Practice Final Exam

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of 12 of the 15 following items (4 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. National Security Act of 1947
2. Progressive taxes
3. Stare decisis
4. Federal Register
5. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
6. Cloture
7. Embedded journalist
8. Superdelegates
9. Exclusionary rule
10. AmeriCorps
11. Unfunded mandate
12. Bill of attainder
13. Medicaid
14. Party identification
15. Thirteenth Amendment

II. Short answers. Answer 3 of 4 (6 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain the difference between unilateralism and multilateralism in foreign policy.

2. Briefly explain: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.”

3. Briefly explain: “Our written laws are often hard to understand, but everyone can read them, whereas nothing could be more obscure and out of research of the common man than a law founded on precedent.”

4. What has happened to the newspaper industry in recent years? How might the trend affect deliberative democracy?

III. General Essays. Answer 2 of 3 (17 points each). Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. How can federalism foster deliberation and active citizenship?

2. The unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. Is the president responsible? In your answer, consider the structure of federal economic policymaking.

3. See the article at http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=27305&n=tead-off-americans-national-day-of-pray-gets-wrong-court-decision. Explain how it illustrates basic features of the nation’s civic culture and constitutional structure. Does it get anything wrong?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

• Annette Polly Williams
• Christine Todd Whitman
• Henry Waxman
• Byron White
• Sienna Wooten

California Budget Cuts

Acalanes Blueprint

I went to a public California high school in the East Bay in northern California. During my senior year, state budget cuts hit the public education system. Every teacher and every program was in the line of fire, and the situation is getting worse every year. Therefore, parcel tax measures have recently been a huge part of local politics.

One might blame the government for mishandling tax revenue, but as the most recent article in the student newspaper, the Blueprint, points out, others claim the problem is that “the teachers’ union…owns the state legislature” (see article). The California teachers’ union is a political powerhouse, and it has fought long and hard for decreased classroom size. This brings up the debate over which is more important: keeping teachers in their jobs and keeping class sizes down or continuing to fund more student programs. Personally, if I had the option of sitting on the floor all day in classes with 40 people or having my student newspaper cut, I’d choose sitting on the floor. I think every student at my school would do the same for their student organization, or to keep the opportunity to take AP courses.

How people feel about the parcel tax measures has a lot to do with the “feel-good” aspect of wanting everyone to contribute to the education of the "future of America". Therefore, those who oppose the parcel tax get a bad reputation for being greedy and selfish when really, they have the same interests at heart. As more free-market oriented, anti-regulatory voters, their stance stems from less faith in the ability of local level (and probably all levels of) government bureaucracy to handle something as important and serious as a crisis in the education system. They also have a different basic concept of how the economy functions in the long run. They call for temporary difficulty in favor of long-term gain, saying that, instead of tax increases that may erode the tax base and reduce tax revenue, we should encourage private fundraising by those whose interests are most invested in the education system.

Economic Policy

Power Point slides

Medicare actuary report on the health bill

Sources of information

Our future:

Obama at WHCD

While President Obama reminds us of his speaking skill during every speech and official speaking appearance, I had forgotten about his ability to remain well liked in almost any social situation. Whereas President Bush seemed decidedly uncomfortable at this White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Obama was in control throughout the entirety of his speech and, as reported by Politico, even topped Jay Leno's performance in terms of comedy. In his short speech preceding Jay Leno's spot, Obama demonstrated a welcome ability to laugh at himself, Biden, and the rest of his staff.

Some of the best lines included:

"I work a lot so I wasn't sure that I should actually come tonight. Biden talked me into it. He leaned over and he said, 'Mr. President, this is no ordinary dinner. This is a big "f**king meal!"

"Unfortunately John McCain couldn't make it. Recently he claimed that he had never identified himself as a maverick, and we all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have I.D."

By the end of the night, Obama had completely outdone Jay Leno (not that difficult an achievement), who had decided to play it safe with his routine. Although I can appreciate a President with a sense of humor, Politico aptly points out that Obama might not have attended the event and chosen to focus on the recent BP oil spill instead. Such action might have been more appropriate, but, for better or worse, Obama is a president who enjoys and excels in the limelight. I doubt he could have passed an opportunity like this up.

Are we Safe?

This Saturday around 6:28pm, a Nissan Pathfinder S.U.V. was found in the center of Times Square containing simple alarm clocks attached to gasoline pipes, propane, firecrackers and fertilizer. Less than a few minutes of having parked on West 45^th Street, a nearby vendor observed smoke coming out of the SUV and notified a police officer. The bomb squad appeared a few minutes later and successfully detonated it, leaving investigators to pour through hours of surveillance footage to find suspects. The bomb was reported to be a very simple one that would have set off a “fireball”, killing several civilians and tear the car to pieces but would not be able to demolish buildings. The New York Times reported that there are many theories floating as to why this bomb was planted. A video of the Al-Qaeda was found on YouTube claiming that they were responsible for the attack. However, terrorist analysts are skeptical and believe that this may be a propaganda stunt rather than the real deal. There has also been speculation about it being an attempt to bomb the Viacom building. Viacom owns the sitcom South Park which recently depicted the prophet Mohammad in a negative light. Since then the company has received many threats from Islamist groups. With these events occurring in broad day light we need to ask are we safe? What more can the government do to make events like this not occur? This time we got lucky that the car was parked in a central location and that the vendors were able to spot the smoke coming out. The Obama administration is now working hard trying to find the criminals behind this event and how to prevent it from occurring again.

Cost-control measures in the health care law

In class on Wednesday, we talked about the recently enacted health care law and touched on its immediate impact on health care spending in the United States. Per that discussion, I wanted to break down a few of the features of the bill that we didn’t touch on but have the potential to fundamentally reshape our health insurance system and “bend the curve” of growing health costs.

The exchanges

The law requires each state to set up a health insurance “exchange”—a health insurance marketplace, accessed online, in which insurance companies have to list their plans in clear detail for consumers to compare on the merits of quality and price. All plans sold in the exchange will have to meet minimum standards of coverage. In today’s insurance market, most consumers don’t know which coverage is best and how much it should cost, except for really sick people who spend time researching this kind of stuff. In the exchange, the relative quality of plans will be clearly indicated through both government and consumer ratings; in this transparent market, the economics of competition will work naturally to improve quality and reduce prices. At first, the exchanges will be open only to individuals and small businesses; in 2018, states will have the option of banding their exchanges together with those of other states, and allowing larger businesses to buy insurance on the exchanges. If this happens, we may see the kind of system-wide cost reduction we need.

The excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans

Though highly unpopular, this is the law’s most direct incentive for cost control. Basically, in 2018, a 40% tax will be applied on every dollar over $27,500 spent on a health insurance plan. This threshold will increase with inflation, which is slower than health care cost growth; unless costs start growing more slowly, more plans will fall under the tax. The ultimate goal is not to have employers pay the tax; the goal is for them to avoid paying the tax by choosing plans for their employees that cost less money. This, consequently, gives insurers who charge less a competitive advantage against those charging more.

The Medicare Commission

Right now, Congress has authority over Medicare payment rates and spending targets. The recently enacted law creates the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, a 15-member board of experts appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is empowered to bring Medicare in line with certain spending targets and institute reforms in Medicare to make meeting those targets easier. The key is that their recommendations are not subject to amendment by Congress; after they are made, the recommendations must be explicitly rejected, as a package, by both houses of Congress within a certain amount of time before they take effect. Congress hates to implement changes to Medicare that might hurt those who benefit from the current system; the commission solves this political problem. Most importantly, the commission can use Medicare to experiment with reforms in payment and delivery systems that, if they work, could be emulated system-wide.

The bundling of Medicare payments

With a few pockets of exception, our health care system currently operates under a “fee-for-service” model, in which doctors get paid more for every consultation, test, procedure, or prescription they order. And consumers do not want to second-guess the recommendations of medical professionals, no matter how skewed their incentives. A good explanation of the perils of this system is found in Atul Gawande’s article in The New Yorker from last June. You should be able to find it on Google.

Under the new law, instead of getting paid for each treatment and test, hospitals serving Medicare patients will receive a single fee for treating all of a patient’s ailments over a given period of time. This will give incentive for doctors to communicate with patients and other doctors, and provide a disincentive to order tests and procedures that might not be necessary. It could be the beginning of Americans paying for the quality of their health care rather than the quantity of their health care.

Arizona's Bad Timing

The U.S. state of Arizona recently passed a bill with the intent to crack down in a big way on illegal immigration. This bill makes it illegal to be in the state if you are not a U.S. citizen, allows for law enforcement officials to go up to anyone on the street and ask for U.S. identification, and lets Arizona citizens sue the police department of the state if they do not feel they are doing their job in catching and sending back illegal immigrants. This can and will most likely lead to racial profiling by law enforcement officials in checking ids, due to Arizona's shared border with Mexico. The Roman Catholic cardinal in Los Angeles has criticized this bill as nearing Nazism. Many Americans think that Mexico is the problem neighbor of America, whose people are crashing their party. In some ways this is true. Mexico is in the middle of a large conflict against their many drug cartels. Over 20,000 people have died in Mexico due to this conflict. The War on Drugs in Mexico has proven to be very different than the one in the U.S. Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon have been working closely because this crackdown on Mexico's drug cartels is of great interest to the U.S. Mexican cartels are responsible for an estimated 70% of the drugs that enter this country. The recently named most dangerous city in the world, Juarez, sits just across our border of Texas and New Mexico. This time, more than ever, calls for the U.S. and Mexico to work as closely as ever to help prevent the violence from continuing in Mexico, as well as spreading across our borders which is a strong possibility. Our government has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to help with military supplies as well as intelligence and troop training. The Merida Initiative is a joint security cooperation between Mexico, the U.S., and other Central American countries to help combat cartels and drugs. Arizona has chosen a poor time to pass the bill. President Calderon has openly stated his outrage over the bill, saying, "(the bill) opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement. Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen" He is right. Mexico's state of Sonora which borders Arizona has pulled out of its annual Sonora-Arizona Commission, a cooperation meeting that has been held between the two states for over four decades. Mexico accounts for close to two-thirds of Arizona's exports. This will be no longer. Many expect the U.S. - Mexico relationship to deteriorate at a time where it must be especially strong for the safety of North America.

This bill by Arizona, constitutional or unconstitutional, has come at the worst time. It will cause the economy of Arizona to deteriorate in the middle of the recession which is starting to get better. It will hurt the relationship between our two countries when we need to be strong and focus our efforts on helping Mexico break up their drug cartels, decrease their violence, and keep drugs off our streets.