Davidson Article
Domestic policies are a major part of not only the American economy but the way of life. The government is made up of a huge amount of interest groups, bureaucrats, and congress that help form these helpful, and sometimes wasteful policies. The three types of Domestic policies are Distributive, Regulatory, and Redistributive. Distributive are not designed to affect a wide range of people, or have a massive role in most politics, and usually focus on a specific group who receives the money. Regulatory is the groups that are designed to protect the average citizen from big bad corporations, or just a bad piece of meat, they usually are well liked until they get to much power. Finally there is redistributive policies tend to be very expensive in nature, and also seek to make a very large change, or propose something of an important nature pretty much the opposite of Distributive These three policies play a pivotal role in the everyday workings of the government, but we see Regulatory as the most important.
Distributive policies are when the government will give money to different organizations in the government that require it. Many times this is identified as wasteful or pork barrel spending because federal money is being used to fund specialty projects in Congressmen's districts. An example of these Distributive policies would be when Rep. Phil Hare received 24 million dollars of federal money in 2009 to fund writing project grant. The government put federal money into a specific project to support a specific organization. The main role of Congress in all of this is to decide who gets what, and how much. Many Congressmen will work very hard to get as much money for projects in there distract as possible, this...
... middle of paper ...
...tive policies, along with bureaucrats to help give out the money and oversee everything is working. The general public along with interests groups tend to be ether very strongly for or against these big programs and will voice their opinions one way or the other depending on who the program is helping. Redistributive policies are good in concept but very rarely will work out financially in the long run, that is why they are less impactful than Regulatory policies.
Each policy has its own importance and individual purpose but we see Regulatory as the most important. Regulatory effects next to every American and the goal of Regulatory policies is to protect Americans from next to everything. Unlike costly Redistributive policies, or small scale Distributive policies Regulatory policies stand out as the ones that do the most good for the largest amount of Americans.
Once a program has become part of the federal government, it is very hard to get rid of that program. This is because the programs impact a great number of people. Also, because people become accustomed to these types of programs and cannot remember what life was like before the programs existed. Also, the programs that were created then go out and hire lobbies to ensure that the program will not get cut and lobby for other programs to help the initial program, thus growing the government. This is part of the reason why the government has grown so large, because of the programs that have been created and cannot be terminated.
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
The government of the United States of America is very unique. While many Americans complain about high taxes and Big Brother keeping too close an eye, the truth is that American government, compared to most foreign democracies, is very limited in power and scope. One area American government differs greatly from others is its scope of public policy. Americans desire limited public policy, a result of several components of American ideology, the most important being our desire for individuality and equal opportunity for all citizens. There are many possible explanations for the reason Americans think this way, including the personality of the immigrants who fled here, our physical isolation from other countries, and the diversity of the American population.
I had a Political science professor that once said “Political survey answers depend more on how a question is asked than on what the question is asking.” I read and reread the above question. I have to admit that even after 15 weeks of topic discussions, PowerPoint, text chapters and Google; I am still confused about how tax expenditure works. The nearest I can figure out and in plain English, it is simply a tax break. That being said, this question is very methodically asked. The term “anti-poverty programs” is a gentle, non threatening term that will be met with compassion and kindness among more than 85% of (surveyed) US citizens. Second “tax expenditures” is a confusing term associated with the mean IRS that must have something to do with the government taking hard earned money and doing something with it, but what? Who knows? The final term is the big, bad anti-conservative term that only about 11% of surveyed Americans actually greet with any positivity. So the question in our subconscious mind flows something like: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of helping people who need it with your tax money instead of giving it to people who don’t want to work?” But that’s not what the question is asking. Because I know that my subconscious takes into consideration, the information it believes is true. First anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid, are in most people’s minds still welfare. Before the New Deal many of the anti-poverty programs, as well as welfare (utility assistance, help purchasing groceries, etc.) were funded completely through private charities....
They also believe that taxes should go towards those programs. Republicans want less funding and more control. They like the idea of private organizations that support people who need assistance.
Many families and people have become too dependent on food stamps. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) But if they did not have this program people would go hungry. “11.9 million people went hungry in the United States”... “that included nearly 700,000 children, up more than 50% from the year before.”(NoteCard #2, Point 2) The program does good and helps people but it also spends a lot of money to get people food stamps. “..food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and the costa have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.”(NoteCard #5) But in the end, is it worth it? People need the assistance. It does help people from going hungry and keeps them at least with a little food in their stomach to that keeps them from starving. A lot of people who could not get jobs, were eligible for the program because they did not have a source of income. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) Since not everyone could get work, the government changed the requirements and it went for the better and for the
Programs like Unemployment, Medicare, and Social Security increase the number to roughly fifty percent. Granted that some of these programs are paid in programs, the number of people that are relying on government assistance is too high. In total, there are thirteen categories that fall under the title of Welfare (Federal Safety Net). These programs are put into place to provide things like cash, food, housing, medical benefits, social services, child services, and training. The main target of these programs is low-income Americans. Firstly, the unfair distribution of funds is a problem in more than one way. Individuals of families who are in real need may be receiving government assistance, but they would be getting more sufficient help if funds and resources were not so loosely spent. Another way in which funds are being unfairly distributed is the products and services obtained by recipients on welfare
The United States is sometimes described as a “reluctant welfare state.” I agree with this statement. Too often there are programs created by our government that, although may be lined with good intentions, end up failing in their main purpose. The government may, and hopefully does, seek to help its citizens. However, by applying unreasonable qualifying or maintenance criteria, or too many restrictions that bar people from even receiving aid at all, they end up with many more problems than solutions.
Overall regulations were created to help society. I believe these regulations came along way to help organize society and keep the economy running efficiently and properly. These regulations better the people and the industries as a whole to American society.
The next domestic policy is that he reduced the government’s role in the economy. This is the removal of government control over industry, deregulated airlines, telecommunications, and banking. It also cut funding for federal agencies that oversaw other agencies. I thought ...
Government effects my life everyday in a vast variety of ways. From the quality of the milk that I drink in the morning, to the license and Insurance I need to drive my vehicle to school and work. Government also effects the taxes that are deducted from my salary. The government uses this money to protect consumers and provide services for the public amongst many other things.
This topic also tends to draw strong opinions in our area, in particular due to the large agricultural community in our region. However, even within different states, there are many supporters as well as opponents to these government subsidies. To really begin to understand this complex topic, a person really needs to understand the basics of agricultural subsidizing. A subsidy is defined as a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public (Mish, 2003). More specifically, in the agricultural industry the government provides financial assistance to producers in the farm industry in order to prevent decline in production.
However, the pros and cons that come along with using government issued funding turns out to be the most efficient option for the program. Elisabeth Barnett states two of the major pros of using government funding as “federally funded programs follow a fairly uniform model and are already well described” (Barnett 2) By saying this Barnett points out that federally funded programs all work in a similar way and have rules laid out for them which could allow the programs to work at a higher level of efficiency. The fact that the programs will all work under a similar model and with similar rules allows them to be improved at an accelerated rate due to more people working with the program. This increase workforce will result in an increase output in ideas to improve the
Biggs, S., & Helms, L. B. (2007). The Practice of American Public Policymaking. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
...llion people out of poverty, there are many households that still suffer from poverty even though they receive these programs. This is the result of many people working jobs that pay low wages and the increase of households with single parents.