Managing Cutbacks at the Washington State Department of Social and Essay

Managing Cutbacks at the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services - Essay Example 97) affecting DSHS are as follows: (1) the program of reforms (cutting of expenses by 25%) instituted by President Reagan through the Economic Recovery Program; (2) Washington state’s tax system based on consumption and narrow economic base; (3) citizen legislatures that do not include potential leeway for increased taxes; (4) the increase in the state’s financial support for elementary and secondary education; and (5) state legislations ordering the recent cutbacks in spending for the last six months ending June 30, 1981. These are formal mandates of the DSHS since these rules, laws, legislations imposed by the federal government and other stakeholders (education sector) dictate the organization to design strategies to meet these mandates. Through the Economic Recovery Program that instituted diverse budget cuts across all federal and state funding programs, all agencies being governed are expected to adhere to these enactments, as proposed. The tax system of Washingto n State has been focused on sales and business tax that contribute to fluctuating revenues depending on the economic cycle. However, due to the conservative stance that persists, state legislators continue to support tax cuts despite the poor economic conditions that prevailed. There have been apparent favoring business establishments by giving concessions to deferred sales during economic difficulties which decrease state revenues while expenditures for social programs are expected to increase during these periods. The state opted to cut spending, instead, rather than increase taxes. On the other hand, the key informal mandates are: (1) no personal income tax; (2) shunned federal money; (3) advocated less dependence on federally funded social and health programs; (4) parallel spending patterned after federal grant funding patterns; and (5) the conservative

Constitutional position of the subcarphatian Rus in the first CSFR Essay

Constitutional position of the subcarphatian Rus in the first CSFR between 1918 and 1938 - Essay Example The proposal to join the Carpathia Rus as a whole into the Czechoslovak state came from President Wilson. The Central National Council adopted this plan and sanctioned it in 1919 and sought to effect it in the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920. This constitution granted autonomy to the new province. However, this autonomy was only on paper and not in reality. The central government was unwilling to grant full autonomy until much later in 1938 in the Munich Agreement (Hurny 2012). While the treaty of Saint Germain required that minority rights be protected, the Czechoslovak Constitution gave only Ruthenians constitutional autonomy. The reality, however, is that legislative and judicial operations in the Carpathian Rus were run from Prague by the Central government. To justify this breach of the supposed democracy, the Czech government argued that the province lacked required judicial and legislative structures and could not, therefore, be fully independent. This was compounded by the fact that Carpathia Ruthenia was the least economically productive region in the country. It was also the least populated of the provinces. For Ruthenians, the autonomy pledged by the Czechoslovak Republic and provided for by the Constitution of 1920 was not implemented for two decades. The issue became the subject of discontent. This situation only improved in 1938 after the Munich