1995 Government Shutdown

What specific issues led to the government shutdown in 1995?

The government shutdown took place in two parts. The first lasted five days in November 1995, until the White House agreed to congressional demands to balance the budget within seven years. But talks on implementing that agreement failed, and the second shutdown lasted 21 days, from Dec. 15, 1995 to Jan. 6. 1996. The main issue was the GOP demand that Clinton agree to their version of a balanced budget. In months of negotiations, Clinton had actually given a far amount of ground, infuriating Democrats on the left. He agreed to a balanced budget over seven years, to tax cuts, to changes in mandatory spending programs such as Medicare. But the two sides were remained far apart on the pace of spending cuts

Who "won" the government shutdown in 1995 and why?

Ultimately the Democrats won. The Democrats won because after weeks of turmoil, the Republicans finally cut a deal with the Democrats which actually didn’t make anything different than it was before. The Dems also won because the GOP shutdown of the government made the GOP look bad especially after they did not accomplish what they said they were going to do.

Why are we currently operating under a current resolution?

We are currently operating under a current resolution because Congress has yet to pass a new resolution for the new fiscal. Per protocol if a new resolution is not passed the federal government has a certain amount of time where it can operate under the prior year’s resolution. If an agreement is not reached for a new resolution in the allotted amount of time then the government is shutdown.

Judging by the specific events of the last month or two, do you think we will face another government shutdown?

In short I do not think that will face another government shutdown. During the shutdown in 1995 John Boehner was the # 4 Republican in House leadership and he experienced how detrimental the shutdown of the government was to the Republican Party. Now as Speaker of the House he is the unofficial leader of the GOP not just in Congress but across the whole country. It is his job to promote and represent the GOP in a positive and productive manner.

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html

Locked in the Cabinet

1.  Summarize the article in your own words (not their summary:)

                Basically, the article was about a day in the life of the secretary of labor. The secterary explains his busy day and also describes the “bubble” that he works in. This bubble is something that protects him from contact with people from outside the department. The secretary despises this “bubble”. Ultimately, the article is a behind-the-scenes look at what it is like to be the secretary of labor.

2. What is one thing that surprised you in the article and why?

One thing that surprised about the article is how much protection the secretary gets. From the time he leaves his apartment to the time he goes home, someone is constantly with him. He even gets driven around. This surprised me because I didn’t think that cabinet members needed this much protection.

3. What is one thing that you agreed with in the article and why?

One thing that I agree with is how the secretary hates the “bubble” and wishes he didn’t need it. I would be very annoyed if someone was by my side shadowing me all day. I thought it was funny how the secretary got yelled at when he went for a walk and no one knew where he was.

4. What is one thing that you disagreed with in the article and why?

I really don’t think there is anything that I disagree with in the article because the passage was more or less about the secretary’s day in the life and he really was trying to make a point or shed light on any of his views.

A Government of Strangers

Summarize the article in your own words (not their summary:)

Basically, what the article discussed was what we’ve been talking about in class for the past few days. The article discusses how the President and his top appointments have a large amount of power, but much of the government is run by civil servants who are chosen by their merit exam score. Many of these civil servants make a career out of their work and unlike the President they remain a civil servant for decades.

2.

One thing that surprised me in the article was how some civil servants seem to disregard ethics when trying to get something done. For example, one civil servant already had bills drafted before any of the ideas and policies were even discussed.

3.

One thing that I agree with in the article is that there is widespread political sabotage throughout the government. I believe there is widespread sabotage because each separate agency has their own agenda of what they want to get done and this is one method to effectively execute their policies.

4.

One thing that I disagree with in the article is that there cannot be continuity between the incoming administrations and the bureaucrats. I believe if both sides work together there is a way to achieve continuity between administrations.

Diplomat- Ronald Reagan - Tear Down This Wall

In this video President Reagan is acting as a diplomat. In his speech Reagan tells Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" in reference to the Berlin Wall. Here President Reagan is effective as a diplomat and this speech is regarded as one of the best of his presidency.

National Mourner- Willam J. Clinton: Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Speech

In this video, President Clinton is acting as a national mourner for the country. This is a speech he gave in response to the Oklahoma City bombings. He is effective as a national mourner in this speech because he connects with the American people by shedding tears and showing he is emotionally touched by this event.

Crisis Manager- George W. Bush - 9/11 Bullhorn Speech

This is a speech given at ground zero by President Bush just days after the 9/11 attacks. In his speech President Bush told America that the terrorists will hear from America. President Bush recieved high marks for this speech and was effective as a crisis manager in this instance.

Johnson Impeachment

Andrew Johnson is known for being one of the worst Presidents in the history of United States. On February 21, 1868 Johnson removed Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War and replaced him with Adjutant-General Lorenzo Thomas, only three days later the House of Representatives impeached him for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Thaddeus Stevens and John Bingham were in charge of informing the Senate that Johnson had been impeached. In the following days the House adopted 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson. They were as follows; Dismissing Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated, Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid, Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate, Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office, Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act, Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War.", Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act, Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War.", Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act, Making three speeches with intent to sow disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States. On three different votes 35 senators voted Johnson guilty and 19 voted him innocent. Because the Constitution says to be convicted you must receive a 2/3 vote, Johnson was thus acquitted. One more “guilty” vote would have changed the verdict.  

Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/impeachmt.htm