9 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Robert Stancil from AP U.S. Government & Politics!

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders | Grossman |
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Robert Stancil's insight:

1. Obama wants to push his agenda, and without the support of Congress, this is his most effective way of pursuing wage equality. Issuing executive orders to the federal labor force is often a huge first step to social reform; black integration into the federal workforce is a prime example.


2. Obama can only control federal workers, meaning that only those contracted under the government must conform to the executive order. The only way for the government to extend regulation outside of federal workers is through law, through the legislative branch.


3/4. The president is working against congress, and he is forcing wages to rise which has many dentrimental effects to businesses. Obama cannot expect to go through with his exec. order and keep unemployment low, because businesses will not be able to keep up the payrolls. Leaving the 2008 crash, there is strong criticism that increased wages and increased unemployment is not what our economy needs right now.


5/6. The white house is ignoring LGBT anti discrimination to maintain presence in the Republican-controlled house.

Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 15, 2014 2:39 PM

1.)    Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he has not been able to get the support that he needs from Congress.

2.)    What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?

However there are certain limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general such as the fact that they can be put into a trial for legality and it can create a division with congress when Obama really needs them to back him!

3.)    What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?

There is criticism that is being levied against the president’s use of executive orders such as the point that Obama needs to put forward a better effort to work with congress and to step back and review the stress he is placing on other companies financially.

4.)    What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders?

There is the policy of gay rights which The White House has chosen not to address using executive orders.

5.)    Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

The Obama administration might be hesitant to address the area because Obama does not want to lose any of the public’s support! He is hoping that the Senate will pass a bill and will be able to protect all Americans rather than just a few.

Courtney OConnor's curator insight, April 15, 2014 6:57 PM

I was absent Wednesday-Friday with no access to computer/ internet.


President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order due to complications compromising with Congress. This executive order would prevent contractors from retaliating against employees discussing their pay as well as require the Labor Department to require contractors to provide data regarding pay based on race and gender. His limitations are that his order may be challenged and deemed unlawful by Congress. There is criticism that President Obama may be stepping out of line by not agreeing with Congress about this decision, and that he's using his power too far. Also, Federal Contractors believe that releasing this data would call for an increase in lawsuits and the creation of a two tier system. The White House has not chosen to deal with the agenda that would protect gays and lesbians working for these Federal Contractors. He might be hesitant to address this issue due to the growing support of protection of gays and lesbians in Congress as it is and further provocation to Congress would be harmful for his administration.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 17, 2014 5:40 AM

President Barack Obama chosen to put in place an executive order so he can control more of the economy by keeping federal contractors from hurting employees who would like a raise. His executive order was denied by congress. The order might be considered unlawful. Republicans know that he is using his power to much and needs to be working with congress. People know that his executive order will give a burden to companies and hurt their inflow of money. The white house has not said anything about protecting gays and lesbians working from federal contractors. The white house’s goal is to spread protection to all Americans. 

Scooped by Robert Stancil! #4

This one is for you, Ms. Grossman.


in memory of my grandmother

Robert Stancil's insight:

1.  The electoral college was constitutionally established in Article II of the constitution; It was put in place to make certain that people who were educated on politics were voting when information was poorly and inefficiently circulated to the general public.

2. The majority of campaigns emphasize preaching to swing states, because there is little doubt that safe states will vote against their allignment. Swing states are the states that might vote either way, so to secure majority, candidates will spend the most energy trying to ascertain their votes. Swing states ensure that there is a possibility that either party could win, instead of every state always voting for a particular party.

3. When no candidate recieves majority electoral votes, a run off election is held. The two candidates who recieved the most votes become the only two candidates, and electoral votes are cast against both. With an odd numbered electoral college, a majority is guaranteed.

4. There was a difference in popular vote vs. electoral votes. This is extremely supportive of the movement to abolish the electoral college and leave the presidential election to a popular vote.

5. NO I AIN'T SATISFIED. The electoral college, although useful in 1800's America, is an antiquity that is stifling to America. Two party system has become detrimental to our government and politics, and the third party encouragement of a popular vote system could help the country in many more ways than could hurt it. It might take a couple elections to work out all of the bugs, and it would be nigh on impossible to get the two parties to actually relenquish their power and allow 3rd parties to form, but if it could happen it would be greatly beneficial to both the American ideology and our actual system of government.

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Robert Stancil from AP U.S. Government & Politics!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Grossman |

The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Via Kelly Grossman
Robert Stancil's insight:

1.       The NRA is telling their members PROPOGANDA and is trying to convince enough Senators that this man is EVIL so that he will not be nominated. 

2.      THEIR LIVES, THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR LANGUAGE, THEIR WIVES, THE ECONOMY, ANY SHRED OF DECENCY LEFT IN THIS CRUEL WORLD. This man is Satan incarnate to the NRA. He truly believes that guns are a disease to be eradicated from the nation, and any senators that come from areas dominated by gun support face losing their support and chances of reelection. The NRA is a big, fevered, and influential group, and if Senators don't accurately represent their constituents on this issue, then their reelection is sacrificed. However, the problem is figuring out who the majority, the many people who are angry that their guns are being threatened, or the silent group that supports gun prohibition.

3.      The president hold a lot of influence over what happens (starting from nominating the tree hugger who wants to ban guns). He, and the white house staff, decide what delays will happen, when the vote will take place, and influences the senators that will eventually vote on this hippy.


4.       The white house has their hands tied when they want to employ such preposterous eco loving policies. There will be a lot of complaining from constituents because it is a fevered topic. Both the shoeless hipsters and the gun toting back country-s would get mad when any action was taken on these policies; The whie house's best course of action is either to postpone the vote until after midterm elections or to pick another candidate (but then the smelly "ecologists" will get mad that guns still exist).

luke jester's curator insight, April 11, 2014 6:14 PM

1. They  sent out a "grass roots alert" to millions of people so they would tell their senators to not vote for the President's nominee . They don't like the fact that the nominee is extremely against guns.

2. democrats may lose control of the Senate because Senators are voting differently then they normally would because of the NRA .

3. The President chooses the positions of people.

4. they could hold Obama's vote for surgeon general or take out the nomination from the position. they need balance nominees in order to have support from both parties.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 11, 2014 9:28 PM

The NRA is influencing members of congress by personally emailing the voters and trying to rally members against the Surgeon General because they don't agree with his views on gun control and many other issues. The senators reelection is at stake and if they vote with gun control, they will lose the support of the NRA. From this incident, the White House should definitely learn to choose a more fitting person to represent, one that preferably agrees with the policies of the NRA.The white house learned to approach nominations differently in order to recieve better feedback

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 14, 2014 10:38 PM
The NRA is concerned about the appointment of nominee Murthy because he is actively against guns. They are going directly to citizens addressing them about the nominee and asking their opinion and going to senate, trying to get the nominee removed. The NRA are concerned that if the nominee is appointed, the gun-bans in the nation will go up, decreasing their value.The Senate is trying to maintain democratic leadership by listening to their constituents which, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Arkansas, are opposed to gun-banning, which puts them against the nominee.The White House try to choose candidates who will help keep a mostly equal view on arguments and won’t anger any interest groups, such as the NRA, so there won’t be a lack of executive control or support.The White House should consider what is really good for the nation and what candidates are right for the job, rather than trying to please everyone. It is impossible, especially in politics, to please everyone, so they should try to think about what the candidate can offer to the executive process and what they can possibly change. The White House learned that they tend to overestimate democratic support and lean more toward their constituents than the rest of the nation.