Political Science 322 Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Political Science 322

Parties, Campaigns,

and Elections

POSC 322 – Course Outline - 1

I.Order of Topics

A. Importance of Political Parties

B. Founder’s View of Parties

C. Origins of Parties

D. Party Systems


E. Public Opinion

F. Political Participation

G. Voting Behavior

H. What Difference it Makes Which Party Wins (Hacker and Pierson – 2nd half of the course)


Two Important Themes of this Course:

(1) How representative is public policy of public opinion?

(2) How fair are the policies and actions of government?

Grading System - 1

I. Grading System

A. Unannounced Quizzes – one-third of

your grade

B. Term Paper – one-third of your grade

1. Divided into three parts

Grading System - 2

2. Examples of all three parts – including a sample outline and sample term paper – are in the coursepack

C. Cumulative Final Exam – one-third of your grade

Preparing for Quizzes - 1

1. Be able to answer the study guide questions.

2. Be able to explain any concept or term on the slides and why that concept or term was important enough to be

discussed.

3. What was the impact of a law, policy or event?

Preparing for Quizzes - 2

3. Be able to “compare and contrast” concepts or ideas. For example, how are Republican economic priorities different from Democratic economic priorities?

4. What’s related to what? For example, as a person’s income increases does their probability of voting increase or decrease?

Materials

I.Materials

A. The coursepack (which contains the syllabus) is available at my website:

ww.csulb.edu/~cdennis (under “Courses”)

B. Textbooks: Marjorie Hershey, Party Politics in America, 16th edition and Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics. Both are available in the CSULB bookstore.

Materials

By the beginning of next week you will also need to read the first of a series of weekly newspaper columns. Questions from each column will only appear on quizzes during the time period mentioned at the beginning of the column. The columns are in a file at my website. Look under POSC 322 for a file entitled, “Newspaper Columns”.

Newspaper Columns

The Newspaper Columns file is password protected. The password is not available in any of the material you can download. It appeared in the email I sent before the semester began and was mentioned in class.

Materials

For each newspaper column be able to do the following: (1) summarize the column in two sentences; and (2) explain why the column was important enough that I assigned it. If you can do these two things you should be able to answer any question I’ll ask from the newspaper columns.

Make Use of Me!

I. Office Hours: 8:00-9:30 & 10:45-11:00 M,W in SPA-241

II. Phone: See Email I Sent Containing My Phone Number (which isn’t available in downloadable material) - call times: 1:30-2:30 & 3:30-4:30 Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday (No Messages - I Don’t Return Phone Calls) Call – Email Isn’t Good for Questions

Make Use of Me!

You can download ALL of the PowerPoint slides for this course at my website (look under the appropriate course). However, knowing these slides is NOT NEARLY sufficient. The slides are outlines and DO NOT contain much of the lecture material that is on the quizzes and tests. I’m glad to help you but for that to happen you’ll need to take notes in class.

Political Parties - 1

I.Why Political Parties are Important

A. Provide Candidates for Office

1. Importance of opposing candidates – even in lopsided elections


B. Provide Policy Alternatives

1. Election should provide a Referendum on Policy

2. Information Reduction Device for Voters


2008 Presidential Candidates

L= AFL-CIO (Labor)

E = League of Conservation Voters (Environment)


Democratic

Edwards Clinton Obama

L E L E L E

97% 88% 94% 87% 98% 86%

2004 Democratic Ave. LCV – 85%


Republican

McCain Thompson

L E L E

17% 24% 8% 6%

2004 Republican Ave. LCV – 10%

Note: McCain Changed Virtually Every Moderate Position to Appease the Republican base: Bush Tax Cuts, Off Shore Drilling, etc.

Political Parties – 5 (Continued)

Republican - 2012

Gingrich Santorum Paul Ryan

L E L E L E L E

10% 29% 13% 0% 18% 30% 14% 24%

NOTE: Gingrich’s record became consistently less environmental over time. In 1995 the LCV called the Gingrich-led legislative agenda “an environment train wreck.”

Political Parties – 5 (Continued)

Republican - 2016

Rubio

L E

11% 9%


C. Accountability

1. G. H. W. Bush–No New Taxes Pledge

2. Republicans in California after Republican defections in the state

legislature over 2009 budget


3. Most Party Platform Pledges are Honored

II. The Founder’s View of Political Parties

A. Political Parties are not Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution


B. Why?

C. Founder’s wanted to Maximize the “Freedom To” – not the “Freedom

From”


1. Method – Limit Government

a. Governmental decisions seen as reducing individual

freedom of choice

b. Private Property seen as an extension of the individual


2. Bill of Rights – “Congress shall make no law…”

3. Government Can Extend Rights (e.g., Voting Rights Act of 1965)

a. How much freedom to use the beach would we have if the beaches were not governmentally owned?


D. The Founders feared that if Political Parties were to develop they would almost inevitably divide over

property rights with one party representing the less affluent and wanting to curtail the property rights of the rich

1. Property ownership as a requirement to vote


2. The Founders thought that voters

would view the voting decision through economic self-interest rather than a view of what was good for society as a whole

a. The Founders (e.g., James Madison in Federalist 10) wanted to avoid “Factions”


E. Since Political Parties would likely encourage one to think in terms of a self-interest calculus for voting the founders thought they should be discouraged

1. Thus, political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution


III. It is Worth Mentioning that Studies Indicate Voters are More

Concerned with Sociotropic Questions (e.g., How is the economy doing?) than more selfish questions (e.g., How am I doing?)


A. As we will see later, this doesn’t mean that the founders’ concerns were

not justified – selfishness does play a role – but it is not as important as the founders feared.


B. Additionally, as Robert Lane’s research indicates, the poor tend to see

the middle and upper classes as

deserving their higher incomes

1. The poor aren’t that interested in taking away the property rights of the rich


IV. If the Founders Did Not Want Political Parties to Form, Why did They?

A. The “Short Answer” is that officeholders needed them


B. The Problem of Collective Policymaking

1. Assume a unicameral (i.e., one house) legislature in which every bill that passes becomes law (e.g., no executive)


2. Let us examine what might happen when this legislature tries to pass “pork barrel” legislation (i.e., where the benefits are concentrated in one, or a few, districts but the costs are widely – perhaps equally - distributed)

3. Assume we have three legislators (A, B and C) and three bills (X, Y and Z).


Payoff to Legislator if Bill Passes

Bill

Legislator X Y Z A 4 3 -9

B 3 -9 4

C -9 4 3


C. Assuming that any bill that fails gives a benefit of “0” to each legislator, what will happen?

1. Since two out of the three legislators receive a “positive” benefit from each bill all three bills pass by a 2-1

margin and each legislator’s “net total” is –2 (4 +3 – 9 = -2)


2. Thus, each legislator would be better off if all three bills were defeated

D. If each legislator acts independently, even if they know that all legislators will be worse off if each bill passes, does not ensure that no bills will

pass


1. For example, suppose bills are taken up in alphabetical order

2. No matter what happens with bills X and Y by the time bill Z is brought up legislators B and C have a clear incentive to vote for it (Z)


E. Not acting independently (i.e., one legislator trying to alter the behavior of another legislator) legislator A could try to “buy off” either B or C (by giving them the same, or more, benefit than they would’ve gotten if bill Z passes)


1. “Buying Off” is the first step in forming a political party

2. For example, legislators A and B could form a political party and pass only

bill X (i.e., keep bills Y and Z “off the table”)

3. Agenda control is a major function of

political parties (e.g., House Speaker)


V. Collective Action Problems – as illustrated in the preceding example of negative legislative benefits

A. Definition of a Collection Action Problem: when rational

behavior leads to results that could be improved upon for at least one of those involved


B. In the previous example of legislation each bill passes and each legislator was worse off as a result

C. Collective Action Problems frequently occur when the government provides “Public Goods”


D. Characteristics of Public Goods:

no one is excluded and one person’s consumption of the good does not

reduce the amount available for someone else

1.Example: Clean Air


2. Unless you benefit more than the entire cost of the public good, there is no reason for you to contribute to it. Hope others provide and “free ride” off them.


E. Applicability of Public Goods to Political Parties

1. For the vast bulk of citizens, governmentally provided public goods are essential (e.g., national defense, police protection, a clean environment, reducing poverty, etc.)


a. In the previous example of three legislators, agree that legislation could only be adopted if each

legislator benefited


b. Realistically, since most any major policy involves making someone worse off, a unanimous (or nearly unanimous) approach would result in little legislation and few problems solved.


c. In the previous example, A and B might form a political party and bill X would be passed (because they would gain 4 and 3 from it) while Y and Z either wouldn’t be voted on or would be defeated


d. While A and B would be better off, society as a whole would NOT because Cs loss (9) would be greater than the gains to A and B combined (7)


F. Political Party Affiliation for the Legislator is a Method of Reducing

Uncertainty

1. Thus, if legislator “A” tried to form a coalition on every vote there would be some uncertainty

2. Political parties reduce uncertainty by telling which coalition, or “team,” you

belong to


H. The Federalist and Jefferson Republican Parties began as legislative parties for the previous

reasons.

1. The minority, or “losing,” party turned to the public to elect

more of their members.


VI. As the Political Parties will Need the Support of Voters, Let’s Look at the Benefit of Party Identification for

Voters

A. Rationality of Voting:


R = reward (expected utility) for casting a vote

P = probability that the voter’s vote will affect the outcome

B = the differential benefit the voter receives if their preferred candidate wins


D = any positive rewards received from voting itself (i.e., fulfilling a citizen’s “duty”)

C = cost of voting (e.g., information costs, time and effort to register, etc.)

R = PB + D-C


ANALYSIS: (1) “P” and “D” are likely unaffected by political parties; (2) parties reduce “C” (by reducing information costs) and increase “B”


I.Political Party Systems

Cadre Mass Membership

Where All other Wealthy

Found: U.S. Democracies


Goal: Winning Greater Emphasis on

Standing for

Something Different

than the Opposition

Traits: Few Dues Many Dues

Paying Members Paying Members


Little Public Much Public

Education Education

Policy

Flexibility High Low


II. Why the U.S. Developed a Cadre rather than a Mass Membership Party System

A. "Absolutist Individualism" – to make the individual as self-reliant as is

practically possible

B. Little for the Political System to do


III. Why the U. S. Has Such a Strong

Commitment to Absolutist Individualism

A. Great Wealth


B. Frontier Experience

1. Self-Sufficiency

2. Ease of Owning Property


3. Basic rule: government actions to help the poor often involve some

reduction in property rights

4. Zoning


C. Agrarian Experience

1. Difficult to Organize Farmers


D. Ethnic Diversity

1. Basic Rule: A society strongly divided on racial, ethnic or religious lines is more difficult to divide on social

class lines


E. Lateness of the Industrial Revolution

1. Strong Commitment to Absolutist Individualism Prior to Industrialization

2. Reliance on “Craft” Unions

Research Methodology - 1

I. Approaches to Study Mass Political

Behavior

A. Economists typically use a deductive model based on maximizing personal self-interest (defined chiefly in economic terms).


1. Economists typically assume “self-interested rationality” (i.e., aren’t interested in studying “how you made up your mind” or

assume they already know the process).


2. Median Voter Theorem

3. Explaining the change in the votes for a political party based on change in real disposable income

a. Skeptical of survey research – all questions about economic issues illicit stupid answers


4. Congress – all regulations are passed at the behest of interest groups

a. Thus, “ideas” (i.e., ideology of the congressman) would not effect their voting in Congress.

Research Methodology – 5

C. Sociology

1. A person behaves politically as they are socially.

2. Thus, the “group” you are a member of largely determines your vote in an election.


3. If so, what explains the movement of all groups in a particular direction (e.g., in a pro-

Republican direction)?

D. The question immediately above prompted many political scientists to study voting behavior from a psychological perspective.


1. Political Scientists, using psychological approaches, studied voting from the perspective of decision-

making (i.e., value of a “standing decision” such as party identification and feelings

toward a candidate and then vote choice).


2. The Funnel of Causality

War Party Issue Vote

Depression > I.D. > Positions > Choice


3. Findings include the impact of the following on voters’ decisions: party identification, issue positions and the basis of economic influences (e.g., How important is your perception of your own financial situation as opposed to your perception of the financial situation of others?)


3. Early survey research findings were discouraging: (1) voters had little knowledge; (2) few voters could either think in ideological terms or apply such terms; (3) consequently, little relationship between issue positions (e.g., between various domestic policies and/or foreign policies).

Political Opinion - 1

I. Public Opinion

A. Economic and Noneconomic

B. Abstract and Specific

Public Opinion - 2

1. Basic rule: People give more tolerant

or “democratic" responses in the abstract than they do in the specific.

C. Liberal and Conservative

1.Relative not Absolute Definitions

Public Opinion - 3

2. Liberal - greater commitment to reducing economic inequality and maintaining economic

security/greater support for the noneconomic freedom to differ

Public Opinion - 4

3. Conservative – greater individual free choice-less commitment

to equality in economics/less commitment to the freedom to differ in noneconomics

Public Opinion - 5

D. If Asked Their Political Orientation

Conservatives Outnumber Liberals

Two to One.

1. Symbolic Conservatism (they say they’re “conservative”) but

Operational Liberalism (support greater government spending on education, health care, etc.)

Public Opinion - 6

2. Conservatives have, with much success, attempted to switch the notion of an “elite” from an economic elite (which politically hurts conservatives) to a cultural elite (which politically helps conservatives).

a. Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum – the well-educated are “against us”

Public Opinion - 7

E. Public support for greater government spending on social welfare programs moves opposite the partisanship of the president (e.g., public support for more government spending on environmental protection increases under Republican presidents because the public feels the Republicans aren’t very environmentally oriented).

Public Opinion - 8

F. Citizens Often Hold Competing Values Such as Freedom and Equality (e.g., desiring both tax cuts and increased government services)

1. Public opinion can often be easily manipulated.

Public Opinion - 9

G. Public Opinion is Individually Irrational but Collectively Rational

1. Most people don’t follow politics

closely and aren’t well-informed.

However, a small group of voters are well-informed and this means that

overall opinion moves in a rational manner.

Public Opinion - 10

H. Political Parties and Voters - Specific Issue Positions – “Four-Celled

Diagram”

The Voters:

Economic - Liberal/

Noneconomic -Conservative

Public Opinion - 11

Democratic Party:

Economic – Liberal/

Noneconomic – Liberal

Public Opinion - 12

Republican Party:

Economic – Conservative/

Noneconomic – Conservative

Public Opinion - 13

Libertarians –

Economic – Conservative/

Noneconomic – Liberal

Since political support is often based upon intolerance, libertarianism will have difficulty building much mass support.

Public Opinion - 14

H. Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Political Opinions

1. Socioeconomic Status - income, education and occupational status

Public Opinion - 15

2. Economic Issues – Negative Association - As SES increases

support for liberal positions decreases

Public Opinion - 16

3. Noneconomic Issues - Positive

Association – As SES increases

support for liberal positions increases

Public Opinion - 17

4. Typically, a party will “frame” an issue as an issue they “own.” Democrats would frame universal health care

as either security for workers losing insurance and/or fairness, while the Republicans would frame universal health care as either a tax increase and/or the size and scope of government (i.e., “big government”).

Public Opinion - 18

a. Republicans are perceived as better able to handle foreign policy and defense issues, reducing taxes, controlling inflation, reducing government spending, reducing crime and promoting moral values than Democrats.

Public Opinion - 19

b. Conversely, Democrats are perceived as better able to handle social

welfare policies and/or “fairness” issues such as protecting Social Security, improving health care, helping the poor, supporting public schools, reducing unemployment, solving farm problems, and protecting the environment than Republicans.

Public Opinion - 20

J. Public Support for the Bush Tax Cuts

A. 40% of the benefits go to the wealthiest 1% of households

(annual income above $370,000) – this is equal to the

amount received by the poorest

70% of households COMBINED!

Public Opinion - 21

1. 75% of households LOSE under the Bush Tax Cuts

a. Mean Cut - $1,199

Median Cut - $217

2. People Overly Upwardly Identify (19% thought they were in the top 1%)

Public Opinion - 22

B. Those FAVORING greater government spending more FAVORED the Bush Tax Cuts - SEE THE

CONTRADICTION?

1.Similarily half of California voters think the state’s budget could

be reduced 20% WITHOUT reducing services.

Public Opinion - 23

C. The MORE One Thinks Their OWN Tax Burden is Too High the MORE they SUPPORT the Bush Tax Cuts - SEE THE CONTRADICTION?

D. The Public Simply Doesn’t Connect the Bush Tax Cuts to Either Other Public Policies (services cutbacks, higher interest rates) or Inequality.

Public Opinion on Income Inequality - 1

The next several slides show what groups in the United States, Japan and Sweden

think is the actual and fair degree of income inequality between an executive and an auto worker.

Public Opinion on Income Inequality – 2 – United States

Perceived Fair

Income Income

Republicans 13.2/1 11.3/1

Democrats 15.4/1 8.2/1

Public Opinion on Income Inequality – 3 - Japan

Perceived Fair

Income Income

Conservative 7.1/1 5.4/1

Party

Left Parties 10.3/1 3.7/1

Public Opinion on Income Inequality – 4 - Sweden

Perceived Fair

Income Income

Conservative/ 2.2/1 2.1/1

Center Party

Left Party 3.2/1 1.9/1

Political Participation - 1

I. Political Participation

A. Types of Political Participation


B. Who Participates?

1. Basic rule: while voting is positively related to socioeconomic status (SES) non-voting forms of political participation are even more strongly positively related to socioeconomic status.


C. “60-30-10” Diagram

1. SES Composition of the Highest Participating One-Fifth of Adult Americans


Highest 1/3 SES - 60%

Middle 1/3 SES - 30%

Lowest 1/3 SES - 10%


D. Consequences

1.Message Received: Too Economically Conservative

and Socially Liberal


E. Comparison

1. Only In India was the Relationship between SES and Participation As Strong as in the U.S.


F. Why?

1. Relative Absence of Class-Related

Politics in the U.S.

2. Relative Lack of Work Organizations/Unions in the U.S.

Voting Behavior - 1

I. Voting Behavior

A. Realigning Election

B. Current Division between the Parties is Quite Close

Voting Behavior - 2

II. The Republican Coalition

A. White Evangelicals – Moral Decline

B. Deep South – Civil Rights

Voting Behavior - 3

C. Country Folk – Culture

D. Exurbia – White Flight

Voting Behavior - 4

E. Young Blue Collars Boys – White

Men Without College Degrees

F. Blue Collar Old Men – Social Security can cause defections

Voting Behavior - 5

G. Privileged Men – Noneconomic liberalism of this group can cause defections

Voting Behavior - 6

III. The Democratic Coalition

A. African-Americans – Civil Rights plus

Economic Need

1. Republican support eroded once

Civil Rights involved government

regulation of business

Voting Behavior - 7

B. Hispanics – Similar Calculus to African-Americans

C. Well-Educated Women – Relatively Liberal both Economically and Socially (support Affirmative Action – Abortion Rights and Gun Control)

Voting Behavior - 8

D. Secular Warriors – Don’t Go to Church and Don’t Own Guns

E. Cosmopolitan States (large, diverse populations on the sea coasts)

Voting Behavior - 9

F. Union Families

IV. Contested Groups – Typically Economically Liberal and Socially Conservative

A. Catholics

Voting Behavior - 10

B. Single Women – Economically

Vulnerable

C. Young Voters – Tend to be Relatively

Liberal but Don’t Vote as Much


I. Question – If poor people disproportionately vote Democratic and richer people disproportionately vote Republican, why do Democratic Presidential candidates win the richer states and Republican Presidential candidates win the poorer states?



Voting Behavior – 14 - Race is Half the Story


I. Voting and the Culture War

A. The culture war is fought by the wealthy, in part, because their economic needs are met.

B. The wealthy have sufficient money to move to an area that is culturally suitable for them.


I. The Issue Positions/Ideology of Today’s Voters More Accurately Reflect the Views of Their Party than during the 1950-1980 period.

A. During the 1960-1980 period the message from party elites became more consistent

within each party.


B. Two Fundamental Causes

1. Reaction to the Civil Rights movement – the South becomes much more Republican

2. Political losses by business cause it to spend much more on lobbying for a message of low

taxes and regulation


C. As the cues from party officeholders become more similar within each party, there are fewer voters whose issue positions/ideology don’t fit their political party (i.e., liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats).


1. Independent voters who “lean” toward a party typically behave as partisans (i.e., hold opinions similar to their party and vote for that party).

2. If faced with a conflict between their ideology and their party, most

voters change their ideology to fit their party rather than vice versa.


3. However, voters do process policy

information if available and this information has 1.5 to 2.0 times the

impact on partisan’s opinions than does the impact of party leaders’ opinions. Policy information has a greater impact on Democrats than Republicans.


a. It is worth mentioning that

increased information significantly increased Republican support for expanding health care

coverage. Many Republicans didn’t know that the Obama Health Care Plan contained such expansions.


D. All these factors, plus the greater turnout rate among partisans, have caused campaigns to increasing focus on activating their “base” rather than appealing to independent voters.


E. All of these factors greatly increase the “cost” to politicians of compromising with the opposition party (e.g., you may get a primary election challenge within your party).

Noneconomic Party Differences- 1

I. Left (Non-Communist)/Right (Non-Fascist) on Noneconomic Issues

A. Right

1. Maintain Traditional Social

Relationships/Regime

Maintenance


2. Freedom of Expression

3. Increase Civil Rights and Liberties


B. Left

1. Freedom of Expression

2. Increase Civil Rights and Liberties


3. Maintain Traditional Social

Relationships/Regime Maintenance

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 1A

DON’T WRITE DOWN ANY OF THE MATERIAL OVER THE NEXT 220 SLIDES. ALL OF IT IS IN THE COURSEPACK. JUST LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION!

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 1B

I. Policy Orientation of This Discussion

A. Since the U.S. has the weakest social safety net and highest level of income inequality of any wealthy democracy the obvious comparison is to the other wealthy democracy that have stronger social safety nets and less income inequality than we do.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 1C

B. I know that isn’t “comforting.” We naturally want to think of our nation as “best” on all criteria. Realistically, this is impossible. A nation that has the lowest taxes won’t have the least inequality. The United States ranks high on some social programs (e.g., higher education) but not on income security and reducing inequality.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 1D

C. If I were teaching this class in a nation with a very strong social safety net and much less income inequality (e.g., Sweden), I would compare it to nations that have less strong social safety nets and greater income inequality (e.g., Canada and Great Britain with moderately strong social safety nets and the U.S. with a very social safety net).

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 1E

D. Therefore, while I will touch on proposals to weaken the U.S. safety net, the vast bulk of the discussion ahead will focus on what other wealthy democracies do to reduce income equality, how well these policies work and what the U.S. could do in this regard while still preserving our freedoms and improving our political system.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy – 2

I. Incentives of the Two Major Political Parties

A. Unemployment has a large impact which disproportionately falls on low and middle-income voters.

1. Nonmonetary costs of unemployment


B. The poorest 80% of American households are relatively unaffected by inflation. However, inflation has a greater adverse impact on the richest 20% of American households.


C. Marginal Substitution Rate

Democrats Independents Republicans

.90 2.0 1.5

Macroeconomic Theory - 1

I. Macroeconomic Theory

A. Neoclassical

1. The free market was assumed to yield full employment (i.e.,

no/low unemployment) and to grow without limitation and to correct any imbalances that might develop


2. Since the higher one’s income the greater the percentage of their income they save/invest and the smaller percentage of their income they spend, the greater the share of income the rich possessed the greater the investment, and hence, economic innovation/growth.


3. By this view, a major goal of macroeconomic policy was to keep the costs of production low (e.g., low wages – through the absence of labor unions, a low minimum wage, low taxes, little government regulation of business, etc.) in order to increase profits and investment.

4. Couldn’t explain the Great Depression


B. Keynesianism

1. If the non-rich lacked sufficient money to purchase goods, the economy would not reach its’

full potential because businessmen would not open new business,

or expand current ones, if they felt they could not sell the resulting products or services.


2. This meant that middle and lower-income groups, who spend a greater share of their income than upper income groups, need to have a significant share of the national income (through a minimum wage, labor unions, etc.).


3. If economic demand was insufficient, Keynes argued that the government should increase its’ spending and be willing to run large deficits (i.e., spend more money than it receives in taxes).

4. If both inflation and unemployment are high (late 1970s & early 1980s) –

trouble.

Macroeconomic Theory – 7A

C. The aforementioned difficulties of Keynesian economics, plus the renewed political strength of a Republican Party whose ideology was similar to neoclassical economics, resulted in a rebirth of neoclassical economics under several different names.

Macroeconomic Theory – 7B

D. Corporate profits were 25% to 30% higher at the official end of the Great Recession than they were before it started (2007). Meanwhile, wages as a share of national income fell to 58%. That’s the lowest wage share had been since it began to be recorded after World War II.

Macroeconomic Theory – 7C

If wages were at their postwar (World War II) average of 63%, U.S. workers would earn an extra $740 (billion) this year (2012) or about $5,000 per worker. That’s a lot of consuming power.”


D. Supply-Side Economics - Ronald Reagan 1981 & Newt Gingrich 2012

1. Like Neoclassical Economics – much more concerned with reducing impediments to supply (high labor costs, taxes and regulations) than in stimulating demand.


2. Tax Cuts DON’T pay for themselves.

3. Gregory Mankiw – supply-side

economics devised by “charlatans and cranks”

E. Relationship between the philosophy/self-interest of both major political parties and the economic theory they use.


D. Recent research by political scientists shows that all income groups up through the 95th percentile (i.e., all but the richest 5% of households – today those earning about $200,000, or less, per year) gain under the Democrats relative to the Republicans. However, the poor gain at a greater rate under the Democrats.


E. Our Current Situation

1. Tremendous loss of consumer demand due to the collapse of real estate

2. Government needs to replace this lost demand – i.e., NOT cutback


3. 300 billion dollars of stimulus will reduce the unemployment rate by 1%. The Obama Stimulus Plan was approximately 775

billion dollars spread over two years. Given the composition of the Obama Stimulus Plan (e.g., tax cuts – which have low stimulative value) it is equivalent to about 510 billion dollars of stimulus rather than 775 billion dollars.


This means that, due to the Obama Stimulus Plan, the unemployment rate, while high, is about 1.7 percentage points lower that it would have been without the plan (510/300 = 1.7).


4. Many economists think that the federal government needs to do two things to improve the economy: (1) provide a larger stimulus than the Obama Stimulus Plan; and (2) more strongly regulate the financial markets (to avoid the bad loans that precipitated our current problems). This is difficult for the Republican Party: their ideology conceives of government as “the problem,” not “the solution.”


Income Inequality in Wealthy Democracies

in the Mid-1980s – Percentage Distribution

Japan Sweden U.S.

Richest

20% 37.5% 41.7% 42.0%

Poorest

20% 8.7% 7.4% 5.0%

2009 >>> 3.9%

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11A

Richest Richest Richest

Year 10% 1% ½ of 1%

1920 39.0% 14.8% 11.1%

1970 32.6% 9.0% 6.3%

2008 48.2% 21.0% 16.9%

SHARES FOR THE RICHEST 1% AND ½ OF 1% ARE ABOUT TWICE AS HIGH AS IN EUROPE

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11B

U.C. Berkeley Economist Emmanuel Saez’s comments on the reasons for increase income inequality in the U.S.:

“…The changes in income concentration are just too abrupt and too closely correlated with policy developments for the standard story about pay equaling productivity to hold everywhere.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11C

Between 1971 and 2007, U.S. hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose by 4%. (That’s not 4% a year; it’s 4% over 36 years!) during those same decades, productivity increased by 99% - that is, it nearly doubled. In other words, the average worker’s productivity rose 25 times more than his pay. Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2013, page A11).

That is, if pay is equal to productivity, you would think that deep economic changes in skills would evolve slowly and make a gradual difference in the distribution—but what we see in the data are very abrupt changes. Basically all western countries had very high levels of income concentration up to the first decades of the 20th century

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11D

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11E

and then income concentration fell dramatically in most western countries following the historical narrative of each country. For example, in the United States the Great Depression followed by the New Deal and then World War II. And I could go on with other countries.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11F

Symmetrically, the reversal—that is, the surge in income concentration in some but not all countries—follows political developments closely. You see the highest increases in income concentration in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom (Great Britain),

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11G

following precisely what has been called the Reagan (Republican President from 1981-1988) and Thatcher (Conservative Party Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1979-1990) revolutions: deregulation, cuts in top tax rates, and policy changes that favored upper-income brackets.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11H

You don’t see nearly as much of an increase in income concentration in countries such as Japan, Germany, or France, which haven’t gone through such sharp, drastic policy changes.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy: 11I

Apportioning the 12 percentage Increase in the Share of Income Going to the Top 1% - 1976-2008 (8.9% to 20.9%)

Tax Reductions – 45%

Political Polarization – 28%

Unexplained - 26%

Conservative tax changes and the increased conservatism of the Republican Party have had a large impact on inequality.


If you include government transfers and subtract taxes from 1979 to 2006, the richest 1% of households had a 256% increase income while middle-income households (40th-60th percentiles) had a 21% increase and low-income households (1st-20th percentiles) only an 11% increase. In the United States today, the richest 1% of households have over 1.5 times as much income as the entire poorest 40% of households combined.

Changes in California - 1

In California, between 1987 and 2009, more than 33% of the income gains went to the richest 1% of Californians, and almost 75% went to the richest 10% while the bottom 90% received just over 25% of the growth in incomes. During the last two decades, the average income of the richest 1% of Californians increased by more than 50%,

Changes in California - 2

after adjusting for inflation, while the average income of the middle fifth (i.e., the 40th – 60th percentiles) decreased by 15%. In 2009, the average income of the richest 1% of Californians was $1.2 million – more than 30 times that of Californians in the middle fifth. California’s income gap is wider than most other states.


Americans in the poorest 10% had a living standard 22% below low-income Finns, 24% below low- income Dutch and 15% below low-income Italians. However, the wealthiest 10% of Americans had incomes 50% higher than the wealthiest 10% in the other OECD nations (Great Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand).

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy -14

One fundamental reason the poor in the U.S. have a lower standard of living than in several other nations is that, after taxes, the U.S. transfers only about one-third the percentage of income to the poorest 20% of households (1.5%) as does the average (4.2%) of the world’s wealthy democracies.

Analysis from the World Bank Publication, “Social Safety Nets and Target Assistance: Lessons from the European Experience,” Chris de Neubourg, et. al.

While the average American has a higher living standard than the average resident in the other countries, this does not hold for the entire spectrum of the income distribution. Despite the higher aggregate and average standard of living in the United States, people in the lower deciles of the income distribution are far worse off in US than poorer persons or households in Europe, if compared to the median income of their own country. (p. 5)


The median Swedish family has a living standard roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are, if anything, higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. As you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are much higher than in the U.S.: at the 10th percentile (poorer than 90% of the population) the Swedish living standard is 60% higher than in the U.S.


In this light it is worth noting that approximately 38% of the benefits from the Bush Tax Cuts go to the richest 1% of the households (i.e., the same households who have been receiving a much higher share of personal income over the past 40 years). The richest 1% of U.S. households receive more money from the Bush Tax Cuts than the entire poorest 70% of U.S. households combined (roughly households with annual incomes of about $90,000 or less).


Wealth is a storehouse of assets: trusts, stocks, bonds, etc. whereas income is what you live on over a short period – say, a year. As the following statistics will make clear: Wealth is even more unequally distributed than income. In the United States the wealthiest 1% of households have over 33% of the national wealth while the poorest 50% of households have approximately 7% of the national wealth.


A rather large amount of research tells us the following: (1) Americans vastly overestimate their chances of becoming rich; (2) vastly underestimate the degree of income inequality (i.e., do not think the wealthy are as wealthy as the actually are); and (3) have a difficult time connecting public policy to economic outcomes (e.g., not that many see the Bush Tax Cuts as a tremendous redistribution to the wealthy).


Currently, wealth in America is distributed as follows: the richest 20% of households (percentiles 81-100) have approximately 84% of the wealth, the next richest 20% (i.e., percentiles 61-80) have approximately 11%, the middle quintile (i.e., percentiles 41-60) have approximately 4%, the next poorest 20% (i.e., percentiles 21-40) have approximately .2% (two tenths of 1%) and the poorest quintile (i.e., percentiles 1-20) have approximately .1% (one tenth of 1%).


Americans do desire a less unequal distribution of wealth. Recently, two scholars tried an interesting experiment.

Not being told what nations had what distribution of wealth, Americans were offered three choices: (1) the current American distribution of wealth;


(2) perfect equality (i.e., each quintile getting an equal – 20% - share of the wealth); or (3) the current Swedish distribution of wealth (the richest 20% of households approximately 36% of the wealth, the next richest 20% approximately 21% of the wealth, the middle quintile approximately 18% of the wealth, the next poorest 20% approximately 15% of the wealth and the poorest quintile approximately 11% of the wealth).


The results were as follows: 47% chose Sweden’s distribution, 43% chose perfect equality while only 10% chose the current American distribution. Additionally, American’s are less satisfied with their lives than citizens in a number of European countries that have less per capita income, but much stronger safety nets/less income inequality than the U.S.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–22A

I.How Should We Measure “Well-Being”?

A. If someone spends $1,000 on diabetes medicine it counts as part of GDP. However, wouldn’t the same person have a better life if they didn’t have diabetes but spent $750 on a computer? Since $1,000 is greater than $750, in this example GDP would be higher for diabetes oriented spending than for buying a computer.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–22B

B. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) only measures the monetary value of the economy. It tells nothing about how the money is used or any non-monetary value (national health, the functioning of the political system, job security and measures of community well-being).

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–22C

C. Typically, on such indicators, the United States ranks lower than the high tax and strong welfare state countries of Northern Europe (e.g., Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands).


Mobility is NOT that high in the U.S.

If you compare the eventual income of two children from different families, on average, the child from the richer family receives an annual income that is higher than the child from the poorer family by approximately 30%-40% of the difference in the incomes of their parents.


A child from a family that made $100,000 per year would, on average, out earn a child from a family that made $25,000 by approximately $25,000 per year (the difference in their parents incomes was $75,000 – i.e., $100,000 - $25,000 = $75,000; 33% of $75,000 = $25,000). Thus, if later in life the child of the poorer family was earning $25,000 per year and the child of the richer family was earning $50,000 per year, you could say that the difference was entirely due to background.


Put another way: children born into the poorest 20% of households have approximately a 42% chance of ending up in the poorest 20% themselves, a 24% chance of ending up in the next poorest 20% and only a 6% chance of ending up in the richest 20%.


Father’s and Son’s incomes in the U.S. correlate at about .43 (correlation ranges from 0 to 1.0 so this is a moderate correlation), and is higher in the U.S.

(i.e., less mobility) than in Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Spain, Germany, and Canada.


The Bush Tax Cuts reveal a very pertinent fact about economic policy: there is often a great difference between programs that help the non-wealthy acquire wealth versus policies that protect the wealth of those who already have it. What is good for one group is not necessarily good, and often harmful, for the other group. Approximately 75% of American household lose under the Bush Tax Cuts.


Consider how the Bush Tax Cuts affect mobility from low to high-income groups. First, by repealing the estate tax and reducing other taxes on high-income individuals, the Bush Tax Cuts give the wealthy more wealth to leave their heirs. Obviously, this makes it more difficult for most of you to try to amass more wealth than the heirs of the currently very wealthy due to the fact these heirs will be given such a tremendous head start on you.


Second, by reducing the revenue of the federal government, the Bush Tax Cuts will all but require reductions in programs that help low and middle-income people ascend the economic ladder (e.g., the Pell Grant Program for poor college students, health care for the poor, job training, public transportation, etc.).


The Bush Tax Cuts are one of the very least effective, and most costly, methods of stimulating the economy and, ultimately, reducing unemployment. As economic research indicates: lower-income households spend a higher percentage of each additional dollar they receive than higher-income households.


For example, a household with a $40,000 annual income will spend a higher percentage of each additional dollar it receives than a household with a $200,000 annual income. This is because lower-income households have greater unmet needs than higher-income households (e.g., replacing a worn out car).


By showering more money on the richest 1% of households (i.e., households with incomes above $370,000) than on the entire poorest 70% of households combined, the Bush Tax Cuts place the most money in the hands of those least likely to spend it. Contrast this with the items on the next slide – favored by Democrats.


The following indicates how much additional economic activity occurs per dollar spent: extending unemployment compensation - $1.60; payroll tax reduction - $1.09; and extending the Bush Tax Cuts - $.35 (i.e. for each dollar given to tax payers through the Bush Tax Cuts, we only receive 35 cents of additional economic activity – only a fourth as much per dollar spent as on unemployment compensation – i.e., $.35 is about ¼ of $1.60).


Since all income groups will save some percentage of the money they receive (i.e., lower-income households will save some money, just not as a great percentage as higher-income households), having the government directly spend money is more stimulative than tax cuts.


If the government both taxes and spends a large share of the economy won’t we end up with more equal slices of a smaller pie (or a pie that isn’t growing as fast as it otherwise would)? While this is an important point, the evidence in favor of it is NOT compelling.


Tax rates as a percentage of the economy are much lower in the U.S. than in most wealthy democracies:

U.S. – 32.2%, Canada – 38.3%,

Great Britain – 41.2%, Germany – 44.6%,

Italy – 47.8%, Sweden – 50.9%,

France – 52.9% and Denmark – 57.4%.

Source: OECD as reported in NY Times

11/16/14


Federal Taxes as a percentage of our economy are lower today than they have been in over 60 years.

1951- 16.1 % (before Medicare enacted)

1971 – 17.3%

2001 – 19.5%

2011 – 15.4%


Effective Tax Rates on Income of

$100,000 in 2012

Nation Income Tax Social Security

U.S. – 26.0% 18.7% 7.3%

G. Brit.- 31.4% 24.1% 7.3%

Sweden- 36.3% 36.3% 0%

France – 42.0% 20.0% 22.0%

Germany-43.8% 28.3% 15.5%

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–36D

Government Mandated Paid Annual Leave and Paid Days of Vacation

U.S. - 0

Great Britain - 20

Sweden - 25

German - 30

France - 31


From 1990-2005 per capita (i.e., per person - to adjust for differences in population size between nations) growth rates were as follows: U.S. - 85%, Netherlands – 86%, Norway – 134%, France – 60%, Australia – 91%, Canada – 69%, Denmark – 80%, United Kingdom – 111%. Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. (Gross Domestic Product) – which is what matters most for living standards - has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U.(U.S. - 1.95%, E.U. - 1.83%).


As economist Peter Lindert of the University of California at Davis put it, “No matter how you torture the data, there is no negative relationship between a commitment to the welfare state and the growth rate in how well off we are.” While taxes may reduce the willingness of some to work as hard, many of the purposes for which tax dollars are spent (e.g., education, infrastructure, etc.) increase the growth rate. One of the reasons the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) spend about TWICE the percentage of GDP (3%-4%) on research and development as the U.S.


In light of the Obama Health Care Plan, let me mention the following: EVERY nation in the world rations health care. For example, would you pay an additional $200 per month for health care in order to prolong the life of terminally ill patients an average of 3 months? If “yes,” how about $400 per month? Once you say “no” (i.e., refuse to pay), you are rationing health care.


Let me offer the following question: Would you prefer to have a government panel – typically headed by physicians – make the necessary rationing decisions or would you rather have a for-profit insurance company make them? That’s the choice we actually have.


Government policies do have important affects on the rationing decisions that all health care systems must make. For example, cigarette taxes reduce cigarette smoking. Economists have found that a 10% increase in the cost of cigarettes reduces smoking by about 3%-4%. Thus, cigarette taxes reduce the amount of smoking which, in turn, reduces the onset of a large number of adverse health consequences (e.g., cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc.).


Many of those who claim the Obama Health Care Plan will lead to government rationing of health care to the elderly are the same individuals/groups who oppose government regulations (e.g., soda taxes, meat taxes, restaurant menu labeling requiring disclosure of calories, fat, sodium, etc.) which would greatly reduce adverse health consequences (e.g., obesity) which, in turn, would leave more money for the health care needs of senior citizens.


Broad-based government programs, such as Medicare (a government health care program for senior citizens), have two big cost saving advantages over a completely free market social insurance system: (1) compulsion – i.e., requiring everyone to buy health insurance lowers the cost because the cost of the “expensive” individuals (e.g., those likely to be ill) is spread over a large group (e.g., the healthy) and;


(2) administrative cost (e.g., the typical private health insurer spends about 10% of its outlays on administrative costs, weeding out sick people, etc. whereas the government run Medicare program spends between 2%-3% of its budget on administrative costs).


The preceding are two of the major reasons why the #1 ranked (by the World Health Organization) French health care system spends only a little more than half as much money per person as the 37th ranked U.S. health care system (France - $4,690, U.S. - $8,895).


Government run programs such as Medicare aren’t the same as government ownership of productive assets. Medicare doesn’t own hospitals or employ doctors, it contracts with privately owned hospitals and private physicians.


I should also mention that government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (a government run health care program for the poor) currently pay substantially more of our nation’s health care costs (approximately 47%) than private insurance (approximately 35%).

Thus, we can’t “get the government out of health care.”


It should also be mentioned that the democracies of Western Europe are, in the main, NOT socialist nations. Socialism means that the government owns the modes of production and distribution. For example, socialism in the U.S. would mean that the government would own the major fast food outlets (e.g., McDonalds, Wendy’s etc.).


Considerations about the size of government on personal freedom are complicated. Equating the size of government with personal freedom often involves equating private property with personal freedom. This is difficult.


For example, would most Californians have more freedom if the beaches were sold to private individuals or if the State of California operates them? Additionally, if state taxes were reduced taxpayers would have a greater freedom of choice in spending their money.


However, if these state tax cuts resulted in higher fees for U.C. and CSU students fewer students would attend college. Not attending college would reduce both the future incomes and occupational choices of the individuals who did not attend college due to the budget reductions resulting from the state tax cuts. In short, it would reduce their future freedom. So, would such a state tax cut result in a “net” gain or loss in freedom?


A relatively small loss in freedom for a large group of people (requiring each person to purchase health insurance) will provide a much larger amount of freedom (to make all the decisions living people can make) for a smaller group of people (the unhealthy). If so, has the amount of freedom either increased or decreased? It’s not so easy to answer! You would have to balance the loss of many small amounts of freedom against a fewer large gains in freedom.


People in the democracies of Western Europe are typically as “free” as Americans. For example, free speech in Great Britain is as great as it is in the United States. Additionally, some Western European nations actually have higher scores on some measures of democracy than the United States. Typically, this occurs because of lower voter turnout and fewer major political parties in the United States.


The “big picture” is that, if we wanted to, our nation could reduce economic inequality significantly and still have an equally vibrant, growing economy with the same level of freedom we currently enjoy. This is really a question of values (i.e., Do we want to?) rather than possibilities (i.e., Could we?)


Increased redistribution of income and wealth might well improve the functioning of democracy in the United States. What some refer to as “the Debilitating Cycle” is a very important problem: greater income inequality leads to a greater reliance of politicians on campaign contributions from the wealthy, which, can easily cause these same politicians to adopt policies that even more favor the wealthy, which starts the same cycle again.


Relative to the average American, the very wealthy (net worth of $40 million or more) are: (1) much more concerned about budget deficits; (2) much more favorable to cutting social welfare programs, especially Social Security and health care; (3) are considerably less supportive of an above-poverty-level minimum wage, or having the federal government “see to” or provide jobs for the unemployed;


(4) much less supportive of providing broad educational opportunities; (5) much less willing to redistributive income to those poorer than themselves; (6) less willing to raise taxes on high income groups (e.g., less supportive of having an estate tax); and (7) are less willing to regulate either the stock market or businesses.


Proposals of the Political PartiesPresident George W. Bush proposed a series of

policies to deal with our nation’s economic future that were collectively referred to as “The Ownership Society.” The idea is that each individual citizen would “own” items that had previously been provided by the government. For example, if each individual citizen can choose how to invest their money in a personal Social Security Account you could say that person “owned” their retirement.


Let’s see how “The Ownership Society” would have changed American health care policy and the degree of health care security American’s have. Former President George W. Bush did not favor requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. He did favor

(and at his urging Congress did pass) legislation setting up Health Savings Accounts in 2003.


In 2008, an individual could contribute up to $2,400 per year to such an account ($5,800 for a family). The gains from this investment are not taxed and the money could be withdrawn to pay the deductable under a health insurance policy. This is a tax free method of investing for those fortunate enough to have the money to participate. Not surprisingly, those most likely to contribute to Health Savings Accounts are much richer than average.


Look at the relationships between wealth/education and health: (1) more well-educated and higher-income individuals are more likely to value delayed gratification – i.e., foregoing something today for a greater future gain - in this case eating healthier food, maintaining a healthier weight, not smoking, etc. than less well-educated and lower-income individuals; thus,


(2) more well-educated and higher-income individuals are less likely to need medical attention than less well-educated and lower-income individuals; and (3) more well-educated and higher-income individuals are more likely to contribute to Health Savings Accounts than less well-educated and lower-income individuals.


By not requiring people to buy insurance and by allowing people to put money into Health Savings Accounts, higher-income people, who are typically more healthy, are able to remove money that would’ve gone into an insurance pool from which the unhealthy could benefit. Thus, the practical effect of Health Savings Accounts is to reduce the ability to spread medical costs over a larger, healthier, population.


Withdrawing money that a healthier population would have put into an insurance pool and, instead, placing it in the hands of higher-income households means that the costs of health insurance to the less healthy population, disproportionately drawn from middle and low-income households, will increase. All of this works to the advantage of higher- income individuals.


The Ownership Society proposal for education (another tax-free savings plan) has a similar effect to the Health Savings Accounts. Here’s why: (1) higher-income individuals are much more likely to have the necessary money to put into such an account; (2) citizens are more likely to vote in favor of increased taxes for education when they have children in the public education system; and


(3) the money from an Educational Savings Account will either allow more students to afford a private college and/or reduce their need for more funding for state run colleges. For example, the money from the account means they are less likely to need financial aid than other students. Points 1-3 mean that the educational “gap” between students from lower and higher-income households will increase.


Republican Congressman Paul Ryan calls his plan, “The Roadmap for America’s Future.” His plan would: (1) cut federal taxes of the richest 1% of households by 50% (i.e., in half – this is in addition to the tax cuts this group would receive by making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent);


(2) replace some of the lost revenue from the tax cuts for the richest 1% of households with a much more regressive consumption tax on most goods and services (i.e., paid much more by middle and low-income households – families with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face a tax increase of around $900 per year);


(3) freeze discretionary domestic spending (keep in mind that, that after adjusting for inflation and population growth, this would mean a 25% reduction over 10 years in such items as public transportation, etc.); (4) privatize Social Security (i.e., individual accounts) and;


(5) replace Medicare for senior citizens with a voucher (i.e., an amount of money to buy health insurance). Since the Ryan plan doesn’t require all citizens to buy health insurance and includes Health Savings Accounts, health care costs will increase (see previous discussion). These increases would occur at the same time that Ryan wants to reduce Medicare spending. Thus, senior citizens would have much poorer health care under the Ryan plan than currently.


The Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits — roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone — and initially diverts most of these savings to help fund private accounts rather than to restore Social Security solvency.”


This is very similar to former President George W. Bush’s proposal for Social Security. Unlike Bush’s Social Security Proposal, the Ryan Plan protects those whose investments result in less income than under the traditional Social Security program. Ryan’s guarantee would encourage seniors to make more risky investments.


Why not gamble on an investment with large possible gain (but also large possible loss) when the federal government insures you against loss?


While the Ryan Plan does include a protection for senior citizen’s whose investments yielded a return lower than what they would have received under traditional Social Security, it is extremely unlikely that this guarantee would be paid in full. Here’s why: Ryan would use government revenues to replace the lost income to senior citizens whose investments performed poorly.


The cost of this guarantee would be very high. Given the reductions in other programs that would be required to fully fund this guarantee (e.g., in defense, education, environmental protection, etc.) it would be extremely unlikely to be fully realized. The “big picture” is that the current Republican plans, including Mitt Romney’s, are very similar to former President Bush’s plans.


Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophy of the Republican party, the following conclusion is inescapable: the Republican proposals would make what is already, by far, the weakest social safety net of any wealthy democracy in the world much weaker still while simultaneously increasing the degree of after-tax income inequality in what is already the most economically unequal wealthy democracy in the world.


Which of the following seems more appropriate: (1) As personal economic risk increases, you need the government less? (2) As personal economic risk increases, you need the government more?


The two parties differ widely. The Republican Party approach (i.e., “The Ownership Society” and “The Roadmap for America’s Future”) is to load increased personal economic risk back on the individual (i.e., less governmental guarantees – privatization of Social Security rather than guaranteed benefit levels, giving senior citizens a voucher rather guaranteed Medicare – same with health care for the poor;


reducing taxes on high income earners that can be applied to public services for middle and low-income earners) while the Democratic Party approach is more in favor of using the government to offset increased personal financial risk (e.g., the Obama Health Care Plan – making health care more affordable for middle and low-income earners, increasing the Pell Grant program for low-income college students,


reducing the Bush Tax Cuts, increasing government deficit spending and increasing regulation of financial markets).


Tax rates are NOT highly progressive in the United States. The rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor, but not greatly so. All federal taxes together (i.e., income taxes, Social Security taxes, etc.) take approximately 9.4% of the income of households making $16,000 per year, approximately 20.5% of the income of households making $52,000,


approximately 27.2% of the income of households making $200,000 per year and approximately 34% of households making $18,000,000 per year.


It is very important to mention that federal taxes have been made much LESS progressive over time. To demonstrate the impact of reduced federal tax progressivity consider the following: “In 2000, the richest 1 household in 1,000 (i.e., .1 of 1%) had about 7.3% of total national after-tax income. If the effect of taxes on their income had remained what it was in 1970, they would have had about 4.5% of after-tax national income.


This would be a reduction of approximately 38% in their after-tax income (7.3% - 4.5% = 2.8 and 2.8 is approximately 38% of 7.3). This decrease in federal tax progressivity was prior to the Bush Tax Cuts (which, as previously discussed, overwhelmingly benefit households with very high incomes).

Tax Rates Over Time


State and local taxes are even LESS progressive than federal taxes. Thus, if you add state and local taxes to federal taxes (i.e., to obtain “total taxes”) the tax burden is less favorable to the poor (i.e., less progressive) than for federal taxes alone. State and Local Taxes are a greater percentage of personal income for the poorest 20% of a state’s households than for the wealthiest 1% of a state’s households in virtually every state (all but one).


In California state and local taxes take approximately 11.3% of the income of the poorest 20% of households while taking only 7.2% of the income of the richest 1% of households.


For example, in California, the wealthiest 10% of the taxpayers pay approximately 75% of the state income tax. While true, this argument is misleading for two reasons: (1) the most important consideration is taxes as a percentage of income and not the percentage of a tax borne by a particular income group – thus, if California’s state income tax was only to raise $1 and Steven Spielberg paid that $1 he would have borne 100% of the state income tax burden –


however, $1 would be virtually 0% of his income – thus it’s the percentage of income paid in a tax and not the percentage of a tax that a particular income group pays that is the important consideration; (2) this calculation excludes all taxes except the income tax (e.g., state sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) – when we include all state and local taxes and fees, state and local taxes are a higher percentage of income for the very poor than the very rich.


As a share of personal income, California typically ranks about 18th (out of 50 states) in state and local tax burden with state and local revenues equal to approximately 17% of personal income.


One often hears candidates for state office talking about “runaway” state spending. Adjusting for population growth and inflation, to maintain the same level of service in 2009 that the state of California provided in 1999 state spending would have had to increase by 53%. Over the 1999-2009 period spending by the State of California only increased by 29% (i.e., a 24% REDUCTION in real per capita spending).


Another way of looking at the question of state spending is to take account of both need (i.e., what type of population we have) and state wealth (i.e., our “ability to pay”). By such a measure, California ranked 37th out of the 50 states.


Some state tax increase would IMPROVE the functioning of California’s economy:

(1) tax internet purchases – not taxing them discriminates against bricks and mortar stores;

(2) change business property taxes annually (i.e., not only when the property is sold) - current practice favors those who hold a property longer – harms new businesses;


(3) tax carbon, pollution and oil - from an economic standpoint, the cost of pollution should be taxed to provide the appropriate disincentives to reduce pollution. Currently, California is the only oil producing state that does not have a severance tax on oil.


One factor that would greatly help California’s business climate is a more highly educated workforce. To meet employment needs, the percentage of California’s workforce with at least a bachelor’s degree needs to roughly double over the next 15 years (from approximately 21% to approximately 41%). Tax cuts that result in reduced funding for higher education will not help us meet this critical need.


A final point, California does NOT have a “big bureaucracy.” State and local employees constitute a SMALLER share of California’s population than in approximately 45 of the 50 states.


HOMELESSNESS:In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R.

visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment.”

Due to drug and alcohol use shelters are much

less beneficial than individual apartments.


Will poor people make better decisions if they have greater economic security (e.g., guaranteed housing, food, medical care, etc.) or less economic security? The evidence we have is lopsidedly on the side that says poor people will make better decisions (e.g., decisions concerning employment, health, etc. that involve current sacrifice but have greater

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–92D

long-term benefits) under conditions of greater rather than lesser security. In reviewing a recent study by an economist and psychologist, Tina Rosenberg notes, “Worrying about money when it is tight captures our brains. It reduces our cognitive capacity — especially our abstract intelligence,

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–92E

which we use for problem-solving. It also reduces our executive control, which governs planning, impulses and willpower. The bad decisions of the poor, say the authors, are not a product of bad character or low native intelligence. They are a product of poverty itself. Your natural capability doesn’t decrease when you experience scarcity.

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy–92F

But less of that capacity is available for use. If you put a middle-class person into a situation of scarcity, she will behave like a poor person.”


Why Not Policies that Would More Help Middle and Low-Income Households?

While both our strong commitment to absolutist individualism and the framework of our political system (e.g., the separation of powers), make it difficult for the government to pass laws, there are important changes in the balance of domestic political power that have taken place over the past 40 years that make it even more difficult for the federal government to act on


behalf of the interests of middle and low-income citizens.

In a “nutshell,” here’s what happened: (1) after suffering a large number of political defeats through the 1960s under both political parties, during the mid-1970s business groups (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, etc.)


decided to invest tremendous amounts of money both in lobbying members of Congress and contributing to political campaigns; (2) the relative strength of the counter-weight to business, labor unions, declined precipitously (in 1954 – 32% of the workforce was unionized - today only 13%), and with it a tremendous loss in both political information supplied to middle and low- income households and political participation by these citizens


(i.e., unions contacting their membership with information on political issues, the membership then contacting elected officials); (3) the interest groups that have formed on the political left have dealt more with the concerns/interests of well-educated higher income voters rather than the working class (i.e., environmentalism, women’s rights and gay rights do not deal with the distribution of the tax burden,


subsidies for low-wage workers or extending governmental provided health care); (4) due to the increased share of income going to the rich and greatly increased campaign costs – Democrats have had to turn more to business and upper-income groups for campaign contributions; and (5) due to factors 1-4, the political position of business has become much more advantaged relative to labor.


Think of the political consequences of policy philosophies such as The Bush Tax Cuts, The Ownership Society and The Roadmap for America’s Future. All of these policies accomplish three goals of many (but not all) conservative leaders: (1) they shift the distribution of the tax burden away from taxing investments (i.e., money made with money – income sources primarily of very high-income households)


toward higher taxes on labor (i.e., taxes more paid by income from wages and salaries – the principle sources of income for the poorest 90%, or more, of households - by relying on consumption taxes); (2) reduce the amount of money redistributed to middle and low-income groups through public programs (e.g., mass transit, job retraining, guarantees for Social Security, Medicare, etc.); and

Political Parties, Income Inequality and Public Policy –100

(3) increase the size of the federal deficit to the point that future Democratic Administrations will have difficulty in undertaking programs primarily benefitting middle and low-income households. For example, notice how difficult it is for Obama to get the necessary funding to implement his health care plan due to the size of the federal deficit (greatly swelled by the Bush Tax Cuts).


The political consequences of the above mentioned policies significantly reduce the incentive for low and middle-income people to participate in the political process (e.g., vote) because they will perceive that government is not that helpful to them (i.e., their taxes will increase and the value of their government benefits will decrease). So, why invest time and effort in politics?


This protects high-income households from future adverse political events. Thus, if increasing income inequality might cause low and middle-income people to desire income redistribution, make it difficult for the government to accomplish this and reduce the incentives for low and middle-income people to get involved in the political process.


What could we do? The basic answer is to undo the changes of the past 40 years. While any proposed “reforms” would spark opposition from those who do well under the current system, I’ll mention two possible changes that would greatly alter the political landscape in a direction much more favorable to middle and low-income groups. First, make it easier for workers to unionize.


Canada offers a compelling lesson. According to the survey evidence, American workers are as favorable to unionization as Canadian workers. However, over the past 40 years, the gap between the percentage of the Canadian workforce that is unionized and the percentage of the U.S. workforce that is unionized has steadily increased (Canada: 1960 - 32%, 2000 – 32%| U.S.: 1960 - 31%, 2000 – 13%).


Without a lengthy discussion, the differences over time are mostly attributable to differences in public policies governing the unionization process. Not surprisingly, this was one of the earliest results of increased business political strength: make it more difficult for workers to unionize.


The second change would be to enact Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman’s “Patriot Dollars” proposal for campaign financing: have the federal government give each voter an ATM valued at $50 for each federal election cycle (i.e., every two years). This money could only be used for campaign contributions (i.e., all unused money would be returned to the federal government – “yes” it could be done – i.e., the technology to ensure this does exist).


A voter could give their contribution to one, or a series, of candidates. By not limiting how much individuals, businesses or unions contribute, this policy would not be invalidated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that restricting how much an individual, or group, can contribute violates their free speech (i.e., money equals speech). Since Professor Ackerman’s proposal does not limit speech, it is constitutional.


By greatly increasing the amount of campaign money available, Professor Ackerman’s proposed policy would reduce the tremendous monetary advantage of both business and the wealthy.

Lessons from Canada - 1

Currently, the federal deficit (i.e., the difference between what the federal government receives in taxes and what it spends) is approximately 10% of GDP. Rather than the painful cuts to the poor (food programs, medical care, job training, etc.) and education, we could eliminate the ENTIRE deficit by

Lessons from Canada - 2

having U.S. taxes as a percentage of GDP equal Canadian taxes as a percentage of GDP (U.S. taxes would increase from 27% of GDP to 37%). Next to the United States, Canada has one the VERY WEAKEST social safety nets of the wealthy democracies. Thus, Canada is NOT a “high tax, big welfare state” nation. However, Canadian taxes represent 10% more of GDP than in the United States. We are a very LOW tax nation.

Rationale for Budget Austerity

In voting in favor the Ryan Budget, Representative Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) said, “They understand in my district: We’re broke. If we don’t deal with this, we lose the social safety net.” One could ask, “Why can’t the wealthiest democracy in the world guarantee to it’s citizens the same social welfare protections (universal health care, greater income support, etc.) that all other wealthy democracies guarantee their citizens”?

U.S. & Canada – Taxes and Spending as a Percent of GDP

U.S. Canada

Taxes 27% 37%

Health Care 16% 10%

W. Health Org. Rank 37th 30th

Defense 4.7% 1.1%

It’s not that we “can’t afford” to provide a better social safety net but rather we tax much less and spend much more on health care and defense. Defense spending in Great Britain and France is approx. 2.5% of GDP.

Areas to Reduce Spending

If you’re thinking of areas to reduce federal spending consider defense. U.S. military spending is about 4.7% of GDP. U.S. military spending is approximately 46.5% of the military expenditures of the ENTIRE WORLD. To put this in perspective the second highest spending nation, China, spends about 6.6% of the military expenditures of the entire world. The next largest spenders are France (4.2%), Great Britain (3.8%) and Russia (3.5%).

The Social Safety Net - 1

Even the comparatively weak U.S. safety net still helps. In the current recession, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the combination of unemployment insurance, food stamps and tax credits for the working poor lifted the incomes of between 3 to 5 MILLION U.S. households above the poverty line. Now think of the human cost of reducing the funding for these programs.


The most important fundamental change is to realize that a more activist government will be necessary. If present economic trends continue (e.g., small increases in hourly wages for most middle and low-income workers, reduced employer provided health care and less generous and secure private sector retirement benefits),


the obvious “solution” is to have the federal government provide the benefits that the private sector use to provide. This means having the federal government supplement wages (i.e., to provide cash payments to those who work but earn little), provide a health care benefits package to all citizens similar to Canada and Western Europe, provide child care/day care to working mothers and increase the amount of money Social Security provides to retirees.


Concerning Social Security remember:

1.It Is LESS GENEROUS than similar programs in other wealthy democracies;

2. For TWO-THIRDS of the retired population it provides OVER HALF of their income and for ONE-THIRD of the retired population over 90% of their income;


3. Is an “INSURANCE” against poverty for the elderly and income loss due to

disability – to do this it MUST have

GUARANTEED benefits;

4. As “INSURANCE” against poverty and disability it is NOT comparable to a risk-laden 401k plan;


5. Future shortfalls in necessary revenues can EASILY be accomplished by having ALL income subject to the Social Security tax;

6. Future support for Social Security would be GREATLY weakened if ALL

elderly did NOT receive benefits.


One of the primary difficulties the United States faces in confronting growing inequality and poverty “head on” is the following core set of beliefs about poverty: (1) poverty is the fault of the victim; (2) economic growth will greatly reduce poverty; (3) government intervention will increase poverty. Each of these beliefs, at best, is “suspect. ”


Greater economic growth does reduce the poverty rate in the U.S. However, what this means is that the U.S. poverty rate (typically around 17% of households - Great Britain and Canada around 12%, and the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – around 6.5%) fluctuates around a much higher average than in other wealthy democracies and even at it’s lowest level, is much higher than most all other wealthy democracies.


The “big picture”: the main reason that the U.S. has a much higher poverty rate than the vast bulk of wealthy democracies is that we don’t spend nearly as much of our economy in the following programs as do other wealthy democracies on income transfers (i.e., direct cash payments to either the unemployed or the working poor and the elderly) and do not providing comprehensive health insurance and childcare to all.


Wage Subsidy: Assuming a minimum wage of $8 per hour, here’s how such a plan might operate: a worker earning the minimum wage of $8 per hour would receive a $4 per hour subsidy from the federal government (i.e., their “total wage” would be $12 per hour - $8 per hour from their employer plus $4 per hour from the federal government = $12 per hour) with the subsidy decreasing by 10% for each additional dollar per hour they earned.


This plan does NOT increase unemployment because employers are NOT required to pay their employees more. Far from discouraging work and rewording laziness, the wage subsidy plan encourages work by making work pay more (i.e., the normal wage plus the value of the wage subsidy). The more work “pays”, the more leisure “costs” (i.e., each hour you don’t work costs you more when income per hour is higher than when it is lower). Since you have to work, this isn’t “welfare.”


Furthermore, by making work pay more, and increasing the cost of not working in a legitimate occupation (e.g., selling drugs), the wage subsidy plan will reduce government expenditures by reducing the occurrence of two circumstances which increase government costs: (1) crime (by offering more money for being employed in non-criminal employment) and; (2) teen pregnancy (by increasing the cost of not working – having children typically reduces the hours a mother can or will work).

Reaction to the Wage Subsidy Plan

When a senior economic advisor to former President George W. Bush was asked about the wage plan he replied, “that’s the type of thing we’d do if we were serious.”

Value of Education

It is very important to mention the tremendous impact education has on earnings. In 1975 those with a bachelor’s degree out earned those with a high school diploma by approximately 60%. By 2008 this differential rose to approximately 100%. Unfortunately, the United States ranks 12th in the percentage of 25 to 34 year olds with at least an associate’s degree.


In addition to the wage subsidy, other programs that would greatly benefit low and middle-income earners are: universal childcare, fully funding the Obama Health Care plan and the “Patriot Dollars” campaign finance plan.


In all high-income countries, the parents’ socioeconomic status shapes a child’s educational and earnings prospects, but much less so in Sweden than elsewhere and much more so in the United States. In Sweden, even a child growing up in relative poverty has almost the same education and earnings prospects as a child growing up at the top on the income curve.


Sweden’s distinction lies not in its support for public education, which is roughly matched by other countries, but in its public support for families and their children from the earliest age, even before formal schooling. All of Sweden’s families have access to affordable high-quality day care, which is publicly provided.


This enables mothers to work without leaving their children behind in an unsafe environment. Female heads of household, a group marked by a high rate of poverty in the United States, are not poor in Sweden. Remarkable, their poverty in Sweden, is only 4 percent, compared with the United States, where the Census Bureau recorded a 30 percent poverty rate in 2009. Similarly, all of Sweden’s children are afforded high-quality preschooling.


The annual costs of these programs are:

1. wage subsidy ($150 billion)

2. universal childcare ($150 billion)

3. Obama Health Care Plan ($96 billion)

4. Patriot Dollars ($4 billion)_______

Total Annual Cost: $400 billionNote: wage subsidy costs over time are

likely to be much lower than listed above


Paying for the these programs:

1. Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire

will bring in approximately $363 billion

per year.

2. Ackerman and Alstott’s Wealth Tax - a 2% annual wealth tax on households owning more than $7.2 million in assets (the richest ½ of 1% of households) would bring in at least $70 billion dollars per year – France, Norway and Switzerland have this


If repealing the Bush Tax Cuts and instituting Ackerman and Alstott’s wealth tax seems “too hard” on the wealthy, consider the following: (1) the wealthy did very well, as did the economy as a whole, under the tax rates that would be in effect if the Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expire (i.e., economic growth was greater under the higher tax rates of the Clinton Administration than during the Bush Administration);


(2) over the 1980-2008 period 98% of the income gains went to the richest 10% of American households (i.e., exactly those that gained, by far, the most under the Bush Tax Cuts); (3) the share of income going to the richest 1% of American income earners more than doubled between 1970 and 2010 (from about 7% to over 18% of personal income);


(4) reducing the concentration of income and wealth at the top of the income distribution would likely improve the performance of our democracy by reducing the previously discussed “debilitating cycle” (i.e., where the increasingly concentration of income and wealth among the very rich increases the reliance of politicians on campaign contributions from the very rich which, in turn, leads politicians to enact policies which further advantage the very rich);


(5) many of the very rich inherited their wealth which rewards “luck” (you can’t pick your parents/grandparents) not “merit”; and


(6) much of the income of very wealthy citizens was made possible by taxpayers. For example, while Henry Ford made a fortune from developing the Ford automobile, he wouldn’t have been successful unless taxpayers and/or government provided roads/highways, street lights, a public education system to provide an educated workforce to design, build and sell Ford cars, and a highway patrol to keep the highways safe.


Similarly, would Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have been able to amass vast fortunes without the research and development provided by the National Science Foundation (an agency of the federal government which provided many of the protocols used for the internet) and the public school system to train the designers and builders of computers?


In all of these cases, it is misleading to say that these individuals achieved their success “alone”, or without government help. Since taxpayers provided much of the requirements for their success, doesn’t it seem reasonable to suggest that taxpayers were investors in these projects and, as such, should reap the rewards of their investment (through tax payments)?


Even if all of the preceding policy and tax changes were adopted, by comparison to the other wealthy democracies of the world the U.S. Social Safety net would still be “weak” and taxes would still be “very low.” It’s not “big government.”


We could more than save the annual $400 billion cost of these programs by switching to a Canadian or European style health care system.

The Social Safety Net – 26

If we adopted a European Health Care system taxes would increase, but this would be more than offset by the savings. For example, if your taxes increase by $100 per month, but your take-home pay increases by $200 per month (due to either less money deducted by your employer for health insurance) or your medical expenses decrease by $200 per month (by reducing the amount you have to pay out of your own pocket for health expenses), your standard of living would increase by $100 per month.

Size of Government - 1

There are good reasons to think that the government budget is too small in a democracy. First, consider the power of advertising. Isn’t the purpose of the tremendous amount of advertising private companies buy to get you to spend money on their product rather on an alternative use of the same money (e.g., higher taxes to provide government benefits)?


Second, there is ample evidence that the public does not have a good sense of not only the benefits other citizens derive from government programs, but of the value they themselves derive from government programs. The percentage of people who (a) benefit from various government programs, and


(b) claim in response to a government survey that they 'have not used a government social program’ are as follows: Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (a huge benefit for home owners) – 60%, Student Loans – 53.3%, Child and Dependent Tax Credit – 51.7%, Earned Income Tax Credit – 47.1%, Pell Grants – 43.1%, Medicare – 39.8% and Food Stamps – 25.4%.


Third, many of those who most benefit from government programs vote the least frequently. As discussed in both class and the readings, lower income citizens disproportionately benefit from government social welfare programs. Additionally, lower income citizens vote less frequently than middle and upper income citizens.


Fourth, many upper income individuals might prefer a greater government effort to help the poor if they thought they might be poor in the future. It doesn’t take much “courage” to favor low taxes and oppose government spending to help the poor when the person in question, either by their current economic position (upper income) or a realistic assessment of their future economic position (e.g., being born into a wealthy family, being close to completing medical school, etc.)


strongly suggests that they aren’t likely to become poor. Would this same individual be as likely to oppose government programs for the poor if they did NOT know (or have a pretty good idea) of their future economic position?


So, wouldn’t the obvious political incentive be for politicians to provide lower government benefits to the poor than would be provided if the poor voted in proportion to their strength in the population?


A person’s political philosophy is likely to their willingness to spend money to reduce income inequality. If you are political liberal, you probably viewed the programs I mentioned previously (the wage subsidy, universal child care, the Obama Health Care Plan and the Patriot Dollars campaign finance reform) favorably.


However, if you are liberal you have to face the question of how far you would go (i.e., how much of your money would you spend) to reduce income inequality?


If you are politically conservative, a reasonable question to ask is: What are you trying to “conserve”? On the one hand you could answer that you were trying to conserve freedom and since taxes reduce a person’s freedom to spend their money as they please, then the government should be very small and taxes very low and, hence, you would probably not support the programs I mentioned previously.


That’s certainly a philosophically defensible position. It could be useful, however, to consider the following two questions: (1) Is freedom the only value that matters? (i.e., inequality, poverty, the performance of democracy – think back to the discussion of the “debilitating cycle” - don’t matter much);


(2) Does a small government actually deliver the most freedom? For example, would increase if: (1) the State of California sold off public beaches to private citizens and; (2) if taxes were reduced but fewer students could go to college and hence suffer a reduction in career choices later in life?


A second answer to the question of what you are trying to conserve might be as follows: an America where the benefits of economic growth and technological change are widely shared, such as occurred between the end of World War II (1945) and the early 1970s (i.e., where economic growth was high and the share of income going to very high income groups decreased substantially). If this is what you are trying to conserve, then the programs previously mentioned could be quite beneficial to your goal.

Thiessen’s Comments - 1

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, said the following: “We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”


Now the reaction to Romney’s comments from Washington Post editorial writer Marc Thiessen. “So Romney is fine with an entire class of Americans being permanently on food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and other government welfare programs? His solution for our fellow citizens trapped in poverty and dependency is to find holes in the safety net and repair them? That is not conservatism.


That is liberalism. The left judges compassion by how much money we spend, which is why the liberal project is to strengthen the safety net and grow the nanny state. The conservative project is to help people escape the safety net. Conservatives seek to create an opportunity society where we can lift people out of lives of dependency.


That is liberalism. The left judges compassion by how much money we spend, which is why the liberal project is to strengthen the safety net and grow the nanny state. The conservative project is to help people escape the safety net. Conservatives seek to create an opportunity society where we can lift people out of lives of dependency.


We are not okay with having millions of Americans trapped in poverty and living on the dole. We are not okay with multiple generations trapped in government welfare. We believe in a society where the poor have opportunities for advancement.


We want them to have the education and skills they need to find good jobs, get off public assistance and to move up to the middle class and beyond-as far as their ambition and ability will take them.”


First, our economy does not, and will not, generate sufficient jobs to employ all of the poor who want to work. The Great Recession, which began in late 2007, caused the economy to lose 8 million jobs. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the unemployment rate is NOT expected to get as low as even 5% by 2016.


Put another way, for the nine year period from 2007 through 2016, the unemployment rate would be high enough to leave several million job seekers without employment. How could these people be expected to work over this period when the jobs simply aren’t available?


Furthermore, as explained very early in this writing, Republican/Conservative Administrations and politics weight reducing inflation more highly than Democratic/Liberal Administrations. Think back to the Obama Stimulus plan’s effect: unemployment was 1.7% lower than it otherwise would have been.


As much research by political scientists and economists has found, more liberal administrations typically produce lower unemployment and higher inflation than conservative administrations (see earlier discussion and sources cited therein). So, the policies of the very philosophy Thiessen favors actually produces less employment, and hence, less opportunity for the poor than more liberal administrations/politicians.


If the growth rate in the economy appeared to be high enough to actually employ all those who wanted to work, the inflation rate would move into, as policymakers see it, a danger zone. What would happen is that as economic growth exceed about 4% per year the federal reserve would raise interest rates, making borrowing more costly and, thus, ultimately reducing the economic growth rate and employment.


Since the Great Recession started, millions of Americans cannot find work and the economy will not likely grow sufficiently to employ them for many years, if ever.


Second, many jobs simply do not provide the level of compensation necessary to provide workers with a standard of living that Americans would consider “decent.” Working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, at $9 per hour translates into an income of $18,000 per year. Most such jobs do not come with either health care or retirement benefits.


Think of your family living on such an income. Is this how you want low wage workers to live? The very government programs Thiessen refers to are the only bulwark such low workers have against living on an income that does not adequately provide even the “essentials” of life. Think back to the discussion of the wage subsidy program.


Take the food stamp program. Food stamps only provide approximately 70% of the money necessary to provide what the U.S. Department of Agriculture says is a nutritionally adequate diet Over three times as many households that receive food stamps had at least one worker than relied solely on government assistance.


Finally, each $1 spent on the food stamp program generates $1.72 in economic activity. Think back to the previous discussion of how much economic activity per dollar spent was generated by other programs that benefit the poor (e.g., extending unemployment compensation - $1.60; payroll tax reduction - $1.09 or the wage subsidy program) versus


the economic stimulation per dollar of the Bush Tax Cuts ($.35). Thus, the food stamp program helps generate the very economic activity that helps reduce the unemployment rate.


Generations of the same family could not be on cash welfare for entire lifetimes because each person is restricted to 5 years. Second, Mitt Romney supports the previously discussed Ryan Budget, which will require large reductions in what is, by far, the weakest social safety net of any wealthy democracy in the world.


No other wealthy democracy has pursued the type of system Thiessen desires. Third, the Ryan Budget, will require large spending reductions in exactly the types of programs (e.g., education) that would make the poor/unemployed more competitive in today’s labor market.


Fourth, the previously discussed wage subsidy plan increases the incentive for people to work because it “makes work pay more” for low-income workers than it current does. Thus, if we adopted such a plan, it would use government programs to increase, not decrease, work effort.

Wage Subsidy: Assuming a minimum wage of $8 per hour, here’s how such a plan might operate: a worker earning the minimum wage of $8 per hour would receive a $4 per hour subsidy from the federal government (i.e., their “total wage” would be $12 per hour - $8 per hour from their employer plus $4 per hour from the federal government = $12 per hour) with the subsidy decreasing by 10% for each additional dollar per hour they earned.


Conclusions - 1

Budget Waste/Fraud: One of the most important findings from the study of citizen attitudes toward government programs is this: people typically think that unpopular spending programs (e.g., welfare and foreign aid) makeup a much larger share of the budget than they actually do. In studies I read many Americans think that welfare and foreign aid each account for 10%, or more, of federal spending. Actually, welfare and foreign aid each account for less than 1% of federal spending.

Conclusions - 2

The error rate in the food stamp program is 2% (92% of the money goes to the beneficiaries). Since one-third of those eligible for food stamps do not receive them, we spend much less on food stamps than we would if fraud were completely eliminated and everyone who was eligible for foods stamps participated.

Conclusions - 3

Eliminating politicians “pet projects” (e.g., “earmarks” – the famous “bridge to nowhere”) are .1% of GDP (i.e., one tenth of one percent). The “big picture” is that we will not meaningfully reduce the budget deficit by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse.” Waste, fraud and abuse simply aren’t large enough to have a discernible impact on budgets.

Conclusions - 4

The ingenuity of capitalism’s “creative destruction” means that business CANNOT pursue social goals/values over profitability. Thus, the very strength of capitalism is a prime reason why it can be argued that a strong social safety net is absolutely necessary.

Conclusions - 5

None of this is to say that our current policies are “wrong” or that the conservative vision of low taxes, high levels of inequality and a low degree of economic security are “wrong.” However, if we want to provide greater economic security and reduce income inequality in America, there are very viable options to both our current policies and conservative proposals.

Party Differences – Economic - 1

I. Political Party Differences on Redistributive Economic Issues

A. Economic Redistribution Changes

the Distribution of Economic

Benefits and Burdens


B. Why Study Economic Redistribution?

1. Voters Value these Issues


2. Parties take Very Different

Positions

C. Issues We Will Examine

1. Unemployment/Inflation


2. Taxation

3. Health Care


II. Unemployment and Inflation

A. Economists and Political Scientists

1. Outlook: economists tend to regard economic policy as if it were neutral with respect to effects on individuals


2. Argue for “One Best Policy”

3. Liberal Economists – More Concerned with Inequality so Greater Emphasis on

Reducing Unemployment


4. Conservatives – More Worried

about Inflation


B. Political science has a different orientation about policy choices

1. We tend not to believe in the possibility of a best policy in

a neutral whole-economy, but rather see it as a struggle for

whose interests are served


III. Who Wins and Loses from Various Economic Outcomes?

A. Unemployment: reduces the share of income going to the poor.

1. Unemployment compensation

replaces about 1/3 of income loss

Party Differences–Economic - 10

2. Approximately 30,000 additional

deaths per year per point

B. Inflation

1. Poorest 80% relatively unaffected

2. Wealthy lose the most


IV. Inflation – Closer Look

Scenario #1

Year 1 Year 2

Chicken Gas Chicken Gas

$1 lb. $1 gal. $.75 lb. $1.25 gal.


Scenario #2

Year 1 Year 2

Chicken Gas Chicken Gas

$1 lb. $1 gal. $1.05 lb. $1.75 gal.

Scenario #1 – 0% inflation

Scenario #2 – 40% inflation ($2.80 is 40%

greater than $2.00)


Inflation rate doesn’t matter, it is the ratio of gas to chicken that matters (e.g., in year #2, chicken is 60% of gas in both scenarios)

Since the Great Depression, U.S. has used Scenario #2


V. Possible Government Responses to Increases in Either Unemployment or Inflation

A. Concepts

1. “Core” Inflation Rate - defined in the coursepack – term won’t appear until the final examination


2. Natural Rate of Unemployment – defined in the coursepack – term won’t appear until the final examination

3. Blinder Rule – defined in readings – term won’t appear until the final examination

a. Reagan Administration – Core Inflation

Rate reduced from 9.6% to 4.6%


4. Marginal Substitution Rate – defined in the coursepack – term won’t appear until the final examination

VI. The Evidence: Do Democratic and Republican Administrations Behave as We Should Expect?


A. YES!

1. After 4 years – unemployment

roughly 2% lower under theDemocrats (Obama Stimulus reduced unemployment about 1.7%)

2. Income Inequality Lower Under

the Democrats


3. Inflation Higher Under the Democrats

4. Income Growth Greater Under the Democrats through the 95th percentile

(Bartels)

5. Obama = Stimulus + Longer Unemployment Benefits vs. Republican Opposition


VII. Macroeconomic Priorities of Political Parties

Left Center RightFull Price Stability

Employment

Balance of

Equalization of Payments

Income Price

Distribution Stability


Economic Economic Economic

Expanison Expansion Expansion

Full

Price Employment

Stability Equalization Full

of Income Employment

Balance of Equalization

Payments of Income

Distribution


1. How does the difference between the right and center priorities compare to the difference between the center and left priorities?

2. What are the priorities of the poor?

3. Popularity Deficit Model


I. Partisan Differences of Taxation

A. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

1. Reduced federal income tax rates 23% over three years


Income (approx. current dollar)

Congressional Reagan

Democrats Administration

$25,000 $1,000 $150

$120,000 $3,600 $3,900

$250,000 $3,700 $7,500


B. Clinton – 1993

1. Increased rate for those earning

what today is $250,000 from

31% to 36% + surtax

2. Large reduction for the poor


C. Dole – 1996

1. Across the board 15% federal income tax reduction

2. $1,000 (today) per child, non-

refundable tax cut.


3. The richest 1% would have received as large a percentage of the total benefit (27%) as the entire poorest 80% of households

D. George W. Bush 2001 & 2003


1. Highlights – reduce the rate on those who today make $250,000, or

more from 39.6% to 33% (Republicans now want to reduce this to 25%)

and eliminate the estate tax

2. The wealthiest 1% receive as much money from the cuts as the entire poorest 70% added together


3. While the mean tax cut is $1,200 per household the median household receives a cut of only $217

4. Approximately 75% of households lose under the Bush Tax Cuts.


E. Obama – 2008

1. Increase the top rate from approximately 31% to 36% (i.e., back to the level under Clinton)

2. Federal income tax reduction for poorest 97% of households


I. Partisan Differences on Health Care

A. Medicare – 1965

1. Presidential History

a. Truman


1. Due to absolutist individualism, Truman shifts from universal plan

to Medicare

b. Eisenhower

c. Kennedy


d. Johnson

1. 1964 election aids passage

2. Fewer than 30% of

congressional Repubicans

vote for Medicare


2. Interest Groups – Medicare

For Against

AFL-CIO AMA

NFU AFBF

(small farmers) (large farmers)


For Against

CCUS

(business)

NAM

(business)

Blue Cross


Note: (1) the relative wealth difference between the “for”

and “against” groups; (2) “for” groups

support Democrats while “against” groups support Republicans


3. Ramifications

a. Virtually impossible to repeal

b. America lags well behind other

wealthy democracies in both the time of adoption and the scope

of coverage


c. Incremental attempts to increase coverage can make it difficult

to eventually cover everyone

B. Clinton – 1994

1. Expansion of coverage again

attempted by Democrats opposed by Republicans


2. Almost identical interest group alignment as on Medicare

C. Obama – 2009

1. Democrats try to expand coverage while Republicans oppose


2. If fully implemented, would reduce

uninsured rate from about 17%

to about 7%.


Rudy Giuliani: “The American way is not single-payer, government controlled anything. That’s a European way of doing something; that’s frankly a socialist way of doing something.” “That’s why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they’re talking about is socialized medicine.”


“That is where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are taking you,” he said, “You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care.”

(“Giuliani Seeks to Transform U.S. Health Care Coverage,” Marc Santora, New York Times, August 1, 2007)


II. Comparison of U.S. and Foreign Health Care Systems

Per Capita WHO

Spending Ranking

U.S. $5,711 37th

France $3,048 1st

Canada $2,998 30th

U.K. $2,317 18th


A. Why do the others do better at lower

cost?

1.Require Everyone to Buy Insurance

a. adverse selection if people

aren’t required to buy

insurance


b. Need a strong minimum benefits package-must

shift costs to the healthy

2. Single-Payer Plans have much Lower

Administrative Costs

3. Government Bulk Buying of Medicine


4. Pay Doctors Less

Question: If we are measuring “wait times” for a procedure should we start when your physician recommends the procedure or when it is medically advisable? Remember 18% of Americans don’t have a physician and Americans see doctors less frequently than in Europe/Canada. U.S. “wait times” are longer than frequently stated.


One last thought: Isn’t there a tension between opposing government regulation of behavior with health consequences (e.g., cigarette taxes, soda taxes, meat taxes, etc.) and believing in personal responsibility? The least regulatory, or “smallest government,” may not be the government that most fosters personal responsibility. Especially when personal irresponsibility imposes costs on others (i.e., people whom my costly actions shouldn’t harm).


I. Partisan Differences in the U.S.

Congress

A. 95% Direction Rule

B. 40% Difference Rule


C. Policy Areas – least to greatest

partisan difference

1. Civil Liberties

2. International Involvement


3. Agricultural Assistance

4. Social Welfare

5. Government Management of the

Economy


D. Partisan Differences in Congress are

Much Greater Today than 40 Years

Ago Because:

1. The Constituencies of Each Party have Become more Dissimilar

a. Increasing Income Inequality


b. Share of Income Going to the

Richest 1%:

1970 – 9.0%

1990 -14.3%

2008- 21.0%


On a Concluding Note: There is Virtually

No Relationship between the Economic

Growth Rate and the Size of Government/Tax Rates

We don’t have to have a “small” government with low taxes in order to have a high growth rate

Public Opinion and Public Policy - 1

I. Theories of Political Responsiveness

A. Median Voter Model – The electoral incentive is to follow the

policy preferences of the median voter


1. Drawbacks in the Median Voter

Model

a. Voters at all points on the ideological continuum are not equally likely to vote


1. Extremists makeup too large

a share of the electorate

b. Voters may not vote on the basis

of issues

1. Example: constituency service based vote for Congress


c. Voters may either be misinformed about a candidate’s position on an issue and/or hold

contradictory views on the issue.

1. Few voters know the RELATIVE positions of the candidates on the issues.


2. Example: the vast mis-information

concerning the Obama health care plan caused many voters to mis-perceive the plan’s impact.

d. Voters may hold contradictory opinions which candidates can then exploit.


1. Example: voters desiring both universal coverage and fearing government control of health care.

e. Thus, politicians/interest groups craft a message that suggests that their position is what the median voter desires.


f. Rather than maximize the vote, candidates who are in close races opt for a certain “narrow” win rather than a possible broader victory by

catering to a sub-set of their constituency (a re-election

constituency).


1. For example, if you compare “marginal-switch” congressional districts (i.e., go from Dem. to Rep.) there is a very great difference in the voting behavior of the congressman. Thus, greater electoral competition does not necessarily bring about greater responsiveness to the median voter.


B. The Retrospective Model

1. The voter looks back over the past electoral period and, if satisfied, votes for the incumbent.

2. Median voter model was prospective, not retrospective.


3. One large problem is the voter’s lack of knowledge of how programs connect to

outcomes (e.g., wanting economic stimulus and, therefore, desiring the Bush Tax Cuts when government spending offers much greater stimulus per dollar spent).


4. The retrospective model is easier for the voter to apply than the median voter model.

a. Median voter model forces the voter to know the positions on

a left/right scale of all parties on all important issues.


C. Weaknesses of the both the Median Voter Model and the Retrospective Model

1. Neither model accounts for change in the degree of policy

congruence between voters and government over time.


2. Both models falsely assume that politicians accept public opinion as a given and operate under conditions of certainty regarding the future contours of public preferences.


a. Thus, conservative or liberal legislators would wait until

public opinion changed in theirdirection before pursuing

their policy preferences.


b. The uncertainty of public opinion is important to politicians. Thus

politicians have strong incentives to change the

public’s policy preferences.


D. The Party Vote Model

1. Candidates and Officeholders follow the Policy Preferences

of their Partisans (activists as well as less involved partisans)


2. Reasons this model should reflect reality:

a. Candidates are screened by party activists and elites.

b. The views of party activists are important because they provide core voters, money and campaign workers.


c. Since activists communicate more with the candidate/officeholder they are easier to represent. The candidate/officeholder knows the activists opinions.

d. The activists views are likely to be similar to the candidate/officeholder’s own view of “good public policy.”


e. Interest groups who are part of the candidates/officeholders electoral

coalition can organize citizens and turnout voters. Hence, it is costly to alienate them.


3. Since the candidate/officeholder needs the support of voters at, or close to, the median, politicians will either:

a. craft a message so that the median voter thinks that the

candidate/officeholder is supporting their position;


b. use devices that make it difficult for median voters to monitor the

candidate/officeholder’s position;

c. build trust with the constituency so that voters will give the

candidate/officeholder leeway;


d. or, use non-policy devises such as valence issues (emotional, non-conflictual issues such as opposing drunk driving) and constituency service.

4. All of the above, while interesting, do not explain why responsiveness has probably declined over the past four decades.


II. Declining Responsiveness

A. Five Systemic Conditions Changed or Interacted in ways that Changed

the Incentives for Politicians to Respond to Centrist Public Opinion


1. Partisan Polarization

a. The influence of strong partisans, who are typically policy extremists, has increased

since the 1970s.


1. The South has realigned, based largely on race, into the cornerstone of the Republican party.

2. Catering to southern conservatives has had two large effects:


a. It has reduced the number of conservative southern

Democrats in Congress;

b. It has increased Democratic strength outside the

South at the expense of moderate Republicans.


3. These two effects have left the two parties more internally similar and externally dis-similar.

b. This polarization is much more pronounced at the elite, as opposed to the mass level (i.e., little change in the electorate).


1. Congressional districts, due to (a) redistricting; (b) voters more accurately sorting themselves into parties based on elite cues; and (c) greater socioeconomic differences between congressional districts

has resulted in ideologically cohesive districts (thus, reducing the value

of compromise to a representative).


2. The direct primary, coupled with the increased costs of campaigns, has resulted in candidates more needing funds from interest groups and political activists. This reduces the reliance of candidates on party leaders.


3. Institutional Individualization

a. Congressional Reforms in the 1970s (e.g., increased staff and election of committee chairs) empowered individual

legislators to take policy initiatives on their own and to resist Congressional leaders.


b. The incentives for individualism increased while the cohesion

of each party in Congress also increased (you’d expect the opposite).


4.Greater Incumbent Security

a. Constituency service (aided by larger staffs per member)

and money raising advantages of incumbency has boosted the incumbency advantage from the 1%-3% range of the

1940- 1950s up to 7%-10%.


5. The increased number of interest groups, and their diversity, has made it much more difficult to achieve a policy consensus.


c. Technological change has allowed politicians and interest groups a greater opportunity to find what message will resonate with the electorate and craft their appeal so that the median voter thinks they are getting what they want.


1. Since voters hold conflicting views (e.g., wanting both more

government services and tax cuts) superficially (i.e., not “deeply held opinions”) there is ample opportunity for politicians and interest groups to “change” public opinion.


2. Since “conflict” often drives media ratings, there is an incentive to report

differing political views, but little incentive for “fact checking.”

Thus, an interest group or politician can keep repeating a false or misleading message with beneficial political affect.


d. The tremendous increased costs of campaigning, coupled with the absence of public funding and the decline of organized labor, has meant that Democratic candidates have had to rely more on wealthy individuals and business for contributions. This reduces the ability of the Democratic party to respond to middle-income voters.


III. Policy Change

A. Given that current policies produce a large group of interests that are satisfied with the status quo, policy change can be very difficult to achieve.


B. However, when policy change comes it means that there has been such a large threat to the status quo that

the policy change is more likely to be large than small.


C. While non-business groups often work together with business interests, the necessity of working with business interests can easily shift the range of “policy possibilities” in a much less redistributive direction.

1. This puts economic policy often to the “right” of centrist/majority public opinion.


2. For example, despite solid majority support, the “public option” for health care was dropped because of the intense opposition of the health insurance industry.

Assignment 6 - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES!! – IT’S ALL IN THE COURSEPACK

Assignment 6 is to pick two political issues (ONE ECONOMIC and ONE NONECONOMIC) that have been in the news over the past decade and find political information about them (from the sources mentioned in the coursepack – e.g., stories and columnists from the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times, NOT other sources – see pages 9-13 of the coursepack).

Assignment 6 - 2

You MUST be able to defend WHY EACH of your issues should be classified as either economic or noneconomic. People frequently have difficulty doing this. I’m likely to ask for such a defense on the date this assignment is due.

Assignment 6 - 3

Do NOT select ANY of the following issues: the estate tax, free trade (e.g., NAFTA or CAFTA), gay issues (e.g., the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal Marriage Amendment, gays in the military, AIDS funding, domestic partners legislation, etc.) or immigration (e.g., immigration reform, guest worker programs, bilingual education, etc).

One of your issues must have a corresponding vote in Congress. Since conflict makes politics more interesting, pick a vote where at least 20% of those voting voted on the losing side (i.e., 20% of the total votes cast – you can use a voter where all Democrats opposed all Republicans). Use the Congressional Record. START EARLY!

Assignment 6 - 4

Assignment 6 - 5

At the beginning of class one the date this assignment is due (after the beginning of class counts as one day late) you need to show me or have emailed each of the following: (1) which issues you will use and a written defense of their classification (i.e., what makes one issue economic and the other issue noneconomic);

Assignment 6 - 6

(2) the vote by party from the Congressional Record on a vote take on one of your two issues (at least 20% must vote on the losing side and we must know which Democrats voted “yes”, which Democrats voted “no” – same for Republicans – not a “link” – download the material into a Word or Pdf. file);

Assignment 6 - 7

and (3) the various newspapers (those newspapers mentioned on page 9), columnists (see page 9), political party websites, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, etc. (see page 10 - download the material into a Word or Pdf. file).

Assignment 6 - 8

One the date this assignment is due, I need to see that you have ALL the materials necessary to write the paper. That’s the point of this assignment. This eliminates the need to do this later in the semester. You’ll appreciate this (as well the assignment to outline the paper) at the end of the semester. You’ll have much less to do at the end of the semester!

Assignment 11 - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES! ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS IN THE COURSEPACK (pp. 65-76)!

The purpose of Assignment 11 is to produce an outline that contains ALL the ideas and organization you need to write a terrific term paper. This will save you much time and consternation at the end of the semester. The MOST likely way to lose points is by not using the concepts discussed in Assignment 11.

Assignment 11 - 2

You’re a social scientist, not a journalist. I’m not after a “blow by blow” account of what happened. Rather, I want you to apply what political scientists have learned about both mass and elite political behavior in analyzing the politics of the two issues you select. Let’s examine some of the useful electoral concepts political scientists have formulated.

Assignment 11-2A

Most fundamentally, this is a paper about politics, NOT policy. We’re primarily interested in HOW each party tries to advance its’ issue positions, NOT in the policy itself. Thus, were not primarily interested in who will benefit or what policy experts think about the particular issue positions of the two parties. So, don’t spend much of the paper describing the policy each party advocates.

Assignment 11 - 3

Easy issues may be understood at the “gut” level while “hard” issues require knowledge of subtle differences in options, a coherent structure of political beliefs and the ability to link policy means to ends.

Assignment 11 - 4

For example, trying to explain to voters how, if abortion were made illegal, you might penalize women who had abortions (e.g., Should they be executed?; costs - attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.) and what the repercussions might be (increased crime as the enforcement of other offenses was reduced in order to prosecute women who had abortions) would be a “harder” issue position to explain to voters than simply saying abortion is murder.

Assignment 11 - 5

You need to explain why you would classify a particular party position as either “easy” or “hard.” Thus, don’t just use the concepts.

Closely related to the “easy” versus “hard” distinction is whether the benefits from the legislation are “particularized” or “general.”

Assignment 11 - 6

Particularized benefits go to specific groups or individuals. By contrast, general benefits go to a much large number of people. An individual may benefit from either type of benefit. For example, the same college student may benefit from a government guaranteed student loan (particularized benefit) and a reduction in the sales tax (generalized benefit – very large group of beneficiaries). Typically, particularized benefits are larger per recipient than generalized benefits.

Assignment 11 - 7

So, are the benefits from the policy change better thought of as particularized or general? The “benefits” from outlawing abortion (e.g., someone feeling society is more moral) are typically generalized where as the “costs” are more particularized (e.g., women who would not be able to obtain an abortion).

Assignment 11 - 8

Think through what type of benefits and costs would result from each position on the issues you select. If the legislation has particularized benefits the beneficiaries typically know who they are (e.g., the wealthy heirs who would pay the estate tax know who they are and roughly how much they would benefit from repeal).

Assignment 11 - 9

Alternatively, if the legislation promises more generalized benefits (e.g., lives saved from cleaner air), the beneficiaries are less likely to know who they are (i.e., those who will not get lung cancer if the air were less polluted do not know this). Typically, more generalized benefits, especially if they occur at some future time point, are better thought of as “hard” issues.

Assignment 11 - 10

For example, arguing that we should pay higher gas prices today so that 25, or 50, years from now people will have less pollution is a “hard” issue position to argue. Especially when the “losers” (current gas users) know who they are while the “winners” (e.g., people not born yet) either don’t know, or the “gain” is so far in the future as not to be relevant.

Assignment 11 - 11

So, indentify the “winners” and “losers” under each parties’ position on the issue from this standpoint.

Assignment – 11 - 12

How does each party “frame” each of the issues you select? For example, if you select national health insurance, does one party focus attention on the notion that individuals are losing health insurance through no fault of their own and, hence, government should insure the entire population? Conversely, does the other party suggest that the lack of health insurance is the fault of those who are not insured and/or see the issue primarily as a question of the size and scope of government?


Typically, a party will “frame” the issue as an issue they “own.” For example, Democrats would frame universal health care as either security for workers and/or fairness, while the Republicans would likely try to frame universal health care as either a tax increase and/or the size and scope of government (i.e., “big government”).


Republicans are perceived as better able to handle foreign policy and defense issues, reducing taxes, controlling inflation, reducing government spending, reducing crime and promoting moral values than Democrats.


Conversely, Democrats are perceived as better able to handle social welfare policies and/or “fairness” issues such as protecting Social Security, improving health care, helping the poor, supporting public schools, reducing unemployment, solving farm problems, and protecting the environment than Republicans.

Assignment – 11 – 15- B

Use the information in the “Political Strategy” file under POSC 322, as well as comments from your other sources (New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times), to show how the statements Democratic and Republican officeholders make fit with particular “frames” that party frequently employs.

Assignment 11 - 16

To which socioeconomic groups does each party appeal on economic issues? To which socioeconomic groups does each party appeal on noneconomic issues? Remember the “basic” relationships between a person’s socioeconomic status and their opinions: (1) as a person’s income increases their support for liberal positions on economic issues (e.g., national health insurance, having the wealthy shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, etc.) typically decreases;

Assignment 11- 17

(2) as a person’s educational attainment increases their support for liberal positions on noneconomic issues (greater tolerance for difference of opinion, lifestyle, etc.) typically increases.

In terms of the party in the government, your paper should address the following: how large is the policy difference between the two parties in the government?

Assignment 11 - 18

For example, are the Republican and Democratic positions in Congress very different? How cohesive is each party in the government?

Pages 69-75 in the coursepack contain an actual outline. FOLLOW IT! THAT’S WHAT YOUR OUTLINE SHOULD LOOK LIKE. NOTICE THE DETAIL. YOU COULD EASILY WRITE A FINE TERM PAPER FROM THAT OUTLINE!

Remember!

1. Do NOT advocate a particular policy or make “value judgments.” Remember, you’re an analyst, NOT an advocate.

2. Do NOT make statements that imply there is only one correct viewpoint (e.g., do NOT say something such as “any rational educated mind …”).

3. Do NOT use the first person or offer opinions (i.e., do NOT say “I think that …” or “I feel that”).

Assignment 11 – Final Thought!

Make sure that you use ALL of the following in discussing EACH issue:

“easy vs. hard” issue; particularized vs. general benefits; issue ownership; issue framing and material from the Political Strategy file at my website. If you haven’t you CAN’T write a good paper!

Writing the Term Paper - 1

DON’T TAKE NOTES! ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS IN THE COURSE MATERIALS!

As you write the final term paper, it would be useful to keep the following points in mind:

1. START EARLY!! “All nighters” don’t produce the best papers.

2. READ THE SAMPLE TERM PAPER THOROUGHLY BEFORE WRITING YOUR PAPER.


3. Do NOT advocate a particular policy or make “value judgments.” Remember, you’re an analyst, NOT an advocate.

4. Do NOT make statements that imply there is only one correct viewpoint (e.g., do NOT say something such as “any rational educated mind …”).

5. Do NOT use the first person or offer opinions (i.e., do NOT say “I think that …” or “I feel that”).


6. Make sure your paper meets the following “basic” requirements: (A) it ;

compares the stances of the two major political parties on one economic and one noneconomic issue; (B) it uses the sources mentioned in the coursepack (NY Times, Washington Post, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities,


Columnists (Paul Krugman – NY Times, E.J. Dionne – Washington Post, David Brooks – NY Times, Ross Douthat – NY Times, and Tom Friedman – NY Times);

(C); make MUCH use of the materials in the coursepack (easy vs. hard issue, particularized vs. general benefits, issue ownership, how each party “frames” each issue,


who – by socioeconomic level – each party is appealing to on each issue, how united or divided each party is on each issue - use the congressional vote, and how great is the difference between the parties on each issue). READ THE SAMPLE TERM PAPER THOROUGHLY BEFORE WRITING YOUR PAPER. USE THE STYLE OF THE SAMPLE TERM PAPER (e.g., LEFT-SIDE HEADINGS, BIBILIOGRAPHY, etc.).

Documents

Political Science 322 Parties, Campaigns, and Elections