Obama To Send Spending-Reduction Legislation To Congress

This article, written in the Wall Street Journal on May 24, 2010, is about President Obama and his issuing of spending-reduction legislation to Congress. His proposal, called the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, is a response to the negative criticism that the federal government is spending out of control. The legislation allows President Obama to propose a series of rescissions to spending packages approved by Congress. Congress would have to vote on whether to approve Obama's rescissions within set timeframes to limit debate and without the ability to make changes. It will give the White House broad authority to reduce wasteful federal spending and block earmarks. He has already signed into law a pay-as-you-go bill, forcing Congress to make cuts equivalent to any new entitlement increases. He has also proposed a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary funding, which could save the government $250 billion over ten years. This article is significant because it epitomizes the relationship between the president and Congress. The president can recommend legislation, but the future of the legislation depends on the willingness of Congress to accept the bill. The president often sees Congress as an obstacle to overcome, so the dynamic relationship between Congress and the president is all about persuasion. In my opinion, Congress should accept and pass Obama's legislation in order to help out those suffering in the economy, because I also agree that the government is spending ridiculous amounts of money.

Photo Credit

Extra Credit Post by OCaridi

Transocean hires U.S. lobby firm to work Congress

This article, which was written on May 13, 2010, summarizes the issues Transocean is dealing with regarding the explosion of the oil rig right off of the shores of Louisiana. Because of these issues, Transocean hired a United States lobby firm to work Congress to back their situation. The firm, called Capitol Hill Consulting Group registered as a lobbyist for Transocean and is hoping to smooth out the conflict between BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. Each of the oil rig powers are blaming each other for the horrific accident, so Transocean took it upon themselves to lobby Congress for a positive result. In the past, Transocean has donated less than $100,000 on lobbying tax issues, but since the accident, employees and others have spent a little more than $10,000 in campaign contributions to members of the House and Senate to gain backing from the government. Hopefully for Transocean, the Capitol Hill Consulting Group will appear in front of the Senate and House of Representatives oversight committees in order to gain support, an answer as to who is to blame, and possibly funding to fix the problem that the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon has caused on the environment and the lives of others. This article was significant to our studies of interest groups and the study of lobbying and congress. Interest groups would lobby Congress to get their voices heard and rally support, just as Transocean is lobbying Congress to rally support for their company (even if it means throwing BP and Halliburton under the bus). If this technique works to the advantage of Transocean, the blame will be lifted from their shoulders and onto those of the other group. I sure do hope it works, because as long as these three groups keep disregarding their involvement in this tragedy and the less government gets involved, the more time we are wasting watching our environment fade away.

Photo Credit

Article Credit May 13, 2010

First steps toward renewable resources

This Newsweek article, dated May 12, 2010, describes the first debates on a packed energy bill (called the American Power Act or the Kerry-Lieberman bill) designed to fight climate change. The bill includes $54 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear proponents, subsidies for companies that use/create renewable energy, and incentives for “clean coal” researchers. The bill also addresses the hot topic of oil drilling, which will increase but states can reject plans of drilling within 75 miles of their coastline.

The timing of this bill is precarious, as it immediately follows the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and drilling’s reputation is less than spectacular at the moment.
Initially, environmentalists weren’t impressed with Kerry’s draft but have offered some support since.

We think this bill is a step in the right direction. Even if it doesn’t stop climate change or switch all energy sources to renewable energy, it’s better than doing nothing.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/camtrails/447548233/

By Brooke Adair & Alex Bishop