Category Archives: Government

American Democracy After Trump’s First Year

Source: Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, John Carey and Susan Stokes, Bright Line Watch, Survey — Wave 4, February 8, 2018

In January 2018, as Donald Trump completed his first year as president, Bright Line Watch conducted its fourth expert survey on the state of U.S. democracy. At the same time, we conducted an identical public survey – our second – with a nation­al­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive sample of Americans. This approach allows us to assess whether experts and/or the public believe the quality of democracy has changed in the U.S. during President Trump’s tenure. We also asked respon­dents to rate the overall quality of democracy in a dozen other countries, including Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, allowing us to assess how experts and the public believe America stacks up against other countries. Finally, we dis­ag­gre­gate results from our public survey to see how changes in these per­cep­tions vary by approval of Trump.

The overall picture is sobering. Though the public rates American democracy more neg­a­tive­ly than our experts do (as in our previous survey), both experts and the public agree that the per­for­mance of U.S. democracy has declined. This per­cep­tion of decline is mirrored for many specific demo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples, though in some cases we observe sig­nif­i­cant diver­gence between Trump approvers and disapprovers.

Related:
Survey finds reasons to worry about U.S. democracy
Source: Sandra Knispel, Futurity, April 19, 2018

A new survey of political science scholars and the general public finds reasons to be concerned about American democracy.

Long-Proprietary Congressional Research Reports Will Now Be Made Public

Source: Charles S. Clark, Government Executive, March 23, 2018

Lawmakers who long protected their right to control reports from the Congressional Research Service now face a new era of full disclosure.

Buried in the 2,232-page fiscal 2018 omnibus spending bill Congress approved and President Trump signed is a much-debated provision to require the Library of Congress, beginning 90 days after the bill’s enactment, to post all the lawmaker-requested reports on a central website….

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress

Source: R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report, R44721, June 12, 2017

Puerto Rico lies approximately 1,000 miles southeast of Miami and 1,500 miles from Washington, DC. Despite being far outside the continental United States, the island has played a significant role in American politics and policy since the United States acquired Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898.

Puerto Rico’s political status—referring to the relationship between the federal government and a territorial one—is an undercurrent in virtually every policy matter on the island. In a June 11, 2017, plebiscite (popular vote), 97.2% of voters chose statehood when presented with three options on the ballot. Turnout for the plebiscite was 23.0% of eligible voters. Some parties and other groups opposing the plebiscite had urged their bases to boycott the vote. (These data are based on 99.5% of precincts reporting results.) After initially including only statehood and free association/independence options, an amended territorial law ultimately permitted three options on the plebiscite ballot: statehood, free association/independence, or current territorial status. ….

…. Congress has not enacted any recent legislation devoted specifically to status. Two bills have been introduced during the 115th Congress. H.R. 260 proposes to admit Puerto Rico as a state if residents choose statehood in a plebiscite. H.R. 900 proposes a popular vote between independence and free association (which entails an ongoing relationship between independent countries). In the 114th Congress, H.R. 727, which did not advance beyond introduction, would have authorized a plebiscite on statehood. ….

…. This report provides policy and historical background about Puerto Rico’s political status—referring to the relationship between the federal government and a territorial one. Congress has not altered the island’s status since 1952, when it approved a territorial constitution. Status is the lifeblood of Puerto Rican politics, spanning policy and partisan lines in ways that are unfamiliar on the mainland. ….

Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate

Source: Valerie Heitshusen, Richard S. Beth, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report, RL30360, April 7, 2017

The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate’s most characteristic procedural features. Filibustering includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote. The possibility of filibusters exists because Senate rules place few limits on Senators’ rights and opportunities in the legislative process. In particular, a Senator who seeks recognition usually has a right to the floor if no other Senator is speaking, and then that Senator may speak for as long as he or she wishes. Also, there is no motion by which a simple majority of the Senate can stop a debate and allow itself to vote in favor of an amendment, a bill or resolution, or most other debatable questions. Most bills, indeed, are potentially subject to at least two filibusters before the Senate votes on final passage: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration and, second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself. Senate Rule XXII, however, known as the cloture rule, enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Sixteen Senators initiate this process by presenting a motion to end the debate. In most circumstances, the Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the second day of session after the motion is made. Then, it requires the votes of at least three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to invoke cloture. (Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, whereas cloture on nominations requires a numerical majority.)

Meet the Trump Cabinet

Source: Government Executive, 2016

Few presidential transitions have been as fraught with uncertainty as the one associated with the incoming Trump Administration. While candidate Donald Trump pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, build a wall across the Southwest border with Mexico, renegotiate trade deals and redefine international partnerships, it’s not at all clear what President Trump may actually do once he’s in office. To understand how the man who promised to “fire stupid people” and shake up Washington might actually govern, its useful to consider the men and women he has tapped for his Cabinet. While the Senate still must confirm Trump’s picks, they offer insight into how he may manage the federal bureaucracy…”

2016 Plum Book Now Available

Source: U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO), December 1, 2016

From the press release:
GPO Releases United States Policy and Supporting Positions
The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) has made the 2016 United States Policy and Supporting Positions, or the “The Plum Book”, available on govinfo and as a mobile web app (no download required). Previous editions of the Plum Book, back to 1996, are also available on govinfo.
Plum Book for 2016
Browse all editions of the Plum Book, 1996-2012
Plum Book mobile web app

About the Plum Book
Published by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Government Reform alternately after each Presidential election, the Plum Book lists over 9,000 Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointment, nationwide. The duties of many such positions may involve advocacy of Administration policies and programs and the incumbents usually have a close and confidential working relationship with the agency or other key officials.

The list originated in 1952 during the Eisenhower administration. For twenty-two years prior, the Democrats controlled the Federal Government. When President Eisenhower took office, the Republican Party requested a list of government positions that President Eisenhower could fill. The next edition of the Plum Book appeared in 1960 and has since been published every four years, just after the Presidential election.

It’s Complicated: Americans’ Relationship with the Federal Government Goes Beyond Distrust

Source: Carroll Doherty, Capitol Ideas, Vol. 59 no. 2, March/April 2016
(scroll down)

Ask some Americans about the federal government and they bluntly describe its flaws and failings. Ask them about what the government should do, and they tell a very different story. Carroll Doherty explains the results of a recent Pew Research Center national survey on public distrust of government.
Related:
Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government
Source: Pew Research Center, November 23, 2015
Broad criticism, but positive performance ratings in many areas

Govinfo

Source: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2016

From the Q&A:
What is govinfo and how do I access it?

govinfo is GPO’s beta website that will eventually replace the FDsys website. The availability of this new website has no impact on the content, metadata, preservation repository, application of digital signatures, or any other back end processing of the content. This means all content available through this site is the same content you would get through the FDsys website. Simply put, govinfo is the new front door to accessing the same content and it is available at www.govinfo.gov.

Is everything that is available on FDsys available on govinfo?

Right now, all content available on FDsys is available on govinfo by conducting searches and clicking the format links in the search results. You can get to any pdf, xml, text or any other content file that is available on FDsys.

However, not all browse pages or detail pages have been built yet for every collection. For a list of all collections and publications and how they are currently available, refer to What’s Available below.

What are the differences between FDsys and govinfo?

govinfo is the new front door to accessing the same official, preserved content that GPO has made available through FDsys for the last seven years. The govinfo website will eventually replace the FDsys website, but the new website does not have any impact on GPO’s policies, practices, and procedures regarding the long-term digital preservation or authentication of content.

govinfo is a redesign of the FDsys public website, with a focus on implementing feedback from users and improving overall search and access to FDsys content. The redesigned, mobile-friendly website incorporates state-of-the-art innovative technologies and includes several new features for an overall enhanced user experience.

The key new features include:
– a new modern look and feel,
– the capability to link related content,
– two new ways to browse content: alphabetically and by category,
– a new open-source search engine,
– enhancements to the search filters, and
– more options for sharing pages and content on social media.

To learn more about the new features and enhancements govinfo has to offer, refer to Release Notes – govinfo Beta Launch….

Recent Publications:
Congressional Record
Daily Digest for today’s Congressional Record
Federal Register
Table of Contents for today’s issue of the Federal Register
House Calendar
Most recent Calendars of the United States House of Representatives
Senate Calendar
Most recent Senate Calendar of Business
Most Recent Documents
Documents published in the last 24 hrs
Most Recent Bills
Bills published in the last 24 hrs

Browsing Features:
A to Z
Browse documents by alphabetical order
Category
Browse documents in specific collections
Date
Browse documents within a timeframe or date range
Committee
Browse documents by the issuing committee
Author (coming soon!)
Browse documents by government authors

Intra-Agency Coordination

Source: Jennifer Nou, University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper No. 735, September 30, 2015

From the abstract:
Conventional accounts portray agency design as the outcome of congressional and presidential quests for political control. This perspective aligns with administrative law’s preoccupation with agencies’ external constraints. The main unit of analysis from this point of view is the agency, and the central question is how political principals outside of the agency restrain it. In reality, however, agency actors must also abide by controls internal to the agency: how do these mechanisms arise and what explains their design? For their part, legislative and executive specifications invariably leave organizational slack. Agency heads thus possess substantial discretion to impose internal structures and processes to further their own interests. By and large, however, agency heads have been neglected as important determinants of institutional design. Indeed, like the need for interagency coordination, the bureaucracy requires intra-agency coordination.

This Article seeks to provide a general account of how agency heads, distinct from Congress or the President, manage and operate their organizational divisions. It presents a theory of how administrative leaders use internal hierarchies and procedures to process information in light of their individual preferences and exogenous uncertainties. In doing so, this Article offers a conceptual framework to analyze agency design problems as well as to explain variations in bureaucratic form. Armed with these insights, the analysis then considers some of the resulting normative implications for political and legal oversight. It concludes by suggesting various reforms such as the judicially enforceable disclosure of agencies’ internal rule-drafting processes, as well as doctrines further designed to foster transparency and accountability.

Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy?

Source: Marijn Janssen, Jeroen van den Hoven, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 4, October 2015
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
• Transparency and privacy should be conceptualized as complex constructs.
• Transparency and information silos are essential for protecting privacy.
• Need for privacy-by-design and transparency-by-design
• Acceptable levels of privacy and transparency need to be balanced taking many factors into account.

Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD) results in new opportunities and have the potential to transform government and its interactions with the public. BOLD provides the opportunity to analyze the behavior of individuals, increase control, and reduce privacy. At the same time BOLD can be used to create an open and transparent government. Transparency and privacy are considered as important societal and democratic values that are needed to inform citizens and let them participate in democratic processes. Practices in these areas are changing with the rise of BOLD. Although intuitively appealing, the concepts of transparency and privacy have many interpretations and are difficult to conceptualize, which makes it often hard to implement them. Transparency and privacy should be conceptualized as complex, non-dichotomous constructs interrelated with other factors. Only by conceptualizing these values in this way, the nature and impact of BOLD on privacy and transparency can be understood, and their levels can be balanced with security, safety, openness and other socially-desirable values.