In my family, sometimes Doug and I bicker and fight. Doug and I will take our sides of the story to Lane and he will talk to my mom on either Doug’s or my behalf. My mom will lay down the law in the House. Doug and I are expected to abide by it and my stepdad is expected to be the enforcer. Sometimes in the midst of enforcement, my stepdad sees a better way to deal with Doug and I, and he will take it to my mother for her consent. Although Lane is the most valuable tool to get through to my mom, sometimes I can just get buddy-buddy with my stepdad and he will lobby to my mother on my behalf, because, he knows that I have the best perspective and knowledge on my own problems. So, in a way, my house operates with its own Iron Triangle. My mother is very much like a one person congress. Doug and I serve as our own interest groups. Lane is a lobbyist, and my stepdad is the bureaucracy.

The people of the Unites States have problems, too. And, believe it or not, the United States Government relies on a messy system of Iron triangles as well. Public interest groups are very close to the people. They know the people’s problems and they do a lot of work for the congress by collecting information that depicts that their problems are shared by many citizens. Congress understands the strength of public opinion and the needs of the people, and therefore, relies on the information and issues that interest groups present in order to pass legislation. The legislation that is passed is the duty of the bureaucracy to enforce. The bureaucracy makes rules and regulations that directly affect the people of the United States. Bureaucrats have recognized the power of theses interest groups as well as their influence on Congress. Bureau chiefs and staff, who are often appointed with the pressure of special interests, often team up with the interest groups to create a sort of alliance towards a common goal. The Bureaucrats can benefit from more attention to their agency which leads to more money. The special interest groups, in turn are advocating their issue even more effectively. The importance of special interests makes the job of lobbyists even more important because they are the people that handle the direct transaction between congressmen and interest groups. The connection between lobbyists and congressmen has often been referred to as the revolving door. Many retired congressmen become lobbyists and many lobbyists, because of their connections with congress are able to become congressmen. This creates the system that has been dubbed the Iron Triangle, although in reality it is more like a messy, intertwined ball of yarn. Lobbyists and special interest groups, bureaucrats, and congressmen all rely on each other’s connections and information in order to create our intricate system of law making and implementation.

I'm Trying

The iron triangle refers to all types of metal pieced together in a triangle. JK anyways, the iron triangle refers to the specific parts in our government. For example, congressional committees, interest groups, and a federal department or agency. The iron triangle refers to a strong alliance between all of these groups. A triangle cannot exist without all sides being present. When we apply this to governmental terms we can see that this system cannot work without the other partners. This supports the checks and balances system in that one part cannot overpower another one. All government in our country has checks and balances because with too much power, there becomes tyranny. It is a useful system if it is worked properly. If all sides contribute to their specific jobs and duties then there is no hassle in it. Power is evenly distributed to make the system equal and functional. Without this system it would be difficult for legislation to get accomplished. This system is simple, and efficient.

Iron Triangle

The Iron Triangle is basically a diagram showing how the bureaucracy collaborates and checks itself. It consists of Interest Groups, Congressional committees, and Federal Agencies. Interest Groups ideally try to lobby legislation to benefit their members. They also try to influence the way current laws are regulated, or enforced. To do this they garner support from federal agencies, which enforce and enact laws and legislation. Congressional Committees are put in charge of setting the budget and overseeing what Federal Agencies do. Federal Agencies report to the Congressional Committees on their activates. So the Iron triangle shows the relationship between these parts of the bureaucracy. The triangle also demonstrates how these three players can check each other. An interest group can withdraw support from an Agency if it is not regulating laws in its favor, or Congressional Committees can cut funding if they see the regulating of a law unfit. Thus Federal Agencies try to please both Congress and interest Groups. Ultimately the Iron Triangle showcases the influence of the interest groups, the regulation of the Federal Agencies, and the oversight and funding of Congress.

Iron Triangle!!! Yay!

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic??? Who are the "players" involved?

The Iron Triangle, by definition is a policy-making alliance that involves very strong ties among a congressional committee, an interest group, and a federal department or agency. Within this triangle network, each side of the triangle supports the other two. The congressional committees help the interest groups and agencies, the agencies support the congressional committees and interest groups, and finally the interest groups help both the congressional committees and the agencies. When looking at the concept of iron triangles we are able to see how all these organizations are collaborative and need each other in order to function correctly. Again, this brings us back to the idea of the governmental checks and balances system. Without the connection between all these groups and having them watch over each other, one group would be able to gain too much power and possibly cause a tyranny. As the number of interest groups within our government has risen, the concept of iron triangles has become much looser. While iron triangles are long-lasting and do not come and go away quickly, issue networks are short lived and bring up many of the issues. Issue networks include a variety of organizations and are defined as policy-making alliances among loosely connected participants that come together on a particular issue and then disband.
In order to have a functioning Republic the government must have systems to regulate itself. Although many of the groups/agencies work very much on their own on certain issues they must all still in some way be connected. The government is able to be much more efficient and effective when it works together. Without this system of checks and balances one of the branches is sure to go corrupt. People in their nature are power hungry and once they get a taste of it, if they have room to expand they will. If we were to let this happen nothing would ever get done. Congressional committees, interest groups, and agencies are basically the base of what we look at for our government. If one breaks down they must be able to monitor and support each other so that the entire system does not just come to a complete stop and fail immediately.
In conclusion, the iron triangle helps to set a basis for our government and helps all the systems to be aware of their responsibilities and regulations that are required of them.

iron triangle...blah

Many Americans will claim that the Federal Administration is not only inefficient but also that is does not effect their day to day lives; the latter being completely wrong and the former being only partially true. In an attempt to make the bureaucracy more efficient, the iron triangle better describes how agencies collaborate with congressional committees and interest groups.
Though there is no start, interest groups are the easiest to begin with. As their name suggests, a group of people comes together to publicize their beliefs on a certain subject and create legislation through lobbying or other ways. However, in existing legislation, interest groups can also influence the regulations of the laws and how they are implemented. In order to impact these regulations, interest groups go through agencies such as the one of the fifteen departments, an independent regulatory commission, independent agencies, or government corporations. In turn, these agencies report to congressional committees for subsidies or appropriations. This triangle may begin anywhere but what it ultimately comes down to is influence from interest groups, directing by agencies, and monetary support by congressional committees.

Ironing Triangles for Implementation

Yet again, we see a vicious cycle within the government. This time, it’s the Iron Triangle. The concept of this triangle is that agencies, congressional committees, and interest groups all work together to establish and carry out laws that, in the end, satisfy the American people (hopefully). Interest groups are very important in not only raising funds, but also persuading congressional committees to further a cause that they believe strongly in. These interest groups practically jumpstart the law creation/implementation process. Once their pressure towards the congressional committees in a positive way, these committees provide money and establish a budget that the agencies must follow. By created the budget and allocating money, the agency is then in charge of implementing the laws. With the given amount of money they can spend, as well as an outline of the law itself, these agencies use some of their own discretion to carry out the laws in the best way possible. This administrative discretion gives these agencies the power to “fill in the blanks” of the said laws, ensuring that the gaps in the laws no longer exist. This saves the legislative branch time, for not every tiny aspect of a law is covered when it is created. The agencies step up to ensure that no loopholes are present. When the agencies carry out the laws, the interest groups, in turn, are satisfied. This process is repeated when a new interest group enters with a new issue or idea.

The Iron Triangle is important because the legislature takes so long to pass bills into laws, and once these laws are created, it only seems right that they are carried out correctly. As funds are raised and spent, and rules and regulations become implemented, it becomes more and more important that someone is watching over everything. It is also vital that a cycle continues so that a stagnant bureaucracy doesn’t occur. As each corner of the triangle continues to function, effectiveness and efficiency should continue to occur.

Um....

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

The Iron Triangle, besides being a clever name for a system of government that we use, it's also a helpful mnemonic device for tests. The triangle is shared between Congress, Interest Groups and Agencies. The three different areas depend on one another to get stuff done. Congress is dependent on Interest Groups for electoral support and information. The Interest Groups work off of the bureaucracy with their minimal regulation and support. Then again Congress supports the agencies through funding and political support. To go the other way, policy execution is done by the agencies toward Congress; interest groups lobby for Congress support for agencies; and Congress presents legislation and oversight for Interest Groups. The three rack up enough power to control legislation and work as a cohesive team that "get 'er done". They need each other for effective, legitimate legislation. For example, say that teachers (the interest group) want to pass a law for free lunch. Then they will lobby toward Congress and Agencies for support. The Agencies, like the Department of Education, will review the teacher's desires and then, depending on how they took the news, will either hand it off to Congress or not. Later on, after the legislation for free teacher lunch has passed, when Congress members look for reelection they can refer back to the interest group of teacher to provide support that they are the good guys, and can use them in elections. All together they are a dynamic team that makes the government a much smoother place; without the three of them there would be a non-real shape: just two lines in various directions, lacking one more angle to connect them!

The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

The Iron Triangle is the relationship between the legislature (Congress), Bureaucracy, and nterest groups. The agencies go to the interest groups that correspond with the same political rule as the branch of government is in charge of. The bureaucracy does not rely on the general population however, because the population is somewhat disinterested and uninvolved. Interest groups provide support for the Congress either in money or votes, while Congress gives more attention to that particular group. Congress then offers funding for those groups that they support though the agencies. This system ensures that all three systems are satisfied, by having them work codependently in achieving that satisfaction. The Iron Triangle protects the government from corruption from outside influences, since only the Congress, agencies, and interest groups are involved.

Iron Triangle

The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved

The Iron Triangle is an essential element for a functioning government. Without the Iron Triangle laws wouldn't be implemented. The three main players of the Iron Triangle are congressional committees, agencies, and interest groups. the Iron Triangle works in a circular pattern, interest groups pressure congress to implement new laws that mirror their groups views and interests, they also raise money to help get the new laws off of the ground. Congressional Committees then take the money and the ideas from the interest groups and delegate the responsibility of creating the new laws to the agencies. Congressional Committees also give the money necessary, money from both the interest groups and the overall budget, to the agencies. The specify how much money can and needs to be used in order for the laws to be properly carried out. The agencies then implement the laws. They make sure that the laws are being upheld, that the money is being used correctly, at the agencies discretion, and that the general idea is maintained. Since the agencies have implemented the new laws the interest groups are satisfied and thus they stop pressuring the congressional committees who stop delegating to the agencies taking pressure off of them. As different interest groups approach the congressional committees the cycle continues thus more and more laws are passed. All three points on the triangle play vital roles in the creation and the implementation of the laws that are supposed to help the American people. The Iron Triangle is an important, if not confusing, element of the government that makes sure the Government continues to function appropriately.

IRON TRIANGLE

The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

The Iron Triangle is the basic theory on how 3 separate groups function within our government. It is almost seen as a network between the Congressional committee, different agencies, and corresponding interest groups. Each side of this Iron Triangle supports the other two, in essence one couldn't survive without the others. The Iron Triangle is also considered as a policy-making alliance, which help implement a law and or decision. These powers are broken up into three parts in order to prevent tyranny within our government, but as well as to provide more discussion when it comes to making important decisions in congress. Congress, who is in charge of appropriating funds, gives money to an agency and in return receives campaign money and endorsements from the special interest groups. When the interest groups give money and endorsements to the Congressional committees and in turn get special services from the agency to which they are affiliated to. When the agency gives special services to the interest groups they then receive money from the Congressional committee.
For example if we were dealing with agriculture the Congressional committee would provide subsidies to the Department of Agriculture for whatever they need the funds for and in return the interest groups would give their endorsement and money to Congress to help support the cause as well. When the interest groups give money to congress they they in turn receive special services from the agency. And when these special services are given the agencies in turn receive funds from Congress. All this truly is a circle of giving and receiving.
The Iron Triangle is very important for a functioning Republic because by dispersing the powers among 3 groups it limits the chance of corruption within the Government. With corruption nothing would get done in a timely manner. These groups are the ones that make sure that what congress decides upon is being implemented. This also provides more efficient decision making, where we don't have someone specialized in health working on a fund for agriculture. Just like everything in our government they provide us with checks and balances in order that one group doesn't gain more power over the other.

Iron Triangle

America's government was created based on the principle of working together for the common good of the people, to provide structure and leadership to the people of the nation. Iron triangles, which are made up of a bureaucratic element such as a department or agency and interest groups and Congressional committees related to that federal work force's purpose, are interdependent; all three governmental elements support each other. As compared to issue networks, which include a variety of organizations working towards a specific goal, iron triangles are long-lasting, concrete alliances of these three particular members that have a common interest in a certain federal program, not issue. First, a House or Senate authorizing committee involved in this system provides subsidies for a federal agency, such as the Department of Labor, in addition to appropriating and apportioning funds through the Congressional budget. An interest group, like a teacher's union for example, in turn gives monetary support and endorsement to the candidates involved in the committee. They do this because the agency, which works with the interest group to implement certain programs or laws, gets money from Congress. As you can see, this complex relationship between all three sectors imitates a wheel that is always turning, different parts working together to move forward and accomplish certain goals and common desires. This type of constant and "rolling" structure between interests, subcommittees and bureaucrats is key in a well-oiled Republic because laws could not be implemented effectively without them. The fact that any one of the groups involved continually relies on the other two to function, creates accountability and responsibility for the three groups. All in all, iron triangles make the functioning of our government possible because of the unity and constant give and take that's required to make them work.

The Iron Triangle

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?


The Iron Triangle refers to what political scientists call the policy making relationship between the legislature, the bureaucracy, and interest groups. There is one key assumption to be made before the Iron Triangle can be assumed, and that is that bureaucratic agencies seek to establish a solid power base so that they may remain in office and continue to gain political clout and power to spread their ideals and bills. To do this they look to groups of constituents with which they should align and help to guarantee votes from. This is generally not "the consumers" or those people who the laws are designed to help, instead it is those interest groups that align themselves with the same political jurisdiction as the certain committee/branch of government is in charge of. Because the general populace is fairly disinterested and inattentive, rarely votes, and has extremely differing desires from the government, the bureaucracy generally does not rely on these people, but instead on the much more wealthy/organized/voting/donating interest groups. If this assumption is satisfied, then the Iron Triangle may come into existence. The Iron Triangle is comprised of the three members: Congress, Bureaucracy, and Interest groups. Interest groups provide votes and electoral support to the members of Congress. When so few people pay attention to congressional elections, the power of an Interest group to simply get out name recognition for a member may almost guarantee them reelection. In return members of Congress will align themselves with these interest groups and pay special attention to them, making sure that policy beneficial or coinciding with the Interest groups desires will be created or preserved. In return Congress offers funding and public support to those members of the Bureaucracy who in turn help pass the Congressional bills that were in the first place lobbied by the Interest groups. However the bureaucracy is intended to provide oversight and regulation for the interest groups. But because of the support they receive from interest groups lobbying in Congress the bureaucracy will conduct less exacting oversight and have slightly lower regulations. This three way relationship insures that all three forms of government will have their wishes met and this is sometimes referred to as a sub government. However there are downfalls to the Iron Triangle, for one thing it often leaves the general populace out of the loop, and the bills passed are generally designed solely for the Interest group. Thus to gain power it is important to be part of an Interest group, or to at least have coinciding values with a powerful interest group. This Iron Triangle, though sometimes negative, is important to the Republic form of Government because it allows Constituents to make their wishes known and to actually have these wishes carried out. It also helps to create a stable system where members of all three corners of the triangle remain in power and can build up, this way the "sub-government" is above the wishes of the general public and can remain insulated and durable from outside influences. This further protects the governmental system from the problems caused by factious government.

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

Simply put, the iron triangle is a theory of our government that involves the cooperation and collaboration of congressional committees, interest groups, and federal departments or agencies in joining together to make decisions about a certain issue of public policy. This once again involves checks and balances in our government. The main idea behind the iron triangle is that the three different corners work together to make and help implement a law or decision. This not only disperses power between the three to deter tyranny and such, but it also allows for more discussion and thought about the measures being discussed. In other words, the iron triangle is the idea of a policy alliance between the three separate groups. Without the help of the other two sides, each group would be powerless in our government. The three players, as aforementioned, are congressional committees, interest groups, and federal departments or agencies. The reason that these three groups must interact and form a governmental bond is as follows. Let's use veteran's affairs as an example and say that there is more focus being put on veteran affairs in our government and the issue of rising awareness and help is needed. So lets say that Congress appropriates some money for several veteran agencies, such as the Department of Veteran Affairs, in order to help advance programs to increase awareness and help. If Congress does this, they will inevitably receive endorsements and money from special interest groups focused on Veteran's affairs. The reason Congress will get these benefits from the interest groups is because it is helping to endorse programs to advance awareness of veteran affairs. In turn, the interest groups that give money to Congress will get special services from the agency because the agency sees that these interest groups are helping advance the cause and ideas. Once again, the agencies that gave services to the interest groups will get money from Congress because they have helped out the interest groups who are helping alert the public of what's going on with the new veteran's process.
The reason that this concept of the iron triangle is so key to the functioning of our government is that, without it, corruption would take over and nothing would get done. Committees, interest groups, and agencies are all the workhorses of our government. They are the groups that make sure the stuff Congress and the president want gets done. Without their cooperation and interaction, no measures would be passed because there wouldn't be enough funding or tossing around of ideas. Also, this iron triangle provides yet another check on power in our government, making sure that one group doesn't gain to much influence over the others. In order for everything to work, it is essential for the separate groups to coordinate and cooperate.

Triangles Strong as Iron

In simple terms an iron triangle is the alliance of a congressional committee an interest group, and a federal department. The “triangle” formed by these sides creates a policy-making alliance creates the fundamentals that can exist for decades. Within the “triangles” decisions are made that involve collections of political leaders and interest groups that join together for a particular cause and feed off of each other to maintain a certain goal.
Between a strong Congressional authorizing committee, an influential federal department or agency and a set of loyal interest groups an iron triangle can be formed that is “strong as iron.” As long as they hang together, the members of iron triangles can dominate policy-making in their respective specialized areas of concern. These closed, mutually supportive relationships that often prevail in the United States uphold a certain jurisdiction over a particular functional area of government policy. All interconnected sides rely on one another to make their policy or point effective in order to gain more financial support. While Congress can give money to an agency, it can then get campaign money and endorsements from a certain interest group in return because the interest groups will give that money in order to receive special services from the agency. The ongoing cycle continues because by giving special services to the interest group then Congress has to give money to the agency because it is getting endorsed by the interest group. Each side relies on the other, and like in other aspects of government each of the three sides gains a certain profitable value. All in all, Congressmen can count upon friends in the agencies to continue programs important to their local constituencies or even to do special favors for their political supporters. Interest groups through their lobbyists provide useful information to the committees and the agencies, and provide campaign support for the Congressmen. In return, interest groups tend to be consulted and carefully placated when new laws or administrative regulations or important appointments affecting their special interests are being made. These mutually supportive relationships are so politically powerful that representatives of the more general interests of society are usually effectively prevented from interfering with policy-making altogether whenever their concept of the general interest runs counter to the special interests of players in the iron triangle.
The iron triangle is part of the interlocking functions of the United States government. The iron triangle is a continuance of the “balancing game” that is constantly being played out in the U.S. government. The embodiment of iron triangles in the United States government system is part of how the federal administrative system works in coalition to Congress. It is one the many aspects that make the Republic function in its basic form. In a sense, the iron triangle is also how many people can get their opinions through and into congressional view. When one becomes a leader or active member in an interest group the iron triangle provides for an influential basis that an individual can actual make a difference. Interest groups and Congressmen essentially represent constituencies of the common people in the iron triangle and how they are trying to get what the people want. The United States is a government based on checks and balances and is about representing the people as a whole. The iron triangle is one of the many ways that the opinions of the direct people can infiltrated up into the federal administrative system and be heard. It is the use of complicated functions of government that with the help of agencies, interest groups and Congressmen can get what their constituencies want and have their side of government benefit. Iron triangles are a single concept that adds to the thousands that make up how the government functions inorder to get what they want and what the people want.

Working Government

Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, one of the main priorities they had on the table was how to avoid a system of tyranny or anarchy. By electing to use a representative democracy, they took the direct rule out of the people’s hands and prevented the forming of a small group of people dominating the rest of the country. Because of their brilliance to separate the powers and diversify the branches jobs, as well as check each other’s power, our government runs effectively. In order for representative democracy to work however, the system is not supposed to make it easy for those working in it. If it were easy take control of the country, then our government is not doing its job in insuring the protection of the people. Representatives and Senators are elected, whether they view it as a trustee or a delegate position, in order to be the voices of the people. The different branches are supposed to make it hard on each other to amend the basic structure of the Constitution or pass laws. Even if the government appears to be at a standstill, it is only because the congressmen, justices, and president are doing their job and keeping it from being removed from the people. That being said, it is true that the government in many aspects can be inefficient. Certain problems in the country need to be dealt with quickly as well as effectively. Because of the slow process of our system, some parts of the government can be counterproductive instead of helping the country. What is important, however, is to make sure that the US’s initial structure is intact and not crumbling, for how can a government improve itself if it is unsteady at its base? It is the strength in the foundation that keeps our government moving. Even if the system is not as speedy as we wish it was on occasion, it is only through our faith in our government as US citizens that has kept our representative democracy steady since the 1700’s and continue to do so in the future.

As far as leaders go, the President is the most significant and important leader in the US. Presidents should be diplomatic and charismatic people who are willing to go beyond the normal working hours to put in the effort to lead the country. Presidents, as a national figure elected by the entire US, represent the face of the American people both nationally and internationally. Presidents should be able to interact with foreign officials to make negotiations, as well as socialize with their citizens on a normal basis. Presidents have a maximum of eight years to run the executive branch, which can create a decade of national controversy or prosperity; many times the party is blamed for presidential failure. For the citizens themselves, they look to a few characteristics in a President for good leadership: honesty, people skills, voting record, campaign contributors, military background, religion/religious affiliation, and spouses. In the American people’s minds, honesty and integrity are key for leadership, as well as how they interact with people: their tactics with handling certain political situations. They also look for the official’s previous political opinions through the voting record, who contributed money to their campaign for whatever reason, and especially honesty with campaign contributions. For the president, military background is an important feature, as they are the Commander in Chief of the US’s armed forces. Also for the president, their home life, in the form of their spouse and religious activities, is important in defining character, as well as swaying votes. Spouses, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, can be very influential in the Presidential politics.

JZ blog

The Iron Triangle is a term coined by political scientists to describe the policy making alliance that involves strong unions among a congressional committee, an interest group, and a federal department or agency.  This is essentially the same as an issue network, save for one key difference: an iron network has a connotation of lasting for decades, whereas an issue network is very ephemeral in duration.  Because an iron network consists of a congressional committee, an interest group, and a federal department, one of these components compliments the other two.  Congress gives money to the agency, and the interest groups subsidize the congressman's campaign.  IN addition, the interest groups give money and endorsements to congress and get special services from the agency in return.  The end result is legislation that caters to an interest group.  Another term that accurately describes the movement throughout these three iron triangle components is the revolving door: an employment cycle in which individuals who work for government agencies that regulate interest groups eventually end up working for interest groups or businesses with the same policy concern.  

The american public harbors a ton of cynicism towards iron triangles because they feel that such networks are inherently corrupt.  Realistically, I'm sure that a great deal of corruption does take place.  American democracy is supposed to be by the entire population, with every individual having an equal say.  Iron triangles essentially defeat this dogma, because the crux of the matter is that interest groups with money are able to influence policy decision.  Ergo, people with money have more say than a plebe who only has a single vote.  This phenomenon almost  reverts back to the days when only property owners could vote, or even have a say.  Is this anti-progressive?  I see no issue with congressmen accepting subsidies from lobbyists who share similar interests with them.  If, as a congressman, you were going to endeavor to enact certain legislation, why not accept money from an interest group that feels the same way you do?  You were going to do the same things in Washington anyway.  I do have a problem when lobbyists only are subsidizing campaigns and congressmen in attempt to maximize personal profit.  

I cannot say how much influence this policy making alliance actually has in the passing of bills, but I can only imagine that it varies depending the the iron triangle and bill being passed.  For better or worse, I feel that iron triangles and lobbying are too deeply entrenched in our system of government to effectively remove.  

The Iron Triangle

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

The Iron Triangle refers to what political scientists call the policy making relationship between the legislature, the bureaucracy, and interest groups. There is one key assumption to be made before the Iron Triangle can be assumed, and that is that bureaucratic agencies seek to establish a solid power base so that they may remain in office and continue to gain political clout and power to spread their ideals and bills. To do this they look to groups of constituents with which they should align and help to guarantee votes from. This is generally not "the consumers" or those people who the laws are designed to help, instead it is those interest groups that align themselves with the same political jurisdiction as the certain committee/branch of government is in charge of. Because the general populace is fairly disinterested and inattentive, rarely votes, and has extremely differing desires from the government, the bureaucracy generally does not rely on these people, but instead on the much more wealthy/organized/voting/donating interest groups. If this assumption is satisfied, then the Iron Triangle may come into existence. The Iron Triangle is comprised of the three members: Congress, Bureaucracy, and Interest groups. Interest groups provide votes and electoral support to the members of Congress. When so few people pay attention to congressional elections, the power of an Interest group to simply get out name recognition for a member may almost guarantee them reelection. In return members of Congress will align themselves with these interest groups and pay special attention to them, making sure that policy beneficial or coinciding with the Interest groups desires will be created or preserved. In return Congress offers funding and public support to those members of the Bureaucracy who in turn help pass the Congressional bills that were in the first place lobbied by the Interest groups. However the bureaucracy is intended to provide oversight and regulation for the interest groups. But because of the support they receive from interest groups lobbying in Congress the bureaucracy will conduct less exacting oversight and have slightly lower regulations. This three way relationship insures that all three forms of government will have their wishes met and this is sometimes referred to as a sub government. However there are downfalls to the Iron Triangle, for one thing it often leaves the general populace out of the loop, and the bills passed are generally designed solely for the Interest group. Thus to gain power it is important to be part of an Interest group, or to at least have coinciding values with a powerful interest group. This Iron Triangle, though sometimes negative, is important to the Republic form of Government because it allows Constituents to make their wishes known and to actually have these wishes carried out. It also helps to create a stable system where members of all three corners of the triangle remain in power and can build up, this way the "sub-government" is above the wishes of the general public and can remain insulated and durable from outside influences. This further protects the governmental system from the problems caused by factious government.

Finally I got internet!!! and here's my post along with it

When elected officials choose to stop doing their jobs it is hard to say whether or not the government continues to function as it should. I mean at least for me eight years ago I was not old enough to even think about what all these changes in politics meant for our country. Now that I look back, it seems as if our nation as almost lost sight of what regular or productive government function should be. It took the people of our country over four years to realize that the leader that was leading our country was not doing his job. We would all see pictures of Bush out on his land in Texas, obviously not working, and not even attach that to all the problems our nation was being faced with. When the opportunity arose to change the hand of leadership after four years of experiencing
Bush, the majority of the country still believed that he could make our nation the best it could be.
Now back to the question, we wonder why the American public allows this to continue, but then we look and decide that the answer is very broad. There are many reasons that the American public chooses not to involve themselves in leadership. The first reason that comes to my mind is that something within us tells us that we shouldn’t. We are either afraid, lazy, or just think that it is no use. Many people may have good ideas but when it comes to actually sharing them and acting upon them, we lose those people. Fear can come from many places but when it comes to making a difference for our nation people should know when to step up. Just think about all the individuals in the world that have changed people’s views and laws all by themselves. Once you start a revolution you will gain followers. Another reason for this could be due to laziness. America has become a very lazy society in which people do the very least amount of work needed to succeed. If starting a new idea into government takes work and effort, it may just be too much for some people to handle. Finally, it is also a mindset of many Americans that one person cannot make a change. Just the single concept of starting a change with one person overwhelms people and they can’t even comprehend that being a possibility. Other possibilities for this lack of involvement could be because people are not used to standing up to authority and would not know what to do. On the other hand, some people don’t even think about the government being bad. Many don’t even see the problems that we have right now and just rely on our leader for everything. They figure that the leader will always know what’s best. “The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties” (Said by George W. Bush on page 345 of our textbook) From this quote we see that the intentions if the president and the thoughts of the people are consistent, just the actions may not be.
In order to be a good leader the person must have three main characteristics. A leader/president must be confident, have charisma and passion, and must be able to negotiate well. If they are confident in what they are speaking about, even if they aren’t secretly, the confidence makes the nation feel better and stronger as a whole. A strong plan with a good step process makes society feel more secure. Charisma and passion also play a large role because without these persuasion would be much harder to succeed at. When the people can tell the leader truly believes in what they are speaking about and really care about it, it also helps to get the population excited about the subject. Last but not least, all decisions are not very simple and the skills to negotiate with them and create the solution so that you both get what you want are very important when in comes to leading. Although these are all things that can change after the person is elected, they are all things that are helpful in helping to decide who is the best fit for the position.
In conclusion, although depending on the leader, the systems and successes of government can greatly vary. Leaders such as presidents play a huge role in making the nation work as a whole and without them the world would be a very different place.

The American government as a whole--the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and the countless others that are part of the governing body--is, for the most part, set-up to deter a 'slacker' mentality.  The system of checks and balances helps immensely in this field.  Checks and balances were put into place by the Founding Fathers of this country, and help to ensure that our elected governing officials don't get too power hungry, and the contrary of that.  Congress and the president tend to take a very active role in most things politics.  However, they are only humans, and all humans become apathetic about something, at some point in their lives.  I am not condoning the disinterest that plagues our elected officials, but I am saying that 'it happens'.  With that said, for a congressman or president to stop fulfilling their duties to the best of their ability, could be dangerous.  They are the ones that pass the laws, correspond with other world powers, and essentially watch over us to ensure that justice is fully executed.  They are the ones that wage wars and protect us from imminent danger, and ensure that things are running smoothly within the country as a whole.  For them to simply stop performing the duties that allow the aforementioned to happen, is simply not okay.  

Congress is the easiest place for an elected official to become lazy.  The House of Representatives, with 435 members, often times goes unnoticed.  They are not in the media that often (unless you're watching C-SPAN), and if they are, generally they are not named personally.  This makes it very easy for a member of the House to become lazy, and stop performing their duties fully.  The amount of bills that they see every day, and have to give their opinions on, is daunting at best; after all, these are the bills that will become laws to keep their constituents in check.  Dealing with this work load cannot be easy, and simply abstaining from voting and instead marking 'present' could be a lot easier than making a decision on a certain issue.  In the Senate, it is more difficult to 'slack' on the job, however.  Anyone who watches the news will know that Senators are generally made fairly public (some more than others).  This makes it very difficult for Senators to abstain from voting, or something of the sort.  Congressmen also are allowed to hire a staff who do the majority of research on issues for them.  This allows the congressmen to sit back, relax, and simply read what their aides have provided for them (it's not as easy as I made it sound, though).  This system has the potential to allow congressmen to do less work, and should they choose, do little to no work.  Committees also allow congressmen to do minimal work, unless they are on a committee (which most congressmen are).  There are certain committees for certain issues (ie. agriculture, commerce, etc...) and they do the coaxing when it comes time to get their legislation passed.  This allows the other congressmen to simply listen to their colleagues and base their decision off from what they are told.

The President is the least likely, and least able, to slack while on the job.  In the political world, the President is the most prominent and influential person.  They are perpetually showcased in the media (especially with our current President), and don't really have the option of slacking.  There are times, however, when pressing issues are somewhat trivial, and the President can take a 'back-seat' while in office, but for the most part, the President must come to work, with a vengeance, everyday.  He/she is probably the most watched person in America, and cannot afford to simply not perform their job, especially if they are looking for reelection.  If a President is in his lame-duck stage, however, they generally work a little less hard then they have in their previous years as President.  Take George W. Bush, for example.  In his last couple of years as President, things went terribly awry, and in his late months as President, it was clear that he was ready to relinquish his powers, and hand over the mess of a nation that he made to Barack Obama.  This is not typical, however.

Overall, while it is difficult for someone in our governing body to not perform his or her duties, it does happen, especially with the more obscure jobs.  

George W. Bush had Senioritis, Too

The American form of government, with its intricate system of checks and balances, is, to a certain extent, slacker-proof. It is resilient enough to withstand everything from the Watergate Scandal to various sex scandals- times when government officials were clearly devoting their time to things other than national issues- but, having that said there is a time when too much slacking can have detrimental consequences within our government. People still need to do their jobs.
Slacking is more prevalent but less visible in the House of Representatives. There are almost 500 representatives in the House, one would think that they would be able to get a ton of things done, and sometimes they do, but often they are distracted by the next election cycle. Small committees do all of the research on large, substantial bills that are passed. This has worked out efficiently for our government. This system is also utilized in the United States Senate. Not all 535 of them can read and create bills in a timely fashion, so the slacking on the part of the representatives that are not in the committee that creates the bill is completely justified. Just this week, however, a new precedent of slacking has plagued the floor of our House and Senate. A 1,100 page, 787 billion dollar stimulus plan has passed through both chambers of congress without anyone reading it in its entirety. Slacking cannot exist in this form under our government. In times of economic recession, our country and our government is already on its knees. For another 787 billion dollars without even the lawmakers knowing where exactly it is going, could have a serious backlash. Our government is strong enough for slacking, but its strength is derived from the diligence of its officials, not their laziness. Our government relies upon the drive of its officials. When they fail to do their jobs, the nation suffers, and our government suffers, but the system endures. Congressmen have the leeway to slack off, and they do to a certain degree, but in the end, our government cannot function if someone is not getting the job done.
The president of the United States, under close scrutiny by the media, and by extension the entire population of the country, has the least amount of room to slack. The President does not have the option to just sit back and say, “Screw it; this is just too much work.” He has the ability to delegate duties to his cabinet and advisors, he can have information presented to him rather than finding it himself, but at the end of the day he really cannot get by without doing his job. Unlike congress, with 534 other members to dilute the laziness of a single member, the President’s actions and failure to act are augmented by the fact that there is only one President of the United States. The president is continuously being checked by public opinion and graded with regards to his predecessors’ successes and failures. There is not room for a president to not do his job. During the end of his term in office, the president is less motivated and less moved by the expanse of opportunity, and can get by doing less work than in his first years in office. This type of idleness was executed by George W. Bush during his last months in office while faced with the receding economy. He did not have the inspiration to create new legislature to protect and reboot the economy, instead, he allowed a 350 billion dollar stimulus plan to go straight into the pockets of banking executives. This, much like the passing of the 787 dollar stimulus plan without anyone having read it, is too lackadaisical. Had Bush acted with this kind of laziness throughout his presidency, he could have single-handedly ruined the United States Government.
Our government does rely on its elected official and their ability to do their jobs. This is part of the reason why the public conception of the president is polled and monitored. It puts more pressure on the president to do his job. Congressmen and the President alike need the responsibility of being held accountable for their laziness, and for their achievements. Part of the reason that Franklin D. Roosevelt is commemorated for being such a great president, is because after four terms in the white house, he was not plagued by the end-of-term weariness. He continued with governmental programs and fireside chats that kept the public in tune with his actions. A great president cannot be lazy; an effective congressman cannot fail to understand the bills he votes for. Our government’s greatness comes from its officials’ actions, and its weaknesses are exacerbated by the laziness of its representatives, along with their inability to act. The more attentive our President and congressmen are, the more effectively our government runs. I am sure that the founding fathers pictured this effective government in action, rather than 536 individual slackers.

PRES dAY

Hey gang, yes I did read all the blogs, and no I did not respond to all of them!!!

In general I am pleased with the responses and the level of writing. The goal for the remainder of the year is to get that level when you are under a time constraint!

Next question to ponder......The Iron Triangle...what is it? Why is it critical for the functioning of a Republic???Who are the "players" involved?

Functioning Govt & Prez

When our nation's governmental officials don't perform their required duties and in sense, slack a little on the job, of course the functionality and effectiveness of the three branches is going to suffer because of it. However, the real question is, what is "as it should"? I think every American has a certain idealism and vision of how our governing body should be ran and the way in which it should perform, but everyone's picture is slightly different from the rest.  Although these differences often create conflict and controversy, there are also aspects of our democracy that the majority of citizens agree on. For example, almost all everyone expects the government to bring justice and equality to the nation. Also, most count on the government to be honest and open with the people and each other. If certain branches, committees or individuals don't do their duties, don't meet the expectations and standards that they're held accountable for, society is going to notice. Even though the government won't certainly be as effective as if everyone was working to their full potential, the "Boys" created a system of checks and balances and made the three branches independent of each other to help cope with this issue. The executive, judicial and legislative branches all have a sort of watch over the others so if a job isn't being done, the rest can compensate. For example, if a president is trying to wage war on some innocent country, and therefore is not doing their job of making decisions based on what's best for the people and nation as a whole, Congress doesn't have to declare it. Although this type of checking system doesn't always resolve all carelessness and poor choices, it helps monitor all officials. 

As for why the people letting the officials they elected not do their jobs, it's often because of laziness and ignorance. Most of the time, the majority of the American public don't know exactly what is going on in the government: what their representatives, senators and president is really doing. If they do know, many choose to turn the other cheek, hoping and wishing that everything will work itself out. The general optimism Americans have for their government isn't always ideal; if something is going wrong and jobs aren't being done, people will most likely believe that someone else will do them or it will eventually get done.

Finally, the leader of our nation first and foremost must be honest and open with his (or her!) people. Integrity, honesty, charisma, imagination, perseverance, responsibility, trust, and confidence are all important traits. For every president, or any type of leader for that matter, the characteristics that will help them lead to the best of their abilities vary. Although the said characteristics are all vital to run a country, the extent of each is different for different presidents. Some are mostly confident, sometimes too much so, relying on their faith in themselves to get them through. Others use their charisma and persuasion to get what they want done in government. Many times, however, presidents will lose these important qualities throughout their term(s). Their confidence will start lacking, and the public will notice - a passive, unconfident leader is rarely admired. Or it might be their honesty, in the case of Nixon, and it will sometimes be revealed to the nation, causing serious doubt in their leader. Overall, the leader of a nation must have certain characteristics to get their job done, and should retain them until they step down.

Catching Up Man

"Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??"

Us Americans are too lazy, or too afraid, to stand up and question authority. We would all rather sit around and complain about our woes, then stand up and argue for our right to competent leadership. As we've seen in the last three-four years, while all of us read amusing political cartoons mocking our fearless leader (although the jokes were sometimes too close to home), no one had the guts, not even people in the Cabinet or anywhere else, to say "Hey, what the hell's going on here?". We surrendered; as a population we surrendered to mediocre leadership and accepted our fate as an economic downfall and pointless war raged on. Why would we let this happen? We're just to lazy or scared or doubtful that one little voice could say something significant. Forget the strong personalities like Martin Luther King Jr. or Arnold Schwarzenegger who got an idea and stuck with it, and individually persevered over the brick walls holding them back. Now a days we are all just sitting around waiting for someone to come fix everything for us.

A good leader, however, is someone, who, and I'm sorry I'm not agreeing with the book here, that isn't necessarily a good persuader, but a person who has ideas that are agreeable with the nation. That has nothing to do with power of persuasion as much as having useful ideas that will benefit the nation. Rarely do presidents "give up", unless you have plunged your country into economic depression and a pointless war abroad, or if you have cheated and lied and been in a Watergate Scandal. That generally would be reason (although not good reason) to begin forfeiting the role of anything in command. When the president's brownie points are waning, it's hard to get things to pass or to make any agenda. It's a lost cause really. That doesn't mean they should, and I guess that does enforce the idea of a president giving up early. Tis a shame really, that after all the hub-bub of the election, and the tears and money and support and voting and bumper stickers and shirts, and trashy slogans that slam opponents....it's a shame that after all that the leader we've chosen can't even finish off decently, or at least clean up the mess they've made.

So, as for a conclusion, we are a nation of lazy scared twits that can't even elect a leader who will devote their given four years to benefiting the nation to it's fullest. We are all overly accepting of moderate work and average behavior and 80% effort. Let's hope the next one, Obama, can clean this mess up.

Marcus' blog

As elected officials, the public chose them to lead the country with the public’s best interest in mind. When they choose not to do that, the government, in my opinion, continues to function but not always in the ways the public or even other members of government want it to. Referring back to our ex-president George Bush, a huge percent of the population did not agree with the war in Iraq or many decisions he made, including the patriot act, Afghanistan, etc. But of course this did not stop the government from functioning. The government still governs the country, yet does not do what they were elected to do. Because the American public is always divided on politics and party lines, it is almost impossible for 100% of the country to be dissatisfied, and that is why even when the government fails to keep the majority of the country happy, it still somehow pleases a minority. For a government to stop functioning all together would basically bring the country into anarchy. At one point in time at least one of the many branches and sections of government is always working, even if the legislative or executive is not. The second part of the question is one that could be argued over and over. As I stated before the country is almost always split along party lines, beyond that by racial, economic, and locational lines. This causes the idea of a “perfect” president to differ from person to person. A president generally has ot be able to communicate with the public in a way that will grab the attention, in other words, he must be eloquent. No matter what decisions a president makes, it will of course anger some portion of the country. A president, never being able to please the whole, should look out for the best interest of the country in the present and in the future. They must make decisions that in their opinion will please the majority. This requires good decision making skills, which can kill or save a presidents reputation. To be a good leader is to speak for the people you lead, and because with a large country like the US, it is almost impossible to do that. Looking back on the great presidents of our time, all have made decisions that in their mind would benefit our country in the long run, and that is what a great president must do. 

Chapter 12 blog

The Revolutionary War and the failure of the Articles of Confederation taught the developing country three necessary democratic rules: the need for separated branches, a balance between said branches in the form of checks and balances, and the need for a public figure among the people to represent them as a whole. Though many would argue that the latter did not truly come into effect until FDR's fire-side chats, it is clear with the first appointment of the presidency that the framers intended a well respected citizen to be the "face" of the new republic. Although the president may be the most well known politician in the United States, the government cannot persist without the support of Congress and the unbiased rulings of the Supreme Court. While Justices are appointed for life, our elected officials both in the executive and legislative are responsible for representing the people based on current situations and attitudes rather than relying on precedents.
It is easy to point a finger at either of the two elected branches when our government begins to suffer and decisions fail to be made. However, in times when it seems as though jobs are not being done, there is more than likely a reason behind it. By reasons, it could be anything from a divided government to human greed. When it is the latter, the American public tends to weed out politicians who have taken their trustee view to an extreme. But when it is the former, there are several ways to solve it. The first of which waiting until a new congress is elected—though this does take quite a bit of time. The second, of course, is a compromise between both branches and setting aside differences to resolve what is best for the country, not just a few individuals. So yes, government does fail to function when politicians fail to do their jobs; yet this failure is more of a halt than an entire collapse—an aspect that most Americans identify and realize will pass.
On the subject of divided government, it takes a certain leader to overcome such an obstacle and others during the presidency. Since Washington, Americans have praised an honest and respectable citizen to become President—one who "never tells a lie". Yet it is with this certain character that Americans have come to demand a level of charisma and personality. With media taking a larger role in government these days, Americans have the chance to watch the President's every move and clearly, they want a well spoken, charming, and personable one. Yet, as in every government around the world, religion does still play a role in our politics; perhaps not religion per se, but morality is certainly important in a politician. As seen in the Clinton Sex Scandal or the Tea Pot Dome Scandal, Americans react to the personal decisions Presidents make.
Overall, it takes a strong leader (and one who does not quite when the going gets tough) not only to run for and win the presidency, but to also motivate Congress with or without a divided government. Let's hope Obama is said leader!

Government

When the framers drafted the constitution they wanted to protect against a monarchy.  They figured the best way to do this would be to divide the government up into three separate branches and divide the power among these three branches.  By dividing the government into three branches the framers created checks and balances. If the congress failed to do its job then the president wouldn't be able to carry out all of his duties, and thus the judicial branch would face difficulties as well.  Over time the government grew, congress grew, and the helpers that the presidents depends on jumped from less than ten to much more.  Today, if even one person, whether they be a congress member, a judge, the president, or a member of the cabinet, fails to do their job, the entire system is in jeopardy.  If the president decides to sit back and do nothing the nation faces downfall.  The framers intended that members of the government do their jobs at all times, under all circumstances, no exceptions, well maybe death.  This means that in order to be a good president not only do you need charisma, morals, ideology, and looks, you also need dedication.  The top five presidents that this nation has seen have all been charismatic, handsome, and dedicated.  They've fought for what they believed to be right until the day they left office.  For Americans the president is the face of the government, naturally, Americans being a visual nation, we want someone who looks nice.  Also, since Americans aren't always the brightest people in the world we want someone who sounds good even if we have no idea what they are talking about, we want someone who sounds smart even if we wouldn't know what smart was if it sat down in our laps.  Finally, try as we might we cannot deny that we are a religious nation, therefore religion and morality play a large part in who we elect as President.  If it had been true that Obama was a Muslim chances are we'd be saluting an old, balding, white guy as our new president.  So we can bitch and moan about separation of church and state but when it comes down to the wire if you're not religious you're not going to be our president.  With religion comes morals.  We, as Americans, since we can't seem to rap our minds around important issues such as universal health care, the stimulus plan, or even the war in Iraq, like to focus on what we do know, and by gosh we know our morals.  If you've ever cheated on your taxes, on you wife, if you've ever looked at porn, got an abortion, or even if you're gay, you are morally in the wrong.  If you're morally unstable, according to most of the American population, you're not fit to lead our country.  For some unexplainable reason we don't care if you've lowered unemployment, lessened the national debt, or implemented a new health care program, we do however care if you cheated on your wife.  We seem to disregard who our president is screwing in public but we care an awful lot about who he's screwing in private.  

No President Should be Hesitant

When our Founding Fathers outlined the American government, they accounted for people’s incompetence. Because they had a realist outlook on what to expect for the future’s governmental system, they created as many ways as they could to ensure that the government would continue to function even if things went wrong within it. If said elected officials don’t perform their duties up to the highest standard, theoretically, the government should still function to the best of its ability. Because of the different divisions within the government, as well as the copious amount of officials, our government should continue functioning. If only a few politicians begin to slack, then the system will continue running correctly. However, the more people that fail to do their job correctly, the worse off our government will be. Americans don’t necessarily do anything about an official that is failing at their job because either they are ignorant, or simply don’t know what they could do to correct their ways. Honestly, if I saw that a politician was incompetent and failing to perform their duty correctly, I wouldn’t know what to do to fix things. This feeling of one’s ineffectiveness in changing the government daunting and definitely something I don’t particularly want to dive into.
Hopefully, however, our government officials aren’t incompetent, but rather devoted to their job. A successful and admired president is one who is confident, while also prepared for the road ahead. One’s dedication towards their duty is immensely important, and this high political fervor is what ensures that a president is at least somewhat successful. A president also must be able to connect with the people he/she is expected to represent. This charisma is essential to persuading a country to lean a certain way, as well as feel confident in their leader. An important part of this persuasion is the ability for a president to stick to their beliefs. It’s better to continue what you started than it is to quit. Plus, if a president gives up on an issue halfway through, citizens lose confidence, and eventually, one’s impact will decline. I look forward to seeing what Obama does for this country, for he is charismatic, intelligent, and positive. Hopefully things will turn around (for the better).

Blog for Boykins Rant

Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??

I would have to agree that the government does continue to function even when the elected officials aren't doing their jobs. There are a handful of officials who do in fact do their job well and do it with integrity and enjoy the power they are given through their job title. However there are always some bad apples in the barrel. Many politicians are corrupt and certainly abuse their power and would rather not get work done, but rather are in it for the notoriety. There would be a slight chance that the government would become less efficient because if someone isn't doing their job, it only further delays the rest of the process of say, passing a bill. Instead someone else would have to pick up the slack. The main reason for all the different levels of congress is to increase efficiency in the Government, but when some officials "slack off" it contradicts the purpose. Sadly the American public, as much as we want to believe is untrue is very ignorant and frankly don't give a damn about politics until it starts affecting their daily life. If the effects of a official not fulfilling his or her duties started to affect a large majority of the American public then yes we would start to care, but if not we could care less whats going on in Congress. Also a majority of our information comes from the generic news source which usually tends to have a bias to make our country to seem great, so if there were an article published saying how inefficient our government is then the American people would take interest, but for now all we usually read is how the government is a okay and how every other country is the one with the problem.
A good president in my view is on that has great charisma and can present themselves in a professional manner. If a candidate went up and sounded really unsure about his ideas and plan of action I may be wary, then if a candidate went up there and was confident cool and collected and looked liked they knew what they were preaching. That's how it is for most people as well because as a whole Americans are pretty darn lazy when it comes to politics so if they get a good vibe from one candidate they will probably support them, even though they have no idea what their political platform may be. If a president can appeal to a large diversified group then he has good potential, because being the president means you have to represent the people as a whole and not just one specific group.

GoVErmEnT!

Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??
The government being as big and complex as it is doesn't fail when one government official does not do his or her job it merely follows a path of the other officials that are in control. Lets say the president decides to just stop and give up in the middle of his term, the government would not cease to work it would just fall into a sort of holding pattern and depending on what the representatives views or vice presidents views are it could be much different from the presidents. The government continues but the fresh ideas of the president aren't there.The president the people elected would be placed aside until that elected official is capable of doing his or her job. If we were to talk about the Supreme Court and one of the members didn't do their job of deciding a bill or passing a law then the decision that the American public thought would be fair and just would be in fact the complete opposite. This would in some way change the function of the government but it would make it uneven in a lot of ways. The only reason that the American public let this happen is because most cant stop it if they tried. If they saw their president dying or giving up in the middle of his term they cant do much of anything. The government will go on but the people who make this country how it is have very little say on what is happening on presidential decisions.
I first want to start with in my opinion what a good president should be. I believe a good president should first of all never back down even if his country hates his guts and he should do what he thinks right for the country. Most people HATED Bush because he brought us to war and say he ruined our goverment but people we have to understand that he was doing what he thought was right for the country and people elected him because they thought he was going to do right. I respect the man allthough I dont agree with some of the things he has done and see him as being a president in which holds his ground on what he thinks is right. Another thing that I love about a president is how he speaks! NOT! Personaly I dont care how he speaks or where the hell hes doing it I just want to here some fact, and I want to hear what he can do to make my life better, make our goverment and our counrty florish. Another thing that I like to see in a president is a sense of assurence. If that man can assurme me that he will fix the problem I almost allways belive them but doubts do cross my mind. Having an assuring president is nice but that nice kind "Ill fix your problem" doesnt allways work, there is only so much to spend and so much to do to make this country a place where I can raise my kids. haha thought I would give it a little patriotic feel at the end!

Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??

In my opinion, government does continue to function even when not all of its members are participating all of the time. Bills continue to be reviewed and passed regardless of whether or not each and every member of the House of Representatives or Senate is present. Americans would allow this to continue because they don't necessarily see a significant lack of activity in government and in Congress. Plus, the American public probably wouldnt actively say anything about the supposed inactivity of Congress. Whenever things occur on government with regards to issues with efficiency or corruption, things are taken care of within the government. Americans may talk about things, but none really take the initiative to fix things or take charge. Also, the media plays such a large role in the public opinion and only relay information dealing with the president. They never really focus too much on individual members of the Congress. Things are always portrayed throught the acts of the President. If people aren't happy with the government, they blame it on the president.
A good president should be an intelligent person who can withstand all of the criticizms that may come with the presidency. A good president makes his opinions and intentions clear. A big part of the campaign is the media aspect, and with regards to the media, they should be calm however charismatic. A good president must also stick by his decisions and not waver or second guess themself.

"Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??"


While I believe that there is a lot more going on in our government than we are lead to believe, there are to many people that believe the government is more corrupt than it actually is. Sure there are a few bad "apples" and these, because of the media, and the publics expectation that their is rampant corruption in government, are blown out of proportion. There are many more officials who do their job with the utmost integrity - and since there isn't anything interesting about that, the media ignores them, in favor of the one mayor in one small town in Maine, who had sex with his neighbor in exchange for money. This is like the story of Ted Haggart and the Catholic Church sex scandal. Sure there are some bad priests out there, but they don't make up the majority, and should be reprimanded and then move on. In government there are a few bad officials, but they are in no way the majority.

Many people feel that our government is completely inefficient but I feel that this isn't the case. If it was, nothing would ever be completed. Instead we have standards for factories for how much pollution they can put out, medicare / medicaid, and racial segregation has mostly come to an end. While parts of the government can seem horribly inefficient, such as trying to bail us out of this economic recession, I feel like they do the best that they can under the circumstances. Part of the reason why everything takes so long to pass is that 453 members of Congress, and one president, have to decide what is best for over 300 mililon people. The American public allow this to continue because even if they feel like they could do a better job themselves, they are inherently lazy, and don't want that type of responsibility.

"Presidents should be black. This makes it easier for them to hide at night, makes it easier to run from terrorists, and reduces the chance they will be assassinated." - Kirk. I vote for presidents based solely on race. I believe that my black brothers are better than the white folk, just because they can "shadowmeld" at night. History shows that most leaders tend to be very charismatic, while most Americans today seem interested in random stuff, such as how many marriages they've been in, what religion they are etc. Personally, I look for intelligence, poise, ethic, and integrity in a leader. Effective leaders generally last until their terms are done, trying to do the most work they can, and rarely quit before the end.

Kirk's response

"Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??"

I believe that the government continues to function even when not 100% of the elected officials are participating 100% of the time. In fact it seems quite rare that you hear of bills being passed with the full house and senate voting on them, except in extreme cases. If the government continues to function without perfect attendance or records it's fairly clear that it will also function when some of its members are corrupt, or suffer some other loss of integrity. Bills continue to be churned out, and work is still done on capitol hill, regardless of small petty corruption and other problems. The government as a whole maintains its integrity and its ability to function. Not only that, but most of the news that is shed at all about corruption or dirty politicians is of the scandalous nature and much less is of the "This senator was taking massive bribes to block this bill that is clearly good for the country" (Exaggeration). For instance you always hear of public officials having naughty encounters in unnamed restrooms, or a certain attractive secretary. And it's depressing that this is what drives the American public to its decisions. But that's what the media does. It's quite clear that most of the workings of the government are not only hidden from the eyes of the public, but that even if the public were to hear of these inner workings they would do little in response. Even in a year such as this when election turn-outs are high, the proportion of the public that acts attentively is quite small. In this way, "small" and monetary corruption can easily slip by the radar, while even the most dedicated and passionate of senators can be ruined by a public scandal. Because of this diversion of interests, and what really sparks reactions in the American public, officials that are otherwise corrupt may continue in their corrupted ways without the American public giving an outcry. It seems that more often corruption is brought to attention and dealt with by other members of Congress, not the public. And even though they do continue, it is quite clear that the government continues to act effectively and intelligently. But if these people are corrupt, how did they get elected in the first place? A good president is an intelligent president. One who knows how to politically maneuver himself to a position of power, and how to maintain that position so that he can act swiftly and with purpose. A good president also has strong ethics and makes his stance on these ethics clear well before the election and then holds onto them throughout his time in office. A good president is insightful, calm and collected, intelligent, and probably the biggest key in this age is to be charismatic, on T.V. on the radio, on the internet and in public. A president with good charisma can win the support for bills that may otherwise fail, and can also keep the public and government in check in times of national need. As evidenced by Hitler, a charismatic president can do great (As in momentous, not good) things for his country, and with his power. A leader must stay the course and finish the jobs he has started unless to back out would be more beneficial. Though I disagree with the war in Iraq, to start that war and then have left the country in absolute ruin would be far worse than what is happening now. A true leader will not back down until his time has passed and he is called to step down from his position. Hopefully, with his endearing and beneficial qualities, he/she will have helped forward his/her country in the national standing of the world.

Triangles Strong as Iron

In simple terms an iron triangle is the alliance of a congressional committee an interest group, and a federal department. The “triangle” formed by these sides creates a policy-making alliance creates the fundamentals that can exist for decades. Within the “triangles” decisions are made that involve collections of political leaders and interest groups that join together for a particular cause and feed off of each other to maintain a certain goal.
Between a strong Congressional authorizing committee, an influential federal department or agency and a set of loyal interest groups an iron triangle can be formed that is “strong as iron.” As long as they hang together, the members of iron triangles can dominate policy-making in their respective specialized areas of concern. These closed, mutually supportive relationships that often prevail in the United States uphold a certain jurisdiction over a particular functional area of government policy. All interconnected sides rely on one another to make their policy or point effective in order to gain more financial support. While Congress can give money to an agency, it can then get campaign money and endorsements from a certain interest group in return because the interest groups will give that money in order to receive special services from the agency. The ongoing cycle continues because by giving special services to the interest group then Congress has to give money to the agency because it is getting endorsed by the interest group. Each side relies on the other, and like in other aspects of government each of the three sides gains a certain profitable value. All in all, Congressmen can count upon friends in the agencies to continue programs important to their local constituencies or even to do special favors for their political supporters. Interest groups through their lobbyists provide useful information to the committees and the agencies, and provide campaign support for the Congressmen. In return, interest groups tend to be consulted and carefully placated when new laws or administrative regulations or important appointments affecting their special interests are being made. These mutually supportive relationships are so politically powerful that representatives of the more general interests of society are usually effectively prevented from interfering with policy-making altogether whenever their concept of the general interest runs counter to the special interests of players in the iron triangle.
The iron triangle is part of the interlocking functions of the United States government. The iron triangle is a continuance of the “balancing game” that is constantly being played out in the U.S. government. The embodiment of iron triangles in the United States government system is part of how the federal administrative system works in coalition to Congress. It is one the many aspects that make the Republic function in its basic form. In a sense, the iron triangle is also how many people can get their opinions through and into congressional view. When one becomes a leader or active member in an interest group the iron triangle provides for an influential basis that an individual can actual make a difference. Interest groups and Congressmen essentially represent constituencies of the common people in the iron triangle and how they are trying to get what the people want. The United States is a government based on checks and balances and is about representing the people as a whole. The iron triangle is one of the many ways that the opinions of the direct people can infiltrated up into the federal administrative system and be heard. It is the use of complicated functions of government that with the help of agencies, interest groups and Congressmen can get what their constituencies want and have their side of government benefit. Iron triangles are a single concept that adds to the thousands that make up how the government functions inorder to get what they want and what the people want.

Blog Ch.12 "Mr. Prez."

The United States government always has a plan. Whether it is the secret executive orders or the public crisis announcements, the government seems to be one step ahead of the people it’s leading. No government can be perfect, and corruption from greedy moneymakers flourishes in even the most innocent of places. Government will always continue, because of the governmental action to pursue plans that are behind the scenes. When elected officials make mistakes or corrupt politicians don’t do their jobs, life and the earth we live on continues to spin. While media influence and public notifications can pressure officials to maintain a progressive workforce, there are many hidden aspects of government that are shielded from the public eye. For the most part, Americans take the road of apathy when it comes to dealing with the government. Unless Americans know straight out that there is a problem then they will put up a fight. For instance, when Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal went public, Americans reacted strongly. However, when secrets are kept quiet there is no way Americans can react. Also, the majority of Americans are separate from the day-to-day work agenda of public officials. Unless it is the President most Americans have no idea what their Representative or Senators are up to. Although this is partly due to the fact that the media does not put the spotlight on these politicians, it is also because most Americans are not included in the “attentive public” who watches and follows the actions on Capitol Hill closely. Between the media and Americans actual interest in elected officials’ duties, people do not pay attention unless it personally effects them or is slammed in their face. Government will always continue as long as the majority of the population remains ignorant to the details, and as long s the secrets are kept about the “slacking” politicians.
To be that active member of the political community, Presidents and Congressmen alike must attain the characteristics of a strong and willing leader. The role of the President is watched closely and some politicians on the lower levels probably try and emulate his ability to communicate and appeal to public , maintain a balance within the structure of government, and responsibly look after a diversified nation. Successful Presidents will pursue a certain charisma that helps them relate to the people at large. Like the “great communicator,” FDR, Presidents want to interact with the people enough to retain an honest trust circle. Presidents must maintain a respectable and relatable image. They want to be leaders that can communicate without seeming elitist. A President is the kind of man you want be able to have a conversation with, but also is the kind of man who will take charge and formally negotiate the dealings of a nation on a worldly basis. President should also maintain an intelligence that can help guide him through decisions and provide the basis for dealing with the press and being “quick on his feet.” The President is also part of the balancing game of government. Although they remain the single most powerful man in America they must not use their “executive powers” as a commander in chief, the diplomat in chief, and administer in chief to their advantage in a corrupt energy. Presidents must balance their power throughout a strong cabinet that is willing to get things done as well as balance personal actions and decisions with Congress. A President is a national peacemaker, national morale builder, a politician in chief, a manager of the government, and a leader in times of crisis. Presidents must be willing to set agendas and delegate organized meeting in order to progress the nation into the future decades. While Congress creates the budget the President must responsibly spend it by approving laws and initiating action. They must want to change and help the nation prosper to its greatest potential. Presidents of the United States need to be able to adapt to change wile leading a diversified nation in a positive, communicative way.

Let me begin by acknowledging the fact that all governments have their defects and some government officials are bound to be corrupt. This is simply the way it is because of the power issue. People feel an overwhelming desire for money and power which leads to abuse by the officials. However, as to whether or not the government functions as it should when there are a few bad apples, of course it does. It's not as if all elected officials are corrupt and fail to execute their necessary tasks. As long as a majority of government officials care about the country and do follow up on their tasks, the government will continue to work beautifully. This has been proved countless times in history through corruption scandals such as Watergate, and all the way to Blagojevich. Even though these scandals have occurred, our government has persevered and not collapsed. Why is this? It is because our government is resilient and has a majority of officers who actually care what happens and therefore execute their jobs efficiently and properly. The primary reason that the American public allows such scandals to continue is simply ignorance. Much of the American public is not attentive and has no idea what is happening with our government. Another main reason is because this is a democracy and checks and balances keep a majority from simply, say, throwing out an officer. It takes time and investigation to rid the government of scandals and a majority of the public doesn't have the time or just doesn't care.
This is an extremely broad question. First off, all leaders are different, and therefore, all choose to utilize different methods of proper leadership. I will admit, there are several qualities that Presidents, and all other leaders, must exhibit such as charisma, confidence and integrity. No person will trust a leader unless they feel he is being truthful with them. A leader must show charisma and confidence to help steady other's worries. He is the leader and therefore has to exhibit properties that inspire followers and such. If a leader is weak and sour, no one will want to listen to him because they will feel he isn't up to the tasks presented to him. Confidence is key and a major quality that leaders need. A proper leader will continue to the very end of the game. He will do everything in his power to attain the proper accomplishments and won't stop until it's absolutely necessary. This idea can and has been abused but good leaders realize when to stop pushing certain issues and what not. Some will succeed, others will fail.

TJ's

Government has the power to pretty much accomplish whatever it wants to. For example, if they want to go to war, they find money to make that a reality instead of just an idea. Now, what if the congressmen and women slack and don't do their jobs? Congressmen and women really do not spend as much time doing work as they should. A lot of them take many days to go golfing, fishing, etc. Our government does not really let the people of congress slack off. The same goes for the President. If people start to realize that the job is not being done, or if it is not being done well, they are definently subject to impeachment. Impeachment is a very scary terminology to these types of people. I think that people may let congress slack if they feel it is not affecting them in any sort of manner. For example, if they put out a bill every 5 months and the people are happy with it, then there really is not much of an issue. Most people are really only concerned with their agendas, so if their agenda is not messed up there is not a problem. I think that politicians understand that, as well as take advantage of it. I also think the fact of a bicameral legislature adds to this overall idea. The fact that the Senate and House have equal power to each other could mean that people would have to do less work, since someone else is doing the exact same thing on the other side. I said before the thought of impeachment, now impeachment is subject to all government officers, but the person who has to take it the most seriously is the president. The president has to hopefully have the capability to make the whole nation happy. Although that is a very difficult task, he must make enough people understand what he is doing and like it. A president has to also draw people to like his words. Charisma and just geniune character really make a successful president. Making the nation like the president, really draws it more together. The president has the power to make treaties with other countries (with a 2/3 approval of the senate). To make this a lot simplier, if the president has likable attributes the foregin country would probably be more prone to accept his offer. The president has to play three central roles in the government to be successful: he has to be a commander in chief, a diplomat in chief, and administrator in chief. By being all of these he controls the whole nation. He is capable of creating wars (with congress approval) stopping them, making legislation and as well as putting that legislation into action. Presidents want what is best for the nation as a whole, even though it does not seem like it. That is the reason why they are in office, doing what they do. Although, since term periods are limited from the twenty second amendment, presidents campaign for next elections while already being in office. 

IM STEPPING IT UP