Political Science

    Industrial relations are essential in bringing together various groups of people in the work place. This brings about the issue of industrial relations which advocates for the relationships between various groups and the government. Interrelationship can also exist between the groups. Industrial relations include the relationships between workers, government, unions and industrial tribunals. There are various terms and conditions set for employment. These terms and conditions can be deduced from the relationship and interrelationship between workers, unions, business and government (Iankova, 2002). Operations of employment are also determined by this relationship. The inter-relationship highlights several factors which are dealt with in employment. These factors include working conditions, salaries, standard working duration, duration of work, hiring conditions, firing conditions, disciplinary action, healthy and safety concerns. These form the basis of interrelationship in industrial relations.
    Disagreements are prudent in any relationship. Processes are normally tabulated to protect the occurrence of disagreement in industrial relations. Agreements are the norms which should be administered in the working places to avoid disagreements. Industrial relations normally operate under certain environment and space. The relationship and interrelationship take place in certain grounds defined by social, economic, geographical location, and cultural environment (Slomp, 1996). They can also operate under other certain context such as technological, historical and legal environment of the place and time.
    The government plays a major role in creating industrial relation. The government can act as a potential employer. The formulation of national priorities and objectives is a sensitive aspect which is laid in the hands of the government. The government participates in formulating and enforcing laws which are acts as the guidelines in the society. The formulated laws help not only in the matters of labor issues but for the running of a nation. The government is involved in critical issues such as policy making, potential employer, making and enforcing laws.
    Tripartism calls for consensus between the involved parties. The rise of disagreements is paramount between parties although this is normally limited. The disagreements which can bring conflicts can be resolved before occurring. The involved parties decides to keep away any disagreements in order to reach agreements to enable them solve certain problems. The absence of consensus makes it difficult to come up with policies which are accommodating all the parties. The tripartite system does not only take into consideration of elite accommodation but also acceptance of decision. Decision making is the key issue in a tripartite system in which the decision is contributed to by both the leaders and the members within the parties. The agreed policies can be passed over to the members by persuading them to accept them. Implementation of policies can be difficult in case the involved parties do not accept on the agreed policies. The three parties should have equal chances in policy making failure to which the tripartite symbol will be inactive (Simpson, 1994). When some of the involved become dominant, the agreed policies will considered overall even they are disadvantageous to some parties.
    We can consider Philippines tripartism in order to understand the groups which benefit or the ones which might be disadvantaged by it. The industrial system gives analysis of the tripartism. The issue of collective bargaining was advocated in bringing up the bipartite relation in the Industrial Act. The employees right was covered in this Act which advocated for the formation of trade unions. Labor law and labor practices are dealt with in the industrial relation court. The industrial regulation was brought forth by reviving the wages. The basis for tripartism was introduced by the passage of the industrial peace act in 1953. Labor code enhanced further unions which were beneficial for labor relations. Industrial Peace Act introduced more unions which were after collective bargaining. The contribution to support education was done on collective bargaining. It was also based on labor relation issues. The parties involved may have some weaknesses. Weak unions may come up. Small family business may be incompatible in the tripartite system. The political differences may bring about poor relations in organizations and unions. Unions may be unable to solve such differences. The unions in Philippines were shifted from political orientation to business unions (International Labor Organization, 2009).
    Lawyers dominated in the creation of business unions which contributed to the development of labor relations. Stable labor relations were attained after the introduction of minimum wage protection to employees. There were major changes in 1970s and 1980s with the introduction of the martial law. Labor unrest was witnessed with the devaluation of peso which occurred in 1962.  Compulsory arbitration was reintroduced and some restrictions were brought forth after the introduction of the martial law. In this declaration employers were not allowed to fire employees until there was government intervention to do so. The restriction of union activity included participation in strikes. Labor code was introduced in 1974 bringing forth some prohibitions. This prohibition was to be exercised on supervisory employees, government employees amongst others in the rank (Fine, 1997). The tripartite conference saw the freezing of wage by the government. These measures which were adopted declined employee strikes.  Labor unrest reoccurred with the merger of economic, political and social activities in 1980s. Due to this resurgence of this labor unrest, rampant strikes were reported. This continued even after the introduction of democracy in 1986. Social relationship which handled labor relations was adopted to control the prevailing industrial unrest ( HYPERLINK httpwww.tripartism.sgindex.aspxid9 httpwww.tripartism.sgindex.aspxid9).
    The Philippines model was geared towards increasing productivity and at the same time maintaining industrial peace. Originally, tripartism was adapted under the martial law to regulate the union movement. The protection of wages was also covered with the introduction of tripartism in 1974. There has been recent coverage of tripartism in the issue of decision making. Industrial relationship has further been promoted with the introduction of social contracts. Some issues covered during tripartite meetings are social security, productivity incentives and tax exemption. Labor and social policies are usually formulated with the involvement of employer and worker representatives. There are tripartite bodies which have been formed by involving worker and employer representatives. There are various activities which are undertaken by the tripartite bodies (International Labor Organization, 2009). These include determination of minimum wage, settlement of disputes in the work place, compensating of workers due to some unavoidable circumstances such as accidents, training of workers. These bodies also participate in development of skills of both workers and employers. Examples of these tripartite bodies include National Wage Council. These bodies work hand in hand with policy making bodies such as central bank, energy Regulatory Board amongst other international bodies.
    Tripartism is covered in the states policies. Tripartite conferences which are normally called by the secretary of labor take on board employer, government and worker representatives. The conferences may be based regionally, nationally or at industrial levels. These conferences are aimed at bringing social relationship amongst employer, workers and the government. The department of Labor and Employment is main government in the conferences. The sections of this government representative are Bureau of Labor relation, National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Inspectorate, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Wages and productivity Commission (Slomp, 1996).
    The development of tripartite structure has been behind most of the states in Europe. This has been geared by the political systems in these states. Tripartism brings about social bargaining between government, business and labor. The social bargaining of these parties is covered in their policies. Tripartite bodies have occurred in states such as Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech and Slovak Republics. Economic, cultural and social barriers have affected the social inclusion of young people. The inclusion of young in employment has been a major problem in Europe countries due to the economic, cultural and social barriers. The living standard of Bulgaria was affected by the drastic change in its economy
( HYPERLINK httpwww.tripartism.sgindex.aspxid9 httpwww.tripartism.sgindex.aspxid9).
    In conclusion, tripartism is the involvement of labor, business and government in social bargaining. The involved parties have to find a way of eliminating any disagreements which might rise since it might lead to difficulties in formulating policies. The agreed solution to specific problems leads to making policies which are acceptable between the involved parties. The government which acts as a significant employer also participates in making laws which are not only for labor relations but help in running the nation.

The issue of abortion has been around thousands of years According to Websters New College Dictionary, an abortion is the induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent survival.  In 1973, the landmark case Roe vs Wade made it legal for a woman to have an abortion.  The decision to legalize abortion made it possible for a woman to choose her destiny.  The repercussions of this decision are such that even today the case of Roe vs Wade is often mentioned whenever the topic of abortion is discussed.  As such, there have been different perspectives on this issue, urging the courts to delineate between personal rights of the individual and the pressures of mass democracy.
In establishing the role of the judiciary, it is important to first examine the jurisprudential precedents on this issue and the legal basis for the grant of such right to abortion.  The foremost case, as previously mentioned, is the case of Roe vs Wade, which was decided in 1973.  The case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs Casey is one of the more controversial cases in recent jurisprudential history owing to the fact that it tackled the equally controversial topic of abortion.  The basics of the case revolve on the Constitutionality of a number of regulations set by the State of Pennsylvania with regard to abortion.  It is clear that the judiciary has always maintained the intrinsic right of a woman to get an abortion but with the increasing pressure from the public it seems that the courts must take a firm role in this.
In delineating the role of the Judiciary, one must first examine the social context that abortion was seen in previous times.  In Ancient Greece, abortion was used as form of family planning (Costa pg 1).  It was not until the 1500s that abortion was considered a sin based on the Catholic belief that the moment of conception was the determination of viable life (Costa, pg 1).  In the early 1600s the determination of life was decided by the quickening.  This was the moment when the mother could feel the child in her womb (costa pg 3-4).  By the 1800s, abortion were only legal if the mothers life was in danger.  Through the 19th and 20th century this was a common stance.  In the United States, abortion was illegal and many women were putting their lives at risk because they could not terminate their pregnancies safely.  By the end of the 1960s, an estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million women were having illegal abortions (costa pg 20).  The right for a woman to control her own destiny when it came to an unwanted pregnancy became principle of constitutional law (Hull pg 133-134).
This can be seen in the previous court rulings on the issue and how the Supreme Court has changed its stance on its legality over the years.  Though many have claimed that this was because the new justices that were appointed to the Supreme Court were recognized conservatives, many legal publicists have stated that it was the opportune moment to challenge the long standing decision in Roe V Wade.  In line with this decision, the Supreme Court in delivering its plurality opinion mentioned the previous challenges to the ruling in Roe V Wade.  The Supreme Court argued that the right to abortion is closely based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ( HYPERLINK httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 o httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The right of a person to decide whether to bear or not to bear a child is intrinsically connected to the right of privacy that such cannot be violated without a close application of the Due Process requirements.  It was this decision that basically upheld the main tenets of the Roe case ( HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiRoe_v._Wade o Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade,  HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiCase_citation o Case citation 410 U.S. 113 ( HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwiki1973 o 1973 1973). 
Because neither the factual underpinnings of Roes central holding nor our understanding of it has changed (and because no other indication of weakened precedent has been shown), the Court could not pretend to be reexamining the prior law with any justification beyond a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently from the Court of 1973 . (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833)

Another issue that was tackled was that of spousal notification which the Supreme Court felt could lead to increased instances of substance abuse that would be prejudicial to many women.  In arriving at this decision, the Supreme Court cited the doctrine of undue burden ( HYPERLINK httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 o httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).  In concluding the plurality opinion, the Supreme Court reiterated the long standing principle of Stare Decisis ( HYPERLINK httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 o httpwww.law.cornell.edusupct-cgiget-us-cite505833 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).  It explained that no matter how unpopular a decision might be, it still has to abide by the legal precedents that have been previously lain down.
It is clear from this point that the Supreme Court has tried to balance the interests of the individual and the mass democracy, ensuring that the sacred right of an individual is persevered while respecting the right of the majority to voice out their objections.  The Supreme Court has essentially established this by arguing that the right to choose is every womans right.  The contention that a fetus is not a person until it can sustain life on its own is the focal point for this argument.  The mothers right to choose to serve as a surrogate for the next nine month or not takes precedent over the possible future of the fetus.  It has been contended that aborting the fetus is not murder.  It is not only legally right but it is also morally right to get an abortion.  It is morally correct to think about the consequences of ones actions.  It is morally right to think of the greater good  A woman who is physically, mentally or emotionally equipped to care for and love a baby.  It is further argued that harassing a woman into not getting an abortion is morally wrong and violates her constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Some may say that there are serious health implications involved with getting an abortion.  A person should be given the choice to see a doctor and have an abortion done by a professional than go back to the days when illegal abortions were the only option for women who could not proceed with a pregnancy.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the role of the judiciary lies in upholding the rule of Law.  The right to choose is in the constitution.  Landmark cases like Roe vs Wade have made it possible for women to choose their destiny.  In a study conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, of 18 major nations including the United States, China and Britain, almost all the nations discouraged using criminal penalties, as a way to deter abortions.   While it has also been argued that correlative to the right to live is the right to decide when to die.  It is interesting to point out that suicide or even attempted suicide is not a crime that is punishable under Criminal law (Ignatoff 2005).  In light of this, it can safely be argued that there is no life that is taken by an abortion.  There are no inviolable rights that are attached to the fetus at that stage of its development.  In fact, there is even no gender or civil right that is given to such a fetus.
Given this perspective, it must be asserted that the right to have an abortion resides solely in the mother of the fetus.  The mother has been equipped by the Constitution with the right to make her own decisions.  The burden and the responsibility, as well as the potential consequences, should therefore belong to the mother.  If the mother decides that an abortion will result in an improvement of her welfare then she should be given the right to make that decision on her own.  Having established that the right is intrinsic in a woman, there is no body, not even the judiciary that can force these individuals to surrender their rights just to silence the clamor of mass democracy.


Conclusion
    In conclusion, role of the Judiciary in dealing with abortion issues and its pivotal importance in balancing claims made on the basis of liberty and of democracy is with regard to the application of the law.  As shown in this discussion, there are fundamental rights that must be respected and the Courts of Justice are tasked to uphold these rights and ensure that they are not infringed upon.  Until there is a new ruling on this matter or a new constitution, it remains the solemn obligation of the Courts to apply the pertinent law on that matter.
It must be remembered that the role of the judiciary has been made clear that it must implement the law.  It has been shown that the right to an abortion is intrinsic in the woman.  The absence of rights that can be exercised by the fetus necessarily means that it is the mother who is granted that right.  As such, it is the mother who should be allowed to make the decision and not the courts and not mass democracy.  While it is certainly agreeable that the right to abortion should be given to the mother, there should be certain qualifications as no right can be exercised absolutely.  An abortion can therefore be allowed in certain cases that are deemed acceptable but in no way do the unduly restrict the right of a mother to choose whether or not to exercise the right to an abortion. 
It is recognized, however, that there are legitimate claims by mass democracy when it comes to the role the courts must play.  When the right to an abortion is exercised capriciously and whimsically, it can lead to many problems.  When the right to an abortion is totally prohibited, it can also mean the suppression of certain intrinsic rights.  The proper solution to this dilemma should therefore be that the right to choose should belong to the mother but she must always be well informed of the consequences and should not be allowed to have an abortion if it is clear that such is done on a whim or with malice.

    The Budgetary processes by many governments in the world are often influenced by politics. The political party that has formed the government often wants to fund projects that are supported by the majority of its supporters, failure to which it risks loosing popularity. Of major concern is the level to which political influence affects the process of national budgeting. A country like Canada has experienced political influences in its public budgeting (David, 2007). In any given economy, there are usually guardians of finance. In most cases, these are the boards of finance and treasury. Other guardians are the departmental spenders that perform a very important role in the public budget process. This research paper seeks to show how politics influence the public budgeting process.
    Complicated multilateral relationships exist between the guardians, setters of priorities, spenders and the watchdogs (Lars, 1996). The watchdogs here are the general auditors as well as the entire committees of public accounts. Issues have arisen when politicians attempt to control and manage the money belonging to the public. The public budget process works under several key objectives. These are discussed below.
Objectives of public budget
    One objective observed by the principal contributors to the process of budgeting is to sustain aggregate monetary discipline in the process the money belonging to the government should be utilized for the common good of the public without any incidences of fraud. Another major and key objective of budgeting is to allocate resources guided by the priorities laid down by the government.  It is very important for these key players to show commitment to delivering as per the expectations of the central government. The third objective is to promote and enhance efficiency in the delivery of goods and services to the public through the budget (Lindblom, 1965).
Political Influence on the Public Budget making
    All the key functions and roles of the principle players in the public budget have been influenced by political involvement. The planning progress of the budget and the management of the public funds have greatly been impacted by the political leadership (Peterson, 1975). The political leaders have had a big say in the final copy of the budget of public resources. Therefore, the budgetary process has incorporated other new players that include political players.
      This has therefore resulted into new concepts of budget which have informally been introduced into the priorities laid down by the setters. The collaboration of these players has been seen to involve unethical budgetary procedures because many responsibilities have been put aside. The guardians of the budgetary committee have consequently changed. The working together of the Finance department and the Board of Treasury secretariat, although very significant, is now hidden (Pigou, 1946).
    The outside macro side of the Finance Department with the inside micro of the secretariat to the Treasury Board in deed compliment each other. Again the spenders of the public resources have also been completely changed in the way they acquire money, keep and go ahead to utilizing it (Lindblom, 1965). Their relationship with the rest of the players is now taking another route. In federal governments that are headed by the Prime Minister, the relationship between his office and that of finance minister is becoming a major issue.
The office of the Prime minister has its priorities and this usually influence the way the budget would be framed. This is in particularly on the front-end of the budgetary procedure. The very important role of the watchdogs of public finance has increased mostly than that of the general auditor. The politics that surrounds public money comes out as a pluralistic discourse where there is a common ridge of the democratic society that can be regarded as the ineluctable result of brokerage political affairs (Dietmar, 2000).
There is always a struggle in trying to define what the government is purposed to achieve and the reason as to why it exists. The things the government wants to accomplish have indeed affected the budgetary process. Sometimes stating that the governments intentions should not be put forward at the expense of the public resources sounds rude but it is a mere fact (David, 2007).
Taking these issues from an outside perspective, social agendas of a similar kind have been found to meddle with the real budget priorities given by the setters. However, the administration from outside, whose representational and material requirements or demands are not included and the people in the bureaucracy whose actions and politics appear at times very different to the predicament of the real people in the land, is indeed a humiliating affair (Pigou, 1946). Many political agendas presented in the manifestos of parties have had very misleading budgetary proposals.
Budgeting of the public resources has truly been misguided and more especially in the developing countries. The plans exhibited in the political leaders proposals seem to go contrary to the expectations of the people on the ground. The problems addressed in such budgets do not tackle the problems at hand. There has been repeated such cases which have been very much unhelpful to the people (Dietmar, 2000).
 The budgeting of the public resources should always follow the stipulated objectives above. Some of the things that are more efficacious to the political leaders may not be felt by the people in the country. This has been challenging to various leaders to some extent, basically in the area of ensuring equitable distribution of resources. There is always a certain class of people who really need some kind of goods or services. The budget allocations of such products and services may only favor some particular groups (Lindblom, 1965).
There have been very few social programs drawn by politics to the common good of the people. In any country, there will always be a mixed class of people. The socialist and the capitalistic groups can co-exist in a certain economy. Catering for the needs of both groups can be very hard. The capitalistic group has in most cases been found to benefit at the expense of the socialist group. This is because politics comprise greatly of the capitalistic group. As a matter of fact, the budget plans of a certain nation could be very high for the socialist group (Pigou, 1946).
 There is therefore a need to strike some balance in the budgetary allocations. The needs of all people need to be addressed. This has been a very great challenge to many public administration institutions. Many levels of government structures have greatly influenced public budgeting and have had its roots from the political arena. The efforts put in by the politics of public resources were aimed at connecting the public accounts with the needs of the public.
 The public resources have in a similar way been linked to political preferences or priorities. When all attention is put or focused on accounting and accountability, such a scenario can never be achieved. However, there are two crucial things that revolve around these kinds of politics. In the first place, the issue of giving a vivid, comprehensive and complete treatment of the public expenditures in a particular country is greatly needed. All these issues are very crucial and their close examination gives a chance to promote the welfare of the public (David, 2007).
Another thing is that the interrelated areas of funding and development of policies in such a way show the inner proceedings of the federal governments order of priority and the execution of policies (Lindblom, 1965). This process has in the past been politically influenced. The priorities of the government come as a result of many considerations, including the stakeholders in political scenes. The end result of budget and its priorities has in most cases been dictated by these external forces of government.
 It is not only the guardians of finance who take part fully in this but also other new players in politics who have a say in the process of budgeting. The new players decisions take the priorities of the budget in another direction. Sometimes, one or more of the objectives of the entire budget are not met (Dietmar, 2000). The allocations of the public resources will be channeled to other projects than those prioritized by the government.
The third thing through which political influence affects the process is that it gives insight into the way political administration indeed works for people who do not form a part of the formal process of politics. This has been very useful from the side of appointed and elected officials. Because politics and governance are inseparable with the budgetary process, there is therefore need to bring the process of public finance and policies at one point to enhance the transparency of the systems of governance (Bish, 1971).
This will make the intrusion of politics into the public budgeting, an accountable procedure. It will promote the objectives of public budgeting. Accountability will ensure equitable resources allocation to the people of the land. However, this procedure has been found inapplicable to political and public administrative amateurs.
The above effort therefore deserves the highest appraisal. The use of powerful audits of performance could increase the power of the Auditor General. This should be realized in the building of a reputation regarding the transparency, assumed objectivity and credibility (Baumol, 1965). The Audit General could therefore be found to have an indirect influence on the budgeting procedure and more so at the end of the process. Altogether, this can contribute so much in shaping the character and behavior of the guardians, priority setters and the spenders. These effects on the budget have a big impact in the end result of the budget drawn.
The culture of the people gives them the authority to negotiate solutions by making use of social interaction. Some political groups have been found to agitate for some particular programs in many nations. This has been done irrespective of the pressing needs of the entire society. The process has adversely affected the budgetary process. These programs come into place through the campaigns in the media, lobbying the makers of decisions and also through funding (Bish, 1971).
By the use of these methods, the support has been found for a particular political group. Those who are opposed to the political group do not benefit from the budget process. The priorities set by the political groups are done in favor of the supporters of the political movement. The roles of the players change there is the emergence of the politics of public resources and money and which has a very big say in the public budgeting process (Baumol, 1965).
Therefore, it has been found that political groups come up with a process that is seen to gather power to win. The leaders of the political groups offer promises to their people which they agitate for to ensure that they are incorporated in the public budget. These are efforts by the leaders to see that they win the attention of the people who are not opposed to a certain political group (David, 2007). The objectives of these political groups are completely different from the objectives of the public budgetary committee. These have had much influence in the decisions that the federal government finds more efficacious to put forward as their priorities.
From all these, the non-supporters, which form part of the loosing clique, have suffered and in the end have experienced a more clear conflict and moments of uneasiness. The lives of the people in the public are made miserable. Every person is fighting for power and authority (Bator, 1962). The moment the power is attained, the steps taken in the allocation of public resources will definitely move towards the winning end in a larger percentage.
The people in the loosing end in politics have time and again been neglected to some level in the budgeting process. The situation has been worsened when the winning side comprises mostly of the capitalistic society. The budgetary plans thereby are too high for the socialist groups (Bator, 1962). The way of thinking and fiscal status of these two groups are completely differently. The problems existing in the capitalistic society are very few and seem to address larger needs which may be luxurious to the socialist group.
Because of this scenario, the loosing group will stretch so much to get to these levels. The proposals put forward by the governing political group work to their disadvantage. The public budget is therefore found to be dictated by the nature and form of the government in place. This is because as seen in the objectives of the budgeting process, the players involved here seek to put more emphasis on the things the government has prioritized (Baumol, 1965).
Instead of creating reciprocated support by means of negotiations, the public budget process is found to have characteristics of hostility. The process of budget making can be termed as hostile and unfriendly when the political groups input does not cut across the whole society in the nation. The process of public budgeting is so defined due to these issues. The loosing side remains helpless having nothing to do. They are forced to wait for demands made by those in leadership or the majority, whether they are supportive of the proposals or not. It is indeed humiliating. The roles and the functions of the committee members in the budget does not count that much. The decisions made by the committee are greatly influenced by the leading political group (Bator, 1962).
A Case study of USA
In the United States there are some instances where the party with the largest number of the legislatures will have an upper hand in making decision about the priorities in the federal budget. If the majorities are the democrats or republicans, it is possible that they are likely to support projects that will promote the policies of the party. In the year 2002 for example, there were fears that the Senate would not reach an agreement pertaining to the budget resolution. In 1998, the Congress had failed to come up with a budget resolution. The budget resolution is a response by the Congress to the budget proposal that has been made by the president. Both houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the budget (Desmone, 2002).
In 1995 and 1996, the Republicans together with the house speaker had attempted to take control of the budget process with the aim of passing their own priorities on the then president, Bill Clinton, a democrat. After some several years, it was not possible for the congress to enact the resolution in order to guide appropriations. In addition, it was not possible to restore the pay as you go rules (PAYGO) and only two of the thirteen appropriation bills could be passed eventually. In 1994, when there were majority republicans in both houses after a period of forty years, they attempted to utilize their large number to force their policies as well as to control the president. For example, they formed a budget resolution with an approximately 1 trillion dollars in spending cuts in areas such as Medicare. They at one time had threatened the then president that they would maker his government ungovernable if it was necessary (LeLoup, 2007). These are some of the example that shows how politics can interfere with the process of budget making.

    The public budgeting process has been met by a lot of challenges especially when the political scene has been filled with ideas of implementing what they consider best for them. The objectives of transparency and accountability have been found wanting. The need for the establishment of a watch dogs would see the establishment of change in the political administration. The watch dog will help to bring rectification on spending that is questionable in the event that it arises. The Auditor General should have a deterrence effect for improper and poor leadership method of spending and thereby improving on the accountability and transparency of the budget proposals.
    The hostility seen in budgeting of public money has led to the emergence of difficult fiscal rules instead of the very rationale financial rules and principles. The expenditure allocation process is very crucial to the success of each and every public budget. Many allocations are based on the issue of priority while the fewer ones find their justification through performance. It is therefore imperative to incorporate performance thought into budget allotment.
 Victorious performance of a certain department may rely on extra financial support in order that it may attain standards which are acceptable. Moreover, poor performance as realized through politics at times in their programs could be the outcome of the public administrative uncertainty or even possibly a general wrong strategy. In the events of such occasions, these poor performances are required to be identified and considered for expenditure in the future for a more effective process of public budgeting process. The budget making process is a very important activity for a country and thus should be done soberly. Political interferences may produce a public budget that is substandard and that prioritize on minor things or those that are in the policies of the leading political group.

Since centuries, humans have been living in different societies, and they have continued to create different governing structures within their states to ensure law and order in the society. In the past, monarchy was the most common form of governance however, modern era has resulted in a number of alterations globally, and democracy is one of the significant outcomes of modernity around the world. In this regard, every country is now endeavoring to ensure and promote democracy in its region, and for such purpose, experts have carried out a wide-ranging analysis of factors related to democracy, such as media, politics, press, people, rights, etc. In brief, experts (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) believe that media has been the most fundamental requisite for democracy, as it enables the populace to be aware about different political and governmental processes that ensures transparency and preservation in the democratic system.
Democracy is synonymous to peoples liberty and autonomy that involves political liberalization that a society can achieve by effective contribution of media (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002). In this regard, the three notions democracy, politics, and media play a crucial role in ensuring freedom in the society, and thus, they have a deeper relationship between each other. However, this notion of relationship of democracy, politics, and media is not a simple thing, and thus, revolves around a number of contentious interpretations. Some of such controversies include the role of media, impact of media on the powerful and elite members of the society, and flaws of media that allow inadequate political leaders to adjust in the democratic process of a society. Some of the other matters involve democratic media, government intervention in media, role of media in political processes, etc.
All the queries incline further investigation and scrutiny of studies and factors related to the three notions of democracy, politics, and media. In this regard, the researcher has identified a number of theories that converse about the relationship of democracy with media, democracy with politics, and triangular relationship of the three. Some of the major theories (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) associated with democracy, politics, and media are liberal democracy theory, republican democracy theory, authoritarian theory, social responsibility theory etc. In other words, a number of experts have attempted to explain such relationship in diverse manners however, the paper has chosen the Elitist theory of Democracy.
It is one of the most critical theories in terms of analyzing the role of media in democracy and political process, and an optimistic endeavor of the theorist in characterizing the association of democracy with politics and media. In particular, the paper will attempt to analyze the theory of Elitist Democracy while focusing on the factors of democracy, politics, and media. In addition, the paper will endeavor to identify different aspects of the theory that converses about relationship of such factors, and any flaws that overlook some notions as compared to other theories related to democracy and media.
Elitist Democracy
The world is a huge platform for powerful and elite individuals to enjoy their privilege privately however, individuals with their intellectual capacities have been successful in creating the idea of government that performs the role of problem solver of every day issues publicly while respecting the private practices of the individuals living in a society. Theorists (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) believe that it is very imperative for a society to resolve issues and disagreements that is an essential factor for creating normative order in the society. In this regard, governments play a crucial role in enhancing the efficacy of societies by resolving disputes and supporting people living in. Although all theorists agree on this benefit and usefulness of the government, however, they disagree on one factor, the type of government that can ensure efficacy at the greatest extent. Analysis of the literature has indicated that so far, democracy has been the most popular order that allows the populace to perform different tasks in the most efficient manner, thus, creating order in the society.
Experts (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002) have indicated that democracy is an efficient solution to the complex issues that require habitual solutions however, democracy cannot resolve disputes alone and thus, governmental involvements in different processes of the society require the support of media that creates the relationship between the two. In every democracy, it is important that experts analyze things scientifically, as well as economically to identify most efficient solutions to the problems however, it is an agreeable fact that majority of the populace in a society do not have the knowledge level to understand different analyzing processes that are implemented to resolve problems of the society. In the result, some skilled people carry out the tasks of analyzing things scientifically and economically that result in a gap between the skilled and non-skilled, or privileged and non-privileged individuals in the society (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008).
Due to this gap, societies usually confront different and diverse public opinions regarding a democratic decision, and thus, involvement and most importantly, agreement of every citizen on a specific decision becomes a major issue even in a democratic society. However, experts (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have indicated that a good society always keeps its populace aware of every decision-making process despite of disparities and differences in public opinions. At this juncture, democracy feels the permanent need of politics that governs different forms of democratic processes with the help of a forerunner leader representing a group of elite individuals from the society. However, with this tool of politics, a society confronts few problems that come with the benefits of politics (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002). The major problem is the limitation of democracy and politics that does not allow unskilled individuals of the society to intervene in the decision-making processes due to their intervention in the election process that although gives freedom and liberty to the populace to choose their own rulers, but at the same time, limits societies from participating further in the future.
Theorists (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) have argued that although democracy is somehow a limited form of governance however, every government requires voluntary observance of the created laws and regulations in its society and force cannot be the solution every time to ensure obedience in the public. This requisite of fulltime voluntary compliance from the populace is a significant benefit of democracy that allows elite members to continue their democratic governance in the society. However, studies (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) have indicated that this voluntary compliance often becomes the most complex and critical issue due to lack of trust in the legitimacy of the democratic government. In other words, although government involves elites and skilled members, however, in this modern era of enlightenment, education has resulted in overcrowding of liberal and progressive individuals that often require evidence for the legitimacy of government and efficacy of governmental decisions in the society.
Due to this overcrowding of elites, it is possible that a group of skilled individuals will have a more effective solution to the problems that results in the creation of arguments and debates, another factor that deteriorates legitimacy and efficacy of the government. At this moment, although a political group of elites enjoys the governance, however, competition exists in the society that provides the opportunity to non-elites to decide the best solution without intervening in the governmental process (McNair, pp. 23-37, 2003).
Lastly and most importantly, it is a fact and the most critical issue of the democratic politics that although people choose elites to govern their society however, perfection has always remained absent in terms of commitment for the welfare of populace. Theorists (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) promoting the elitist theory have argued that democratic politics can always be taken in contrary to the private decision-making process. In other words, elite or non-elite will always be more dedicated and committed in private matters of hisher life, as compared to hisher dedication and enthusiasm in wellbeing and progress of the populace. This automatic absence of perfection has remained common in the democratic politics, and experts (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) believe that it is the most common factor of corruption in the governments. In this regard, no matter how patriotic a political leadership is, and no matter how much dedicated a group of elites portray, historical evidence has indicated that there has always been outright corruption in democratic politics that has transformed patriotic and revolutionaries into corrupt administrative management (McNair, pp. 156-163, 2003). Due to this third and major problem and limitation of the democratic government, media becomes the essential requirement in the relationship of democracy and politics.
In this regard, cynical theorists and experts (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) believe that democratic politics is another term for finding empirical formations that may portray outright corruption within boundaries, and that becomes the major objectives of chosen elites and skilled individuals in the government, and the major factor of transformation of patriotic leadership into corrupted or illegitimate government. It is an observation that election process in democracy resolves the critical issue of legitimacy and integrity of elites to some extent, as evidence have indicated intense challenge against non-democratic governments today in various societies while almost no intensity against the most corrupted governments globally. Thus, elections somehow provide a sense of ownership and proof of legitimacy to the populace, or in other words, cynics believe that democracy has now become a synonymous term to legitimacy, and so, even when a corrupted but democratic government exists, people consider it as legitimate and committed. On the other hand, a committed but non-democratic government confronts the issue in an intense manner.
Theorists of Elitist Democracy (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have pointed out that although elections is a tool of ensuring legitimacy, however, it has now become a platform of adding problems in the society. In other words, before the democratic elections, political leaderships put their all efforts in gathering accusations and criticisms of populace against the ruling government, in order to change the perspective of voters to gain legitimacy during the elections. Thus, one set of political representation attempts to affect the other party by making promises that in the long run, become the major tool of criticism against them. In this regard, cynics believe that in the short run, democracy and politics is an efficient process however, in the long run, it becomes a problematic controversy for chosen elites in the government.
Until now, it is evident that the relationship of democracy and politics through elections is a way of ensuring performance and dedication of the government. However, a one-time process that inclines elites to act intelligently, in order to illustrate the best and perfect structures of government that may not be empirical during governance however, might be applicable in covering the corruption in an efficient manner. Thus, relationship of democracy and politics requires the need of some other methodologies that may keep a continuous check on the elites and their utilization of governmental resources. Some experts believe that constitutional regulations and provisions are efficient tools in monitoring the intelligent methods of democratic governments however, throughout the history, such provisions have not been able to provide a permanent solution or preventive solution for the discussed problems, and thus, need of the third stakeholder becomes essential.
In other words, to achieve objectives of democracy and reduce its limitations, media and most importantly, a free media is the essential and most crucial partner of democracy and politics, and thus, completes the triangular structure that was incomplete with only democracy and politics. Although other theories may not emphasize the role of media to such extent, however, Elitist democrats have been feeling the need of media in a desperate manner. For some, only media can be another way of democratic governments to illustrate their solutions as the perfect ones, and cover their corruption amidst problems and grievances of innocent and non-elite populace.
On the other hand, an independent media is essential for completing the relationship with democracy and politics in a truthful manner, and can be very valuable in making enormous contributions in the democratic political process of a country. Theorists believe that even if corruption is endemic in the democracy and politics, exposure through free media can be a kind of medication and true democratic therapy for the non-elites. Thus, media can be a deterrent tool of reducing corruption in democracy and politics, and can play a crucial role in ensuring efficient performance of the governments. Theoretically, media is the most powerful stakeholder in the triangular relationship as it has the power of arranging the substitution of elites in the government through concrete revelation of evidence that itself is a notion of controversy and doubts (Tiffen, pp. 178-189, 1989).
In this regard, theorists (Horedt, pp. 41-49, 2006) of elitist democracy believe that even in this era of enlightened environment, intelligent individuals and skilled individuals out of the government do not have the ability to understand the democratic structures and its issues in a perfect manner. Therefore, the role of media as a watchdog can be the most imperative and crucial role of media in strengthening the relationship with democracy and politics. On the other hand, adversaries of this notion believes that media as only a watchdog can often become a problem of democracy and the country itself, and thus, the media should not focus completely on its role of watchdog, and must carry out evident steps as a potential stakeholder of democracy in an optimistic manner. In other words, media can play a balanced role by exposing critical evidence, such as the Watergate episode or Zardari scandal, and at the same time, may continue to carry out routine episodes as potential partner of democracy by focusing on publics problems and solutions. Thus, from an elitist democratic perspective, media is an important contributor in the relationship with democracy and politics however, its role is a controversial and complex issue that needs further investigation and scrutiny.
Besides media, elitist democracy theorists (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have attempted to characterize the role of private influential stakeholders in the society that contribute and benefit enormously from outright corruption in the government. In this regard, the question arises whether the role of media should remain limited to the elites on governmental positions, or whether the media should extend its role of watchdog in practices of private influential members of the society. Elitist democrats believe that modernization and globalization has resulted in greater amount of power in the hands of such private stakeholders, and thus, elitist democracy theorists emphasize more on the role of watchdog rather than the subject that can be privileged member in the government or elite firm in the private.
In other words, elitist democracy theorists believe that it is very imperative for the media to be out of reach of governmental elites and private privilege firms that may then allow it to perform its role in a true democratic manner. On the other hand, some theorists from the same school of thought have indicated the possibility of intervention of private elites in the media that can enable a perfect exposure of corruption and ineffectiveness of the government elites due to power and influence of private firms and organizations in this modern era. However, this notion of private involvement is a complex issue that receives different responses from the experts.
Additionally, a majority of theorists representing elitist democracy emphasizes that the role of media as supervisory body of both governmental, as well as private elites is pleasing and wanted however, it must not be the primary concern of media due to lack of importance of private firms in the relationship of democracy, politics, and media until now. It is anticipation that future theorists may transform the triangle into a square by including private firms as another elite component in the democratic process of a country due to modernization and globalization in the present era.
Until now, according to Elitist democracy theorists, the private corrupted elites do not possess greater risks as governmental elites are enjoying the monopoly in terms of arranging corruption on legitimate level. Thus, the media should focus primarily on the elites in government, in order to maintain the trust of non-elites and unskilled populace in the notion of democracy and politics, essential for the relationship, as well as important for continuance of this form of governance in the society. For instance, only governmental elites have the capacity to perform the way the Soviet Union carried out in the 20th century, and in a way, the USA performed in Vietnam, or the way governments in a number of countries are performing to benefit from public resources for their personal benefits. In this regard, advocates of elitist democracy emphasize that exposure of only the corruption of governmental elites will end the other major problems and eliminate the limitations of democracy in a significant manner.
Besides the watchdog role of media in the mentioned relationship, theory of the elitist democracy (Semetko  Scammell, pp. 29-36, 2000) has identified the power of populace that lies in the hands of media as well. In other words, exposure and check on the corrupted and illegitimate practices of elites in the government can be an efficient way of providing power to the public optimistically. In this regard, the media can be an observer, a watchdog, and a tool of exposure however, theorists believe that power remains with the public in the presence of democracy, but it is the responsibility of media to inform the populace of their power through efficient exposure of governmental incompetence.
Moreover, experts (Horedt, pp. 41-49, 2006) have clarified that although media has a relationship with democracy and politics, however, it must now allow the elites to control it in anyway. Most importantly, the media should ensure the limited role of government even when it is in optimistic perspective, as theorists believe that even optimistic and encouraging role of democratic governments with media might be their intelligent act of creating basis for their outright corruption on the long run. Furthermore, the theory of elitist democracy has provided some more suggestions in terms of the role of media during the characterization of triangular relationship.
According to them, the media, while playing its role as a watchdog to monitor and exposure corruption and incompetence of government elites, must not in any way create doubts and controversies regarding the importance and legitimacy of constitutional structures of the government that is an essential implication for the media in elitist democracy theory. On the other hand, the media should continue to put efforts in the identification of issues as the major causes of divisions and disparities among political elites that can be an indirect methodology of exposing incompetence of the elites.
In this regard, experts (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) believe that disparity among elites can be the most evident and possible indication of incompetence, and thus, is the perfect way of directing such elites to alter their actions without intervening in the governmental process. Furthermore, elitist democrats have emphasized on the major focus on individual elites in the government, as honesty and proficiency of elites is the major notion of democracy and democratic politics, and thus, emphasis on the personality of individual democrats will be the effective strategy in evaluating appropriateness, as well as dedicated of elites in the relationship.
Lastly, theorists (Semetko  Scammell, pp. 29-36, 2000) have suggested that media should play an unbiased role as much as possible that will be very valuable in the continuation of triangular relationship. In other words, neutral representation of information is very imperative and can be crucial in acquiring public responses about the governmental performances. Finally, theorists of elitist democracy believe that such role of media is very beneficial for strengthening democracy and promoting efficient governance in any country due to couple of reasons. Firstly, they deem that the neutral provision of information by the media is a tool for governmental elites to acquire useful information that often is not available to them personally. In this way, media works as a partner in elitist democracy, and at the same time, plays the role of deterrent of outright corruption that reduces grievances and problems of the populace.
Other theories
In the elitist democracy, the theorists have emphasized primarily on the need and role of media as the major factor during the characterization of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media. However, it is an observation that other theories have been considering some other attributes of the relationship as more important than the media (Held, pp. 133-139, 2006). For instance, the elitist democracy theory focused on the role and responsibilities of media however, theorists from other school of thoughts have argued that elitist democrats have overlooked the major factor of the design of media that is a crucial factor and can decide the future status of governance in the society. The paper discussed some of the implications for media in the elitist democracy theory however, analysis of the liberal pluralist democracy (Habermas, pp. 4-8, 1991) has indicated some other suggestions that are essential for the relationship according to liberal pluralists. They believe that besides providing information on the incompetence of government elites, it is very important for the media to focus on the information that are putting interests of populace in jeopardy specifically. In response, elitist theorists have argued that although some incompetence of elites may not be putting interests of the public at stake on the short run, however, they would result in danger for populace on the long run and that is the major concern in elitist democracy (Held, pp. 133-139, 2006).
Another major role of media according to liberal pluralists is mobilization of unskilled members of the society in promoting democracy in the society. It is an observation that for elitist democrats, neither design nor recruitment of unskilled populace is important factor, and thus, there is a huge disparity between elitist theorists and liberal pluralists (Nylen, pp. 130-144, 2003) regarding interpretation of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media. Lastly, pluralists have indicated that in order to strengthen the relationship, the media should also put efforts to provide future demands of the populace that is an essential step that can help policymakers and other governmental elites in directing their actions in appropriate manner, a factor not important in elitist democracy (Habermas, pp. 208-216, 1991).

    Conclusively, analysis of the theoretical literature regarding the relationship of democracy, politics, and media has indicated that different schools of thought have attempted to characterize the relationship in their own way however, the cynical interpretation of the relationship from the perspective of Elitist Democracy theory has been efficient in understanding different aspects of the triangular relationship. Although the elitist theorists seem to overlook few factors, however, it is an observation that it has critically emphasize on the role of media that is crucial in strengthening the relationship, and imperative for continuance of the democratic form of governance in the society. Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media in the light of specific theory of Elitist Democracy. Moreover, further analysis and investigation of the theory along with comparison of other theories in a detailed manner will enable in a more crucial understanding of the relationship that is the fundamental basis of democratic processes in majority of countries around the globe. It is an expectation that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic.

John Stuart Mill is a political theorist and economist, civil servant, English philosopher, as well as a member of the Parliament and was a significant Classical liberal believer during the 19th century. His works on liberty rationalized freedom of the individual in conflict to unlimited state control. He was an advocate of utilitarianism, a moral theory explained by Jeremy Bentham, though his notion of it was very dissimilar from that of Benthams. He made a clear set of principles for the scientific approach or method.
Mill was married to Harriet Taylor in 1851 after sharing an intimate friendship of 21 years. When they first met, Taylor was married they were already close but deemed to be chaste during the years prior to his first husbands death. Taylor, being Mills close friend and eventually wife was a considerable influence in his works. Mills womens rights advocacy was strengthened because of this relationship with Harriet Taylor. Also, one of his famous works, On Liberty, was influenced by Taylor as well and was published shortly after she died in 1858.
Liberalism is the idea in the significance of the freedom of an individual. Throughout the world, this is generally accepted and was considered to be an essential value by a lot of philosophers all throughout history.
Mills work On Liberty, deals with the disposition and limits of the power that can be legally practiced by the society over an individual. Mill also gave an argument about the harm principle. Accordingly, the harm principle deems that every individual has a right or entitlement to act whatever he wants, as long as his actions do not harm the people around him. The society has in no way should interfere if the action taken is self-regarding meaning it only affects the person doing the deed directly. This is so, even if it seems that the individual doing the action is harming his own self. However, Mill contended that individuals are not permitted to do lasting and serious harm to their properties and themselves. Mill exempts the young children or those in the so called backward states of society from this principle, as they are incompetent of self government. Despotism, according to Mill is an acceptable form of government for societies that are considered to be backward, so long as the tyrant sees the best interests of the people.
On Liberty entails an impassioned argument of free speech. Mill contends that free speech is an essential condition for logical and social development. He argues that permitting people to speak of false opinions is due to two bases. First is that individuals are more probable to disregard false beliefs if they are absorbed in a wide open discussion of ideas. Second, by pushing other people to re-evaluate and reiterate their principles and beliefs in the course of debate, these convictions are kept from waning into plain view.
His belief and view on liberty was greatly influenced by Josiah Warren and Joseph Priestley. Individuals are sensible enough to come up with decisions about their good being and opt any religion that they wanted to. Government is said to only interfere in protection of the society. Mill enlightens, The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign (Mill, 1862).
John Stuart Mill is also an influential and strong advocate of the freedom of speech, he opposed censorship. In his own words, Mill said that I choose, by preference the cases which are least favorable to me - In which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of utility, is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility (Mill, 1859).
For Mill, it is not simply enough to have an unexamined belief or idea that happens to be correct or exact. One must comprehend truly why the belief at hand is the true or right one. Liberalism takes many forms. The true essence of it is the toleration of diverse principles and beliefs and of distinct ideas as to what makes up a good life.

The article details the developments of the water bills governing the use of water obtained from the river Delta in California, written by Ron McNicoll. McNicoll has been an acknowledged reporter at the Independent Newspaper for many years and has written various political as well as environmental articles. The article currently in question is written by him focusing on the current political affairs.
The main motive was to address the legitimacy and feasibility of the bills that were passed by the legislature. Considering the delicate nature of the commodity in question, the emphasis was placed more on the approval process and hence on the people for and against it, thereby acknowledging the narrow difference between the approval and disapproval votes. It weighs the benefits of the propositions contained within the bills against the disadvantages along with a mention of earlier rejected suggestions that the current propositions were based upon, namely the Peripheral Canal. In all, the article reviews the controversy surrounding the Delta water management and development bills possibly leaning towards a suggestion that their outcome is most likely negative.

The Negatives of the Bills
As McNicoll pointed out, two of the most active opposition of the bills having rejected all five of them in the Assembly included Joan Buchanan (representing Livermore and parts of the Delta) and Mary Hayashi. Joan Buchanan justified her claim by criticizing the bill scrutiny process stating that the Assembly-Senate conference committee members did not include a Delta representative nor were the legislators allowed to actively oppose it. Groups opposing were limited to one minute or less of public comments. Supervisors from the Delta counties were allowed to combine their time, with one supervisor speaking for five minutes (McNicoll). Moreover, the bills were not presented as a whole in one package, but were passed through individually so as to increase their chances of being approved.  Much emphasis was placed on how little the bills were deliberated upon, considering their vast implications on the States water supply and the billions of dollars worth of investment they call for, which by itself, became a point of negative contention. The bills were allegedly discussed amongst a chosen few including the four Senate leaders and governor Schwarzenegger, minimally addressed by them with some parts only examined for as little as a few hours. Overall, Buchanan and Hayashi argued, the proposals were rushed through the Assembly.
Another seemingly negative point of the bills was the creation of a number of new bureaucratic departments including an increase in authority of the Delta Protection Commission. Supplementing that department were several new committees and commissions as well, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, a Delta Stewardship Council with salaried members, a water-master, an Delta Independent Science Board, and numerous advisory groups (McNicoll). This was much in the way of over expenditure, which according to Buchanan, the State in the status quo of the economy could easily do without. The cost for the project was 11 billion dollars, covering salaries for staff and the infrastructure involved, with exposed pipelines that were to trail across the ground, part of the dual conveyance method. It was to be a huge burden in an already troubled State, as contrary to custom, the cost was to be covered by the State treasury itself and not revenue bonds. This necessitated a long consultation and should have been duly discussed before implementing.
Also part of the bills was a proposal aiming for a decrease in the consumption of water in urban settlements to the tune of 20 by the year 2020, with industrial consumption aimed to go down by 10. This did not sit well with Buchanan as urban consumption accounted for 20 of the total already, where as agricultural consumption made up for the rest of the 80, and no targets were stipulated for the latter (McNicoll).
Positives of the Bills
    The water requirements of the State of California seemingly obligated this proposal. The dual conveyance method which, although based on the Peripheral Canal, a project refuted earlier by voters in the 1980s, was to bring fresh water to the regional wholesale water supplier Zone 7, which is responsible for Livermore and Pleasantons water supply. The water through this method is fresher and cleaner as it travels from the Mountain Rivers to the shores of the West Delta, with less salt content and other impurities. Being delivered fresh means much less has to be done in the way of making it drinkable, saving on cost and environmental discrepancies at the same time.
    The build-up of salt required Zone 7 to build a demineralization plant in Pleasanton to meet quality standards, having necessary cost and feasibility implications. Moreover, Dick Quigly, the President of Zone 7 pointed out that the dual conveyance method would reduce the water hardness as well, bringing it down to 100 parts of total dissolved salts per million parts of water (100 ppm) (McNicoll), which significantly reduces the need for further processing before it is ready for delivery. 100 ppm water is in fact already delivered by some Municipal District departments, such as the ones in Easy Bay, to their customers.
Conclusion
    Environmentalists of late have tried to keep the Delta from being pumped so as to preserve it, even obtaining a court order by a federal judge to stop Delta pumping. The order was later rescinded, but reliance was placed on legislators to come up with something as a solution. As I understand it, the results were these bills. However, as with many of them out there, there were those in favor and those against, but given that the bills cleared the Assembly with the bare 23rd majority, the disapprovers have a good mind to scrutinize them further in terms of their feasibility and legitimacy.

Drought, growing environmental constraint and mounting ecological crisis of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are the variety of reasons for California State Legislature to pass a water package of 11.1 billion worth of bonds to fund programs addressing the said pressing issues.
California is perhaps the only Western State that does not regulate and monitor groundwater usage. The problem on deltas restoration, which has long been overdue, has now been given resolution. According to the article, when Senate finally made its mind, it ended up years of failed attempts to confront the states growing water problems. As Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) had said that its been queued up for a while. It just took a number of things to put pressure on to get it done.
For Senate Pro Tem Darell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), he pointed this out as an achievement as for This Legislature has accomplished something . . . that the Legislature hasnt accomplished in decades.
The bond sets aside approximately 3 billion for new storage and 2 billion for the restoration and renovation of the ecosystem in the delta. It would also fund groundwater cleanup and recycling which is important to Southern California as well as fund the Salton Sea preservation and watershed projects in the areas of Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.
The bill includes a program to measure groundwater elevations, but it does not force private property owners to provide monitoring information to the state or to local water agencies.
Moreover, the bill sets a goal of limiting and reducing overall urban per capita water use by a fifth by 2020. However, agencies that fail to meet the quota would not be eligible for state water grants and loans.
Accordingly, lawmakers made sure that ample measures were taken into consideration through dealing and thoroughly discussing important issues such as urban water conservation, groundwater monitoring and the management of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the center of the states collapsing complex plumbing system.
According to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, I am so proud that the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our states history This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement.
On the other hand, some were not convinced about the package. Before the round-up votes, many of the packages provisions were weakened and last minute amendments were made. This has been done to accumulate support and get the necessary two-third votes from the legislature. Importantly, a provision was removed particularly the 10 million fund for a Sacramento nonprofit associated with Steinberg that offers watershed and urban-greening for students.
As a sign of his disapproval to the continuance of the bill, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) . . . believes this measure has been so bulked up with pork its going to sink.
Active conservation groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the River have fought against the bill along with its numerous provisions. Accordingly, the water package is too heavy a burden to the states taxpayers.
Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) is likewise skeptic about this especially on providing solution to the problem. He said that the real solution is taking less water from the delta.
It is to believe that through the new delta council it only leads to construction of a freeway-sized canal on the deltas edge which can be bad for land and livelihoods as well, which is mainly dependent on the irrigation that they have right now.
    But more importantly, this bill has indeed brought up into surface once again the division and antagonism between the Northern and Southern parts of California which mainly tainted the water politics for years.
    The Democratic Latino Caucus along with the Republicans joined together to push the major bond. However, other Democrats and public employee mainly complain about the debt service it may generate, which amounts up to 600 million a year. In turn, it would further weaken the states general fund and the states delivery of services.
     But given the variety of reactions solicited from different actors and entities, still, the voice of the citizens of the State of California will have the last say considering they will be the one who will vote for this next November. As when it comes to legislators, we may or may not know what drives them especially when we talk about pork barrel and to know they have different perspective on the issue, as such, the challenge for the voters is to be vigilant and know the issues very well in order to have a good quality of votes for they will be directly affected of the provisions such as the imposition of taxes, the quality of states services rendered to them