U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS, SPRING 2011

MAKING PUBLIC POLICY

OSY chapter 13

Monday, May 9

OSY chapter 13 terms: definition of public policy; 7 stages of policy-making process (Figure 13.1, p. 377) – problem recognition, agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, budgeting, policy implementation, policy evaluation; systemic agenda versus governmental/institutional agenda; implementation techniques – authoritative, incentive, capacity, hortatory; key government actions in health policy (timeline, 382-3, as well as text 382-7), Medicare, Medicare Part D, Medicaid, changes to health insurance due to Obama reform bill, Social Security Act; entitlement programs, non-means-tested programs, means-tested programs (and know examples of each); Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (aka Social Security), concerns about its future solvency; unemployment insurance; SSI program; TANF; fiscal policy, basic distribution of federal budget and sources of federal revenue (Figure 13.3, 393), budget deficit, monetary policy, Federal Reserve System and its functions; recession, effects of recent recession on health and income security policies, stimulus package, TARP

KEY POINTS FOR TODAY

• debates over what public policies to enact address some fundamental societal questions – who is responsible for what aspects of citizens’ lives, and what approaches are best to deal with specific situations?

• most of the major programs of the federal government are post-Depression or post-World War II creations; laws passed just after World War II gave the president responsibility for economic security

• one important point to keep in mind is that non-means-tested programs usually cover a broad set of people – creating incentives for people to organize in order to maintain or expand such benefits; means-tested programs generally have fewer or less well organized allies within issue networks

• entitlement programs go to all citizens who meet requirements such as age (Social Security, Medicare) or income (Medicaid, TANF). These programs constitute the largest share of the federal budget (Figure 13.3, 393); funding is automatic, thus it is extremely difficult to reduce the growth of such programs

• the 7 stages of the policy process (O’Connor pp. 376-382) will be reviewed in detail

• two basic strategies of policy making: rational (clear goals, regular evaluations of effectiveness, emphasis on problem solving, long term approach) and incremental (program changes little from year to year, problems managed rather than solved, short term approach). Most federal programs start out rational and become incremental

• the federal budget faces long term concerns due to the growth in entitlement programs (over 50% of the budget today), particularly the looming retirement of the large “baby boomer” generation and the rapid rise in health care costs. Tax reductions, while certainly popular, also contribute to the budget deficit. Combined with increasing costs associated with national defense both at home and abroad (OSY chapter 14), it is likely that in the future, the federal government will not be able to maintain entitlement programs at current levels (we’ll look a little more at tax and budgeting policies on Wednesday)

A “BRIEF” BUDGETARY OVERVIEW

The federal budget is a collection of public policy decisions – in many ways it’s a current look at the nation’s priorities, but examining the federal budget is also like visiting a museum – we are seeing the consequences of decisions to begin programs long, long ago.

The budget for the current fiscal year 2011 (which began October 1, 2010) is $3.834 trillion. Revenue under the fiscal 2011 budget is projected at $2.567 trillion; hence the fiscal 2010 deficit is about $1.3 trillion. Here is a summary chart (Table S-1) that includes budget data from fiscal 2009 through fiscal 2020. On Wednesday we will look at more budget data, including breakdowns by the major categories of spending.

From Friday’s class handout

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Woll 41, Buckley v. Valeo

This landmark 1976 case established the principle that spending on campaigns is a form of free speech, which receives governmental protection except in very limited circumstances. The Court ruled it was ok to limit how much one person could give to one campaign, but not constitutional to limit overall individual spending on campaigns (including most notably a candidate’s personal spending of his/her own money to run for office). The formula money = speech means that campaign finance laws can really only affect types of campaign spending, not overall campaign spending. Rulings since this one (see below) have continued to strike down limitations on campaign spending in particular, but to uphold some regulations governing contributions.

Woll 42, Ortiz “The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform”

Ortiz makes the simple point that campaign finance supporters seem to mistrust voters. If voters are competent to make decisions about candidates, then concern about who gives to whom, and how much, are misplaced. Voters have the capacity to decide if particular sources of campaign finance should make a difference in the decisions they make.

A LITTLE MORE: O’Connor pp. 346-351 has considerable detail on how U.S. elections are financed. At first glance, it would appear that the U.S. highly regulates the flow of money into elections, and it is true there are many regulations. However, the key point is that anyone can legally spend any desired amount to influence the outcome of elections. The result of 35 years of regulation is greater transparency (we know for the most part who gives money to whom) but no real way to restrict campaign spending (the Buckley v. Valeo decision prevents any stronger regulation). Here are two more critical Court decisions that shape campaign finance laws:

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

This decision upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) restrictions on campaign advertising by groups close to elections, and the new bans on soft money contributions to the national parties; the majority justices assert that the desire to regulate abuses in campaigns justifies limitations on campaign-related speech; the dissenting justices argue that First Amendment rights are clearly infringed by the BCRA and thus the law should be declared unconstitutional

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

This very recent decision (January 2010) further eroded BCRA and other campaign finance restrictions, ruling 5-4 that corporations can broadcast electioneering communications (corporations still are prohibited from direct contributions to candidates or parties). The ruling opens the door to greater independent expenditures in congressional and presidential campaigns.