men to do their duty and job and shows them as only squabbling children who are petulantly trying to get in the last word.
-Ekram Abdullahi
The article I read was published by CNN titled: "Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks". This article is telling the readers that congress is telling the army they need more tanks. The army told congress they were fine with their tank supply and do not need anymore but congress is ignoring them. Which is hypocritical because congress always tell the president to listen to their military leaders.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?iref=allsearch
Cassie Curry
A New York Times article: Battle for the Senate descibes the candidates that are currently running for seats in the senate along with a little bit of background on either the candidate themselves, or the situation of the states' senate. For instance, it talks abou the retirement of Senator Herb Kohl and the effect his retirement has on the state. Especially since Wisconsin's politics are "deeply divided". It also points out the failed efforts that are being taken to recal Gov. Walker. This article appears to be unbaised toward Republicans and Democrats but does a good, representative job of displaying both sides candidates as well as tactics and plans. It is an informative article for those states that are mentioned, however, for those that are not, it is still handy to be up to date with other states upcoming elections.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ratings/senate
Alicia Karls
The American public may have such high disaproval ratings of congress because of the business interfering directly through lawmaking by lobbyists. According to bloomberg.com there was a direct correlation between the amount of lobbyists hired by B.P after the oil crisis. Some of the lobbyists were past congressional members. There was a bill created limit offshore drilling and the article aludes that because of the lobbyists it was unable to be passed. It is no wonder why the public is skeptical of their congress.
The American public may have such high disaproval ratings of congress because of the business interfering directly through lawmaking by lobbyists. According to bloomberg.com there was a direct correlation between the amount of lobbyists hired by B.P after the oil crisis. Some of the lobbyists were past congressional members. There was a bill created limit offshore drilling and the article aludes that because of the lobbyists it was unable to be passed. It is no wonder why the public is skeptical of their congress.
Bryan Flanagan
According to the Can we fix hyper-partisan Congress, the congress is hyper-partisan. Congress is excessively biased with which ever faction the representatives represent. ex as presented in the article, the ex congressman Micky Edwards describes how there are to lecterns in the front of the house of chambers, one lectern for each party. During his first
congressional speech, he spoke at the opposing party's lectern. his response was "So, in giving my very first congressional speech I stood at the lectern facing the Democrats. I was greeted with an audible gasp from both sides of the aisle." (Mickey Edwards). In the article, he also describes the causes of the hyper-partisan congress. His conclusion, is that it is caused not only in part by the representatives, but also the system that allows and almost promotes the segregation of parties. So what? congress is bound to be segregated by factions, and it will always occur due to our current system.
-Nickolas Vasquez http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html
According to the Can we fix hyper-partisan Congress, the congress is hyper-partisan. Congress is excessively biased with which ever faction the representatives represent. ex as presented in the article, the ex congressman Micky Edwards describes how there are to lecterns in the front of the house of chambers, one lectern for each party. During his first
congressional speech, he spoke at the opposing party's lectern. his response was "So, in giving my very first congressional speech I stood at the lectern facing the Democrats. I was greeted with an audible gasp from both sides of the aisle." (Mickey Edwards). In the article, he also describes the causes of the hyper-partisan congress. His conclusion, is that it is caused not only in part by the representatives, but also the system that allows and almost promotes the segregation of parties. So what? congress is bound to be segregated by factions, and it will always occur due to our current system.
-Nickolas Vasquez http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html
buy tramadol mastercard buy tramadol american express - tramadol for dogs what dosage
Post a Comment
<< Home