WK 7 Discussion Post

Please respond to the following post with a short response:

CD’s posts –

I agree with charging companies to take more responsibility for their operations and the impacts. It is important because we are facing high pollution rate and global warming. We are literally losing our Earth by those not being socially responsible for the way they make their products or how they use the people to make the products. One mistake from a large company can harmfully effect an entire ecosystem.

One company that has risen to the challenge of being responsible for their operations is IKEA. They use minimalist techniques to retrieve the wood and lumber used in making their furniture. Another way IKEA has risen to the challenge is by providing new energy sources for their productions. I found a website with all kinds of different environment friendly processes that IKEA has. IKEA has not only provided new energy sources around the world, but they are creating new jobs for their new processes. In Texas alone, they are purchasing 165 windmills for wind farms. Thankfully, wind is one of the most renewable resources that will never run out.

SN’s posts -

I agree that organizations are being more challenged nowadays, to take greater responsibility for how their operations impact society and the environment. I think it is important that businesses take part of saving and protecting our environment and the communities. It also helps a company to be sustainable, since it does not just help the environment and people, but is also vital for business success. People become more aware about global social issues and climate change and they pay more attention whether or not a company is social responsible.

One example of a corporate social responsible company is Starbucks. The company created its C.A.F.E (Coffee and Farmer Equity) guidelines, which makes sure, that Starbucks is sourcing sustainably grown and processed coffee by evaluating the economic, social and environmental aspects of coffee production. Third party organizations have to be approved and get trained by Starbucks to be sustainable and environment friendly. This practice benefited already more than one million works by participating farms and also protects our environment.

LH’s Post –

The key actors who had influence over the budget were Thomas Young a former aerospace executive who led a panel that examined the project and the government who could have said no to going over the budget.

The project started out with an initial budget of $5 million, after hiring the first panel they said it would likely cost 2-3 billion more than expected and they still went forward with the project. After 700 million more dollars, 2 years later and many panel reviews later the government finally shut down the project. The wasted 18 billion dollars on a project that never had a chance in the first place according to the leader of the panel but still pushed forward.

This all points to billions of dollars being wasted on war efforts. The reason the experts pressed pressing on was that the satellites were supposed to provide more frequent images of threats like terrorist attacks, more frequent images of foreign threats i.e. nuclear weapons plants, terrorist training camps etc. The government will spend billions of dollars for project to help win the war even if the success rate for failure is greater than a positive outcome.

JH’s Post –

There are many people involved in the budgetary process to varying degrees.  Bureau chiefs use budgetary requests and allocations to steer their bureau, sometimes for efficiency and others for expansion.  Executive budget officers act as filters, attempting to control deception or outrageous requests in the budgetary process.  Chief executives establish policy and sign budgets, focusing spending efforts and using influence to bring the budget in line with their political agenda.  Legislators, whether in committee or as a whole, formally write and vote on the budget.  Their varying agendas lead to substantial disagreements and compromise spending promises that frequently derail the budgetary process.  Interest groups lobby for or against different policies/agendas, using their influence to sway key votes or to get specific language inserted into the budget.  Individuals vote for or against representatives, write letters, and attempt to hold the other groups accountable to the budgetary process.  The last group is the courts.  Through liability litigation or enforcement of rights, the courts can interject in the spending process, either during formation of the budget or during execution.

In the F.I.A. case, many of these groups acted to bring about the failure of the program through budgetary constraints.  The chiefs of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) both advocated for the program (Hermann), approved the contract (Hall), and initiated the review that led to cancellation of the program (Teets).  The program was conceived during the Clinton era of reductions in government, mostly through cuts to the national defense apparatus.  We already had enormous and expensive satellites and the political environment only supported limited forays into better technologies.  This environment held the program to only $5 billion over $5 years with a very rigid structure and a requirement to prove progress.  A program of this scope and ambition was destined to fail under those conditions.  As technical failures, poor oversight, and cost overruns continually plagued Boeing, it became less palatable for legislators and bureaucrats to continue issuing extensions and increasing expenditures.

Political involvement in the budgetary process comes from up to five different perspectives:  reformism, incremental bargaining, interest group determinism, process, and policy making.  Reformism is an attempt to separate the political from the technical in the budget decision.  In this case, the price of overcoming the technical challenges faced by the project was much higher than the political entities were willing to support.  The incremental bargaining included the bid process, the decision to award the contract to Boeing, the strict $1 Billion/year spending limit, the technical demands of smaller satellites and better images, and the continued advocacy of the Senator from the production district.  Interest group determinism in this case contributed to the multiple extensions, then ultimately led to its cancellation.  Intelligence and defense lobbyists argued for the increased capability of the system.  Fiscally conservative think tanks argued against the obviously failing program.  The process in this case was relatively normal Congressional business.  It was championed by the committee and Senator with a vested interest while imposing arbitrary and ultimately disruptive fiscal controls in an attempt to dissuade its detractors.  Finally, the policy that related to this case changed over time.  Under Clinton, the national defense focused on remote sensors and other than human forms of intelligence.  Under Bush, we sought to regain our human intelligence capacity as well as increasing other forms of collection.  This shift contributed to the demise of the program as well.

LH’s Post –

Michael Bennett expected that closing one school would serve as a warning to other schools performing the same way (poorly). He thought they would get their act together so they wouldn't be shut down, but instead f getting their stuff together they rebelled and protested. Throughout it all the superintendent of the school was able to help the district and get them on the right path.

One disadvantage of the reform in this study was that it made the teachers feel like failures at leading their children down the right path and the students felt like failures as well like they weren't worthy to learn or be given a second chance.

One advantage of reform is that one or more of the currently problems are being addressed and people are coming up with ideas on how to take charge of the situation and maybe fix it before it is too late.

JH’s Post –