Constitutional Connection:
The Constitutional duties of the Executive Branch are made within the President of the United States, who also plays a role as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.
Analysis of the Connection:
In December 2007 a bill passes that the use of earmarks could be put on the spending money of Congress. This would show how cautious congress was on imposing its budget priorities on the executive branch. Earmarking boomed in the last decade, with lobbyists competing for the attention of committee members who control the money. Congress handed out more than $17 billion in awards in fiscal 2008. The budget passed in December 2007, has earmarks that set aside money for bridges, highways and other public works such as museums, universities and research on topics like grape genetics; bicycle trails and parks; control of agricultural pests like the emerald ash borer beetle; and aid to military contractors producing missiles, munitions, "merino wool boot socks" and many other items used by the armed forces. With this budget cuts it was estimated to represent a 25 percent drop from years before.
By the time 2008 rolled around, earmarks had become majorly bad in politics and were the midpoint in many scandals. Democrats and Republicans began trying to outdo each other in reducing the abuse of earmarks. Democrats taking control over congress since the 2006 elections have taken actions that they say helped bring more transparency and competition to the earmark process, even though outside critics did not always agree. In March 2010, the House leadership banned the use of earmarks. by forming non-profit corporations under their control to receive new funds.
Under the new restrictions, not-for-profit institutions like schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others are still free to receive earmarks. The new restrictions would still allow the type of award to local governmental agencies that became infamous in 2005 with Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere." And a number of companies responded to the new rules by setting up nonprofits, often at the same mailing address as the company, and sometimes with company executives or relatives on their board of directors. Some members on both sides of the Capitol still defend earmarks, though but more on a hush hush situation. They say earmarks have gotten a bad rap from outside groups and critical colleagues who tend to portray them as poster children for Capitol Hill scandals.
In my opinion the earmarks would be a good idea if the Democrats and Republicans could get along. If those two parties could get along and work together to make sure no scandals went into play and they both kept an honest outlook on the situation, earmarks could have succeeded.
Analysis of the Connection:
In December 2007 a bill passes that the use of earmarks could be put on the spending money of Congress. This would show how cautious congress was on imposing its budget priorities on the executive branch. Earmarking boomed in the last decade, with lobbyists competing for the attention of committee members who control the money. Congress handed out more than $17 billion in awards in fiscal 2008. The budget passed in December 2007, has earmarks that set aside money for bridges, highways and other public works such as museums, universities and research on topics like grape genetics; bicycle trails and parks; control of agricultural pests like the emerald ash borer beetle; and aid to military contractors producing missiles, munitions, "merino wool boot socks" and many other items used by the armed forces. With this budget cuts it was estimated to represent a 25 percent drop from years before.
By the time 2008 rolled around, earmarks had become majorly bad in politics and were the midpoint in many scandals. Democrats and Republicans began trying to outdo each other in reducing the abuse of earmarks. Democrats taking control over congress since the 2006 elections have taken actions that they say helped bring more transparency and competition to the earmark process, even though outside critics did not always agree. In March 2010, the House leadership banned the use of earmarks. by forming non-profit corporations under their control to receive new funds.
Under the new restrictions, not-for-profit institutions like schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others are still free to receive earmarks. The new restrictions would still allow the type of award to local governmental agencies that became infamous in 2005 with Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere." And a number of companies responded to the new rules by setting up nonprofits, often at the same mailing address as the company, and sometimes with company executives or relatives on their board of directors. Some members on both sides of the Capitol still defend earmarks, though but more on a hush hush situation. They say earmarks have gotten a bad rap from outside groups and critical colleagues who tend to portray them as poster children for Capitol Hill scandals.
In my opinion the earmarks would be a good idea if the Democrats and Republicans could get along. If those two parties could get along and work together to make sure no scandals went into play and they both kept an honest outlook on the situation, earmarks could have succeeded.
No comments:
Post a Comment