<u>It is unfunded mandates.</u>
More broadly, unfunded mandates are Government's orders or mandates that requires state and local government to perform activities for which it has no funds, and the government does not reimburse them.
With an unfunded mandate, the government put regulations or new conditions that diminish the state's ability to pay for an existing mandate, for example, it may cut funds designated for a specific program or it may change the requirements for receiving funds.
For example, when the government increases the minimum wage of a nation, it's creating an unfunded mandate, as the companies now have to abide by the law by paying higher salaries without any governmental help or funding. This also happens when the government order public transit agencies to upgrade security measures, training programs, and background checks, without any financial help.
Answer:
Guiding Principles
Explanation:
The foreign policy of Nepal is guided by the abiding faith in the United Nations and policy of nonalignment. The basic principles guiding the foreign policy of the country.
Answer:
I once was house-sitting for a Jewish family who had a huge kitchen they divided in two. One kitchen was for meats and the other was for vegetables. This shocked me and made an easy job difficult since I had to take care not to mix utensils or dishes. The vegetables were to remain separate from the meats and couldn't even be eaten with the same utensils.
Their customs were to be respected even though it was new and bizarre to me.
<span>To divide we the people to weaken us, set us against each other with blame games and propaganda. Party loyalty blinders keep us from watching too closely what our own party representatives are doing against our own interests.
Like professional wrestlers they appear to be bitter rivals in public but are the best of friends behind closed doors. They have led us to think that only someone from their parties can win an election. If we vote for a third party candidate we have "thrown our vote away" on someone who stands no chance of winning and let that "evil other party" candidate win. We feel compelled to vote for the "lesser" of the two evils being offered.
Consider this: Both parties of the Senate said that the TARP bill lacked oversight to protect the taxpayer's money (concerning the original 3 page one passed by the House of Representatives). They claimed they were going to add protection and oversight to it. Then behind closed doors they added 137 pages of earmark spending and NO oversight or protection. Bush signed it and they closed the 110 Session of Congress knowing that they had an automatic pay raise in place. Both parties were involved so no evil other party blame games could be played.
Instead they faked outrage when the AIG bonus news came out and blamed the Management for not following rules which they had failed to put into the TARP bill in the first place. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KRXnYgu...</span>