California executive branch Puns

Just some quick context Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. This ovrsight occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Do people like the current setup or think the legislative branch should have more oversight?

AP News Article on trying to expand reporting requirements for all cash deals.

https://apnews.com/article/business-0881a307f2e672859cd9c31d764ad7ff

I remember when I heard about NYC implementing these policies, I assumed people would move to some sort of cryptocurrency method of moving funds into real estate, or just shifting investments to markets that didn't require the reporting of identities behind shell corporations.

However, if this anti-corruption vision is successfully executed. The reporting requirements could become national while at the same time limiting the ability to use cryptocurrency to circumvent that reporting.

I've included the full document and the text from the document that refers to cryptocurreny.

Any thoughts?

Link to the full Document

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/United-States-Strategy-on-Countering-Corruption.pdf

Reference to Cryptocurrency within the document.

"Cryptocurrency and corruption: DOJ
will utilize a newly established task force, the
National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, to
focus specifically on complex investigations and
prosecutions of criminal misuses of
cryptocurrency, particularly crimes committed by
virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling
services, and money laundering infrastructure
actors."

1:09p ET 9/16/2021 - Benzinga Sen. Elizabeth Warren Asks Federal Reserve To Ban Its Leaders From Trading Stocks Mentioned: AAPL AMZN BABA CVX GE Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called on the 12 regional presidents of the Federal Reserve System to enact new rules to prevent their leaders from individual stock trading.

What Happened: Warren, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy, made her request following news reports that Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren actively traded stocks and other investments during 2020.

The Wall Street Journal reported Kaplan made multiple stock trades of more than $1 million each involving shares of Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL), Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. -ADR (NYSE: BABA), Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN), Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) and General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), while Rosengren focused his trades on real estate-related securities.

Warren pointed out that although Kaplan and Rosengren pledged to sell their individual stock holdings and no longer trade individual stocks, their actions created conflicts of interest and potential self-dealing.

'This controversy over asset trading by high-level Fed personnel highlights why it is necessary to ban ownership and trading of individual stocks by senior officials who are supposed to serve the public interest,' Warren stated. 'Regional Fed leaders must ban the ownership and trading of individual stocks by senior officials, and impose strong and enforceable ethics and financial conflicts of interest rules for themselves and their staff to restore public trust.'

Related Link: Sen. Elizabeth Warren Asks Federal Reserve To Break Up Wells Fargo

What Else Happened: Warren also raised attention to her proposed Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, which she said was designed to strengthen conflict of interest and recusal requirements of government officials by banning individual stock ownership by members of Congress, senior congressional staff, federal judges, members of the presidential cabinet, White House staff and other senior agency officials while they are in office.

Warren's legislation also included provisions to prevent federal government officials from holding or trading stock in companies that could influence their agency, department or actions. It also requires senior government officials and White House staff to divest from privately owned assets that could

I work for the state, and we just got this email from the governor:

"To all state employees,

Over the past few weeks we have seen an alarming spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations being driven by the spread of the highly contagious Delta variant. According to the latest research, this variant can spread as easily as chicken pox and has caused severe illness and death, particularly among those who are unvaccinated. New modeling from the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) projects that, without new health and safety interventions in place, COVID-19 hospitalizations will far exceed Oregon’s health system capacity in the next several weeks. According to modeling from OHSU, without additional mitigation measures, Oregon could be as many as 500 staffed hospital beds short of what will be needed to treat patients hospitalized for any reason by September.

The science and data are clear: vaccinations are the strongest line of defense we have against COVID-19. During this stage of the pandemic, with new and worsening variants, it’s critical we take necessary precautions to protect ourselves, our coworkers, and the Oregonians we serve. So today, I am announcing the requirement for all state employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by six weeks from the date that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fully approves a vaccination against COVID-19, or by October 18, whichever is later.

This requirement applies to all executive branch employees, including employees working for all Oregon state agencies, and in consultation with Oregon’s statewide elected officials, employees of the Oregon State Treasury, Oregon Secretary of State’s Office, Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries, and the Oregon Department of Justice—regardless of remote work status. The vaccination requirement does not apply to employees of Oregon’s legislative and judicial branches of government, although I am encouraging the leadership of both branches to consider a similar requirement.

This implementation date will allow currently unvaccinated employees time to become fully vaccinated after full approval by the FDA. Employees unable to be vaccinated due to disability or sincerely held religious belief will be able to qualify for an exception, as required by state and federal law. Employees will not have the option of weekly testing instead of showing proof of vaccination. Those who do not comply with the vacc

I was reading through the booklet that came with the VHS tape, and I noticed that the “desk copy” referenced a different video on the back: it said it included “The Executive Branch and Why You Should Care,” which supposedly has a runtime of 5 minutes. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it another school project? (probably is)

In a parliamentary system, he/she/they who leads the helm of the executive branch is dependent upon the composition of the legislative branch.

Imagine the opposite.

Imagine a system where the composition of the legislative branch is dependent upon the outcome of the popular election of the executive.

Let me explain with a scenario. Let’s say 4 candidates ran for president: Jan (Green Party), Henry (Liberal Party), Florian (Socialist Party) and Barbara (Centrist Party). Voters choose the president.

The result? Jan won 1st place (60% of the popular vote), Henry won 2nd place (20% of the vote), Florian and Barbara both got 10% of the vote but Florian received slightly more individual votes so he’s earned 3rd place and Barbara has earned 4th place.

With the results of the presidential election settled, what this means is, in a hypothetical unicameral federal legislature composed of 100 seats, The Green Party (Jan’s party) is guaranteed 60 seats, the Liberal Party (Henry’s party) is guaranteed 20 seats, the Socialist Party (Florian’s party) is guaranteed 10 seats and the Centrist Party (Barbara’s party) is guaranteed 10 seats.

Next, party affiliated voters in each state/region/canton/province will send a number of representatives from each winning party to the parliament through a process of open primaries. The number of representatives voters of each regional/state party sends depends upon the number of votes the president won in said state. What does this look like? I’ll show you.

Let’s take the Green Party as an example. It won 60% of the national popular vote (so it is guaranteed 60 seats in the national parliament). Let’s say 60% of the popular vote equates to 1,000,000 popular nationwide votes for the Green Party. Of those 1,000,000 nation wide votes for the Green Party, let’s stay 200,000 votes came from the state of Tamarind. In other words, 20% of all the nationwide votes for the Green Party came from the state of Tamarind. So out of the 60 seats guaranteed to the Green Party in the national parliament, the voters affiliated/registered with the Green Party of the state of Tamarind are entitled to fill 20 of those national parliament seats with local Green Party representatives from the state of Tamarind (through an open primary process).

This process would continue with all the rest of the political parties, not only in the state of Tamarind, but in all the other states of the Union until all seats of the national parliament are filled