Campbell Rogerian Essay using MLA H.R. 3219: Department Of of Defense Appropriations Act, 20082018 Comment by Author: You have the wrong year for this act -as per below and in your paper.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h435 The issue on whether to place a cap on military spending has been the subject to of debate in the United States since the era the commencement of enactments of Defense Authorizations Act In in 1961. The idea arose following the urge of the political class to formulate guidelines that monitor state appropriation of military expenses. The law restricted restricts state spending, but it only mandates strict adherence on a specific time frame and, as such, has created a dynamism that has necessitated the formulation of H.R. 3219 that seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the legislation. The H.R. 3219 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 is a continuation of the bill of HR. 3304 of 2014 that seeks sought to dictate the caps on the expenditure in line with the laws of the country. The expectation following the vote is that the nation will not witness the escalation of costs of government military undertakings after the budgeting process. The legislatures forwarding the bill to Congress, argue that it will define the spending limits for the military in each financial year. Given that some politicians opposed the law, the exploration of the pros and cons of the decision is necessary for objectivity in legislation formulation. However, an investigation of the prevailing dynamics implies that politicians ought to support the enactments of the bill H.R. 3219 since it will streamline the process of budgeting, thus enhancing accountability in the state’s appropriation of military spending. Comment by Author: it would either be plural in “states’ appropriation” -meaning all of the sates or in “a” or “the” state’s appropriation -as a singular construct. The primary basis for the support of the bill is that it reinforces the act formulated in the defense Defense appropriation Appropriation act Act of 2014 that sought to helps address budgeting decisions that exposes the United States to financial challenges. According to the bill up for debate, the state was misappropriating the resources of the country in under the disguise of allocating funds for the military. The public accounts committee at the time, could not account for the funds because the existing framework granted the decision makers autonomy in their proposals (Breul 26). They influenced the two-step process of budgeting of authorization and appropriation in setting asides funds that, at times, failed to serve the intended objective. After the enactments of the defense Defense appropriation Appropriation Aact 2014, the budgeting team began to approach the task with cautions. However, the officials still exploited the loopholes in the legislation in the a decision that resulted in the waste of public resources. Those in charge of budgeting could eas ...

1. Campbell
Rogerian Essay using MLA
H.R. 3219: Department Of of Defense Appropriations Act,
20082018 Comment by Author: You have the wrong year for
this act -as per below and in your
paper.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h435
The issue on whether to place a cap on military spending has
been the subject to of debate in the United States since the era
the commencement of enactments of Defense Authorizations
Act In in 1961. The idea arose following the urge of the
political class to formulate guidelines that monitor state
appropriation of military expenses. The law restricted restricts
state spending, but it only mandates strict adherence on a
specific time frame and, as such, has created a dynamism that
has necessitated the formulation of H.R. 3219 that seeks to
extend the jurisdiction of the legislation. The H.R. 3219
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 is a
continuation of the bill of HR. 3304 of 2014 that seeks sought
to dictate the caps on the expenditure in line with the laws of
the country. The expectation following the vote is that the
nation will not witness the escalation of costs of government
military undertakings after the budgeting process. The
legislatures forwarding the bill to Congress, argue that it will
define the spending limits for the military in each financial
year. Given that some politicians opposed the law, the
exploration of the pros and cons of the decision is necessary for
objectivity in legislation formulation. However, an investigation
of the prevailing dynamics implies that politicians ought to
support the enactments of the bill H.R. 3219 since it will
streamline the process of budgeting, thus enhancing
accountability in the state’s appropriation of military spending.
Comment by Author: it would either be plural in “states’
appropriation” -meaning all of the sates or in “a” or “the”

2. state’s appropriation -as a singular construct.
The primary basis for the support of the bill is that it reinforces
the act formulated in the defense Defense appropriation
Appropriation act Act of 2014 that sought to helps address
budgeting decisions that exposes the United States to financial
challenges. According to the bill up for debate, the state was
misappropriating the resources of the country in under the
disguise of allocating funds for the military. The public
accounts committee at the time, could not account for the funds
because the existing framework granted the decision makers
autonomy in their proposals (Breul 26). They influenced the
two-step process of budgeting of authorization and
appropriation in setting asides funds that, at times, failed to
serve the intended objective. After the enactments of the
defense Defense appropriation Appropriation Aact 2014, the
budgeting team began to approach the task with cautions.
However, the officials still exploited the loopholes in the
legislation in the a decision that resulted in the waste of public
resources. Those in charge of budgeting could easily
manipulate the process to their advantage, but, as things stand,
the redress of the issue is necessary because of the financial
difficulties confronting the government. The state cannot
proceed with the traditional methods of budgeting in the
contemporary times that demands caution in the appropriation
of public resources. Comment by Author: If this is an actual bill
it should be capitalized also. Comment by Author: You either
only need “that sought to address” OR “that helps to address” –
but not both Comment by Author: Your word use is incorrect
– you mean under the GUISE -which is a noun meaning:“an
external form, appearance, or manner of presentation, typically
concealing the true nature of something.”A disguise is a noun
meaning a costume that one wears – relates to a person.
Comment by Author: You vaguely refer to the financial
difficulties without really advising WHAT those difficulties are.
Should you be more concise / specific with where the budget
has been over-allocated? What other areas are they spending on

3. or where is there financial concern within the government
spending?
The subsequent reason for supporting the H.R. 3219 is that the
budgeting team does not engage in consultation with the public
before deciding on the appropriation of the funds. For that
reason, there is the urge urgency to introduce a legislative
framework that governs the undertakings of the decision makers
representing the military, and the legislation that serves such
interest is the H.R. 3219 bill. According to Bush (3), the
enactment of the bill will would ensure that the public is aware
of the cap even if the legislation restricts communication of
some critical aspects of military decision. Crespin and David
(977) believe that granting the political class powers to
influence most undertakings regarding budgeting is responsible
for the economic challenges facing the United States. It is on
this premise that the politicians ought to formulate a law that
empowers the budgeting team opposing an idea, and to hold the
state accountable for undertakings protected by the constitution.
The legislative act of 2014 barred the government form from
budgeting without notifying the public about the details of state
appropriation on military undertakings. Comment by Author:
Who promotes this urge? Is it rather an “urgency”? I think if
overspending is a concern in any matter with govt spending then
there would be some form of URGENCY in proposing and
supporting legislation that guides the spending. Otherwise,
please explain WHO has an urge and where the urge is coming
from. Comment by Author: Should this be in past tense
considering Bush is not the current president and it should say
“would” ensure” Comment by Author: Corrections to typos
and spelling errors here.
Another reason for supporting the bill is that it categorizes the
defense appropriation into classes namely Defense, Legislative
Branch, Military Construction/Veterans Affairs, and Energy and
Water. The process encourages the visualization of the spending
separately, and not holistically, as in the case of the original
acts. The original law promotes accountability but serves for

4. only a specified budget year. The proposed bill bill–on its part
part–can serve beyond the period of the initial budget year.
Furthermore, one can easily visualize the records such as the
case of division Division A categorized as defense providing an
amount ranging to the tune of $658.1 billion for defense
annually. As a result, the allocation of funds for emergencies in
times of hurricanes is easily traceable in the present.
Additionally, the bill encourages the use of a language
comprehensible to the public in communicating about critical
government appropriation plans. For instance, in the
deployment of the forces in the war in Afghanistan, the
existence of the bill could have enabled the public to visualize
the amount channeled to the war, but such was not the case
because of the opaqueness of the legislative framework that
guided the process. Comment by Author: It seems too vague to
just say “beyond the period” -you could be more definite and
say beyond the initial budget year or even advise how much
longer of a period it can remain in existence/in effect.
Comment by Author: This is not clear what “the case of
Division A” is all about? And if it is a category you may need
to capitalize the whole term, as I’ve done Comment by
Author: Where did the topic of hurricanes come from? Is this
what Division A refers to?
The opponents of the H.R. 3219 bill argue that it will curtail the
liberties of the state in implementing decisions regarding the
safety of the citizens. The presumption is that adversaries might
infiltrate the system and undertake a decision with the aim of
jeopardizing the state. The politicians opposing the bill also
argue that the existing framework has put in place sufficient
checks and balances that ensures that the military utilizes funds
in accordance with the agenda of advancing the interests of
America. Although the quantification of the claim is not easy,
the conduct of the budgeting team over the years suggests that
some officials desire to advance the interests of the public by
exploiting the liberties granted by the legislative stipulations.
Additionally, the process of the ratification of the bill will pave

5. the way for amendments to legislation that serves the interests
of the Americans (Harrison 2). As a result, the country might
grapple with confusion in the interpretation of the legislations.
The view of the opponents of the H.R. 3219 bill, therefore, is
that it ought to be revoked. Comment by Author: I think this
section is all pretty good and sets out the opposition viewpoint
of what should / should not be done in respect to setting out
budget control within the public’s eye.
Despite the contention on the implication of the legislative
proposals that was introduced 01/25/2018, the ideas behind the
suggestions are worthwhile exploring. The legislative
framework presents the opportunity to explore the political
decision that affects economic affairs of the nations. The
prevailing dynamics imply that the mode of budgeting for
military undertakings will costs taxpayers vast amounts of
resources; thus, the need for the recognition of the risks of in
applying the law to in its original content. The legislatures
instead, should formulate a guideline that addresses the this
concern, and the H.R. 3219 offers such a solution. Comment by
Author: I think you could remind the reader at this point what
the law “in its original content” was proposing to do
The United States’ lawmaking institutions have formulated laws
on the defense appropriation, and such have guided the country
in budgeting. However, the prevailing dynamics suggest the
need for the modification of the laws outlining the spending.
Although such is posing controversy due to opposing opposition
from some legislators, the formulation of H.R. 3219 that seeks
to extend the jurisdiction of the legislation, is dire. The tabling
of H.R. 3219 bill is the beginning of the step. According to the
proponents, the H.R. 3219 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2018 which is a continuation of the original
bill of 1961 that sought to dictate the caps on the expenditure in
line with the laws of the country, will promote accountability in
budgeting. The premise for the claim is that it reinforces
existing laws in addition to categorizing state expenses.
Furthermore, the bill will streamline the process of budgeting

6. by suggesting caps, thus enhancing accountability in state
spending on military undertakings. Comment by Author: The
formulation is dire? The need for greater clarity in budget
spending is DIRE, and the need to formulate some legislation is
dire but the formulation itself is not dire?? Comment by
Author: You are repeating the pros of the bill, is this your
compromise between the two sides of the argument? If some
would still argue that streamlining the budget can still create
handicaps in the defense ability and may affect citizens’ safety,
how is that a middle ground ?
Annotation Comment by Author: Is this the right heading
here? Should it not be “Annotated Bibliography” instead of just
“annotation”?https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/1
3/ is a sample paper for further / future reference.
Bush, George W. "Statement on Signing the Department of
Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006." (2012).
The text explores the role of state organs in initiating
undertakings that strive to address emergencies and concerns
related to national security. The reading highlights the role of
budgeting on wellness of the public and such makes it a reliable
source for undertaking the implication of Defense Appropriation
Act. Comment by Author: Is this really the wording you want
here? State “organs”?? do you mean state bodies? State
organizations?? It seems an odd word choice.
Crespin, Michael H., and David W. Rohde. "Dimensions, issues,
and bills: Appropriations voting on the House floor." The
Journal of Politics 72.4 (2010): 976-989.
The text covers the role of legislature in formulating decisions
that affects state budgeting. It relates acts of accountability to
existence of sound legislation. The narration makes it a critical
resource for exploring defense spending on national safety.
Harrison, Todd. Analysis of the FY 2011 Defense Budget.
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010.

7. The text focuses on the expenses of the state in the year 2011
with the intent of shedding light to the needs for holdings ate
the state accountable. The explanation relates to the concept of
placing a cap on defense presenting as suggested in the bill on
military spending. Comment by Author: This wording sounds
odd?? On “defense presenting?” PLEASE REVIEW WHAT
YOU ARE INTENDING TO SAY HERE.
Breul, Jonathan D. "Three Bush administration management
reform initiatives: The president’s management agenda, freedom
to manage legislative proposals, and the program assessment
rating tool." Public Administration Review 67.1 (2007): 21-26.
The text examines the mode of operation during
pPresidents bush Bush’s tenure. It explores the interest in
military undertaking as a concern that affected budgeting. The
highlights make it an essential source in analyzing the
implication of bills related to state budgeting. Comment by
Author: Fixes in grammatical errors were made in your
annotated notes.
Congress.Gov. H.R.2810 - National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018. H.R.2810 — 115th Congress (2017-2018).
Library of congress. 2018
The text covers the political undertakings before budgeting in
congress. It outlines the decisions that influences the outcome
of policy implementation in the US. The accounts are of
significance in analyzing bills targeting budgeting activities as
in the case of H.R. 321
What I have noticed is that many of you are still not including
quotes/citations/references to support your work. These are
required. In addition, your paper should not be written in a
"conversational tone" but rather in a formal business format.
The syllabus specifically states the following for grading
parameters, and if you have questions about your grade please
ask. Thank you!

8. Change
Directions
•Identify an organization that has experienced change
•Classify the type of organizational change the organization
experienced
•Describe how the organization overcame the resistance to the
change
•Identify how the manager stimulated innovation in the
organization
Parameters
•Word document
•One to three pages long
•Font: Times New Roman or Arial, size 12
•Paper must follow APA format
Submit to TurnItIn via the digital drop box by Sunday at 11:59
p.m. ET.
Worth 6% of total course grade.
Plagiarism
There are three common types of plagiarism you need to be
aware of as a student:
•Recycling a paper; "double-dipping"; self-plagiarism: reusing a
paper you have written for a previous course
•Copying directly from a source without proper quotations or
paraphrasing: when you try to pass something off as your own
work
•Not using proper citations
According to the Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty
Handbook:
•Your paper should have at least 80 percent of your own
original thought, not "borrowed, paraphrased [or] quoted" from
material pulled from the Internet, articles, journals, books, etc.
Your thoughts, not someone else’s!
Part 1: Quiz
1. Post your 1-sentence thesis statement for this topic.
Remember, your thesis statement:

9. · should give a clear stance for one side in the debate on the
topic you've chosen
· should be a declarative statement, NOT a question
· if you're working with a bill you found on GovTrack or with a
bill from a state legislature, make sure it directly mentions the
bill that you're going to discuss, preferably by H.R. or S.
number and title.
2. Give a model in-text citation and work cited entry for 1 peer-
reviewed source that you plan to use in this essay.
· You must include either a short quotation and/or paraphrase
with the in-text citation.
· Both the in-text citation and works cited entry should be in
MLA format.
To earn full credit, the source must be peer-reviewed and
correctly cited (though a hanging indent is not necessary).
3. Give a working outline for your essay. Remember, your essay
should be divided into an introduction, body (consisting of
multiple body paragraphs), and conclusion, and in the body
paragraphs, must also include the following elements:
· explanation of your stance on the bill and reasons for it
· explanation of the opposition stance on the bill (or some of its
provisions) and reasons
· a discussion of the common ground that the two sides share.
Your outline may be a topic or sentence outline but must be
somewhat concrete, containing brief descriptions of supporting
points/evidence.
Part 2: Instructions: Rogerian Essay
· The main body of essay should be between 900 and 1000
words, excluding the required annotated bibliography.
· The essay needs to be in MLA format.
· It should include an Annotated Bibliography instead of a
works cited list (see the end of this assignment for an example
of an Annotated Bibliography)
· You must use at least 5 sources, and at least 3 must be from

10. peer reviewed sources
· see this video and Ch. 2 of the textbook for more information
on what it means for a source to be peer reviewed:
http://youtu.be/rOCQZ7QnoN0.
· the best way to find peer reviewed sources is to use the
databases available through the APUS Library; when you open
the Library's main page, click on the "Advanced Search" link at
the bottom of the "Articles and Databases" box. On the next
page that comes up, make sure to check the "Peer reviewed
publications" box before running your search.
Choosing a Topic: You must use the topic you proposed on the
Week 6 quiz Part 1 of these instructions), which must have a
specific point of debate, clear public-realm stakes, and a narrow
scope. A quick way to accomplish this is to choose a topic from
the current bills making their way through the US Congress (see
GovTrack.us for the US Congress Bills Tracker) or a state
legislature.
Note: Consider your audience as laymen in the field with only
general knowledge of your topic.
Organize your essay into the expected sections for an academic
essay (introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion), and make
sure to also include all the elements of Rogerian form (your
claim and support, an unbiased discussion of the opposition's
claim and support, and a clear discussion of the common ground
idea/concern that could bring the two sides together, and help
the opposing side see why your stance also serves their
concerns).
After you have written your essay, please make sure to revise
the content of your essay. Lastly, be sure to edit your essay by
checking grammar, format, and smaller technical details. Please
make sure your essay is written in third person.
The Annotated Bibliography
An annotated Bibliography (AB) is due with your Rogerian

11. essay. Using the MLA guide, list each source as it will appear
on the Works Cited page of your essay. Summarize each source
in two or three grammatically-correct sentences, and also state
how the source contributed to your project. These short
summaries are the "annotations."
The following is a sample of an "annotated bibliography."
Annotated Bibliography
Clark, Irene L. The Genre of Argument. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998. Print.
Clark's textbook identifies the major steps to developing a well-
researched and well-written argumentative essay. Professional
essays are included in the text as models.
Ward, Russ. Logical Argument in the Research Paper. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997. Print.
Augmenting the steps to writing an argumentative research
paper is information about proper documentation. The Toulmin
System, an important aspect of a well-planned paper, should be
studied carefully.