What Are the Different Types of Federal Government Jobs?

The Federal government of the United States mainly includes the Congress, the President, and the Federal Court. It is based on the two political ideas of separation of powers and federalism. It separates legislative, judicial, and administrative powers from each other. Checks and balances to avoid government abuse of power.

U.S. Federal Government

Establishment of the U.S. Federal Government (Independence of the United States on July 4, 1776)

1. Formulation of the "1787 Constitution": The United States in the early days of independence was only a

The federal government's independent administrative agency is an independent administrative agency established by the United States Congress through various laws; it is directly accountable to the White House. Each organic law / statutory grant is empowered by an independent administrative agency to establish its own scope; and, if any, establishes the definition of federal law. Federal regulations have the same effect as general federal law. The following are some of the federal government's independent administrative agencies:

The Judiciary's role is to adjudicate judicial cases that challenge or explain the legislation of Congress, and to hear cases involving federal offenses

19011932 The era of the Progressive Party of the US Federal Government (1901-1932)

(1) Power transfer within Congress

In the twentieth century, when parliamentary power reached its peak under the leadership of political parties, it was also the beginning of its decline. In the late nineteenth century, political parties were ruled by party chiefs, and positions were maintained to maintain the party's competitiveness, leading to corruption within the party and local governments. A spokesman for the House of Representatives concentrated his power on controlling the legislation and practiced "single rule" on his own. Senators are elected by the state legislatures and gradually degenerate into money politics for lack of democratic oversight; the Senate becomes a symbol of a corrupt government and is nicknamed the "Millionaires Club."

The Progressive Party, which emerged during this period, weakened the leadership of Congress and parties while eradicating party corruption and the "tsarist rule" of Congress. The Progressive Party s joint Republicans attacked House of Representatives spokesman Cannon s dominance, finally removing the Tsar s crown in 1910, removing most of the speaker s power and limiting his role to coordinating congressional discussions Key aspects. The Rules Committee, which controls the legislative process in the House of Representatives, no longer includes speakers and is elected by all members. At the same time, the two parties set up Committees on Committees to elect the chairmen and members of each committee.

In 1911, the House of Representatives' power center was temporarily transferred from a spokesman to a majority party decision-making meeting (Caucus). A resolution passed by two-thirds of the decision-making committee restricts all party members' subsequent voting in the House of Representatives, and offenders will be punished by party discipline. The Senate already adopted a similar "two-thirds rule" in 1903, so the decision-making meeting became the main battlefield for legislation in both houses. But only at a time when political parties are highly united within the government can this institution be truly binding. As a result, during the First World War, the decision-making meetings were declining due to internal divisions in the Democratic Party. It has been in the House of Representatives for only two years.

In the 1920s, Congress entered the "Era of Barons." Congressional institutions have undergone specialization. The House of Representatives is too large and must be divided into highly specialized committees and branches to conduct legislative work independently. The number of members of the Senate is smaller than that of the House of Representatives, and the pressure for specialization is relatively small. However, the institutions and rules of the House of Representatives have gradually been copied, and the committee system has been adopted.

The center of power is scattered from the decision-making meetings of the majority party to the chairmen of various standing committees. In order to ensure that the affairs of the Committee are not interfered by the future "Tsar" or "King Decision Meeting", the committees strictly implement the Seniority Rule: that is, the longest-serving member of the parliament holds the chairmanship of the committee with real power. This principle of automatic promotion has been implemented in both houses for half a century. Both the chairman and the members serve a life-long term: they will continue to serve on the same committee unless they retire, die or fail to be elected. Among the committees, the "rules committee" is still the most important, because it controls the legislative process and the chairman can stifle almost any legislative proposal. Campbell, chairman of the Republican Rules Committee, once threatened, "I am the Standing Committee ... The proposal is in my pocket, and it will stay there." [42] Only with a two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives signing the "Discharge Petition", a proposal withheld by the Rules Committee will have the opportunity to "see the sun again" and be discussed and processed by the House of Representatives. The independence of the committee and the power of the chairman indicate that political parties' leadership of modern parliaments has been much worse than before.

(2) Popular parties begin to decline

The Progressive Party has also made far-reaching reforms to the party system in the United States. During this period, the Federation had "two one-party systems" in the south of the strong Democrats and in the north of the same strong Republicans. Localist bipartisan systems are not designed to provide competition, but to eliminate it. Local party organizations lack the unified leadership of the central government, and old party organizations cannot meet the requirements of modern industrial society. On the other hand, the urban working class is immature and affected by ethnic divisions, and cannot form a united and effective independent political party. The disappearance of party competition has caused a sudden decline in the political participation of voters, so that by the 1920s, the American election participation rate was only one-third to two-fifths of modern Western Europe. Therefore, it was during the period of social crisis in modern industrialization that American political parties began to decline. This is closely related to the progressive party's weakening of party development from several aspects at the same time.

(3) President becomes executive general manager

The decline of political parties and parliaments was accompanied by the rise of presidential power. Although the presidents of the Progressive Party did not yet have the economic power to regulate or lead the institutional powers of Congress, they personally have been able to influence the Congress and have unified jurisdiction over the cabinet and administrative agencies. As early as 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt began to formulate policies independently and made broad and strong recommendations to Congress. In 1912, President Taft submitted the draft legislation to Congress for the first time, but he was generally opposed. However, President Wilson controlled the party the following year, and because Congress did not have an independent leadership force after the speaker lost power, the two houses generally accepted the president's legislative leadership. A revolutionary change occurred during President Harding's term in 1921. Prior to that, the President did not have to provide Congress with annual fiscal policy and therefore lacked a comprehensive plan for the entire government; cabinet departments applied directly to Congress for funding. The First World War brought huge spending and budget deficits to the federal government. To improve government efficiency, the federal government must plan budgets and fiscal policies appropriately. This task rests mainly with the president. The Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921, which required the president to provide a unified annual plan for the executive branch; the president became the policy initiator and financial leader, and he must be responsible for formulating the government's financial plan every year. At the same time, Congress established the General Audit Office, independent of administration, to conduct audits.

If the parliament of this period is compared to the company's board of directors, the president is like the general manager. However, for a government with a separation of powers, this "general manager" cannot usually be elected or fired by the "board of directors." The "Board of Directors" has the responsibility to authorize, fund and supervise the implementation activities of the "General Manager" and to delegate more power to the "General Manager" when necessary.

19331952 The New Deal of the US Federal Government (1933-1952)

(1) Rise of Presidential Power

All executive bodies are also under the unified leadership of the President. In addition to its judicial function, the independent executive body is also included in the executive hierarchy of the President. The National Emergency Committee was established by the President in 1934, and all administrative agencies' proposals must be approved by it. In 1937, this function was transferred to the Budget Bureau, which determines whether the executive branch's proposal is in line with the president's plan; if it does not, the proposal must be modified, or it will be cancelled. The Government Reorganization Act of 1939 established the Presidential Executive Office, which is divided into five departments, including the Budget Office. The president expanded from the former chief law officer to the chief administrator.

In 1945, the Roosevelt government introduced a second human rights bill that symbolized a welfare society. The president suggested that the federal government must "ensure economic stability, prosperity for all, and the right of all people to useful and paid employment in industry, shops, farms, and mines." The "Employment Law of 1946" passed in 1946 finally revised these radical words, requiring the government to continue to engage in active economic intervention to ensure "maximum employment, production and purchasing power." [51] This law sets new standards for the federal government: the federal government is now responsible for providing appropriate conditions for the general well-being of citizens. The role of government goes beyond the function of interest representation in the nineteenth century; it must provide production and services to society, and distribute and transfer benefits. The new government function will be completed under the leadership of the president; the president is now not only the chief executive, but also a major economic stabilization force. From the Budget Act of 1921 to the Employment Act of 1946, the President became the legislative leader in seven major policy areas: budget, economy, national security, human resources, environment, housing, and urban construction.

The Employment Act of 1946 established the President's ability to lead Congress and ultimately marked the end of the "Congressional Government" era. Because the president happened to be the leader of both parties in the House of Representatives, Congress was wary of "legislative suicide", so he voluntarily abandoned traditional legislative functions and delegated most of the policy-making tasks to the president and the executive. Congress is no longer the origin of legislation, but more like a filter for presidential proposals; it primarily passes, modifies, or rejects presidential proposals, as well as legislative oversight of executive agencies.

(2) The Decline of the "Congress Government"

The Legislative Reorganization Law of 1946 reformed the committee organization from jurisdiction, personnel system, and democratic procedures, reducing the total number of committees in the two houses from 81 to 34. In practice, however, this reform has increased the size, power and independence of the existing committees. With the addition of assistants to the committees and the rapid increase in the number of chapters to more than 250, the power structure of Congress has become more decentralized. Professor Wilson stated at the end of the nineteenth century: "[Congress] is like an army without officers and lacks common thinking-or even with thinking, there is no mechanism to change it; it is led by one or twenty committees, and The composition must remain fixed and too numerous and too interconnected to compete with it. " [53] This description also applies to Congress in the twentieth century, but with more committees and greater independence.

In fact, the independence of the committee and the power in the hands of the chairman of the committee often become a means to hinder the majority party from implementing new policies. In particular, the chairman of the rules committee may refuse to approve a proposal for discussion in Congress, leaving legislation to an end. During the New Deal, this mechanism facilitated the Republican Party and united the conservative forces of the Democratic Party of the South to oppose presidential policies. For example, the Wages and Hours Act of 1938 passed the Senate with a two-to-one majority and was praised by the House Labor Committee, but the Rules Committee refused to let it go. In the end, it was only after the House of Representatives obtained the "application for release" with the signatures of 218 members that it was discussed by the House of Representatives and passed with an overwhelming advantage of 314 to 97 votes. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 requires each committee to meet on a regular basis, and at the meeting, the committee members decide the agenda. The situation has changed since the law was passed. Ten years later, two-thirds of the committees in both houses ended the chairman's "single rule." But in the other third of the committees, the chairman still controls the legislative process, including the rules committee. Democratic Smith has chaired the committee for 12 years, but never meets regularly. In 1958, he refused to submit the "Civil Rights Bill" to the House of Representatives for discussion, and returned to his Virginia farm during the Congress meeting, disappeared without a trace, which caused the bill to be passed for a year. The following year, Smith was "actively" released only when his signature of "release application" in the House of Representatives was only 10 votes away. As any disciplinary action is prohibited, the party leader is helpless to the chairman of the committee. In the 1960s, even the highly anticipated Senate Majority Leader Johnson and the House Speaker Ray Burne had to persuade them patiently, lest they would anger the "princes."

Therefore, on the one hand, the institutionalization of the Congress has led to the decentralization of power within the Congress; on the other hand, the age requirements for real positions in Congress have been increasing. In the nineteenth century, the average term of speaker of the House of Representatives was seven years, and the average age of leaders was between 30 and 40 years. By the twentieth century, the average term of a spokesperson has grown to 23 years, and the average age of leaders has reached 60-70 years. At the same time, the seniority rules encourage long-term re-election of parliamentarians, causing them to be reluctant to post. From 1900 to 1957, the number of parliamentarians in the House of Representatives for more than five consecutive terms increased from 9% to 45%, and for more than ten consecutive terms, it increased from 1% to 14%. [55] This made it difficult for congressional personnel to replace and new blood could not be replenished in a timely manner.

Qualification rules also hinder personnel exchanges between Congress and the executive branch. The executive branch and the parliament have different representation bases: most of the parliamentarians come from rural towns and live locally for a long time, so they are less mobile across the country; most of the administrative and corporate representatives are from cities and are promoted through the network of national political organizations, It is thus almost isolated from local politics. Therefore, the administration represents the national functional interests, and the Congress represents the local special interests. Since entering the parliament halfway meant a resumption of the career journey, the elites of the cabinet and the executive branch were generally reluctant to become members of parliament. The discontinuation of Congress's personnel exchanges has strengthened its localism and made it lack the experience needed to deal with the national problems arising from the modern economy.

Localism in Congress is reflected in the number one priority of parliamentarians: focus on serving voters in the region for re-election. Since members of the House of Representatives are elected by district voters, the central task of parliamentarians is to strive to get as much federal benefits as possible for the district in order to gain voters' favor. As a result, there is a conflict of interest between the personal interests of parliamentarians and the functioning of Congress. To a certain extent, lawmakers are "running for Congress by opposing Congress": for reasons of reasonable interest, lawmakers first consider their personal achievements and secondly they consider national issues from the perspective of Congress. For this reason, the vital interests of parliamentarians have led them to be extremely secretive about the reform of the mechanism. Members personally hope that the committee will have more independence to increase personal influence, and maintaining a decentralized committee and branch system is equivalent to maintaining its own personal power.

In a way, the fate of the "Congressional Government" in the twentieth century seems to be inevitable. The separation of powers created by the federal constitution is destined to be a weak government. Mutual restraints between branches of government make it impossible to deal with domestic and foreign crises in a harmonious and decisive manner. It benefits the vested interests of society and opposes any rapid change. However, the economic and social realities of the twentieth century required a strong and timely central government. As a result, power is transferred from the legislature to law enforcement. In the twentieth century, the "offensive elf" was no longer Congress, but the President and the executive. At the same time, the central function of Congress shifted from legislation to executive oversight; during 1950-62, Congress conducted more investigations than Congress did throughout the nineteenth century. As a result, like the rest of the world, the US Congress has failed to maintain legislative power, and Congress s work center has transitioned from making laws to passing, modifying, or controlling government legislation and monitoring administrative actions. To this end, Huntington pointed out the contradiction of the congressional government in the twentieth century: "Congress can only maintain its independence by rejecting legislation, and it can only legislate by abandoning its independence ... If Congress makes laws, it will belong to the President; but if It refuses legislation and it will alienate public opinion. Congress can assert its power or pass the law; but it cannot achieve both. "

(3) "Fourth Branch": The Rise of Independent Administrative Institutions

While the New Deal has created a "Presidential Government," it has also created an "Administrative Government." The focus of legislative power is not only shifted from Congress to the President, but also to independent administrative agencies through extensive and abstract representational laws. In just a few years from 1933 to 1939, the federal government budget nearly doubled from $ 4.6 billion, and the civil service team increased from 570,000 to 120,000 in 1933. Large and independent administrative agencies have sprung up and have become a veritable "fourth branch" of the federal government under Congress, the President, and the courts. Although these fourth branches are subordinate and subject to constitutional legislative, law enforcement, and judicial powers, they combine all three powers at the same time. Therefore, the rise of modern professional bureaucracy constitutes an important amendment to the traditional doctrine of separation of powers.

In fact, as early as 1813, the Federal Supreme Court recognized that law enforcement agencies could be delegated to certain "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" functions. In 1822, Congress established the first independent administrative agency, marking the departure of the US government's practice from Locke's theory of unrepresentable legislative power and Montesquieu's absolute decentralization theory. The Interstate Trade Law of 1887 created the first modern form of independent agency: the Interstate Trade Commission (ICC). The Federal Reserve and Federal Transportation Commission (FTC), which were established in 1913 and 1915, have similar characteristics. From the beginning of the New Deal, three independent agencies with broad powers were established: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Until now, the federal government has 52 independent administrative agencies, the most important of which are the so-called "Big Seven": interstate commerce, stock exchange, federal transportation, federal communications, federal energy (FEC), national labor relations and civil aviation commission (CAB, cancelled)

Unlike the Cabinet, these independent agencies have personnel independence. Although the Cabinet is also an executive body, they exercise their powers under the President's delight and can in principle be fired at any time. The highest level of independent agencies is an executive committee formed by 3-5 people; they are nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, and have a fixed term of 3-5 years, and the president cannot be fired for no reason. The members of the executive body are generally composed of two parties: Of the five top officials, the number of members of the same party usually does not exceed three. As a result, independent administrative agencies often remain politically neutral.

To the extent required by the commissioned law, most independent agencies have the power to formulate administrative regulations, determine whether private or corporate legal persons have acted in violation of the rules, and accused them as prosecutors. For example, they can decide whether to issue business licenses, determine transportation and energy prices, regulate private enterprises' economic activities, and prohibit unfair competition or labor practices within their jurisdictions. In the century after 1887, 67 federal government units successively formulated 7,500 regulatory regulations, far exceeding the number of legislative acts in Congress. As long as it is within the scope of legislative authorization, these administrative regulations have the same legal effect as legislation and thus have a huge impact on the lives of American citizens.

The new policy has significantly expanded the scope of power of independent administrative agencies. In his book "The End of Liberalism", Lu Wei pointed out that before the New Deal, the names of deputy laws were specific and narrow in scope, and the content was limited to the prohibition of misconduct. After the New Deal, the law on behalf of delegates has become general and abstract, which has resulted in a wide range of discretionary powers for administrative agencies, and has often required administrative agencies to formulate good rules of conduct. The most typical example is the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1935, which authorized administrative agencies to set "fair competition rules." Under the bill, the Roosevelt government established more than 700 regulations and issued more than 10,000 executive orders and judgments within a year and a half of its entry into force. Constitutional authority Professor Corwin calls it "the true legislative giant and the original incarnation of the New Deal. It tries to traverse the entire corporate structure of the United States from hot stamping to the production of steel. It was declared at the beginning of the law 'Huge unemployment and industrial disorder' has caused a national emergency and a burden on 'interstate and foreign trade', which has affected 'public welfare' and lowered the 'standard of living of the American people' ". Professor Schwarz, an expert in administrative law, said: "The so-called fair competition standards include provisions for comprehensive regulation of relevant enterprises: wages, working hours, prices, production quotas, competition and other corporate activities, advertising, sales technology-these and more All aspects are under control, and often to the most trivial details. " In the Panamanian Oil Refining Company and Shecht Poultry case of 1935, the bill was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Supreme Court because it lacked appropriate standards and was too broad. But they are the last two cases in which the court declared the commission unconstitutional: after 1937, the federal court finally made concessions to the federal government's economic control power. Since then, no law in Congress has been declared unconstitutional for lack of appropriate representation standards.

Of course, executive power is not free from legislation and judicial control. If a citizen's rights are illegally violated by an administrative agency, the citizen can always appeal to the court, asking it to declare the administrative act invalid in accordance with the law or regulations, and to obtain compensation for the losses suffered. Congress can amend legislation to adjust administrative restrictions, or even completely eliminate the administrative organs provided for by legislation. In addition, the Congressional Appropriation Committee can refuse to fund administrative agencies, while the President's Office of Management and Budget can control agency budgets. Finally, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 strengthened the legislative oversight of the corresponding executive bodies by the Congressional Committee. Administrative agencies must report regularly or hold hearings to answer questions from members. The Commission may also hold confirmation hearings to ensure that the executive authority fulfills its legislative tasks in a timely manner and requires it to respond to complaints from citizens. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of administrative affairs, it is impossible for the administrative organs to be under the effective control of legislation and the judiciary in all aspects, so it is often dubbed as the "headless fourth branch".

1952 Post-war period of the US federal government (1952 to present)

(1) The decline of political parties

A half-century later, a series of measures that weakened American parties during the Progressive Party finally showed their effects in statistics. Lu Wei pointed out in "Personal President" that the decline of party organizations is manifested in many aspects. First, the Australian ballot system makes voting easy for voters. From 1942 to 1972, the ratio of presidents to MPs who voted for the same party in the ballot dropped from 62% to 38%. In 1980, this percentage was 37%; Reagan was elected that year because he received 28% of Democratic voters' support, while Carter received only 12% of Republican voters. Secondly, within Congress, the number of "party votes" by parliamentarians plummeted: 50% at the beginning of the century, 23% during the New Deal, 15% at the end of the Second World War, 8% at the beginning of the 1960s, and by 1970 Only 1%. At the same time, the "dual-party voting" has continued to rise: 35% in the New Deal period, 45% at the end of World War II, 60% in the late 1950s, and 70% in the early 1970s. In the 1980s, 10% of members of the House voted more often in favour of the opposition. Consistent with the above trends, the non-partisan "independence" has risen accordingly: from 1952 to 1980, the Democratic Party's share of voters dropped from 47% to 40%, the Republican Party fell from 27% to 23%, while the proportion of independents during the same period From 22% to 37%, it can be described as standing with the two major parties.

At the same time, political parties lost their ability to control the nomination of presidential candidates in local primaries. One of the manifestations of party leadership is the reduction in the number of challenges to party-designated candidates in local primary elections, and the frequency of such challenges has increased in recent years. For New York City, only 10-20% of primaries in the 1940s challenged candidates, rising to 20-30% in the 1950s and 50-60% in the 1970s. As a result, in the early 1950s, local party leaders were still able to control candidate lists, but after the 1970s, party control no longer worked in most states. In the first round of balloting at the national conference, the delegations from the primary election rarely deviated from the candidates directly elected by party voters. Finally, the credibility of political parties has generally declined and the public lacks confidence in political parties and governments. Polls show that 70-75% of voters believed that the government would do the right thing in the 1960s, but only 45% of voters held this belief after the Watergate incident; by the end of the 1970s, public trust in the Democratic government had declined To 40%, and only 35% trust in the Republican Party. In the 1980s, the trust rate of both parties was less than 35%.

The result of the lack of party organization is the "disappearance of voting voters": the proportion of voters participating in elections has declined significantly, and strong class distortions and age gaps in participation rates. If the degree of political democratization is measured by the proportion of voters actually participating in political elections to the total number of eligible voters, the United States, the world's first democracy, is far less democratic today than Western European countries. In Western Europe, voters are widely involved in the political process. Political parties have the ability to effectively organize, not only mobilize a large number of voters to vote, but also provide popular political education and be responsible for formulating national policies. In addition, the Social Democratic Party implements automatic registration, which reduces the initial obstacles to political participation. Finally, unlike the regional single representative system, the proportional representative system eliminates invalid votes and increases the motivation of voters to participate. These factors have promoted the political participation of European voters.

From the early 1950s to the late 1970s, federal and local government voter participation rates continued to decline. In the 1950s and 1960s, the participation rate in the presidential election remained at 70%, while the participation rate in the presidential election year and the non-presidential election year was around 50% and 65%, respectively. But the participation rate dropped sharply in the 1970s, and the participation rate in the presidential election barely exceeded 50%. In 1988, only half of the citizens with voting rights participated in the presidential election; the participation rate in parliamentary elections was even lower. State executives are usually elected by only one-third to two-fifths of voters. In 1976, participation in federal government elections in New York City reached its lowest point in 150 years (42%), [70] the mayoral election the following year reached its lowest point since the first election in 1834. Therefore, if citizens of some countries in the world lack real democratic voting rights, Americans who possess such rights do not seem to value its exercise.

At the same time as low election participation rates, weak party organization has also increased class distortions and age gaps in participation rates. In the United States, the political participation of the lower labor force is much lower than that of the middle class, and the gap is growing. From 1968 to 1976, the ratio of middle class participation to lower workers increased from 1.42 to 1.65; the same ratio in Sweden in the same year was only 1.03. Although racial issues and economics are closely related, differences between different classes outweigh differences between different races. In 1972, only 41% of white workers with a high school diploma in the United States participated in the elections, while 86% of managers with a college diploma participated in the elections, more than twice the number of lower-level workers. In addition, political parties in the United States have not been able to effectively bring many young people into the political process, resulting in far fewer young people participating in elections than middle-aged people. In the federal elections in the early 1970s, the average participation rate in the United States was around 60%, and the largest gap between different age groups was as high as 23 percentage points. At the same time, the participation rate in federal Germany exceeded 90%. The difference between them is only 10 percentage points at most.

Burnham pointed out that the decline of party organization is the common cause of declining voter participation and class distortions. For voters who lack other sources of information, political parties are an important shortcut to providing these voters with calculated utility. Due to the huge class differences in the ability to obtain political information, party propaganda provides essential political information to the lower levels of society. Therefore, the disappearance of the role of political parties has not only reduced the overall participation of voters, but also reduced the participation of the lower strata who had always believed in fate, did not believe in politics, and tended to abstain. In Burnham's words: "U.S. politics is not organized in terms of class struggle ... The real class struggle does not lie in the competition between the Democratic and Republican parties actively participating in the race, but in the opposition between two different wholes: One is an active voter, and the other is the half of the adult population who do not vote. "

At the same time, political parties are a means to strengthen the relationship between the government and citizens and reduce the distance between the rule and the governed. It provides a channel to reflect the social needs of the government and provides the government with the legitimacy of governance through this feedback process. The crisis of dominance in the United States since the 1970s demanded that all sectors of society-including the middle class and lower classes-change their political views and reform the structure of political parties so that they can bring 40 million "disappeared voters" back to the political process. . Only in this way can "American democracy" truly represent the interests of all voters-not the special interests of certain classes.

(2) "Personal President"

As the party organization declines, we see the rise of the president as an independent power. Since the New Deal era, the president has begun to run away from party control in elections and has made direct contact with voters. This is inseparable from the development of two related levels: mass media independent of political parties and modern communication technology, especially radio and television broadcasting. In the nineteenth century, newspapers were the most important mass media. Being financially dependent on the sponsorship of political parties, newspapers have, without exception, become the mouthpiece of political parties and serve their political purposes. After entering the twentieth century, newspapers achieved economic independence through the publication of commercial advertisements, resulting in propaganda media independent of party control. Both Roosevelt and Wilson used newspapers and magazines to reach voters. After radio broadcasting became popular, Roosevelt Jr. lost no time in using new communication technology to get direct communication with voters.

The development of modern high technology has transformed political competition from the previous labor-intensive to capital-intensive. These high-tech methods include polls, TV mass media, automated telephone libraries, and large-scale direct mailing of campaign leaflets. Mass media and direct mail leaflets, in particular, require a lot of funding, making huge campaign funding a prerequisite for successful elections. Politics depends on money; election expenses are rising. The book "U.S. Government" co-authored by Lu Wei and Ginsberg lists the total expenditures of all elections in the country over the years: the total expenditure in 1956 was US $ 100 million and US $ 300 million in 1968, and nearly 1976 It doubled, and in 1984 it broke the billion-dollar mark. The huge expenditures required by high-tech politics have also adversely affected popular party politics. The former labor-intensive politics is beneficial to the political parties supported by the lower levels of the society, by mobilizing the political participation of the lower levels, effectively using manpower, and counteracting the economic and institutional advantages of the opposition with quantitative advantages. On the contrary, capital-intensive politics is more conducive to political parties supported by the upper and middle classes of society; new technologies not only enable them to make more effective use of their financial resources, but also enable candidates with strong funds to run away from political party support and run independently.

(3) Limited recovery of parliamentary power

In recent years, MPs have achieved unprecedented success rates for re-election. In 1986 and 1988, 98% of all members of the House of Representatives running for re-election were successfully re-elected. The success rate of senators for re-election is not less than 85%. At the same time, the number of "safe constituencies" has risen, and the competitiveness of congressional elections has declined. The reason is that incumbent lawmakers have many freely available campaign resources, including through voter service and the feelings that have been established with voters, and make the most of them in the election to create a good image for themselves. Re-elected parliamentarians can also get campaign funding from more sources. There are four main sources of funding for the congressional campaign: the federal government, the private sector, political parties, and Parkes. In the 1988 House of Representatives elections, party funding accounted for only 6%, while Parkes' contribution accounted for 36%. The flow of these funds has significantly benefited reelection. In 1980, 80% of Parkes' donations went to reelection MPs, 10% to challengers, and the other 10% went to those candidates who were vying for vacancies after the previous MP abdicated. Through fundraising and borrowing, re-elected parliamentarians can raise an average of $ 180,000 and spend $ 360,000; challengers can only get an average of $ 42,000 and spend $ 100,000. A similar situation exists in the Senate: per-members who run for re-election raise 3 million per capita, while challengers only have $ 1 million (Wirls, p. 21). Re-elected members have at least three times the financial advantage of non-re-elected candidates, enabling the former to rely on the establishment of a "ready treasury" that can scare away challengers without spending a penny. In this way, potential candidates with good qualities have disappeared; people cannot dare to rush into the battlefield without sufficient funds. Voters face limited choices: if they are not re-elected, they are third-class challengers. This also reduces the practical significance of the election and makes voters even less interested in taking the initiative to vote.

(4) "Dual Sovereignty" Struggles with Institutions

For a federal government with a separation of powers, the end result of the decline of political parties is the split between Congress and the President within the government. Fellina pointed out that during the Civil War and Reconstruction, due to political party ties, MPs had a personal motivation to support the presidential election. Whenever one party wins in the presidential election instead of the other, the party composition of Congress changes accordingly, thereby bringing the parliamentary majority and presidential parties together. However, modern presidents and Congress lack electoral links, and whether the president is elected has no stake in the vital interests of parliamentarians. Now that independent elections are taking place, parliamentarians rely on neither the political parties nor the president, but the preferences of regional voters. In 1984, Reagan won the presidential election, but the Republican Party only added 14 seats in Congress. In that year, 44% of MPs and presidents in the Congressional area were in opposing parties. Therefore, in the post-war period, the two parties split on each other for a long time. In the federal government, a "dual sovereignty" that controlled the Democratic Party with the Republican Party and the president with the Republican Party led to protracted "institutional battles".

(5) The U.S. federal government shuts down government employees on leave of absence after 17 years

New York time, October 1, 2013. On Monday evening in Japan, the stalemate between the two parties in the US Congress over government spending bills failed to be resolved by the deadline of 2020 this week. Since October 1, the US federal government has begun to shut down. Government employees involved in U.S. security and other aspects will continue to work, but salaries will be in place after Congress resumes appropriation. The number of these employees will reach one million, while employees in non-exceptional departments with more than 800,000 will begin to take paid leave. .

Since Sunday s House of Representatives proposed a bill to postpone the Obamacare bill by one year and reduce taxes and fees as a condition, public opinion has tended to believe that the government is definitely closed. The Obama administration and its staff have previously made clear that they will not accept any spending bills that would affect the new health care law, and the Democrats believe that the Republicans should support a relatively "clean", untied spending bill, while the House of Representatives Republicans' position on the Obamacare bill has not wavered. On Monday night, the House and Senate conducted "ping-pong" repeated deliberations and votes on a budget bill requiring Obamacare to be delayed for one year. Finally, the House of Representatives no longer seeks a vote on the revised bill.

US President Barack Obama said at a press conference at 11 pm on Monday: "The internal disputes in a branch of the government over a result after the election should not affect the operation of the entire government." About half an hour before zero, Relevant federal government departments have begun to implement plans to stop some government departments. Starting at 00:00 on October 1, the US government shut down.

Previously, the U.S. Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a motion to postpone the Obamacare reform plan for one year in order to "save money" to provide the government with operating funds; the House of Representatives passed the abolition of the medical device tax by 248 to 174 votes and 231 to 192 The vote passed a proposal to postpone medical reform for one year. But the Senate subsequently rejected the bill.

Minutes before local time arrived on October 1, the White House ordered federal agencies to close. This is also the US government's closing and closing incident in the past 17 years.

The last US government shutdown occurred during the Clinton administration in 1995-96; it was caused by Republicans' opposition to President Clinton's universal health insurance plan.

Analysis points out that once the above situation occurs again, it means that the US government will not be able to pay wages, pensions, pensions and other expenses again, and tens of thousands of civil servants across the United States will be forced to take unpaid leave and may never be recoverable Wages owed by the government.

(5) On October 17, the 16-day closing of the US federal government officially ended.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on the evening of the 16th to pass a bill granting the federal government temporary funding while increasing its public debt ceiling. US President Barack Obama signed a bill in the early morning of the 17th, officially ending the US federal government's 16-day shutdown.

The US government has required federal government employees to return to work from the 17th to work. However, the bill did not solve the fundamental problem, and the US government will again face the danger and test of "closed doors" in a few months.

Obama signs bill early in the morning

After the bill was passed by the Senate Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate on the evening of the 16th, the House of Representatives met overnight. The bill was passed with 285 votes in favor and 144 votes against it. According to this bill, all federal government departments will receive budget operations until January 15, 2014, while extending the authority of the Ministry of Finance to issue government bonds until February 7, 2014. US President Barack Obama signed the bill in the early morning of the 17th, putting an end to the "closed door" of the US federal government that lasted for more than half a month, temporarily calming international market concerns about the risk of US debt default.

Government employees resume normal work

The White House Chief of Administration and Budget, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, said the federal government would resume normal operations as soon as possible. Federal agency employees who have been asked for unpaid leave for more than half a month will resume normal work from the next business day. For the vast majority of federal government employees, the 17th will be their first working day after the government's "closed turmoil" has ended.

"Federal government employees will return to work on the morning of the 17th," Silvia Burwell said. "For government employees, they have experienced very challenging times in the past few weeks. I want to ask those who are constantly The civil servants who serve the American people are grateful. "Christina Lagarde, president of the International Monetary Fund, praised the two parties for reaching an agreement to avoid debt default. She also said that the US government's increase in debt ceiling caused uncertainty in US fiscal policy. In the future, it will be critical to be able to reduce this uncertainty in a sustainable manner.

Financial problems are not resolved at all

October 17 is the "big limit" for the United States to avoid debt default. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lu previously said that for

United States federal government (8 photos)

The unconventional measures taken to avoid US debt defaults will only last until October 17, when the Treasury Department will have only about $ 30 billion in funding, making it difficult to cope with all federal government spending pressures. It was within the expectations of the parties that the two parties reached a compromise at the last minute before the debt default. However, the bill passed by the US Congress did not fundamentally solve a series of fiscal problems facing the US government, but merely postponed this difficult problem to the beginning of next year. If by that time, bipartisan lawmakers in the United States still do not solve these financial problems, the US government will once again face the danger of "closing the door." Paul Ryan, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee, voted against the motion, saying, "Today's motion will not help reduce our fast-growing debt. In my opinion, this is not a breakthrough, we just breathed. "