320, USA, Politik, Konservatismus, Social Security, United States, politics, conservatism, Social Security, and Politische Wissenschaft (PPN62170718X)

Vor dem Hintergrund der Erfolge und Niederlagen der Tea Party-Bewegung in der amerikanischenPolitik während der letzten Jahre stellt sich die Frage, welcher Voraussetzungen es bedarf, in denUSA konservative Politik auf nationaler Ebene durchzusetzen. Um dies zu beantworten, wird in derDissertation Präsident George W. Bushs Versuch analysiert, Social Security durch eine(Teil-)Privatisierung der in dem Programm beinhalteten staatlichen Rentenversicherung zureformieren. Bush kündigte den Reformplan direkt nach seiner Wiederwahl 2004 an, die Umsetzungscheiterte jedoch im 109. U.S. Kongress. Anlass für die Reformpläne waren Prognosen, nach denenaufgrund des demografischen Wandels Social Security ohne Anpassungen ab dem Jahr 2018 mehran Bezügen auszahlen müsste, als es an Beiträgen durch Steuern einnehmen würde. Eine(Teil-)Privatisierung des Programms wäre eine weitreichende und symbolträchtige Reformzugunsten konservativer Politikziele gewesen. Social Security ist nicht nur ein fundamentalerBestandteil der amerikanischen Sozialpolitik, es hat zudem als staatliches Programm eineSonderstellung in dem zu großen Teilen auf Privatvorsorge ausgerichteten System sozialerSicherungen inne. Für viele Konservative steht es seit seiner Einführung während der New DealÄrafür staatliche Bevormundung und gehört zugunsten individueller Privatvorsorge abgeschafft.Social Security ist trotz derartiger Kritik nicht nur über die Jahrzehnte gewachsen, sondern verfügtneben der entschiedenen Unterstützung durch Liberale auch über eine mehrheitliche Zustimmung inder Bevölkerung.Von zentraler Bedeutung für die Bewertung der Chancen konservativer Politikumsetzung ist dieTatsache, dass der moderne amerikanische Konservatismus eine Koalition verschiedenerGruppierungen darstellt. Innenpolitisch wird er vor allem durch libertäre und sozialkonservativeIdeale geprägt. Geeint werden die verschiedenen konservativen Ansätze unter anderem durch dieAblehnung des modernen amerikanischen Liberalismus. Neben vielen Gemeinsamkeiten bestehtjedoch auch Konfliktpotenzial zwischen den jeweiligen Hauptanliegen der unterschiedlichenkonservativen Fraktionen.Für die Analyse der Reformdebatte greift die Dissertation auf John W. Kingdons Multiple Streams-Theorie zurück. Nach dieser müssen die Entwicklungen in drei verschiedenen streams günstig sein,damit sich ein Zeitfenster für eine mögliche Reform öffnet (opportunity window). Dazu zählen derproblem-, der policy- und der politics stream. Die Analyse zeigt, dass zum Zeitpunkt derReformdebatte die Voraussetzungen für ein opportunity window in keinem der drei streamseindeutig gegeben waren. Ein Problembewusstsein in Hinblick auf die Zukunft von Social Securitywar zwar in weiten Teilen der Öffentlichkeit vorhanden, es gab aber Uneinigkeit über Gewichtungund Dringlichkeit des Problems. Große ideologische Differenzen zwischen amerikanischenLiberalen und Konservativen bestanden sowohl bei der Bewertung des Problemgrades als auch beider Frage der grundsätzlichen Aufgaben und Gestaltung von Sozialpolitik. Zudem gab es ganzkonkret Zweifel, ob die Reformvorschläge die Probleme überhaupt lösen könnten. Experten übtenunter anderem Kritik an den Umstellungskosten und äußerten Skepsis gegenüber der seitens desWeißen Hauses angenommenen Höhe der Rendite von Privatkonten. Auch in derGesamtbevölkerung existierten große Bedenken gegenüber den Reformplänen. Innerhalb derrepublikanischen Wählerschaft fehlte zudem eine eindeutige Mehrheit für die Reformen - geradedie für die Republikaner wichtige Wählergruppe der Rentner stand einer Teilprivatisierung inweiten Teilen ablehnend gegenüber und für sozialkonservative Wähler standen eher Wertefragen imMittelpunkt. Die Unterstützung durch konservative Interessengruppen fiel ebenfalls eher verhaltenaus, wohingegen liberale Interessengruppen in entschiedene Opposition gingen. Angesichts einerfehlenden einheitlichen Position innerhalb der republikanischen Fraktionen im Abgeordnetenhausund Senat sowie einer Sperrminorität der Demokraten im Senat reichten letztendlich auch dierepublikanischen Mehrheiten im Kongress nicht für eine Reform aus.Neben den schwierigen Bedingungen innerhalb der streams wurden seitens des Weißen Hausesaußerdem Fehler beim Zusammenbringen der streams, dem coupling, begangen. Am schwerstenwogen dabei die mangelnde Koordination der Reformpläne mit Interessengruppen und insbesonderedem Kongress.Die gescheiterte Social Security-Reform verdeutlicht, dass der Konservatismus in den USA eineKoalition verschiedener Interessen ist. Um diese intern auszugleichen und extern durchzusetzen,braucht es Debatten und Kompromisse, sowohl innerhalb der konservativen Koalition als auchaußerhalb mit den nicht konservativen politischen Akteuren.

碩士
淡江大學
中國大陸研究所碩士在職專班
103
Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) eighteenth National People’s Congress (NPC), held in November 11th, 2012, symbolizes CCP’s fifth leader, Xi Jinping, has taken the office and sets the stage for his era. The foreign policies of mainland China from 16th to 17th National People’s Congress mainly focused on major powers are critical, surrounding countries are primary, developing countries are foundational, and international institutions are instrumental. Besides, the quo “public diplomacy is supplementary” was added in 18th NPC represents PRC’s “five in one” core diplomatic strategy.The Obama Administration issued a series of announcements indicating that the policy of rebalancing of Asia. Not only he reaffirms his existing standpoint of solving sovereignty issues, but also emphasizes United States of America (USA) is a superpower and maritime state and a peace keeper in Asian-Pacific region. For maritime safety, especially in issue of South China Sea, has a vital stake which cannot be neglected. Especially, in facing of new leader of raising China, competitor or partner, engagement or containment, US policies toward CRP and ROC become significant in order to protect overall interests in U.S.Moreover, since Ma Ying-jeoun has taken the office and has accepted 1992 Consensus in March, 2008, there are more opportunities in the cross-strait exchanging policies and ROC’s foreign policies because of political goodwill provided by PRC. And cross-strait relations are always being the key factor of development of ROC. After the 18th NPC, PRC claims the policy towards ROC will remain the same and also has new thought, new view point and new guidance in building cross-strait peaceful relations. Besides, ROC’s current low-key, surprise-free approach to further strengthen trust with US and variance of US-China high-tension relations form three complicated bilateral relations. So, the trilateral relations among USA, PRC and ROC is an important issue and worth discussing.By utilizing documentary analysis to analyze interactions between Xi Jinping and US/ROC can foresee the dynamic so-call three bilateral relations formed by rebalancing strategy in Asia and the new model of major-country relations. More importantly, ROC should utilize smart power to build relations with US and PRC and further gain recognition of international community.

budgeting, budget process, Congress, partisanship, reform, 1970s, and American Politics

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made the production of an annual comprehensive budgetary framework the central focus of the federal budget process. Before 1974, the budget process had allowed legislation from each of the revenue committees and each of the appropriations subcommittees to come to the floor separately. Congress judged the merits of individual programs without considering the overall budget. The 1974 budget act changed the organizational ethos of the budget process from incremental change to comprehensive review and from fragmented, ad hoc decision making to coordinated decision making. It helped sort members into ideologically homogenous groups by transforming many battles over separate policy priorities into one grand battle over the biggest question in American politics: What is the role of government? The 1974 shift to comprehensive budgeting, along with subsequent additional controls on budget practices, has magnified and accelerated the effects of the many polarizing forces that have characterized the last 40 years of American politics. With this conclusion come unanswered questions regarding the merits of a distinct two-party system, as well as the potential need for comprehensive budgeting despite its political challenges.

budgeting, budget process, Congress, partisanship, reform, 1970s, and American Politics

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made the production of an annual comprehensive budgetary framework the central focus of the federal budget process. Before 1974, the budget process had allowed legislation from each of the revenue committees and each of the appropriations subcommittees to come to the floor separately. Congress judged the merits of individual programs without considering the overall budget. The 1974 budget act changed the organizational ethos of the budget process from incremental change to comprehensive review and from fragmented, ad hoc decision making to coordinated decision making. It helped sort members into ideologically homogenous groups by transforming many battles over separate policy priorities into one grand battle over the biggest question in American politics: What is the role of government? The 1974 shift to comprehensive budgeting, along with subsequent additional controls on budget practices, has magnified and accelerated the effects of the many polarizing forces that have characterized the last 40 years of American politics. With this conclusion come unanswered questions regarding the merits of a distinct two-party system, as well as the potential need for comprehensive budgeting despite its political challenges.

344.7304

This thesis analyses the discursive processes behind the US Congress' continual failure to pass comprehensive climate change legislation. It finds that a contradictory issue-definition was institutionalised, entrenching a range of particularly problematic framings of the policy issue, which classified 'climate change' policy as, simultaneously, an 'international' , ' energy', 'environmental' , 'economics', 'scientific' , 'ethical' and 'management' issue. It is argued that this issue-definition was institutionalised through a number of policy punctuations (including the Byrd-Hagel resolution of 1997, various iterations of the Climate Stewardship Acts (2003, 2004, 2005, 2007), and the Climate Security Act of 2008), leading to the perpetuation of congressional climate change policy stasis. This project aligns with interpretive policy analyses (IPA) which emphasise the constructed nature of policy problems (see Hajer 1995; Wagenaar 2011; Yanow 2000). Previous explanations for the US government's climate change policy recalcitrance tend to be interest-based explanations. In contrast, this project seeks to illuminate the discursive elements of the policy process to better understand how this particularly stubborn policy problem - which Schon and Rein (1994) would describe as a 'policy controversy' - persists. To do so, it uses discursive institutionalist tools (see Schmidt 2002, 2006) to conduct a frame analysis of congressional climate change debates between 1993 and 2008, based on Schon and Rein's (1994) framing model. As such, this project contributes in three areas: theoretical, methodological, and empirical. It shows that discursive institutionalism can be used to explain cases of policy stasis as well as change - an as yet underdeveloped part of the literature. Furthermore, it shows that frame analysis is a useful IP A method to illuminate the discursive elements of policy controversies. Finally, it builds on previous explanations of Congress' climate change policy laggardness, going beyond interest-based explanations and showing how a particular issue-definition and framing perpetuated the policy controversy. It finds that before Congress can take action to pass comprehensive climate change legislation - above all - the policy issue must first be redefined

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Intelligence Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, National Security Agency, NSA, U.S. Congress, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Intelligence Oversight, and Legislative Yuan

AbstractThis thesis focuses on the oversight mechanism used by congress to supervise the intelligence department, mainly through examining the historical development of the oversight mechanism that the U.S. Congress uses over the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, as well as evaluating the mechanism¡¦s successes and failures, in order to find a suitable direction for establishing an oversight mechanism for our country¡¦s Legislative Yuan over the National Security Agency, NSA. First of all, the inceptive backgrounds and historical developments of the CIA and the NSA are introduced. After establishing an understanding of the special backgrounds and developments of the two agencies, the writer, using the Institutional Process Theory, analyzes and discusses how the U.S. Congress¡¦ oversight mechanism over the CIA has progressed, thereby determining the key to the successes and failures of the U.S. Congress¡¦ intelligence oversight mechanism. Having analyzed the intelligence oversight mechanism of the U.S. Congress, the writer brings up suggestions as to how our country¡¦s Legislative Yuan can develop an oversight mechanism over the NSA in the future. Lastly, from these discussions, the writer addresses the contributions, propositions, and limitations of this research and hopes that these research and discussions can assist the Legislative Yuan in institutionalizing a comprehensive intelligence oversight mechanism over the NSA.

博士
中國文化大學
史學系
99
The Constitution of the United States that any foreign policy, including that of foreign trading, must be approved and made law by the Congress. The Congress consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate has 100 members and the House of Representatives 435. Every policy and law the Congress has made is voted and passed by the congressmen, processing from drafting a bill, introducing it to the Congress, debating the bill’s merits in committees, to the final voting in the Congress, considering all possibilities of profits and grounds.After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the Most-Favored-Nation Treatment has become a point of dispute of the foreign trading policy between USA and PRC. Until the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China was passed in 2000, the Congress has then ended the debate of Most-Favored-Nation Treatment with China Statue. This treatment has been considered as a law combining the foreign, security, economic and trading policies, displaying the constancy of the China policy of the US Government and the Congress’ changed position of granting the Most-Favored-Nation Treatment.From 1990 to 2000, according to the analysis of the bills voting to the Most-Favored-Nation Treating within Congress, the power over the voting patterns of the congressmen was that their “aye” or “no” voting reflected on their districts profits and partisan politics. In fact, Congress also takes human rights into consideration, linking it closely to economic and trading, and demands China to improve its human rights position through trading policy, in order to materialize its idealistic foreign policy. The Republican (Conservative) Party and the Democratic (Liberal) Party have reached a mutual agreement on human rights, while prolonging Most-Favored-Nation Treatment with China, and added up the human rights condition. The human rights disputation is also the key point to grant the Most-Favored-Nation Treatment with China.

committees and congress

Records membership on all congressional committees from the 80th to 102nd Congresses. Data file that corresponds with the hard copy version of Nelson's two-volume set Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1947-1992, CQ Press. Corrections of the data set to Charles Stewart at MIT.

United States. Legislators Ideology

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2007.
Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 215-218).

Amrican Foreign policy and Politics

The United States Constitution divides the authority over U S. foreign affairs between the President and Congress. Both institutions, the executive and legislative, share in the making of foreign policy and each plays important roles that are different but often overlap. The United States Congress (House of Representatives and Senate), regarded as the tribune of the people, has often been a sounding board for popular discontent and malaise over some controversial foreign policies such as the Vietnam War, Iran Contra and South Africa. Since the 1960s the U. S. Congress has often dra strength from its discontent with the executive branch to assert a stronger role in American foreign policy. This dissatisfaction with the executive branch often come as a result of arrogation of certain powers in the American foreign affairs by the President. This study examines one

History, Arab-Israeli, Israel, Nixon administration, and 1973 Arab-Israeli War

Following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the United States seemed poised to reconsider its position as a staunch ally to Israel. The Nixon administration saw the conflict as an opportunity to reinvigorate diplomacy in the Middle East and to tighten relations with the Arab states; the soaring oil prices raised the apparent costs of U.S. wartime support for Israel and threatened the nearly unopposed lobbying position of Israel‚s domestic supporters; and Congress, one of Israel‚s most reliable allies, was in a state of flux, making continued support for Israel uncertain. With forces seemingly aligned against the relationship with Israel, it is remarkable that the war actually served to strengthen the U.S-Israel relationship. Historians, enamored with Henry Kissinger‚s diplomacy, have missed the central role Congress played from 1973 to 1976 in keeping the U.S. bond with Israel strong.

Political Science, General, Primaries, Congress, Elections, Candidate Emergence, Electoral Competition, and Elite Political Behavior

Previous research has focused on candidate emergence in congressional elections, paying little attention to congressional primary outcomes and competition levels. This study examines the nature of congressional primary competition, and the forces that systematically influence the level of competition across districts and over time. Government responsiveness has been understood to be conditional on the level of effective political competition through elections. However, the largely dominant view is that the primaries do not provide an effective check on government officials. Stylized accounts and the limited scholarly studies generally argue there is very little competition in primaries and that incumbency advantage prevents competition except in an extremely limited number of open seat districts. I report results based on observations of all 870 congressional primaries 1972 through 2002 and all Senate primaries 1998 through 2002. In addition to measuring the number of candidates in each race, I also employ a novel measure of primary competition, the Standardized Divisiveness Score, which accounts for the divisiveness or dispersion of voters due to competition among elites. This comprehensive view of primary competition finds that there are systematically slightly higher levels of competition than expected. Perhaps more importantly, I consistently find substantively high variation in competition levels across time and districts. My theory builds a view of primary competition as the aggregate outcome of potential candidates’ decisions to run and thus expands the potential influences and explanations of primary competition. In addition, this aggregation model provides specific causal mechanisms by which the electoral environment affects competition. The model examines the effects of redistricting, primary laws, incumbency, district characteristics, size of candidate pool, and political intermediaries such as the party organizations on the level of primary competition. I find that increasingly sophisticated potential candidates take into account a far more complicated “immediate political environment” that drives their calculations. Forces, beyond incumbency, such as the pressure of a large candidate pool and the resources and information political intermediaries employ as tactics systematically affect whether or not multiple competitive candidates enter the race and provide voters with real choices.