Economic policy

Source: http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?1067-Great-cartoons-about-the-economy

What is the process to develop economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

The government develops both fiscal and monetary policies to try to sustain governmental services and provide for the future economic health of the country. "Fiscal policy manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 294). This is done through tax collection and spending programs. "Fiscal policy envisions government budgets as thermostats, adjusting autmatically to counteract the economy's market swings...It also establishes the priorities and values of the government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 294). Monetary policy is another important aspect of government economic policy. "Monetary policy attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 303). Monetary policy affects people of different socio-economic groups differently depending on where they are. High interest rates benefit the more wealthy while low interest rates benefit the poor because they are more likely to be in debt. The goal is to develop fiscal and monetary policy that benefits the greatest number of citizens fairly and equitably as well as provides for the long-term economic health of the nation.

Of course, this is how it is supposed to work. The current economy in the US is weakened and the suffering of its citizens widespread. "...Because of anemic U.S. savings and growth rates, coupled with massive purchases of imports, the United States has become a debtor nation. Its economic stability depens on the willingness of other countries to provide the resources to balance its books" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 376). With an official unemployment rate hovering around 9% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and the political system hovering dangerously close to defaulting on US debt for the first time in history, the difference between the ideal theory and procedural reality in the economy has not been so vast since the 1930's.

How does a government create social policies to facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

Government creates social policies to care for citizens through a variety of means. One method is through regulation on both the economic and social levels. The development of the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Consumer Products Safety Commission are examples of social regulation that attempts to ensure equitable and safe delivery of free-market services (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2010, p. 311). Economic regulation through the Federal Drug Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission are designed "to regulate specific industries, a process that often involved managing competition and setting industry standards" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2010, p. 311). Along with social programs such as Medicare and Social Security, these regulatory agencies have a goal of allowing free markets to thrive and yet providing an equitable playing field for the most number of citizens.

 

With the false "disaster capitalism" dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_capitalism) framing the current debt ceiling, the safety net for the weakest of American citizens is under attack since its inception. 

 

Can individuals and groups of individuals influence economic policy? If so, how?



Judicial Fairness

(Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/american/justice/)
The judicial branch in the US, comprised of state and federal courts, is responsible for the interpretation of the laws of the land. They can set precedent, overturn laws enforcing inequality, and make decisions that uphold the status quo. An "impartial judiciary", one not swayed by the will of popular opinion or political influence, is the ideal. "But, in practice, judges do make rules; and thus courts act as political as well as legal institutions...And just like other political actors, judges have their own policy goals and are influenced by public opinion, election results, and their own worldviews when they issue rulings" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 249).

Because judges are appointed at the federal level and not elected, they have been the source of contention over their role in a democracy. This is especially true in the case of the Supreme Court. The composition of the highest court in America is determined by the political leanings of the President in power when there is a vacancy. The contention over these nominations has grown over the last 30 years, as has the accusations of corruption. Clarence Thomas is currently under suspicion for conflicts of interest related to his private political activities and his refusal to recuse himself on cases where he has personally gained. That is just one example of how the judicial branch is clouded with suspicion of impropriety.

Ideally, the judicial branch would interpret the laws of America in relation to the Constitution without any partiality toward the impact of their decisions. This is rarely the case.

The Presidency and Democracy

 

How does one answer the question of how the President in America supports or limits "ideal democracy"?  I'm not sure the American people agree on what an ideal democracy is. Equal access, equal opportunity, and equal reward for effort would be hallmarks to me of a fair and socially just democracy. So I'll answer the question from that viewpoint. The President can use his "bully pulpit" as the leader of the country to change the national conversation toward issues that either support or detract from the goals of a socially just democracy. He or she can also use executive powers to veto legislation passed by Congress and make the bar of passage more difficult. Under George W. Bush, we saw an expansion of presidential power to unprecedented levels. The executive branch is a key component of the "balance of powers" in the Constitution, and was drafted in such a way to provide a check on the Congress. "The constitutional architects specifically designed the newly created office of the president to be independent of Congres in order to check what they perceived ats the latter's democratic excesses" (Katznelson, Kessleman, & Draper, 2011, p. 175). It was a revolutionary idea that has defined American Democracy.

The relationship between Congress and the President can be supportive and constructive or poisonous and destructive, as we see in current American politics. With such an ideological split in the country, reflected in our government, it is naturally going to be acrimonious to work through issues. However, it has gone beyond ideological differences on shaping the future of America and has instead devolved into moral judgments, such as "if you don't agree with me, you must be evil and bad and hate America". This has contributed to a deadlock in American government we have not seen in decades. The current "debt ceiling" fight is an example of this.

The U.S. Congress was drafted in such a way to give balance of power as equally as possible to the citizens of America. By having representation in the U.S. House depend on population, you have a branch that is as equally representative of population as possible. The Senate was designed to be a check on that branch so as to not grant too much power to popular opinion and instead represent equally the states of the Union. The Presidency was designed to be a check on both the House and the Senate, and is the only position in government elected by the entire population of the country. Unfortunately, corporate money and power have poisoned the wells of all the branches of government, including the tainted Supreme Court. The unlimited use of money in American politics means we have the best corporatocracy money can buy. Until real and substantial campaign finance reform and lobby reform happens, we will continue to be a country by the dollar, of the dollar, and for the dollar.

Social Movements and Interest Groups

Source: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-24/news/29719466_1_marriage-bill-gay-marriage-gay-divorce

Individual citizens joined together in groups have power to influence democracy and decision-making up to a point. Depending on their funding sources and how much pull they have with the media, their stances on issues can be felt in the decision making done in the legislature. However, that is a big caveat. Some groups have funding that some might consider far from grass roots. Dictionary.com defines grass roots as "the common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grass+roots).

When organizations present themselves as arising out of the will of the common man and yet have funding from very elite corporate powers, corporations have a way to disguise themselves as grass roots. It is becoming more common today as the normal checks and balances of the Supreme Court are giving way to more corporate-friendly laws. It is now easier for corporations to disguise themselves as the wbill of the people. "Groups that represent corporate interests-such as policy offices representing individual firms, trade associations representing specific industries, and peak associations representing businesses across industries-remain the most influential , largely due to the extensive resources at their command" (Katznelson, Kessleman, & Draper, 2011, p. 137-8).
However, there are still plenty of influential groups and social movements, especially at the local level. Indeed, local politics seems to be where individuals and groups have the most sway. There have been times when this has trickled up into the national discourse. In order for true grass roots organizations to be given national attention, it seems more effective to begin at the local level.

In just the past year, there has been a growing outcry over the perceived class warfare being waged against middle and lower class people in America. The spontaneous and surprising uprising in Wisconsin, fed in part by the inspiration found in the Middle East's Arab Spring, have inspired individuals and groups in America to bypass the political process they perceive is stacked against them. And that perception is not unfounded. It seems more and more that the polarization of American politics is designed by corporations to distract and poison the public discourse to make Americans believe they have less and less in common.

Hopefully the increasing protest movements around the gutting of environmental and labor laws as well as the dismantling of our social safety net in favor of corporate profits will make Americans realize they have much more in common than not. The thing the corporate powers fear the most is a united America, for there they would face a real adversary. Tuning out corporate media and taking the conversation to a more organic platform (like meetings, Twitter, Facebook, and the like) could indeed influence the outcome of the class war being waged on American citizens. But that...is up to us.