15. How it works: in theory
Problem recognition
Attention is drawn to an existing problem.
This can be triggered by an event or
disaster, such as the emergency response
to Hurricane Sandy, the impact of an
economic recession on the jobless and
the poor, or global warming.
Agenda setting
Public awareness of the problem increases
as the media, relevant interest groups, and
political leaders talk about the problem.
The problem becomes a priority
for the government.
Deliberation and formulation
Different policy proposals are suggested to
address the problem, input is provided by
interested parties, relevant executive
agencies, and congressional committees.
Enactment
Congress passes the legislation
and the president signs it into law.
Implementation
The relevant bureaucratic agencies
put the law into effect, writing specific
regulations when needed, distributing
benefits, and handling government
contracts and procurement.
Evaluation
Policy analysts, inside and outside
government, determine whether the
policy is working as intended.
Possible modification, expansion, or termination of policy
Based on the policy evaluations and public reaction to the policy,
political leaders tweak the law to improve it, expand the scope
of the law if it is working well, or sometimes repeal the law.
16. There is a problem. We need to fix this. We have an idea.
Signed into law. Moving forward... Let’s look at that again.
Updated.
How it works: in practice
Though few issues have been as contentious as health care reform, social policies can be complicated, conflictual, and personal. The political process used to tackle these conflicts is often tedious, complex, and time-consuming.
Civil War pensions are an interesting case. They were an important part of the legacy of Grover Cleveland, our 22nd and 24th president, who vetoed hundreds of pension bills. Excluding the four-term presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), Cleveland vetoed far more laws than any other president (and had the most per term).
An interesting book about this and the beginning of the welfare state, for students who want to learn more, is Protecting Soldiers and Mothers by Theda Skocpol. An interesting book for students who want to learn more about the Depression and the rise of FDR is Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 by David Kennedy.
Notice that the welfare state (a broad term that’s not just for programs for the poor) has changed. Today, we would not usually use something like a “Public Works Administration” in order to create federal projects to “draft” people into. The federal government no longer uses large amounts of unskilled labor as it did in programs such as the Works Project Administration.
Before the New Deal programs in the 1930s, poverty relief was provided mainly by private charities. Here, future first lady Eleanor Roosevelt serves meals to unemployed women
and their children in a New York restaurant.
Trade-offs resulting from the Vietnam War caused problems; it was challenging to continue funding the war and social policies without creating inflation.
Many social programs were eliminated during the Reagan years.
George W. Bush continued much of America’s social policy.
He did, however, call for changes in Social Security.
Bush tried to push America toward an ownership society, in which people took control of their own social welfare.
Interesting fact: George W. Bush increased domestic, nondefense spending more than any president since Lyndon “Great Society” Johnson.
Critics from within the Republican Party complained that George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was code for “Big Government conservatism.” Others, who were focused more on national security despite their concerns about domestic issues, settled on “National Greatness conservatism.” But with Bush’s popularity upon leaving office at 30 percent, few Americans agreed that he had achieved “national greatness.”
President Obama has focused on a melding of market and community while still keeping a role for government.
Income inequality in the United States today is higher than ever. The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now receive 50 percent of all U.S. income. How will this inequality affect the outcomes of social policy?
The poverty rate tends to decrease under Democratic presidents and to go up by about the same margin under Republican presidents. What could explain this difference?
Welfare offices can be alienating places in which it is very difficult to navigate through the bureaucracy. Here, dozens of people wait to speak to counselors in this Lawrenceville,
Georgia, welfare office.
Remember from earlier in the book that interest groups are made up of normal Americans.
In 1999, AARP lowered the age requirement for membership from 55 to 50. (You now also do not need to be retired to qualify for membership.)
Because of strong turnout among its members, the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C.
Political scientist James Q. Wilson suggests that it’s far easier to determine if a McDonald’s location is successful: if profits are up, then it’s doing well. But the Department of Motor Vehicles is not as easy to analyze. Simply focusing on efficiency rate, such as the number of customers processed per hour, would neglect to account for features like language ability or population limitations. Moreover, there are some factors that the government cannot control. For example, the State Department cannot always be held responsible for the irrational behavior of foreign governments.
Elderly people will comprise a much larger share of the U.S. population in 2060 than they do today. How might the aging population affect social policy—both in terms of the politics of policy making and in terms of the fiscal implications of this trend?
As of 2015, the cost of the Social Security program exceeds Social Security payroll taxes, so taxes will need to be raised to cover the trust fund’s obligations and the program’s ongoing expenses. What do you think are the best solutions to address the long-term future of Social Security? What are the politically viable solutions?
We have an aging population and millions of Americans without health insurance. The United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world.
Other countries that spend close to what we do have universal health care (Germany, France, Canada).
Universal health care works better in some nations and worse in others. In Canada, for instance, there are frequent reports of long lines and delays in procedures. (Some procedures aren’t even offered.) The British National Health Service is a system where almost all doctors work for the government. It also gets complaints. But universal health care is known to work extremely well in many nations, such as France, the Netherlands, and Japan.
Funding for our current health care system comes from a variety of sources and is spent on many types of care. In an effort to slow the increases in health care costs, which areas should receive the most attention?
If current spending patterns hold, an increasing percentage of federal spending will be devoted to health care, crowding out other programs. Clearly, such trends are not sustainable. What changes do you support to reduce health care spending in the long run?
The unfunded liabilities for Medicare are estimated to be about six times as large as the Social Security shortfall. Yet Congress has a very difficult time acting because any solution involves the politically unpopular combination of tax increases and benefit cuts.
Opponents of the ACA want to “repeal and replace” it, but attempts to repeal it have been very unsuccessful. Moreover, being able to replace it with a viable plan is even more unlikely.
Political philosophers—who are very different from politicians or political scientists—debate the morality of a “universal guaranteed income.” This is an amount of money that would be paid to people just because they are human beings. In a widely used example, someone could simply be a surfer (whether on the beach or on the Internet) and they would get paid.
A version of this exists in just one state, Alaska, through its “Alaska Permanent Fund,” which sends citizens an annual check based upon the oil revenue taken in that year. However, the check is much too small to live on. (Its size fluctuates with the price of oil.)
Most people, however, believe that society’s support should be used for only certain things (like food and medical care) and become upset when funds are reported to be used for nonessentials like alcohol and cigarettes. (This is why we have food stamps instead of merely sending people checks.)
Some types of social welfare benefits have increased in the past few decades, whereas others have decreased and some have remained the same. Identify examples from each category and try to provide a political explanation for why those benefits have increased, decreased, or been funded at about the same level.
The social-policy “safety net” is supposed to protect poor Americans during periods of economic recession. A deep recession happened in the early 1980s, and the other recession during the time frame depicted here was in the early 1990s. To what extent did the safety net accomplish that for which it was intended?
In December 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act replaced No Child Left Behind, giving states more discretion over testing.
The conflicts over social policy run deep. Conflicts over Obamacare led to a government shutdown, with Obamacare supporters and detractors each blaming the other side. #ACA #Obamacare
Most school vouchers go to private Catholic schools, like the one shown here.
The pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security creates intergenerational inequities. Relatively poor young people working for minimum wage help to fund the Social Security benefits for retired people who are often reasonably well off.
Debt Commission Chairmen Erskine Bowles (left) and Alan Simpson made recommendations to Congress and the president about how to fix Social Security. Despite the bipartisan nature of the commission and their recommendations, no reforms were implemented.
Children today are in poverty at nearly twice the rate of the elderly, whereas 50 years ago the poverty rate among the elderly was twice that of children. What changes in social policies in the past 80 years could help explain this change? What do the numbers say?
