Throughout this course i have learned many different things about the inner workings of our government. I've learned exactly how big the government is and how many things make up the bureaucracy. Before this course, I didn't know how much the bureaucracy made up our government and how much they controlled the government. I also realized how the media affects what we see, hear, and think about what goes on in the world. The media is almost always biased, and many times will make exaggerate things to induce panic or make you think the way they want you to.

I think the most valuable thing that I have learned from this class is the basic inner workings of the government. I've learned things from the policy making process to the media's influence on politics. I've learned how complex our court system is and how much power Congress really has. This class has really opened up my eyes and shown me what all makes up American politics.

I think the blog assignments were very valuable in helping me make a real world connection with what we were studying in class. Having articles or videos showed us the different ways that media is used in today's world. It was also a much funner alternative to writing essays.

Overall, this was a great class. I will take away from this class a greater understanding of American government and how it runs. I will use this new knowledge to develop my own opinions about the government and it will help me decide who I should vote for in the future.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

The basic issue here is whether or not to spend more money to get us out of this recession. Although Obama had a massive bailout of the economy, our taxes have not raised. In fact, they have decreased in some areas. According to this article, our taxes have not increased any since Truman was in office. Even though these tax cuts are being given right now, we will have to make up for the cuts in the future.

Since Keynesian economics suggests that government spending is needed in order to jump start the economy, this is exactly what Obama did with the stimulus package. Since consumers don't have the money to spend, the government will spend it for them. Although the government should intervene when the economy is failing, they should step back when the economy is strong again. When they step back though, they should keep a watchful eye so our current recession won't happen again. They should regulate banks and big corporations so that these greedy people won't mess up the economy again.

Our responsibility as taxpayers is to pay our taxes, but still keep an eye on our own government. People need to know that we HAVE to pay taxes in order to keep the country. In hard times, taxes may need to increase to help the country out. In times of prosperity, tax cuts will be a great Overall, something needs to be done to help the country out.

I think that the government definitely needs to step in when our economy is failing. Keynesian Economics seems like a valid theory, since it makes the government spend money to make up for the consumers that no longer are spending it. Although people may not like having the government interfere with our lives, it is the only option to make sure that our country stay son the right track.

The News Hour, Extra Credit

Based on watching the PBS show The News Hour it seems a lot less bias than the most popular news channels like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. In fact, most of the time it seems like they are not biased at all. They have their own opinion on things, but don't voice them over everyone else like how Fox News does. Their interview style is also a lot different from the other stations. They interview the people personally, instead of on a tv screen. This is a lot different from fox, who interviews a lot on tv screens and talk over the people that are being interviewed. They usually throw four people's faces on the screen and let them fight over the given topic. They are also more laid back, and don't attack the people that they are interviewing. I would assume though that this station tends to lean more towards the left. They seem more to the left because I don't think that any station can be as far right as Fox News. Also, the anchors went right into the issues of the day, instead of having a big opening.

The issues that were discussed every night were the main issues that were going on in the United States and around the world. They would also interview one person of the night. On the first night, they interviewed the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The first night, they talked about the war in Afghanistan and other top news stories. The second night, they first talked about the oil spill. Most topics all nights were over the oil spill, since it is the most talked about issue right now. Other topics included the Supreme Courts Ruling that juveniles cannot receive life sentences, Iranian sanctions deals, the turmoil in Thailand, the immigration debate, and the problem with the stock market. They cover all the main topics that are going on in the world.

I usually get most of my news from the internet as opposed to watching it on television. My news comes from MSNBC.com. MSNBC is definitely more of a liberal news source. PBS on the other hand doesn't seem very biased as the main stream news sources like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. PBS takes more of a subjective perspective from the issues that are going on. The anchors do not insert their opinions every chance they get. Instead of attacking the people they are interviewing, they try to find the truth from them.

When talking about federal agencies, or the bureaucracy, they seem to have a little more criticism about them. This was shown when they were talking about the agencies involved in regulating the oil company BP, as well as the company who built the oil rig.

Overall, I learned a lot from watching the news hour. They take a less biased approach in news coverage which is a relief from other news station. I don't think this is the only time i'll watch the News Hour on PBS. I think I'll watch it a lot more often from now on.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126676864

In this article it talks about the endless waiting lines at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The emphasis in this article is on the health division of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many Veterans have to wait long amounts of time, even years, for the Department to pass a claim that the veteran is making. One man that was in the Vietnam War was just approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs that he had Post Traumatic Stress disorder, in 2006. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs was made to help Veterans, it seems like that they are not doing their job. This is the fundamental problem with the bureaucracy; they have a hard time getting things done (much like Congress). Many departments, like Veterans Affairs, seem to run very inefficiently.

The groups involved in this would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the department that deals with the health of veterans. Although the bureaucracy is needed for our country to function, i think that we need to make sure that these administrative agencies run more effectively and efficiently. I understand that with veterans affairs you are dealing with large groups of people who all are giving claims for physical or psychological injury. I just feel like the department needs to address this problem more efficiently. I don't think they should hire more employees because that would just increase the size of the bureaucracy, which will create even more problems. They just need to learn how to deal with all these people better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01gulf.html

The people who should be held accountable for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill should be the parties responsible, which would be BP and the company they leased the drill from. BP leased the drill from another company, so the blame also lies on the company who leased the drill to BP. Federal regulators should have made sure that this oil rig was in a good condition so it could drill oil. As with the example in the text about Jimmy Carter and the mouse, it clearly shows that there is a definite problem with the bureaucracy. Either federal regulators overlooked the problems with the oil rig, or the various bureaucrats could not come up with a decision as to who should have regulated the oil rig. BP should have also been responsible enough to regulate themselves, making sure that their oil rig had the proper safety regulations in order to operate.

The agencies that are involved in this case would be the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, the NOAA, and the Department of Defense. These agencies should have worked with BP from the start of the spill. The only people who worked with BP from the start was the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard seems to have been working nonstop to combat the oil spill. Other agencies waited too long for BP.

The media seems to be both criticizing BP and the federal government for the oil spill cleanup. BP and the bureaucracy should stop trying to find a scapegoat for the oil spill and instead work together in order to fix this problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18memo.html?emc=eta1

Since the President is the person who appoints Supreme Court Justices, there isn't really a way for citizens to know about the person being appointed. Most information on the Supreme Court Justice nominees come from the media. The media usually gives bias information, which won't help U.S. citizens decide if they would like the nominee or not. According to this article, most people who are appointed to the Supreme Court(including Republicans) have leaned more towards the left side of the aisle, except the four Republicans who are currently in the Supreme Court.

I think that having an independent judiciary system is very important because it separates the courts from the influence from the legislative and executive branches. We need a Supreme Court so they can interpret the constitution as how it was originally written, without having the influence of politics in our court system.

An independent judiciary system is important for the country because if Congress were given the power the courts have, it would become easily corrupted. Congress would have too much power given to them, and politics will get involve in the decision making.

The article says that there are "fewer surprises" in the judiciary system, because there has been a pattern that many of the justices have strayed towards the left in the political spectrum when they are appointed to the Supreme Court. Since this is starting to happen, the judiciary system does not seem as independent as it used to be. More and more court justices seem to be influenced by the left side of the political spectrum. Although recently, the four conservatives in the Supreme Court seem to be resisting the influence from the left.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june10/whitehouse_03-29.html

In today's world with so many sources to gain information, from television to radio to the internet, it would be very advantageous for Presidents to start using these sources; most of all the internet. The U.S. has the greatest amount of internet users than any other country and this would be the best possibly way for the President to communicate with the citizens. Any given day on the UC campus, you'll see hundreds of people using the internet for news, entertainment, or communication. Since so many people use the internet in our generation, it would be logical for the President, and political parties, to use this as a means to reach us.

Probably the most effective tool today would be the internet. During President Obama's campaign, he used Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to reach U.S. citizens, especially the younger generations. Obama set the stage for a new wave of getting information directly from the people involved in the government. Since Obama started this, many other politicians have done the same thing. Obama has a Twitter account to update what is going on in the White House every day. He also has a Facebook page, with millions of fans.

The main source of news for me is the internet, since i'm on it at least once every day of my life. I usually get it from MSNBC.com, since I feel that that is a news station that I like the most. Sometimes I will watch the news on TV, but i'd rather go to the internet first. The main source where my parents get the news is from the TV and talk radio. My father listens to very conservative radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and also watches the Fox News Channel.

The way we learn of news has changed drastically from the sources that were available ten years ago. Back then, the internet wasn't what it is today and people got their news mostly from the TV. The Internet provides a relief from TV, where people can read and hear many different people's opinion instead of the opinion of just one news anchor.

I think the White House has finally realized that to get their message to the younger generations, they need to go above and beyond just using television. Most young people spend probably at least ten minutes on the internet daily at the least, and many spend hours. Using the internet is the best possible way for the White House to communicate with U.S. citizens, since this is a changing world. This greatly helps the White House relate with the younger generations who have grown up using the internet.

Some risks would be that too much information may be out in the internet about our government, which could hurt our country in the long run.