Kirk Bailey

Article / Updated 11-01-2023

The speaker of the United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as the speaker of the House (or simply, House speaker or the speaker), serves as the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. The speaker fulfills several roles, including representing constituents as a member of Congress, acting as administrative head of the House, and serving as leader of the majority political party in the House. If you’re wondering exactly what the speaker of the House does, see the full description of this political representative’s full responsibilities below. The House speaker is second in the U.S. presidential line of succession after the vice president, but no speaker has ever acted as president. How is the House speaker selected? The U.S. Constitution authorizes the House to choose its speaker, who is selected by roll call vote on the first day of every new Congress. Customarily, each party (Democrat and Republican) nominates a candidate and members normally vote for the candidate of their party. Roll call votes are repeated until a candidate receives an absolute majority of all votes cast. The Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of Congress, although all speakers have been members. The Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives keeps a full list of speakers of the House from 1789 to the present. What does the speaker of the House do? The speaker of the House exercises duties as a member of Congress, as presiding officer of the House of Representatives, and as leader of the majority political party in the House. These responsibilities include voting on legislation, administrative duties such as maintaining order within the House chamber, and other tasks such as appointing special committees. See a more in-depth description of each of these responsibilities below. Member of Congress Foremost, the speaker represents voters in their congressional district. As a member of Congress, they advocate for constituents’ needs, votes on key legislation, conducts town halls and meetings in-district and otherwise serves voters in their home districts. Presiding officer of the House of Representatives The speaker of the House's duties as presiding officer of the House, include administering the oath of office to members, calling the House to order, preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries, recognizing members to speak on the House floor, and making rulings about House procedures. The speaker usually delegates some of these administrative duties to other members of the majority party, such as acting as speaker pro tempore and leading House legislative sessions. In addition, the speaker appoints members and chairpersons of regular committees, special or select committees, conference committees, and designates a majority of the Committee on Rules. The speaker also determines which legislation is assigned to each committee and which legislation reaches the House floor for a vote. Furthermore, the speaker determines the House legislative agenda, in consultation with party leaders, committee chairpersons, the president, and the Senate. As a member of Congress, the speaker may participate in debate and vote but, by tradition, only does so in exceptional circumstances, such as when their vote would be decisive or on matters of great importance, such as constitutional amendments or war resolutions. The speaker presides over all joint sessions with the Senate because these official gatherings are usually held in the House of Representatives. Leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives By tradition, the speaker is the head of the majority party in the House. This means the speaker is held responsible for passing legislation supported by the majority party. The speaker usually has a less prominent role as party leader when the president belongs to the same party. In contrast, the speaker’s prominence and public role typically increases when they're from a different political party than the president. Famous examples include Speaker Tip O’Neill’s vocal opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s policies, Speaker Newt Gingrich’s bitter fights with President Bill Clinton over domestic spending, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s clashes with President George W. Bush over the Iraq War. Historical facts about the speaker of the House The speakership’s power reached a pinnacle during the term of Joseph Gurney Cannon (1903–1911), who exercised tight control over the legislative process. Cannon instituted the traditions of determining the agenda of the House, appointing the members of all committees, choosing committee chairmen, and determining which committees heard each bill. In 1910, however, a revolt of House members stripped Speaker Cannon of most of his powers, particularly the ability to name committee members. In 1925, Speaker Nicholas Longworth (Ohio) restored most of the position's lost influence by expelling his opponents in the Republican party from the Republican caucus, stripping committee chairmen of seniority and appointing loyal supporters to committees. Perhaps the most influential speaker in history was Sam Rayburn (Texas) who was the longest-serving speaker. Speaker Rayburn shaped many bills by working with House committees and ensured passage of several domestic and foreign assistance programs advocated by President Roosevelt and President Truman. As a sign of their influence, the House of Representatives’ office buildings in Washington D.C. are named for these three Speakers: Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn. Here are few other historical facts about the Speaker of the House: First speaker of the House: Frederick A.C. Muhlenberg (Pennsylvania), elected presiding officer on April 1, 1789. Total number of speakers: 53 Longest-serving speaker: Samuel Rayburn (Texas), served 17 years, 2 months, and 2 days over three terms as Speaker First woman speaker: Nancy Pelosi (California); she served as speaker from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023 State with the most speakers: Massachusetts Only speaker to serve as President of the Unites States: James K. Polk (Tennessee), elected president after leaving the House Youngest speaker: Robert M. T. Hunter (Virginia), age 30 Oldest speaker: Henry T. Rainey (Illinois), age 72 First sitting speaker to lose re-election to his House seat: William Pennington (New Jersey) Number of speakers to die in office: 5. Michael C. Kerr (Indiana), Henry T. Rainey (Illinois), Joseph W. Byrns (Tennessee), William B. Bankhead (Alabama), Samuel Rayburn (Texas)

Article / Updated 10-10-2023

“Palestine” was a common name used until 1948 to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In its history, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, among others, have controlled Palestine at one time or another. The Ottoman Empire ruled the region from the 1500s through 1917. After World War I, Palestine was administered by the United Kingdom under a mandate received in 1922 from the League of Nations. The modern history of Palestine begins with the termination of the British Mandate, the Partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel, and the ensuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Partition of Palestine In 1947, the United Nations (U.N.) proposed a Partition Plan for Palestine titled “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine.” The resolution noted Britain’s planned termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area protected and administered by the United Nations. The resolution included a highly detailed description of the recommended boundaries for each proposed state. The resolution also contained plans for an economic union between the proposed states and for the protection of religious and minority rights. The resolution called for the withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by August 1948 and establishment of the new independent states by October 1948. First Arab-Israeli War (1948) Jewish leadership accepted the Partition Plan but Arab leaders rejected it. The Arab League threatened to take military measures to prevent the partition of Palestine and to ensure the national rights of the Palestinian Arab population. One day before the British Mandate expired, Israel declared its independence within the borders of the Jewish State set out in the Partition Plan. The Arab countries declared war on the newly formed State of Israel beginning the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. After the war, which Palestinians call the Catastrophe, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants: Israel controlled some areas designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. The Six Day War The Six Day War was fought from June 5 to June 10, 1967, with Israel emerging victorious and effectively seizing control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 242, the “land for peace” formula, which called for Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied” in 1967 and “the termination of all claims or states of belligerency.” Resolution 242 recognized the right of “every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” The 1973 War In October 1973, war broke out again between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai and Syria in the Golan Heights. A ceasefire was achieved (U.N. resolution 339) and U.N. peacekeepers deployed on both the fronts, only withdrawing from the Egyptian front after Israel and Egypt concluded a peace treaty in 1979. U.N. peacekeepers remain deployed in the Golan Heights. Rise of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) In 1974, the Arab League recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and relinquished its role as representative of the West Bank. The PLO gained observer status at the U.N. General Assembly the same year. In 1988, the Palestinian National Council of the PLO approved a Palestinian Declaration of Independence in Algiers, Tunisia. The declaration proclaims a “State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem,” although it does not specify exact borders, and asserts U.N. Resolution 181 supports the rights of Palestinians and Palestine. The declaration was accompanied by a PLO call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of U.N. Resolution 242. The Intifada (1987 to 1993) Conditions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including Jerusalem, after more than 20 years of military occupation, repression and confiscation of land, contributed to a Palestinian uprising called the intifada in December 1987. Between 1987 and 1993, over 1,000 Palestinians were killed and thousands injured, detained, imprisoned in Israel or deported from the Palestinian territories. The peace process In 1993, the Oslo Accords, the first direct, face-to-face agreement between Israel and the PLO, were signed and intended to provide a framework for the future relations between the two parties. The Accords created the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) with responsibility for the administration of the territory under its control. The Accords also called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Implementation of the Oslo Accords suffered a serious setback with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Prime Minister and signer of the Oslo Accords, in November 1995. Since 1995, several peace summits and proposals, including the Camp David Summit (2000), Taba Summit (2001), the Road Map for Peace (2002), and the Arab Peace Initiative (2002 and 2007), have attempted to broker a solution, with no success. At the same time, internal divisions between two Palestinian political parties ― Hamas and Fatah ― after Hamas won legislative elections in 2006 and took over administration of the Gaza Strip, led to conflicts that undermined the peace process. The drive for recognition of Palestinian statehood In September 2011, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, requested recognition of a Palestinian state from both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. In October 2011, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) admitted Palestine as a member. In November 2012, the U.N. granted Palestine non-member observer State status. This progress on the international scene, however, was undercut by developments in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In June 2014, Hamas and Fatah instituted a unified national Palestinian government retaining Abbas as President, prompting Israel to condemn the new government and withdraw from negotiations, claiming that a Palestinian government including Hamas would lead to increased terrorism and threaten the security of Israel. Fighting immediately broke out in Gaza between Israel security forces and Hamas and lasted through the summer, ending in an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire in August 2014. Since that time, periodic violent conflicts have occurred between Palestinians and Israeli security forces with deaths on both sides. In May 2017, Hamas officials proposed a Palestinian state defined by the 1967 borders with the capital in Jerusalem, but refused to recognize Israel as a state. In so doing, the proposal undercut a central aim of the Oslo Accords and other proposed agreements ― a two-state solution that recognizes an independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. Israel immediately rejected this proposal. Late in 2017, the U.S. government made statements recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This prompted Palestinian leaders including President Abbas in January 2018 to call for an end of Palestinian recognition of Israel until Israel recognized the state of Palestine as defined by the 1967 borders including the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem, along with suspension of settlement efforts in the West Bank. In May 2021, a further round of violence erupted between Palestinians and Israeli security forces, in response to protests in East Jerusalem over the potential eviction of several Palestinian families. The ensuing violence claimed more than 250 Palestinian lives and more than a dozen Israelis, before Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire. Recent history further demonstrates that numerous issues remain to be settled by Israelis and Palestinians, and even between Palestinians themselves, before a truly unified and independent state of Palestine emerges, and peace comes to the region.

Article / Updated 10-10-2023

Since 1948, Israel has controlled most of Palestine. Throughout a decades-long conflict, several critical issues have prevented Israel and the Palestinians from concluding a lasting peace. Here are the basic positions of the two parties. Neither side holds a single position. Moderates and extremists exist on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. Right to a Palestinian state Several legal scholars dismiss the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood. These scholars generally argue that Palestine lacks a legitimate sovereign and Israeli claims to the remaining Palestinian territory are the most valid. In addition, some legal experts observe that while there is little doubt Palestine will emerge from the ongoing peace process as a nation, statehood has not been established. This argument suggests that Palestine doesn’t fully satisfy four criteria of statehood outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In contrast, other legal experts argue that the State of Palestine already exists and when judged by the Montevideo Convention criteria is on at least as firm a legal footing as Israel. This view holds that the development of a democratically elected Palestinian government that enjoys the approval of the international community now exercises effective control over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state’s population lives. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the prohibition under international law against territorial acquisitions by war. Israel’s right to exist
 From the perspective of many Jews, Israel is a refuge even if they never set foot there. From the Israeli and Jewish vantage point, only a homeland can provide a safe haven from a world full of anti-Semitism. Strength and constant vigilance are necessary to preserve the security of the Israel, surrounded as it is by enemies. For Palestinians, Israel is a rogue state, an interloper that confiscated their land and forced them out. The belief that Israel does not have a legitimate right to exist is still a common among some Palestinians, despite reluctant acceptance of Israel in recent years. The borders of Jerusalem The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue with each side asserting claims over the city. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam consider Jerusalem an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Israel asserts that the city should not be divided and should remain unified within Israel’s political control. Palestinians claim at least those city sections that were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. Palestinian refugees’ right to return Palestinian refugees are people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949 and as of 2010 the descendants of these original Palestinian refugees number 4.7 million people. Palestinian negotiators insist that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Resolution 194 as evidence. The Israeli government’s position is that Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that the Palestinians fled to escape the war. The Palestinian’s believe the refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and the Israeli army. Violence by Palestinians and Israeli security concerns Throughout the conflict, Palestinian violence has been a concern for Israelis. Israel, along with the United States and the European Union, refer to the violence against Israeli civilians and military forces by Palestinian militants as terrorism. Suicide bombing is a tactic used by Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. During the late 1960s, the PLO became increasingly infamous for its use of international terror, perhaps the most notorious terrorist act being the capture and eventual murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games. Since 2001, the threat of rocket attacks from the Palestinian Territories into Israel has become a great concern. Significant debate exists within Israel regarding how to deal with these security concerns. Options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of terrorist operatives), diplomacy, unilateral gestures toward peace, and increased security measures such as checkpoints, roadblocks and security barriers. Since 2007, Israel’s primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, which has reduced West Bank violence. Access to water resources Israel receives much of its water from two large underground aquifers that continue under Palestinian lands. In the Oslo II Accord, both sides agreed to maintain “existing quantities of utilization from the resources.” In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel agreed to provide water to supplement Palestinian production and to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians counter that the Oslo II agreement was intended to be a temporary resolution and that it was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later, noting the agreement’s name is “The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.” Israeli presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza The West Bank and Gaza Strip continue to be considered Occupied Palestinian Territory by the international community, notwithstanding the 1988 Declaration of Palestinian Independence, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as part of the 2005 Israeli unilateral disengagement plan. The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, and argues that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967. Israel’s position is that most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip will eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State but the precise borders are in question. Some Palestinians claim they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any move to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and believes negotiations will define the final borders.

Article / Updated 04-20-2023

The debt ceiling, legally known as the debt limit, is the total amount of money that the U.S. government is authorized to borrow to pay existing obligations, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and disbursements for other programs. The debt limit applies to federal debt held by the public, namely, securities held by investors outside the federal government, and to federal debt held by the government’s own accounts. The debt limit does not create new spending commitments but allows the government to finance existing obligations already established by Congress. The debt limit is codified at Title 31 subsection 3101 of the U.S. Code and the current statutory debt limit is $14.694 trillion. The debt limit is administered by the Department of Treasury, who publishes a graph of debt subject to the limit. History of the U.S. debt limit Congress has the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States as authorized by Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Until 1917, Congress authorized each debt issuance separately. In order to help finance the United States’ involvement in World War I, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which also established a limit on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. Congress broadened the limit to apply to all federal debt in 1939 and 1941 through the Public Debt Acts. Congress authorized the Department of the Treasury to issue such debt necessary to fund government operations (as authorized by the federal budget) as long as the total debt remained below a stated ceiling. According to the Treasury Department, since 1960, Congress has acted 78 times (including 20 times since 2001) to raise, extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. In the history of the debt limit, the U.S. has experienced a technical default. In 1979, Congress completed negotiations to raise the debt limit at the last minute. Subsequently, Treasury failed to redeem $120 million of Treasury bills on time due to unprecedentedly high interest from small investors, Congress’ delay in raising the debt limit and faulty word-processing equipment. The Treasury Department described this failure as a technological glitch and the investors were eventually paid in full. In addition, the only time the debt limit has been numerically exceeded occurred December 16, 2009 when Treasury posted a national debt calculation of $12.135 trillion while the limit was $12.104 trillion dollars. Treasury utilized extraordinary accounting tools to meet federal obligations until Congress raised the limit to $12.4 trillion on December 24, 2009. Consequences of failing to increase debt limit If the debt limit is not raised, the United States will not have enough money to pay all of its obligations and will default. Most economists and financial experts observe that a failure to increase the debt limit and subsequent U.S. government default would have significant negative economic consequences. The U.S. government would default on its legal obligations for the first time in American history. Default could precipitate another financial crisis and threaten the jobs and savings of all Americans. If the federal government interrupts payments, people like Social Security recipients or government contractors, will have less money to spend, causing the economy to slow down Investors could demand a higher interest rate, causing the economy to slow down more and, perversely, worsening the deficit problem by increasing required interest payments on the debt Interest rates could go up for credit cards and mortgages because the interest rates paid by corporations and consumers in the U.S. are tied to the rate the nation pays. The special role of the dollar and Treasury securities in global markets would be damaged Default would create fundamental doubts about U.S. creditworthiness.

Article / Updated 06-18-2019

Every year, Americans pay their tax bills, but are often puzzled about how government spends the taxes it collects. Many Americans overestimate how much of tax money goes toward government programs, and taxpayers may underestimate the amount of taxes spent on other crucial elements of the federal government’s budget. Here’s an overview of how citizens perceive their tax dollars being spent, what the annual tax tally adds up to, and where tax dollars really go. Americans’ estimates of U.S. federal spending Many Americans believe that some relatively minor federal programs receive much more in federal spending than they actually do, as the following examples illustrate: Foreign aid: Americans estimate foreign aid at 10 percent of the federal budget, and a fifth think it represents about 30 percent of the money the government spends. Actual spending on foreign aid is less than one percent. Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: The public estimates that the government spends about 5 percent on public television and radio, when the actual amount is approximately one-tenth of one percent. Pensions and benefits for government workers: On average, Americans think the federal government spends about 10 percent; 3.5 percent is a more accurate estimate. Food and housing assistance for the poor: Americans' spending estimates are three to four times higher than the actual costs of these programs. How much tax money does the federal government take in? Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010 from individual income taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, Federal Reserve deposits, and some miscellaneous receipts. Source – Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012 Where does the federal government spend tax money? Spending by the Federal government is divided into two categories: mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory spending includes programs — mostly entitlement programs — that are funded by eligibility rules or payment rules, authorized by permanent laws. In this case, Congress creates a program and then determines who is eligible for the program, how much each eligible participant will receive, and any other criteria. Spending is then determined by estimates of the number of eligible participants. Congress may change the eligibility and participant funding levels at any time. Mandatory spending makes up about two-thirds of the total federal budget and includes programs such as Social Security (the largest), Medicare, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, along with interest on the national debt. This chart shows all government spending, both mandatory and discretionary, for fiscal year 2010. Source – Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012 Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that Congress approves through the annual appropriations process. In this case, Congress directly sets spending levels of individual discretionary programs, meaning that they may increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year. Discretionary programs include activities such as defense, education, the FBI and the Coast Guard, housing, foreign aid, space exploration, highway construction, border patrol, agriculture, immigration, and emergency disaster relief, among others. The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The following chart illustrates the breakdown of discretionary spending for fiscal year 2010. Source – Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012 The White House tax receipt and WhereDidMyTaxDollarsGo provide additional perspective on the federal budget.

Article / Updated 04-19-2017

The President’s Cabinet is composed of the principal appointed officers of departments of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. The Cabinet meets weekly to advise the President on matters relating to the duties of their respective departments. The Cabinet traditionally includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice (the Attorney General), Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. Other officials also hold Cabinet-rank, including the White House Chief of Staff; the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Administrator of the Small Business Administration; and the U.S. Trade Representative. How are Cabinet members selected? Cabinet officers are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a majority vote. Each official receives the title Secretary, except the Attorney General who leads the Department of Justice. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President and may be dismissed at any time. Tradition holds that Cabinet Secretaries resign when a new President takes office. The President may select potential candidates from any walk of American life — business, education, the military, or those already in government service. The Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution, however, states “no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.” This prevents any sitting Member of Congress from serving in the Cabinet unless he or she resigns from Congress. What is the history of the Cabinet? The history of the Cabinet extends to the first U.S. President, George Washington, who called meetings of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General to advise him on issues. James Madison described these meetings as “the president’s cabinet” and the nickname stuck. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not mention the Cabinet, but several provisions refer to “principal officers” of the “executive departments.” The Constitution in Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls […].” In addition, the President “may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices[.]” Taken together, these provisions give the President the necessary authority to appoint executive department officials and compel their advice on important policy matters. What is the order of presidential succession? The Cabinet is crucial to the presidential line of succession that determines the order in which officials succeed to the presidency following the death or resignation of the President. The Vice President tops the order, followed by the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tempore of the Senate. The Cabinet officers succeed to the presidency in the following order: Secretary of State, Department of State Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense Attorney General, Department of Justice Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor Secretary of Health & Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary of Housing & Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy Secretary of Education, Department of Education Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

The Tea Party movement mobilizes frustrated Americans fed up with big government to oppose increases in government spending and the growing national debt. This largely conservative group also thinks the government’s growing involvement in business and individual freedom strays from conservative values. If you’re not familiar with the Tea Party, here are the basics of who supports the movement and what they believe. What is the Tea Party? The Tea Party is a populist movement that promotes several conservative values: Reduction of government spending and the national debt Limitations on the authority of the U.S. federal government Reduction of personal and corporate taxes The movement’s name is a reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when American colonists boarded British ships and tossed tea — a highly valuable commodity at the time — into the Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation and infringement of colonial rights by the British government. Modern Tea Party movement supporters protest what they believe to be irresponsible financial policies practiced by the U.S. federal government as well as excessive growth in the federal government’s authority. The general consensus is that big government and big spending is bad for the United States and its citizens. More than 40 candidates supported by the Tea Party movement won seats in the House or Senate in the November 2010 election. What does the Tea Party support? The Tea Party’s main platform is fiscal conservatism, the belief that the American government should avoid spending more on government programs than it takes in. Specifically, supporters advocate policies that reduce government spending and the national debt, which is currently reported at more than $14 trillion — and growing. Tea Partiers are also strongly in favor of a balanced budget, free trade, lower taxes, and deregulation of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the U.S. national debt, currently just above $14 trillion, could exceed $18 trillion by 2021 or approximately 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The current $14 trillion national debt equates to approximately $46,000 for every U.S. citizen. To put the debt in perspective in a different way: An $18 trillion national debt would be 4.5 times as great as the cost of World War II (estimated at $4 trillion in 2011 adjusted dollars). What is the Tea Party against? The Tea Party movement objects to several recent government initiatives: 2008 bailouts of mortgage lenders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); insurance companies (American International Group); and the automotive industry (GM and Chrysler), amounting to at least $8.5 trillion 2009 stimulus package of $787 billion to provide aid to local and state governments, improve transportation infrastructures, and create millions of jobs 2010 healthcare reform bill that provides a universal health care coverage option to the under-insured and uninsured 2010 Cap and Trade bill that would charge companies for not reducing their carbon footprints Who belongs to the Tea Party? The Tea Party movement claims 1,000–1,500 chapters around the United States. The majority of supporters tend to hold conservative political views on a range of issues. Those who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters comprise eighteen percent of Americans and tend to be Republican, white, male, married, and older than 45. Supporters claim that the movement represents a cross-section of the American electorate, while critics point out that most Tea Party supporters are Republican or Libertarian and the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of the more conservative elements of the traditional Republican Party. Who are well-known Tea Party supporters? The Tea Party movement prides itself on being a loosely structured political organization and while there aren’t any formal leaders, it does have some popular supporters: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke at a protest on April 2009. Sarah Palin, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, spoke at the movement’s national convention in February 2010. Dick Armey, former Republican House majority leader, became an early leader of the movement through his conservative action group, FreedomWorks. Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas, spoke to Tea Party advocates at the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party and has been described as the movement’s “intellectual godfather.” Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican congresswoman, formed the House Congressional Tea Party Caucus in July 2010. Despite still being in infancy, the Tea Party movement has impacted American politics significantly by opposing government size and spending, attracting prominent politicians, and helping elect new Republican Members of Congress in 2010. Time will tell how the Tea Party movement’s influence expands or contracts and whether the Tea Party can attract a majority of Americans to its views and positions.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

Congress and the president of the United States work together to complete the budget of the United States government that determines federal spending for each fiscal year. The budget allocates more than $3.45 trillion (fiscal year 2010) in federal government spending. See “How Are Your Tax Dollars Used by the Federal Government” for more information on federal spending. The president’s part of the budget process By law, the president must submit a proposed federal budget to Congress in February of each year, for the next fiscal year that begins on October 1. The president assembles the budget based on recommendations from federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During the previous fall, federal agencies submit budget requests to OMB with detailed program costs. OMB sends revisions back to the agencies in a process called “passback” in November or December of every year. Agencies have a short time to appeal OMB’s decisions before the final president’s budget is completed and submitted to Congress by the February deadline. OMB prepares the budget submission for Congress as well as explanatory materials and detailed appendices that are available to the public. Congress considers the president’s budget Congress receives the proposed budget and first passes a budget resolution, which is a framework outlining how members of Congress will make decisions about spending and taxes. The budget resolution is based on analysis done each year in March by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The budget resolution identifies levels of total revenue and spending, calculates any surplus or deficit and provides spending targets for both mandatory and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is set After approving the budget resolution, the House and Senate may consider legislation to change the eligibility rules or participant funding levels for mandatory programs. Mandatory spending, sometimes called “direct spending,” includes mostly entitlement programs that are funded by eligibility rules or payment rules, authorized by permanent laws. Mandatory spending is not dependent on an annual appropriations bill. Congress may change the eligibility and participant funding levels at any time. Discretionary spending included in appropriations bills At the same time, Congress begins consideration of the annual appropriations bills for discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is divided among twelve subject areas with appropriations bills that fall under the jurisdiction of their respective House and Senate appropriations subcommittees: Agriculture Commerce, Justice and Science Defense Energy and Water Financial Services Homeland Security Interior and Environment Labor, Health and Education Legislative Branch Military Construction and Veterans Affairs State and Foreign Operations Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations hearings and passage by Congress The appropriations subcommittees begin hearings in April of each year and approve appropriations bills that pass the House and Senate on a rolling basis from May to September of every year. Both the House and Senate will pass their own versions of each bill, which will then be combined in a process called conference. In conference, leaders of the House and Senate negotiate and agree on a final version for every appropriations bill, which is then approved by each chamber. Often, conference appropriations bills are combined into an omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for many different agencies. Some years, Congress is unable to complete work by the October 1 deadline and will pass a continuing resolution that funds the government until Congress can approve a final appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. The president signs the budget Once a final appropriations bill passes both the House and the Senate, the bill is sent to the president for his signature. The president may veto the bill and send it back to Congress or sign it into law. After the president’s signature, federal agencies then execute spending in their respective programs. The Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, congressional committees and agency personnel closely monitor the budget and spending to ensure programs comply with spending limits and use funds only for the purposes authorized by Congress. The Washington Post publishes a helpful interactive graphic that summarizes the federal budget process.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent agency created in 1975 by the U.S. Congress to regulate election campaign finance in the United States. The mission of the FEC is to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that governs the financing of federal elections. The FEC has jurisdiction over campaigns for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the presidency and the vice presidency. Historical background of the FEC President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need in 1905 for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate political contributions. Congress enacted a series of statutes between 1907 and 1966 designed to limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on federal elections, regulate spending in campaigns for federal office, and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to consolidate earlier reform efforts. The Act instituted more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs) but lacked a central administrative authority, which made enforcement difficult. After the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs and also established an independent agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure and administer the public funding program. The FEC administered the first publicly funded presidential election in 1976. Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 to address provisions ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. Other major amendments were made in 1979 (to streamline the disclosure process and expand the role of political parties) and in 2002 with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The BCRA banned unregulated contributions to national party committees (often called “soft money” contributions), restricted issue advocacy ads, increased contribution limits and indexed certain limits for inflation. The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC ruled portions of the BCRA unconstitutional, particularly the restrictions on issue ads. Members of the FEC The Federal Election Commission is composed of six members appointed by the president of the United States subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Each member serves a six-year term. By law, no more than three commissioners can be members of the same political party and at least four votes are required for any official commission action. The chairmanship of the commission rotates among the members each year. The commissioners elect two members each year to act as chair and vice chair. Public meetings of the FEC The commission holds a public meeting each week where the commissioners adopt new regulations, issue advisory opinions, approve audit reports concerning Presidential campaign committees, and take other administrative action. The commissioners also meet regularly in closed sessions to discuss pending enforcement actions, litigation and personnel matters. Official duties of the FEC Although the commission’s name implies broad authority over U.S. elections, in fact its role is limited to the administration of federal campaign finance laws. The commission enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, investigates complaints and prosecutes violations. Investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties and watchdog groups but any member of the public who believes that a campaign finance law has been violated may file a complaint. The FEC also audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential campaign fund, which provides public funds to candidates for president and nominating conventions. The commission clarifies the FECA and the public funding statutes through regulations codified in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The commission issues written advisory opinions to persons seeking guidance on the application of the campaign finance law to their own specific activities. Most importantly, the FEC publishes reports filed by Senate, House of Representatives and presidential campaigns that list how much each campaign has raised and spent, and a list of all donors over $200, along with each donor’s home address, employer and job title. While these exhaustive campaign finance resources are available to everyone, the public rarely uses them.

Article / Updated 03-26-2016

In August 2011, the United States’ credit rating was downgraded by the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P) from AAA to AA+, or down one level. Because this is the first time in American history that the U.S. credit rating has been downgraded, the long-term economic impact remains uncertain. Here is a brief explanation of the S&P downgrade decision, some background on credit ratings, and possible implications of the downgrade. Reasons for the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating Standard & Poor’s believed that the rising level of government debt and lack of effective policymaking weakened U.S. creditworthiness to a level no longer commensurate with an AAA sovereign credit rating. S&P pointed to a debt trajectory where U.S. net general government debt of $11.4 trillion (74% of GDP) this year (2011) is projected to increase to $14.5 trillion (79% of GDP) by 2015. In addition, S&P was troubled by the U.S. political climate, observing that the stability, predictability, and effectiveness of the nation’s policymaking has weakened, as demonstrated in the recent debate around the debt ceiling. S&P criticized the nation’s lawmakers for failing to cut spending and raise revenue to reduce record budget deficits. How governments like the U.S. get a credit rating A sovereign credit rating is the credit rating of a sovereign entity, namely a national government. The credit rating is an evaluation of the likelihood of default and credit-worthiness of an issuer of debt, like the U.S. government. Credit ratings are determined by credit ratings agencies, the most influential being Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings. These agencies determine credit ratings for both sovereign entities, like national governments, and private corporations. Credit ratings are based on qualitative and quantitative information for a government, the judgment and experience of the rating agency’s analysts, and their evaluation of public and private information, including a nation’s history and long-term economic prospects. S&P also publishes a more detailed explanation of credit ratings. The following chart shows the various sovereign credit ratings given by each of the major credit rating agencies. Credit Ratings Issued by Major Credit Rating Agencies S&P Moody’s Fitch Comments AAA Aaa AAA Highest rating - extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments AA Aa2 AA Very strong capacity A A2 A Strong capacity but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances BBB Baa2 BBB Adequate capacity BBB- Baa3 BBB- Lowest investment grade BB+ Ba1 BB+ Highest speculative grade BB Ba2 BB Less vulnerable in near-term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial, and economic conditions B B2 B More vulnerable but currently has capacity to meet financial commitments CCC Caa CCC Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable economic conditions CC Ca CC Currently highly vulnerable C C Currently highly vulnerable, bankruptcy petition filed or similar action D C D Default Credit ratings should not be confused with credit scores. Credit scores are based on mathematical formulas that assign numerical values to information in a person’s credit report regarding financial history, current assets and outstanding liabilities. Banks and other financial services companies use the credit score to estimate the probability that the individual will pay back a loan or credit card. A credit score does not take into account future prospects or changed circumstances. In short, a sovereign credit rating is a forward-looking estimate of a national government’s probability of default while a credit score is an estimate of an individual’s potential for default based on past performance. S&P gives 18 sovereign entities its top ranking, including Australia, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. New Zealand is the only country other than the U.S. that has an AA+ rating from S&P and an Aaa grade from Moody’s. Belgium has an equivalent AA+ grade from S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. The negative economic impacts of the U.S. credit rating downgrade Some economists and financial experts believe S&P’s downgrade will have significant negative impacts to the U.S. and world financial markets that ripple through the U.S. and global economy in both the short term and long-term. They argue the downgrade will have the following effects. Increases the possibility of a double-dip recession and a larger fiscal deficit. Degrades the confidence of investors, making the fragile financial market even worse. Provokes panic selling in global stock markets. Intensifies emerging trend of investors avoiding U.S. treasury securities and increases market turbulence. Increases the global risk premium level by making the global market more sensitive to the European debt crisis and making the bad-credit economies of the European Union more fragile.

 Diminishes global economic recovery by dampening people’s optimism for U.S. economic growth, increasing U.S. costs to issue treasury securities, and negating economic development through large scale debt funding and printing more U.S. currency. In this scenario, the U.S. falls into a vicious cycle where borrowing money becomes harder, economic development is encumbered and credit worsens. Exposes U.S. citizens to higher borrowing costs and lower purchasing power thus reducing U.S. consumer demand and exposing countries relying on U.S. import orders to significant losses and economic slow down. Damages the interests of U.S. debt holders such as China, Japan and Russia as U.S. treasury bonds loose their superior international status and the U.S. dollar depreciates.
 Why the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating doesn’t matter Other economic experts note that the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating may have little effect and point to the following reasons. The U.S. still has AAA ratings from two rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch. The debt limit agreement reached by Congress in August 2011 showed U.S. politicians can reach political solutions to address the nation’s debt problems. The U.S. credit rating is underpinned by the flexible, diversified and wealthy economy that provides the country’s revenue base. U.S. monetary and exchange rate flexibility enhance the capacity of the economy to absorb and adjust to shocks. Most U.S. debt is held by big institutions like pension funds and central banks that do their own research on sovereign debt and aren’t heavily influenced by rating agencies, and Treasury yields may experience little impact as a result. Nearly all financial-industry regulations and internal policies at financial institutions treat the AA+ rating the same as an AAA rating, so forced selling is unlikely. The effect on other countries that were downgraded was minimal in most cases. For example, Canada’s interest rates went up briefly in 1994 when it was downgraded, but rebounded within two months and Canada later regained the AAA rating it holds today.