http://www.moltencode.com/blog/index.php en info@votetocracy.com Copyright 2010 2010-08-27T17:32:42+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/votetocracy_rss_feeds_for_bloggers/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/votetocracy_rss_feeds_for_bloggers/#When:17:32:42Z Hello everyone- We've created a series of RSS feeds that pull the bills foud on Votetocracy by category. http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/latest_gov_votes http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/economy http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/education http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/environment http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/foreign-policy http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/government http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/health http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/law http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/people http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/technology http://www.votetocracy.com/rss/bill_category/war-and-military 2010-08-27T17:32:42+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/where_do_our_presidents_spend_your_money/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/where_do_our_presidents_spend_your_money/#When:03:48:11Z Sheet 4       Powered by Tableau 2010-03-27T03:48:11+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/what_is_reconciliation/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/what_is_reconciliation/#When:13:55:48Z   Reconciliation is a legislative process used in the United States Senate when confronted with a controversial and heavily debated budget item. It is a way to get around the required 60 votes necessary to kill the minority party’s filibuster. The process of reconciliation was first introduced in the Senate in 1974. It streamlines and limits debate and the process of amending the bill, and only requires a simple majority of 51 votes. Reconciliation also exists in the House of Representatives, but has less significance or impact on the way the House operates since the House has a committee that passes rules that would limit debate and the amendment process. The House also always votes based on a simple majority every time. In order to fully understand the concept behind “reconciliation,” you have to know two other definitions that go along with it (credit given to Wikipedia). 1. “A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.” 2. “A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.” Reconciliation does have some positive uses. Since it was created for legislation pertaining to the budget which must be passed, it could avoid a possible shut down of the federal government. It becomes a negative procedure when it is used for something controversial or to change policy or create new expensive programs. The process of reconciliation was first brought up in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (more information here). Reconciliation was originally supposed to be used to improve the fiscal position of the government by reducing deficits or increasing surpluses. According to Wikipedia, “the language of the 1974 act referred only to ‘changes’ in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases.” However, the uses of reconciliation have changed or have been modified since then. Former Senate Parliamentarian (basically the non-partisan official adviser to the Senate regarding parliamentary procedure), Robert Dove, is quoted on the Wikipedia article for reconciliation as saying that it “was never used for that purpose. But in 1975, just a year after it had passed, a very canny Senate committee chairman — Russell Long of Louisiana — came in to the Parliamentarian’s Office, and he kept having trouble with his tax bills because of the Senate rules. People were offering amendments to them that he didn’t like. They were debating them at length, and he didn’t like that. And he saw in the Budget Act a way of getting around those pesky little problems. And he convinced the Parliamentarian at the time — I was the assistant- that the very first use of reconciliation should be to protect his tax cut bill." Dove said this at a recent event on March 12th when he was part of a panel in which he defended the use of the filibuster as an act of slowing down debate after bills quickly pass the House by simple majority-- the reason many argue is the purpose of having the Senate in the first place. You can watch the video of the panel discussing this issue on C-Span.  Reconciliation has been used by both parties. Since 1980, 17 out of the 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). During this time period, this procedure has been used 9 times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, 6 times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, 1 time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House, and 7 times when Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. The House must agree and be involved when the Senate wants to use reconciliation so they can start the procedure of creating a budget reconciliation bill since budget and revenue bills must start in the House. Although it is supposed to be used to change and correct budget items, the process of reconciliation has been used a few times for a non-budgetary purpose. An example is the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 which was passed by a Democratic controlled Congress and a Republican president. The 1986 bill entitled Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, also known as COBRA (more info on Wikipedia), can also be considered an example of a non-budgetary item since it contained some health care provisions— something Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia, the most senior member of the Senate and creator of the practice of reconciliation, disapproved of because health care is such a huge portion of the economy and should be debated fully and have careful consideration since a comprehensive reform package would impact every single American. Eventually, the Byrd Rule (link leads to Wikipedia entry) was created. Named after Senator Byrd, the Rule was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. It prohibited the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond ten years after the reconciliation measure was passed. The Byrd rule can be found in the US Code, which is where all law passed by Congress can be found. Check it out here. The Byrd Rule specifically listed six different cases in which a provision would be considered “extraneous” or irrelevant, and therefore not eligible for reconciliation (each of these cases are listed below with credit given to Wikipedia): 1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues; 2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; 3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure; 4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; 5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and 6. if it recommends changes in Social Security Despite this, President Clinton attempted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Byrd, according to Wikipedia, “insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets,” and the whole plan was dropped when it started to lose support in Congress. Most other instances in which reconciliation was used were for bills that pertained to the budget. Congress used it to enact Clinton’s 1993 budget for fiscal year 1994 (this is probably the bill on which his health care bill would have been attached). Two bills (the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000) were passed by Congress but vetoed by Clinton because using the reconciliation procedure for these bills was considered controversial. The Bush administration used reconciliation to pass three major tax cuts (2001, 2003, and 2006), each of which was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to substantially increase federal deficits mostly because spending was not cut as well and there was not enough revenue to cover for it. This bill did satisfy the Byrd Rule because the tax cuts were set to expire after ten years. Efforts to use reconciliation as a way to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling failed probably due to the controversy among environmentalists and the fact that it is not a budget item. Since reconciliation can only be used to fix budget items, all bills that will be attached to the budget reconciliation bill must have already been passed and signed by the president even though they are not technically considered law yet. Reconciliation is then used to fix revenue, spending, and other budget-related issues in the bill or bills attached. Any non-budget provisions in these attached bills cannot be changed through reconciliation and therefore must be changed before the bill is officially passed. The process of reconciliation starts with the Senate Parliamentarian advising the Senate leadership on whether or not the issues in question can be considered budget-related. If the Parliamentarian advises that reconciliation cannot be used, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, can overturn this ruling. Since all revenue and budget bills must start in the House, the House is responsible for triggering the process by passing a concurrent resolution on the budget which instructs one or more committees to report changes in law affecting the budget by a certain date. These committees must then send their recommendations to the Budget Committee, which then packages the recommendations into a single omnibus bill. The House must pass this “reconciliation bill” and then the Senate starts its work on it. Debate on the bill is limited to only 20 hours and the number of amendments that can be made are limited as well. Any Senator can raise a procedural objection to a provision that he or she believes to be extraneous according to the Byrd Rule. This is then ruled on by the Presiding Officer, who can be the Vice President, Senate Majority Leader, or anyone else that is temporarily appointed, but the Vice President under his role as President of the Senate, usually makes this decision no matter who is presiding during a particular meeting of the Senate. The Parliamentarian gives his advice to the Presiding Officer but this advice can always be overruled. Sixty votes in the Senate could overturn this ruling of the Vice President. If the advice given by the Parliamentarian (who usually makes decisions in a non-political way) is not liked by Senate leadership, his or her role can be given to the Senate Majority Leader, according to the Fire Dog Lake, a liberal blog, which talks about it in the context of the current health care bill. However, no Vice President has yet needed to overrule a Parliamentarian since 1975. Ex-Parliamentarian Robert Dove talks about reconciliation in the context of the current health care bill and advises the current Congress that reconciliation and health care do not mix. His views are reported on the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room. Read this post for more regarding reconciliation in regards to today’s health care debate. For more information regarding reconciliation and for examples of past bills that were passed with this procedure, check out its Wikipedia page. We, at Votetocracy, always welcome interaction with our members. If you find a mistake on this blog post or any blog post, have a tip about a bill, or even simply just want to know more about a particular bill or a topic regarding how government works in general, email me at anthony.kraljic@votetocracy.com, and I will post it as soon as possible. How does Congress do what they do 2010-03-20T13:55:48+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/down_to_the_wire_on_the_health_care_bill/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/down_to_the_wire_on_the_health_care_bill/#When:03:07:14Z HR.3590 - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently scrambling for votes among moderate and conservative Democrats in order to pass the Senate version of health care reform, which is scheduled for Sunday. If Nancy Pelosi does not get the votes (it is extremely close at this point), she may go forward with the “deem and pass” rule that Representative Slaughter came up with (known as the Slaughter rule). This would allow the House to vote for a rule that would basically say that the bill is passed without voting for the actual bill itself. If she does have the required votes (216), she will bring the bill to the floor for an official vote on Sunday. She will not bring the actual bill to the floor of the House unless she has the votes to pass it. Once they vote and it passes, President Obama will sign it and the bill will then go through the reconciliation process which will fix some of the budget items in the bill, including the deals that were made with some Senators. The so called "Louisiana Purchase" may stay, but it looks like the "Cornhusker Kickback" will be taken out. Any non-budget items in the bill, such as the language regarding federally funded abortions, cannot be changed during reconciliation. The health care bill as well as a bill that would allow the government to take over the private sector student loan industry will be attached to this reconciliation bill as well.  The New York Times has a web page up that compares the original House bill that passed last November with the Senate version that passed on Christmas Eve. Instead of ironing out the differences in conference committee (a joint committee between the two Houses), the House will vote on the Senate version in order to move on to reconciliation, which only requires a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate. Below are some of the Senate bill’s provisions according to the New York Times. The House bill is assumed dead since the House will be voting on the Senate bill. For other provisions, check out the New York Times page linked to above, which presents it in a way that is fairly easy to understand. Increase in covered citizens: 31 million more people will be covered, but 23 million will remain uninsured. Cost estimates: the Senate version will cost $871 billion. This is less than the House version. The Senate version, according to the New York TImes, is “expected to reduce projected federal budget deficits by $132 billion.” No public option: In place of a public option, the Senate version that will be voted for by the House would allow the federal Office of Personnel Management to sign contracts with insurers to offer at least two national health plans to individuals, families, and small businesses. The New York Times states that “at least one of the plans would have to operate on a nonprofit basis.” Employers with over 50 workers that don't offer coverage get penailzed: Does not explicitly require employers to offer their employes coverage, but a company with over 50 or more employees would be required to pay a penalty if it does not offer health insurance. The penalty would be $750 for each full time worker in the company. Employers with over 50 workers that do offer coverage get penailzed if: according to the New York Times, “any of the workers obtain subsidies to buy insurance. In this case, the penalty would be $3,000 for each employee who receives subsidized coverage or $750 for each full-time worker in the company, whichever is lesser.” Employer vouchers for low income earners: Employers that do offer health coverage are required to provide vouchers to those who earn low and middle income. These vouchers are used to obtain insurance on their own through the exchanges that will be set up. The New York Times adds: “People with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for the vouchers if they spend between 8 and 9.8 percent of their income on premiums.” Individual coverage mandate: includes an individual mandate and a penalty if an individual does not buy health insurance. (click here for more information).  Individual coverage subsidies: there will also be subsidies provided for individuals. Check out the New York Times page for more on this  Health Insurance Exchange: the plan includes a health insurance exchange. According to the New York Times, states will be able to form their own exchanges. These will be open to those who do not have qualifying coverage through an employer or a public program. The exchange is also “open to employers with 100 or fewer workers, but states could allow employers with 50 or fewer workers to participate until 2016. Starting in 2017, states could allow employers with more than 100 employees to participate in the exchange.” Employers with 25 or fewer workers will be subsidized: According to the New York Times, “employers with 25 or fewer works and average wages of $50,000 or less would qualify for tax credits for up to six years.” Click here for more information.  Expansion of Medicare Information on Expansion of Medicare on New York Times Plan minimums: The plan requires insurance plans to offer a minimum package of benefits as defined by the federal government (more information)  Insurance Companies: the bill includes several regulations put on insurance companies by the federal government. This includes regulation on premiums, pre-existing conditions, and others. Check out the full list from the New York Times here.  Children: the bill will allow children to stay on their parents’ insurance plans up until age 25. Long-term care: Information on Long Term Care from New York Times Abortion: the Senate plan that will be voted on by the House does include some abortion plans. As a result, Democratic representative Bart Stupak, a Blue Dog Democrat, and a few other pro-life Democrats are unhappy with the language, which does not seem to include a complete ban on federal funded abortion. They don't think the language is as strict as the House bill.. Stupak told Greta van Susteren on Fox News that he will introduce a correction to this bill since the Senate bill has not been changed and since reconciliation cannot be used to change these provisions. Check out the New York Times to see what it says about abortions.  Coverage for illegal immigrants:  Illegal immingrants will not be able to buy insurance from the exchanges. This is true no matter if they can pay for coverage or not. Children of the poor: Check out what the New York Times says about health care benefits for “Children of the poor”  Paying for the bill The New York Times also lists ways in which Congress plans to pay for the proposal, according to the Senate plan. Check it out here.  No Tort reform included in current bill no Democratic health care plans include tort reform or the opening of state borders to include more competition. These are two major ideas from Republican talking points. Obama allegedly added some Republican ideas in his own legislation that he created after the bipartisan health care summit that took place at the end of last month, but it is currently unclear if Obama’s plan will be used in the reconciliation process. It is also important to note that even though you will be paying for these benefits right away through new taxes, the actual implementation of the majority of the program will not take place until 2014.  It is not too late to vote on this bill. Please take a look at the bill and vote before they do on Sunday. If anything is unclear or you have any questions regarding this, the process that the Congressional leadership is using, or anything else regarding any of the bills or government in general, email me at anthony.kraljic@votetocracy.com Health 2010-03-20T03:07:14+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/resources_a_list_of_sites_blogs_and_other_organizations_that_you_may_find_h/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/resources_a_list_of_sites_blogs_and_other_organizations_that_you_may_find_h/#When:22:58:46Z It is important to stay informed. So we've compiled a list of sites, blogs, organizations and more to make it easier for you to find what you need. Please note: Votetocracy does not endorse any of the views of these sites. Link2Me SEO Link Exchange Directory Quality directory of webmasters actively seeking link exchange. Improve your search engine rankings and link popularity the easy way. Work clever not hard. Free Link Exchange, Add Link, Exchange Reciprocal Links, One Way Link Exchanges - Exchanges.net Free link exchange from Exchanges.net the professional reciprocal and one way link exchange directory for your link building strategies, easy To use automatic software. Simple Survival: Wilderness Survival " survival articles! Wilderness Survival Tips and Survival articles! Learn about wilderness survival or update your outdoor knowledge.   Unchronicled News Stories - Highlighting Great Accomplishments Just type UNCHRONICLED at Google to find Unchronicled News stores. Special stories about special people whove been un-seen and un-noticed until now. Text Links Exchange Users can exchange links to advertise their sites and increase search engine popularity.   Add Your Website To The Best Web Directory Network. Add your website to our network, your website will be accessed by more than 10,000 user everyday.   NBC Music Classifieds Classifieds Classifieds Classifieds Bulbs - Energy Saving LED lamps Halogen lighting The LARGEST Lighting Distributor in the US, selling Energy Saving Lighting, Outdoor Lights, LED Light Bulbs, Stage Lighting, Medical Bulbs from ALL brand names like: GE, Philips, Platinum, Osram Sylvania, Ushio and many more. Timeshare Resale Sell and Get Rid of any Timeshares Get Rid of Any Mortgage Free Deeded Timeshare with no up front fee. We guarantee your unit will sell, even with past due maintenance fees. Paid Online Surveys - Get Paid To Take Free Online Surveys For Money Paid Surveys 1000+! Get the facts, take legitimate paid surveys online free, influence the world around you by sharing your opinion and get paid for it! See the constantly updated list of paid online surveys with no obligation. Resources 2010-02-14T22:58:46+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/how_many_representatives_in_congress/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/how_many_representatives_in_congress/#When:17:50:08Z   While the number of Senators per state remains at two and the total number only changes when a new state is admitted into the union, the number of members in the House of Representatives is a different story and is based on population. The process by which seats in the House are distributed to the states is called “Congressional apportionment” and starts with the U.S. Census which is conducted every ten years. The next census is to be conducted this year (2010). The number of seats depends on the population of each state. However, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one seat no matter how small its population. The number of seats in in the House is currently 435 and has been this way since 1913, except for a temporary increase to 437 after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted.   In addition, five delegates are considered non-voting members. They represent the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (first representative elected in 2008), and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico elects a resident commissioner every four years. While these six members don’t vote, they are allowed to debate and sponsor legislation. With the exception of Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner, every representative’s term lasts for two years. Every two years is considered one Congress (today’s Congress is the 111th Congress and 2011 will begin the next Congress. Each year is considered one legislative session. Therefore, we are currently in the second session of the 111th Congress). As many of you probably know already, Representatives (and also Senators) can run for an unlimited number of terms, and committee chair positions are not based on merit or the representative’s experience in the area in which the committee specializes in, but instead, it is based on seniority-- those that have served longer. One big problem that creates this is the lack of people that are willing to challenge an incumbent in many districts.   Proposals to give at least one voting representative to the District of Columbia have been created but never passed. These plans would have permanently increased House membership to 437. One new member would be from DC while the other would be from the next state in line to receive another district: Utah, which was probably selected because of its population. The likely reason for the failure to pass the bill in both chambers is because of the fact that Congressional leadership has been trying to pass it by using a regular bill signed by the president while it should be passed using a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and approved by two-thirds of the states. One possible reason for DC’s lack of representation is because of the simple fact that it did not exist as our nations capital at the time the Constitution was written and no Congress has ever really bothered to start up the process that would amend the Constitution. However, for a number of years, the city of Washington and the part that holds the Capitol and the rest of the federal government was split between Virginia and Maryland. However, today, DC is considered its own “district” but not a state.    An amendment is necessary because the Constitution explicitly states that only actual “states” can be represented. This was meant to keep territories from having voting members, who do not get represented based on population. During many Congresses, one chamber would vote “yes” on the legislation, but the other wouldn’t vote or it wouldn’t pass. However, this does not change the constitutionality of the legislation. Those that do not support DC representation in the House, even with an amendment, claim that all representatives and even Senators represent the people living within Washington city limits since they all live there most of the year. They use the same argument when given the phrase “no taxation without representation”-- one of the primary reasons that the colonies fought for independence. One Democratic Senator that supports this, voted it down in the most recent vote (the Senate passed it but the House has not in 2009) and introduced a joint resolution for an amendment to the Constitution. DC will not get representation in the Senate unless it becomes a “state.” However, some partisan Democrats that belong to the left wing of the party, want this changed because they hope that it would include two new “ultra liberal” Senators to forward their agenda-- just another example of the partisanship that exists on both sides of the aisle-- something that George Washington warned against, but Jefferson (3rd President) and Adams (2nd President) started due to major disagreements and wanted a way to facilitate and debate ideas in an organized way. Ever since then, political parties have grown in America, but today it has reached its peak as the majority of politicians from both parties care more about expanding their party than the issues that face the country and have a complete disregard for the Constitution, considered the “supreme law of the land” and should supersede any legislation or else be changed in the way the Founding Fathers intended it. More on how the Constitution is amended will be posted at a later date.   The 2010 Census will be conducted starting this April. The total number of voting representatives is expected to stay at 435 unless new legislation is passed before the seats are reapportioned. New legislation may or may not be constitutional depending on the specific case.    Based on annual Census Bureau population estimates, projections have been made to predict the populations of states as of April 2010. One study estimates the following change in seats:   Texas +4 Arizona +2 Florida +2 Georgia +1 Nevada +1 South Carolina +1 Utah +1 Illinois -1 Iowa -1 Louisiana -1 Massachusetts -1 Michigan -1 Minnesota -1 Missouri -1 New Jersey -1 New York -1 Pennsylvania -1 Ohio -2   According to the Wikipedia article on the subject (yes, all the sources check out and you can double check to make sure), California may also lose a seat and North Carolina may gain one. Florida might gain only one rather than two. Oregon may gain a seat as well. The population is expected to have grown by 12.5% which most likely will not change the total number of representatives. For more information on how representation might change for individual states based on the projection, check out this link which will bring you directly to the section that discusses the possible changes. Please note that every state that gains one, takes one away from another state. This includes some controversy in connection to the 2010 Census. Obama’s original plan was to have ACORN help with the Census which the US Census Bureau has recently declined due to the recent videos of ACORN that were released as well as investigation into 2008 voter fraud in a number of states. Critics say that ACORN may try to count illegal immigrants and therefore some states may lose representation to other states due to a growing illegal immigrant population that will probably vote Democrat over Republican although Bush did get a much of the Hispanic vote in 2004 after relaxing some of the border laws which allowed many illegal immigrants to cross.   According to federal law, the clerk of the House of Representatives is required to notify each state government of the number of seats assigned to represent it in the federal government no later than January 25th of the year after the Census. States then have to determine the borders of their congressional districts. Each district must have a population that is approximately equal to all other districts in order to provide that each state has representation that is somewhat proportional to its population. This process is called redistricting.   In 36 states, the state legislatures create the redistricting plan. In most of these states, approval is then given by the state’s governor. Five states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, and Washington) give this responsibility to an independent or bipartisan commission in order to reduce the likelihood of political games being played by the state legislature’s majority party. For example, districts can be completely redrawn to include specific races or groups that are expected to vote a certain way. This information is also collected via the census. The use of this information has been the subject of great debate since the Constitution, which mandates the census to be completed every ten years but it did not say anything about collecting information regarding race, income, and other personal information. The first few censuses only required a citizen to write down the number of people living in the household or apartment and an address to link it to the correct district. Ever since then, it has grown to include party affiliation, income, ages, and other information.  The Founding Fathers wanted the census done in order to accurately ensure that every American was accounted for and represented in Congress. It is unclear whether or not the Founding Fathers would have approved of the other information. However, critics have stated that it has become too intrusive.   Iowa and Maine give independent bodies the authority to redraw districts, but it is the legislatures that approve the plans.   The remaining seven states only have one representative due to their low populations. This is only changed if there is a sudden increase in population. Some populations could drastically change in the upcoming census due to high taxing states, such as New York and New Jersey, losing many businesses and people to other more conservative states. The addition of other states to the union or the inclusion of DC as a voting member of the House can force the creation of an additional district to keep the populations of each district approximately equal. These states include Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.    Laws that dictate the method in which states redraw districts and who is authorized to do it can change. In order to change these laws, states must follow their own individual constitutions and laws. Individual state legislatures can change these laws if necessary. However, there are some federal guidelines that states must meet when redistricting:   ensure that the population in each district is equal attempt to create compact and contiguous districts that try to keep political units and communities within a single district. This is mainly to make sure that districts are not divided by other districts. avoid drawing boundaries for partisan purposes or to create an advantage for the incumbent or specific political parties or groups. This is called gerrymandering and is most likely to occur in the states where the legislatures have the authority to create the new redistricting plans as stated above. This can cause a lot of partisan battling in states where the majority of the legislature and the governor are from different political parties. The state and federal court systems sometimes get involved in order to resolve disputes when gridlock prevents this being done in a timely manner. The party that ends up the loser in the plan can challenge it in state and federal courts, which can, in some cases, change the law if necessary.     When the plans are submitted back to the federal government, the Justice Department must then approve them. This is called pre-clearance and is used to protect the Constitutional rights of minorities and is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This is especially done for states that have proven throughout history to have a problem with racial barriers in regards to voting. This power given to the Justice Department is an example of the primary role of the federal government-- to protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens.   The use of gerrymandering has become a huge problem when redrawing districts. Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology used to design contiguous districts have been used to pack opponents into as few districts as possible. This has led to district maps that are skewed to favor one political party. As a result, many have succeeded in removing competition for most House seats. This has become so bad that it has affected the make up of most seats in the House and has removed quite a bit of competition in elections. Other states have used gerrymandering to protect incumbents of both parties. This also reduces the number of competitive districts.This issue made its way all they way up to the Supreme Court in a case known as Veith v. Jubelirer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieth_v._Jubelirer) in 2004. This decision pretty much gave elected officials the right to choose their own constituents. However, the decision did not go far enough to give one political party a long term majority. The court left it up to a small number of competitive districts in a small number of states to determine majority control of Congress. Each party has about 190 districts each that almost always vote for a specific party. With the number of representatives set at 435, this leaves 55 districts that could be considered toss ups and would decide which party would make up the majority. These districts would most likely vote for moderate or conservative Democrats (the Blue Dog coalition) or liberal to moderate Republicans. In other words, these districts are likely to vote for the individual rather than the party. Of course, these trends can change as the nation gets sick of one party or the other. For more information regarding this Supreme Court decision, check out the link above.   In the 2003 redistricting of Texas  and the mid-decade redistricting in Georgia, a precedent was established that it would be expected that the majority party in state governments would redraw the boundaries to favor the election of the majority party candidates in subsequent election. Some may argue that this is not gerrymandering but a way for the majority party in a state to ensure that districts are mapped out in a way that the people within the state are represented in Washington by candidates that have more or less the same political ideology as those that they elected to represent them in the state capitol. Borders for state legislator districts are not always the same as the borders for  Congressional districts.   Whether this is considered gerrymandering or not, this would not have been a problem in the first place if we listened to George Washington’s farewell address, in which he advised against the establishment of political parties. Washington’s logic was that if there was no political parties, there would be no party loyalty and therefore, more loyalty and respect for the Constitution and what is best for the nation. If the people find the need for a change, they would ask their representatives and Senators for an amendment to the Constitution that would solve any problems.   For more information regarding the controversial 2003 redistricting in Texas, check out this Wikipedia article which brings up another important Supreme Court case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting.    Gerrymandering can also be used to create new districts for the incumbent when it looks like the incumbent will lose his or her next election. This can be done as long as the incumbent’s main address is located in the new district. Gerrymandering often creates districts with odd shapes in order to incorporate certain demographics. As long as the districts are continuous and not broken apart by bordering districts, the federal government will most likely approve the plans.    For more information on gerrymandering, check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering. For an online game that will teach you more about gerrymandering, check out this site: http://www.redistrictinggame.com/.   Since “no taxation without representation” was one of the primary reasons for declaring independence, representation was an extremely important concept for the Founding Fathers, which is why they included it in the Constitution:   The “apportionment” of House seats was commanded by Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 which states: “ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was approved by Congress and the states when slavery ended. This overturned the “three-fifths” compromise, in which only three slaves were counted for every five-- a compromise that the Founding Fathers felt was the only way to get slaves counted for representation and still have “slave states” agree to approve the Constitution and be admitted into the Union after it was first drafted. While some of the Founding Fathers did not approve of slavery, they did not want a potential “civil war” to divide the union immediately after creating it. Also, with representation being so important in our system of government, they wanted the most accurate count possible. After the slaves were freed, this was corrected with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The number of representatives for each district is also covered in Article I: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...”   For more information regarding “Congressional apportionment,” check out the following for the full Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment. The links and sources and the end have some good information to learn more.   Want to know more about government? How this country came to be this way? or even a particular bill? or do you want to point out a mistake? I will do the research so you don’t have to. Email me at anthonykraljic86@gmail.com to request a topic, a tip, or report a mistake, and I will post the information on the blog.     2010-02-10T17:50:08+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/how_does_a_bill_become_a_law_flowchart/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/how_does_a_bill_become_a_law_flowchart/#When:21:28:53Z How does a bill become a law? While we generally understood the process we felt it was time to dig in deeper. To make it easier for our readers to understand we put together this infographic that explains the process in a visual way.   Download a pdf version of this graphic here     How does Congress do what they do, Infographics 2009-12-29T21:28:53+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/votetocracy_widgets_that_show_bills_currently_in_congress/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/votetocracy_widgets_that_show_bills_currently_in_congress/#When:20:12:08Z Widgets are a great way for bloggers and site owners to provide their readers with interesting content. We've created a series of widgets. Each covering a different category of Congressional Bills. You can take these widgets and post them on your site (in the sidebar perhaps). You instantly get complete feeds of the bills in Congress for your readers to enjoy. Widgets are available for the following categories: Economy Bills, Education Bills, Environmental Bills, Latest Bills, War and Military Bills, Technology Bills, Healthcare Bills, Instructions Not sure how to install a widget on your blog or website? See the instructions below.   Widget Size: (250px x 400px)   Economy Bills Widget:   Education Bills Widget: Latest Bills Widget: // War and Military Bills Widget: // Technology Bills Widget: // Healthcare Bills Widget: // Environmental Bills Widget: //     Instructions: At the bottom of each Widget there is a small "get widget" button. Give it a click.  You'll have a large selection of ways to post the widget on other sites. If you don't see your network or bloggin platform you can click the "embed code" button. It will copy some code that you then paste directly into your site. Paste the code into your web page. For example: If your pasting into Wordpress then choose the widgets area, then create an html widget and past the code you copied into your widget Whala! you've got Congressional Bills fed into your site and more vaulable content for your readers. 2009-12-29T20:12:08+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/weekly_update_on_congress_sunday_dec_29th_-_sunday_nov_6th/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/weekly_update_on_congress_sunday_dec_29th_-_sunday_nov_6th/#When:08:24:48Z In the House courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:   MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2009 On Monday, the House will not be in session. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 On Tuesday, the House will meet at 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. Suspensions (7 Bills) H.R. 3634 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as the "George Kell Post Office" (Rep. Berry - Oversight and Government Reform) H.R. 3667 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the "Clyde L. Hillahouse Post Office Building" (Rep. Crenshaw - Oversight and Government Reform) H.Res. 727 – Expressing support for greater awareness of ovarian cancer (Rep. Israel - Oversight and Government Reform) H.Res. 742 - Congratulating the Warner Robins Little League softball team from Warner Robins, Georgia, on winning the 2009 Little League Softball World Series (Rep. Marshall - Oversight and Government Reform) H.Res. 743 - Honoring the life of Frank McCourt for his many contributions to American literature, education, and culture (Rep. Murphy (CT) - Oversight and Government Reform) H.R. 3029 - To establish a research, development, and technology demonstration program to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in combined cycle power generation systems (Rep. Tonko – Science and technology) H.R. 3598 - Energy and Water Research Integration Act (Rep. Gordon - Science and Technology)   WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009 AND THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. Suspensions (10 Bills) H.R. 1242 - To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to provide for additional monitoring and accountability of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (Rep. Maloney - Financial Services) H.R. 2873 - Enhanced S.E .C. Enforcement Authority Act (Rep. Campbell - Financial Services) H.R. 320 - CJ's Home Protection Act of 2009 (Rep. Ellsworth - Financial Services) H.Con.Res. 197 - Encouraging banks and mortgage servicers to work with families affected by contaminated drywall to allow temporary forbearance without penalty on payments on their home mortgages (Rep. Nye - Financial Services) H.Res. 494 - Recognizing the exemplary service of the soldiers of the 30th Infantry Division (Old Hickory) of the United States Army during World War II (Rep. Kissell – Armed Services) H.Con.Res. 129 - Congratulating the Sailors of the United States Submarine Force upon the completion of 1,000 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) deterrent patrols (Rep. Dicks – Armed Services) H.Res. 861 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Military Family Month (Rep. Rooney – Armed Services) H.R. 3980 - Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for Preparedness Grants Act (Rep. Cuellar - Homeland Security) H.Res. 28 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Transportation Security Administration should, in accordance with the congressional mandate provided for in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, enhance security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit lines (Rep. Jackson-Lee - Homeland Security) H.R. 3963 - Criminal Investigative Training Restoration Act (Rep. Lungren - Homeland Security) H.R. 4154 - Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009 (Rep. Pomeroy – Ways and Means) (Subject to a Rule)   Conference Reports may be brought up at any time. Motions to go to Conference should they become available. Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.     In the Senate courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader: Morning business until 3pm with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 3pm, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.3590, the legislative vehicle for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. There will be no roll call votes on Monday. Week in Congress 2009-12-05T08:24:48+00:00 http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/proposed_joint_resolution_could_abolish_the_electoral_college/ http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/index.php/site/permalink-feed/proposed_joint_resolution_could_abolish_the_electoral_college/#When:18:27:09Z SJ 4 is an extremely important piece of legislation that was introduced back on January 8th and has not moved at all since it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why is it important? This joint resolution (keep in mind that this is not a bill-- Bills cannot amend the Constitution. Joint resolutions can) will basically abolish the electoral college and leave the election of the president and vice president up to the people. However, it might not happen as fast as you think and may not be put into effect in time for 2012 even if the committee acted on it right now and it passed both houses by the end of the week. This is because a Constitutional amendment must be passed by 38 states in order for it to become law. Believe it or not, abolishing the electoral college is not easy and it will not get overwhelming support even though, we the people, will get more power to elect the President and Vice President. Much of it has to do with state's rights and the power of smaller states in electing a president. To better understand this, I am going to give you a summary of what went on when this was lasted debated back in the late 1960's-- the closest this amendment came to become part of that forgotten document called the Constitution. This was in the 91st Congress. The reason for the debate was the 1968 general election which Nixon won. Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey with 301 electoral votes against Humphrey's 191. It may seems as if Nixon was the clear winner and in electoral college standards, you would be right, but the popular vote was extremely close. Nixon had received 511, 944 votes more than Humphrey-- or less than 1%. George Wallace, a Democrat that joined the American Independent Party for this election, received the remaining 46 electoral votes (you don't hear too much about a third party candidate winning even 1 electoral vote today, do you? That is because of state access laws that block smaller parties from being put on the ballot but that is for another post). Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote. Nixon did surpass the "magic number" of electoral votes needed for him to be president so this was not debated, but the American people had concerns over the disparity between the two votes (this concern came to light in 2000 and two other times in the 1800's but was never acted on by Congress). Rep. Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded by introducing House Joint Resolution 681 which was more specific than the current joint resolution that is the subject of this post. HJ Res. 681 would have abolished the Electoral College but did not end there. It would have then been replaced with a system where the candidate (President and Vice President) that won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win. If no candidate reached 40% because of the popularity of a third party candidate, a runoff election would be set up between the top two candidates. On April 29, 1969, the possibility of such a measure to pass was looking good as the House Judiciary Committee voted 28-6 to approve it and move it on to the House floor where debated ended on September 11, 1969 and was approved with a vote of 339 to 70. President Nixon gave his endorsement for the proposal on September 30, 1969 and encouraged the Senate to sponsor their own version (Senate Joint Resolution 1). However, not all states were happy with the idea. The New York Times reported on October 8, 1969 that the legislatures of 30 states were going to approve it if it passed the Senate and was sent to all 50 states for approval. Only 8 more states would be needed but the US Senate still had to approve the measure. The New York Times also reported that 6 states did not yet know if they would approve it while 6 were leaning towards opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.On August 14, 1970, more progress was made when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure 11 to 6. This moved it to the Senate floor where it was considered by all Senators. Out of the six members that opposed the plan, 3 were Democrats and 3 were Republicans. They all gave the same argument which was that while the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh, the sponsor of the measure in the Senate, stated that they were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed to pass the amendment and send to the states.He called on Nixon's help to persuade undecided Republican Senators to vote yes but Nixon had decided not to make any further appeals to back the legislation although he did not pull away from his endorsement. Open Senate debate started on Tuesday September 8, 1970 but was quickly faced with a filibuster. The leaders in objection came from Southern Senators and conservatives that represented small states and included both Republicans and Democrats. These Senators concerned that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce the political influence of states with smaller populations, which is one reason why the Electoral College was established in the first place-- in order to secure and acknowledge states' rights for smaller states. A vote was conducted on September 17, 1970 to end the filibuster but failed to receive the 67 votes, or 2/3 of Senators present that was necessary to pass. The vote was 54-36 (60% in favor). A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970-- it failed 53 to 34-- 5 votes short of what was needed. The Senate Majority Leader at the time decide to put the legislation aside so that the Senate could work on other measures. It was never considered again in the 91st Congress and officially died at the end of 1970. Could today be any different? On Votetocracy, 55 users have voted with a 60%-40% result. Nothing has moved in our government. In the past few years, current representatives and Senators have argued that the Electoral College should stay but advocated for the "tweaking" of the current system. For example, they want to make states with larger populations, such as California (which has the most electoral votes and has voted Democrat in every presidential election since Reagan), change from a "winner take all" system to a system that would require at least larger states (like California) to distribute their electoral votes in proportion to the way their state's population voted. Make your voice heard and vote now on this important issue and tell your Representative and Senator what you think. If you have any question regarding this post or would like me cover other issues or would like me to explain or describe any specific aspect of government for the "education" portion of our blog that you would like to learn more about, please contact me at anthonykraljic86@gmail.com and I will post your request or respond as soon as possible. Government, Law 2009-10-24T18:27:09+00:00