American Government – Global Policy – 3 short essays
These are meant to be 3 short essays. I do not need a cover page, or references. Only do the essays. I have numbered each one. It’s important to make sure you cover each aspect of each question
1. Compare the efficiency and fundamental fairness of a progressive income tax with that of a flat tax.
2. What is the social security program, and how does it work? Why has it been labeled a “sacred cow”?
3. What is the potential relationship between foreign policy and economic policy? How might the relationship between the two affect the nature of lobbying where foreign policy issues are concerned?
The text book I’m working with is The Challenge of Democracy. Below is the internet link. https://books.google.com/books?id=_WlzlY9dv74C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=What+has+been+the+government’s+oldest+objective?&source=bl&ots=nxtEJi0kQO&sig=3jgygNrqBdMEuI1BLa9K3dbVGGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIs4–566ryAIVARseCh0f1gyh#v=onepage&q=What%20has%20been%20the%20government’s%20oldest%20objective%3F&f=false

Global Policy
Of all the experiences in American government and politics I have had, the most rewarding and thrilling was working at the World Bank. I worked for Latin America, the Caribbean, and East Asia (concentrating on China). Established in 1944 as a bank for reconstruction and development, the World Bank is one of the most important institutions when one considers “global politics.” The bank is funded by the gross national product (GNP) of countries around the world. As the U.S. is a wealthy country, its contributions are enormous, especially when compared with other donor countries. The U.S. is therefore very influential in bank activities and policies.
There are many facets to the American government’s approach to global politics and its foreign policy. Along with congressional influence in the process, various organizations of the executive branch have been established to address global policy.
A nation’s general plan to defend and advance national interests, especially its security against foreign threats, is called its foreign policy. The Constitution specifies that relations with other nations should primarily be the responsibility of two groups of actors: the executive branch and the legislative branch.
Under the Constitution, the president is clearly the chief actor in foreign policy matters. The Constitution allows the president to deal with other nations in several ways:
• The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
• The president has the power to make treaties.
• The president appoints U.S. ambassadors and the heads of executive departments.
• The president receives (or refuses) ambassadors from other countries.
Over time, the executive has used these provisions, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and precedents created by bold action, to emerge as the leading actor in American foreign policy. Congress has several prerogatives that serve as checks on the president’s powers. However, presidents have frequently used tools likeexecutive agreements, undeclared wars, transfer authority, reprogramming, and special envoys to sidestep constitutional limitations on their foreign policy powers.
The Constitution allows Congress to deal with other nations in several ways:
• Congress has the power to create legislation.
• Congress has the power to declare war.
• Congress has the power to raise revenues and dispense funds.
• Congress has the power to support, maintain, govern, and regulate the army.
• Congress has the power to call out state militias to repel invasions.
• Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
• Congress has the power to define and punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations.
Most importantly, Congress uses its power of the purse to provide funds for foreign policy activities it supports, and to prohibit funds for those it opposes. Congress has only used its power to declare war five times.
The Senate has specific powers that make it the leading chamber on foreign policy issues. The Senate must give advice and consent to treaties. The Senate must give advice and consent to the appointment of ambassadors and other officials involved in foreign policy. The Senate rarely defeats a treaty the president has made (only 21 of thousands have been defeated).
American foreign policy is developed and administered by four organizations of the executive branch. The major organizations responsible for formulating and conducting foreign affairs are the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the CIA.
The Department of State has the most to do with the overall conduct of foreign affairs, yet it has a relatively small staff (certainly in comparison with the Department of Defense) and has often been criticized for its inertia.
The Department of Defense manages America’s military forces and provides civilian control over the military.
The CIA is charged with gathering intelligence about the actions or intentions of foreign powers. It also performs certain covert operations. These activities have given rise to controversies about the place of such operations in a democratic government. In response, Congress placed legislative limits and reporting requirements on CIA operations.
The National Security Council (NSC) coordinates the details of foreign, military, and domestic policy as they relate to national security.
Due to globalization and interdependence of social, environmental, and economic issues with political matters, the number of players involved in making foreign policy has increased, to include the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture as well as offices set up by state governments.
The actual process of foreign policymaking involves a complete set of interactions among policymakers. One of the president’s most important tasks is to sort out the advice given to him by different branches of government and the public. A president seeking congressional approval for foreign policy is at a considerable advantage over the more fragmented legislature because of his access to personnel and information. The president himself is often the best lobbyist for his own policies. Selecting and monitoring an agency to carry out a foreign policy decision is often the most controversial aspect of policy implementation.
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which advocated an isolationist policy and nonintervention in European politics, dominated the U.S. foreign policy in most of the nineteenth century. World War II and its aftermath brought a decisive change, as globalism replaced isolationism. Following the war, the United States adopted a policy of containment to limit Soviet expansion. The pillars of containment were the Bretton-Woods economic system, the Marshall Plan, and theNATO alliance. Containment required creation of a much larger military and a commitment to far higher levels of defense spending.
In the first decade or so of containment policy, the United States relied heavily on nuclear deterrence to hold the Soviets in check. The shift from near-exclusive reliance on nuclear deterrence to flexible response under President Kennedy created a need for greater military spending. In addition, Kennedy committed himself to nation-building policies in the developing world.
The commitment the United States made to nation building in Vietnam cost well over 58,000 American lives and badly damaged America’s foreign policy consensus.
While the Vietnam War continued, President Nixon pursued a policy of détente toward the Soviet Union and also opened the way for relations with the People’s Republic of China. The post-Vietnam era saw Jimmy Carter’s attempt to base foreign policy on human rights and Ronald Reagan’s reemphasis on military strength and anticommunism as the backbone of U.S. foreign policy. With the decline of communism in Eastern Europe, America’s chief adversary has paled in strength. But no clear, consistent foreign-policy vision has emerged to help policymakers balance the conflicting demands of establishing a stable world order, promoting the creation of free institutions, and creating a level of international economic equality adequate to protect against instability.
Foreign policy focuses on security against military threats. On the other hand, global policy focuses on social and environmental concerns. In global policy, the players are no longer competing alliances but international organizations that cooperate internationally.
In the post-Cold War era, defense and military issues continue to be important. The collapse of communism has allowed the United States to make defense cutbacks, but new security threats have emerged as America attempts to define its role as the world’s only superpower. The country is fashioning new institutional structures, such as an enlarged NATO. The end of the Cold War has shifted attention to new foreign policy issue areas that highlight the extent to which America exists in an interdependent community of nations.
Economically, the United States is linked to the rest of the world through aid, trade, and investment. Environmentally, Americans are finding that the choices and activities of one nation may have an ecological impact on the rest of the world. Finally, the beginning of a New World Order challenges the United States to examine its commitment to human rights and the relationship of this value to other policy priorities.
Historically, the public has paid little attention to traditional concerns of foreign policy issues. Recently, however, there has been a steady increase in the percentage of people who believe the United States should play an active part in world affairs. The making of foreign policy does not closely adhere to majority rule. Interest groups——including ethnic groups, business groups, unions, and others——are becoming increasingly involved in the process.
The media are a powerful source of influence on the foreign policy perceptions of policymakers and the public. The media may report on areas of the world that provoke public concern about a foreign policy issue. The media function as foreign policy agenda setters.

American Government – Global Policy – 3 short essays
These are meant to be 3 short essays. I do not need a cover page, or references. Only do the essays. I have numbered each one. It’s important to make sure you cover each aspect of each question
1. Compare the efficiency and fundamental fairness of a progressive income tax with that of a flat tax.
2. What is the social security program, and how does it work? Why has it been labeled a “sacred cow”?
3. What is the potential relationship between foreign policy and economic policy? How might the relationship between the two affect the nature of lobbying where foreign policy issues are concerned?
The text book I’m working with is The Challenge of Democracy. Below is the internet link. https://books.google.com/books?id=_WlzlY9dv74C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=What+has+been+the+government’s+oldest+objective?&source=bl&ots=nxtEJi0kQO&sig=3jgygNrqBdMEuI1BLa9K3dbVGGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIs4–566ryAIVARseCh0f1gyh#v=onepage&q=What%20has%20been%20the%20government’s%20oldest%20objective%3F&f=false

Global Policy
Of all the experiences in American government and politics I have had, the most rewarding and thrilling was working at the World Bank. I worked for Latin America, the Caribbean, and East Asia (concentrating on China). Established in 1944 as a bank for reconstruction and development, the World Bank is one of the most important institutions when one considers “global politics.” The bank is funded by the gross national product (GNP) of countries around the world. As the U.S. is a wealthy country, its contributions are enormous, especially when compared with other donor countries. The U.S. is therefore very influential in bank activities and policies.
There are many facets to the American government’s approach to global politics and its foreign policy. Along with congressional influence in the process, various organizations of the executive branch have been established to address global policy.
A nation’s general plan to defend and advance national interests, especially its security against foreign threats, is called its foreign policy. The Constitution specifies that relations with other nations should primarily be the responsibility of two groups of actors: the executive branch and the legislative branch.
Under the Constitution, the president is clearly the chief actor in foreign policy matters. The Constitution allows the president to deal with other nations in several ways:
• The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
• The president has the power to make treaties.
• The president appoints U.S. ambassadors and the heads of executive departments.
• The president receives (or refuses) ambassadors from other countries.
Over time, the executive has used these provisions, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and precedents created by bold action, to emerge as the leading actor in American foreign policy. Congress has several prerogatives that serve as checks on the president’s powers. However, presidents have frequently used tools likeexecutive agreements, undeclared wars, transfer authority, reprogramming, and special envoys to sidestep constitutional limitations on their foreign policy powers.
The Constitution allows Congress to deal with other nations in several ways:
• Congress has the power to create legislation.
• Congress has the power to declare war.
• Congress has the power to raise revenues and dispense funds.
• Congress has the power to support, maintain, govern, and regulate the army.
• Congress has the power to call out state militias to repel invasions.
• Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
• Congress has the power to define and punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations.
Most importantly, Congress uses its power of the purse to provide funds for foreign policy activities it supports, and to prohibit funds for those it opposes. Congress has only used its power to declare war five times.
The Senate has specific powers that make it the leading chamber on foreign policy issues. The Senate must give advice and consent to treaties. The Senate must give advice and consent to the appointment of ambassadors and other officials involved in foreign policy. The Senate rarely defeats a treaty the president has made (only 21 of thousands have been defeated).
American foreign policy is developed and administered by four organizations of the executive branch. The major organizations responsible for formulating and conducting foreign affairs are the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the CIA.
The Department of State has the most to do with the overall conduct of foreign affairs, yet it has a relatively small staff (certainly in comparison with the Department of Defense) and has often been criticized for its inertia.
The Department of Defense manages America’s military forces and provides civilian control over the military.
The CIA is charged with gathering intelligence about the actions or intentions of foreign powers. It also performs certain covert operations. These activities have given rise to controversies about the place of such operations in a democratic government. In response, Congress placed legislative limits and reporting requirements on CIA operations.
The National Security Council (NSC) coordinates the details of foreign, military, and domestic policy as they relate to national security.
Due to globalization and interdependence of social, environmental, and economic issues with political matters, the number of players involved in making foreign policy has increased, to include the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture as well as offices set up by state governments.
The actual process of foreign policymaking involves a complete set of interactions among policymakers. One of the president’s most important tasks is to sort out the advice given to him by different branches of government and the public. A president seeking congressional approval for foreign policy is at a considerable advantage over the more fragmented legislature because of his access to personnel and information. The president himself is often the best lobbyist for his own policies. Selecting and monitoring an agency to carry out a foreign policy decision is often the most controversial aspect of policy implementation.
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which advocated an isolationist policy and nonintervention in European politics, dominated the U.S. foreign policy in most of the nineteenth century. World War II and its aftermath brought a decisive change, as globalism replaced isolationism. Following the war, the United States adopted a policy of containment to limit Soviet expansion. The pillars of containment were the Bretton-Woods economic system, the Marshall Plan, and theNATO alliance. Containment required creation of a much larger military and a commitment to far higher levels of defense spending.
In the first decade or so of containment policy, the United States relied heavily on nuclear deterrence to hold the Soviets in check. The shift from near-exclusive reliance on nuclear deterrence to flexible response under President Kennedy created a need for greater military spending. In addition, Kennedy committed himself to nation-building policies in the developing world.
The commitment the United States made to nation building in Vietnam cost well over 58,000 American lives and badly damaged America’s foreign policy consensus.
While the Vietnam War continued, President Nixon pursued a policy of détente toward the Soviet Union and also opened the way for relations with the People’s Republic of China. The post-Vietnam era saw Jimmy Carter’s attempt to base foreign policy on human rights and Ronald Reagan’s reemphasis on military strength and anticommunism as the backbone of U.S. foreign policy. With the decline of communism in Eastern Europe, America’s chief adversary has paled in strength. But no clear, consistent foreign-policy vision has emerged to help policymakers balance the conflicting demands of establishing a stable world order, promoting the creation of free institutions, and creating a level of international economic equality adequate to protect against instability.
Foreign policy focuses on security against military threats. On the other hand, global policy focuses on social and environmental concerns. In global policy, the players are no longer competing alliances but international organizations that cooperate internationally.
In the post-Cold War era, defense and military issues continue to be important. The collapse of communism has allowed the United States to make defense cutbacks, but new security threats have emerged as America attempts to define its role as the world’s only superpower. The country is fashioning new institutional structures, such as an enlarged NATO. The end of the Cold War has shifted attention to new foreign policy issue areas that highlight the extent to which America exists in an interdependent community of nations.
Economically, the United States is linked to the rest of the world through aid, trade, and investment. Environmentally, Americans are finding that the choices and activities of one nation may have an ecological impact on the rest of the world. Finally, the beginning of a New World Order challenges the United States to examine its commitment to human rights and the relationship of this value to other policy priorities.
Historically, the public has paid little attention to traditional concerns of foreign policy issues. Recently, however, there has been a steady increase in the percentage of people who believe the United States should play an active part in world affairs. The making of foreign policy does not closely adhere to majority rule. Interest groups——including ethnic groups, business groups, unions, and others——are becoming increasingly involved in the process.
The media are a powerful source of influence on the foreign policy perceptions of policymakers and the public. The media may report on areas of the world that provoke public concern about a foreign policy issue. The media function as foreign policy agenda setters.