response _pol-04
Note : 3 or four reference on your responses , please
Response-one-pol-04
A retirement plan is important for citizens to have, so they can prepare for retirement. Policies have been created regarding social security, 401(k) plans and pensions, so citizens can have options for retirement. 401(k)s are one of the most popular ways that Americans can plan for retirement as a portion of their paycheck can go to the plan each pay period and employers many times match a portion of employee contributions (McCarthy 2014).
Criteria are used to evaluate policies and examples of the criteria are equity, effectiveness, and social acceptability. The 401(k) system has a certain amount of equity as the 401(k) plan goes off wages and how much a citizen decided to contribute to the plan (McCarthy 2014). A citizen can determine how much they want to put toward their 401(k) plan and if they do not put enough then the weight is on their shoulders. Although people may have problems contributing to a 401(k) if they are financially strained. Citizens are able to benefit more for a 401 (k) plan if they contribute more to the plan (McCarthy 2014). Some people may argue to 401(k)’s are not equal because some people have access to better 401(k)’s then other people, but everyone has a chance to work to get a good 401(k).
It is harder for people to save up for if they do not have a 401 (k) or some type of retirement program. The policy regarding a 401(k) is effective and can set people up for retirement. 401(k)s are effective because citizens have an option to decide what plans they want their money going into and how much money that want to contribute to the plan (McCarthy 2014). The 401(k) is accepted by the public and is one of the most used retirement plans. The number of people with a 401(k) has risen drastically since they started being used in the 1980s (McCarthy 2014). People rely on their 401(k) to help prepare them for retirement.
The 401(k) system would run smoother is more companies matched 401(k) contributions. Workers in the United States are more likely to contribute a larger amounts to their 401 (k) if their employer is matching a higher percentage (Dworak-Fisher 2010). Polices regarding automatic enrollment may assist citizens with retirement (Morrin, Broniarczyk and Inman 2012). Automatic enrollment can help people in the long run by providing funds toard retirement. Retirement is important for citizens in the United States and they should be able to receive more assistance regarding retirement. More jobs used to offer pension plans to employees, which has caused a shift in retirement plans (Morrin, Broniarczyk and Inman 2012). If more employers went back to offering pension plans the retirement outlook may improve. Citizen ultimately should ensure that they are planning for retirement, but improving policies regarding 401(k) and pensions plans will help aid citizens.
References
Dworak-Fisher. (2010). Matching Matters in 401(k) Plan Participation. U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec100020.pdf
McCarthy, M. A. (2014). Neoliberalism without Neoliberals. Evidence from the Rise of the 401(k) System. CIAO Institute.
Morrin, M., Broniarczyk, S. M., & Inman, J. J. (2012). Plan Format and Participation in 401(k) Plans: The Moderating Role of Investor Knowledge. Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 254-268. doi:10.1509/jppm.10.122
Response two, pol-02
For the purposes of this post I chose to utilize the think tank The Heritage Foundation and the policy I have decided to focus on is the Budget Control Act. Passed in 2011 under the Obama Administration, the purpose of this act was to control spending within Congress (how well it is working is another matter). The key takeaways from this article are that this act is working, at least somewhat, and that it could work much better if congress were to stop modifying it to allow for larger spending caps. He also argues for greater transparency and accountability in dealing with the national budget. Rather, the author argues for reform this law to set one spending cap and live within the confines of it.
In analyzing this article, the author did address the effectiveness of this policy. The author states that “The BCA was projected to cut $2.1 trillion in spending over 10 years when it was passed” the author continues “Since passage of the BCA, the act has been modified three times, increasing spending by over $170 billion” (The Heritage Foundation, 2017). If the act can be modified so easily as to allow for such exorbitant spending, clearly the bill was not nearly as effective as intended.
The political feasibility of this law, however, seems to be very low. Given the author’s analysis, there appears to be little acceptance, and almost a disregard for this policy among elected officials. In fact, the author states that lawmakers “resorted to budget gimmicks and accounting tricks that produced no real savings” (The Heritage Foundation, 2017). This combined with the continual cap increases show that lawmakers do not take their responsibility to enforce this law seriously.
In terms of administrative feasibility, the congress seems to have had to problem implementing the Budget Control Act. As the author has shown, however, the problem lies in enforcing it as it was written. Instead, Congress has altered it numerous times as they see fit in order to suit their needs. A policy implemented in such a fashion is guaranteed to not live up to its potential, or worse, to completely fail entirely. As the author points out, however, it is not too late to reform the law so that it may still live up to that potential and serve the people as intended.
In considering alternatives, it must be noted that, while implemented with good intentions, and the Budget Control Act was designed to cut the federal spending, it was designed to do so while limiting defense spending as well. This, unfortunately, has led to a decrease in the size and scope of our military. That being said, in crafting an alternative, it must limit spending, military spending should be exempt as readiness is extremely important, and it must not be so easy to alter. Like the amending the Constitution, amending a spending bill must be very difficult to prevent abuse of any kind. Also like the Constitution, however, such a spending law must also incorporate some degree of adaptability.
The Heritage Foundation. (2017). Strengthen the budget control act, don’t abandon it. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/strengthen-the-budget-control-act-dont-abandon-it
Response three-p04
When I got to the Guide for Public Administration and went to the Think Tanks and Interests Groups Tab, I selected The Aspen Institute under the non-partisan section. This was important to me in hopes that it will truly be unbiased, especially after reading the Cato Institute sample last week. The topic that caught my eye medical in nature, given my profession in the medical world. Another reason this topic was important to me was because of a personal stake. My father died at the age of 67, in hospice, and it was painful to watch him suffer as he did. I really made me think of End of Life Care and potential options. After having gone through the reading I can say that my take on it was purely academic. I did not see or perceive a bias. Just, pure, unadulterated research.
Each year the Aspen Institute Health Strategy Group picks a topic to research and do a study on. In 2016, they chose to do ‘End of Life Care.’ Their research showed that there are five big ideas to improve care at the end of life. The five ‘big ideas’ focus on preplanning of care, redefining Medicare coverage to support people have complex needs associated with illness, developing a quality metrics related to end-of-life care for transparency and payment, having more trained geriatric clinicians, and creating models to try these changes in to see the outcome. (Improving Care, 2018, p. 1).
Throughout the reading there are several alternatives to specific parts of the policy. For example, they state that as medicine changes, there is an emergency of new models of care. Because of this, policy changes also need to be made. This can be achieved through similar policy changes such as the 1983 amendment to Medicare that allowed for hospice to be considered payable. Based on the reading, one current alternative to the selected policy is redefining the eligibility requirements for hospice based on the diagnosis and prognosis of the patient. This alternative would allow for the family to be able to continue to make more decisions for the family members or loved ones. (Improving Care, 2018, p. 1)
The three measures I am using as analysis criterion are: Reliability and Validity, Equity, and Administrative. Reliability and Validity I can say was used. The article is broken down and easy to read; however, I would say since this is an experiment, it is a potential policy change, there are no results that can be yielded and measured again to check success. Equity is 100% demonstrated throughout the entire article because it focuses on a problem, not a sub-problem, or race, ethnicity, age, sex, or specific criteria besides End of Life Care. Lastly, is the administrative criteria. Not only is this used throughout the entire document, it is also what the purposed change is. They speak of past changes to the program of Medicare that can be made, and also reference potential changes in the future, to accommodate potential policies changes, that focus more in line toward the ‘big ideas’ that were mentioned above. (Policy Analysis, 2018, p. 1).
Improving Care at the End of Life. (2016). The Aspen Institute Health Strategy Group. [Data file]. Retrieved from https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/02/AHSG-Report-Improving-Care-at-the-End-of-Life.pdf
Policy Analysis Criteria. (2018). California State University, LongThe article I chose from RAND Corp. focused on a very narrow policy change that had the potential to create big changes for retirement planners. In 2010, there was a proposed change to federal statutory definitions of “fiduciary” for both organiations and individuals regarding IRA’s. (Garber et. al., 2015) Garber and his associates note the purpose was to decrease “self dealing by broker-dealers” and their representatives. (Garber). The goal of the policy paper was to determine the effects of such a change and they did a surprisingly great job using the core evaluative behavior from the lesson.
They measured the efficiency of the proposal and compared it to what things would look like without the proposal. (Garber) They also utilized, as part of their framework for the entire paper, current industry opinions. Regarding overall efficiency, it appears it would be well balanced with a nominal cost to investment planners or future “fiduciaries” and with greater protections to investors. (Garber)
Equity appeared in the paper but in a more subtle way. Impressively, Garber and associates explored the cost to planners and noted that they’d need a specific certification, however the fees they could then accrue with the new credentials would work in their favor. (Garber) They did caution increased fees to investors, though. (Garber) It was important for me to temper my reaction to the equity discussion here, though. The scope of the proposed change was very narrow with an effect on a small percent of the population – those who handle investments, and those that can afford to invest (in the two types of accounts in the paper). The paper addressed the substantive equity, which is the “costs and benefits resulting from policy choices to affected parties” which addresses the overall fairness of the concept. (Regens, 1986)
Garber addressed effectiveness as well, which was much clearer since the proposed policy had a purpose (to limit self-dealing). (Garber) The purpose of the paper was to measure effectiveness of the proposed change and Garber and his associates determined it did not.
The alternative policies the paper addressed were just one – not adopting the proposal of changing the definition of “fiduciary” and maintaining the status quo. The scope of the paper seemed so narrow that they analyzed the potential changes without offering alternatives that could limit self-dealing.
- Cari
Garber, S., Burke, J., Hung, A. A., & Talley, E. (2015). Potential economic effects on individual retirement account markets and investors of DOL’s proposed rule concerning the definition of a ‘Fiduciary’. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1009.html
Pavel, S. I., & Sidonia, S. L. (2011). evaluating the efficiency of local economic development policies. Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Science, 20(1), 131-136.
Regens, J. L., & Rycroft, R. W. (1986). Measuring Equity in Regulatory Policy Implementation. Public Administration Review, 46(5), 423-431.
Beach. [Data file]. Retrieved from
Response four pol-04
The article I chose from RAND Corp. focused on a very narrow policy change that had the potential to create big changes for retirement planners. In 2010, there was a proposed change to federal statutory definitions of “fiduciary” for both organiations and individuals regarding IRA’s. (Garber et. al., 2015) Garber and his associates note the purpose was to decrease “self dealing by broker-dealers” and their representatives. (Garber). The goal of the policy paper was to determine the effects of such a change and they did a surprisingly great job using the core evaluative behavior from the lesson.
They measured the efficiency of the proposal and compared it to what things would look like without the proposal. (Garber) They also utilized, as part of their framework for the entire paper, current industry opinions. Regarding overall efficiency, it appears it would be well balanced with a nominal cost to investment planners or future “fiduciaries” and with greater protections to investors. (Garber)
Equity appeared in the paper but in a more subtle way. Impressively, Garber and associates explored the cost to planners and noted that they’d need a specific certification, however the fees they could then accrue with the new credentials would work in their favor. (Garber) They did caution increased fees to investors, though. (Garber) It was important for me to temper my reaction to the equity discussion here, though. The scope of the proposed change was very narrow with an effect on a small percent of the population – those who handle investments, and those that can afford to invest (in the two types of accounts in the paper). The paper addressed the substantive equity, which is the “costs and benefits resulting from policy choices to affected parties” which addresses the overall fairness of the concept. (Regens, 1986)
Garber addressed effectiveness as well, which was much clearer since the proposed policy had a purpose (to limit self-dealing). (Garber) The purpose of the paper was to measure effectiveness of the proposed change and Garber and his associates determined it did not.
The alternative policies the paper addressed were just one – not adopting the proposal of changing the definition of “fiduciary” and maintaining the status quo. The scope of the paper seemed so narrow that they analyzed the potential changes without offering alternatives that could limit self-dealing.
- Cari
Garber, S., Burke, J., Hung, A. A., & Talley, E. (2015). Potential economic effects on individual retirement account markets and investors of DOL’s proposed rule concerning the definition of a ‘Fiduciary’. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1009.html
Pavel, S. I., & Sidonia, S. L. (2011). evaluating the efficiency of local economic development policies. Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Science, 20(1), 131-136.
Regens, J. L., & Rycroft, R. W. (1986). Measuring Equity in Regulatory Policy Implementation. Public Administration Review, 46(5), 423-431.