Volume 1, No. 1, Fall 1996
Bob Dole's Economic Plan: Affirmative
Brian Westbury and Chris Recker
Bob Dole, the Republican nominee for President, has staked his election on tax and economic reforms that propose to let taxpayers take home more of their paychecks, invest in their futures, and build their human capital. Dole intends to cut income tax rates 15%, halve the capital gains tax, provide education vouchers for private and parochial education and balance the budget. He argues that these goals are reasonable, realistic, and ones Americans should expect from their government. We will analyze Dole's underlying assumptions, what others have estimated, arguments Democrats make against the plan, and potential "agenda stoppers".
Brian Wesbury is Vice President and Chief Economist at Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, and the former Chief Economist of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. Chris Recker is an intern at Griffin, Kubik and a student at the Harris School.
Bob Dole's Economic Plan: A Critique
Robert M. Coen
Tax reduction and simplification have obvious popular appeal. Who, after all, would not like to be able to keep more of what they earn and spend less time preparing their taxes? If tax cuts largely pay for themselves by stimulating more work effort and higher productivity, who could oppose them? Bob Dole asks us to recollect the 1980's when the Reagan tax cuts ushered in a decade of renewed growth and prosperity that "helped restore America's greatness". He argues that we can and should re-Reaganize economic policy. While Dole and his supporters would claim that his program simply applies basic ideas of free market Economics 101, the teachings of which are allegedly borne out by the economic history of the 1980's, neither economic theory nor experience offers much support that the predicted outcomes will be realized.
Robert M. Coen is a Professor of Economics at Northwestern University.
Watching the Polls: Elections, the Media and Polling
Norman Bradburn
Every four years, as presidential elections roll around, a plague of polls descends upon the country. After remaining at about 10 percent of front-page presidential election related stories through the 1980's, the proportion of such stories more than doubled to 22 percent in the 1992 election (Lavrakas and Bauman,1995) and few doubt that the trend has yet reached its peak. One contemporary estimate (Wall Street Journal, September 13, 1996) puts the number of media-commissioned polls in the first four months of 1996 at 125, compared with 125 for the entire 1992 election year. Is this development a good or bad thing for democracy? Even if polls play a positive role in general, is too much of a good thing, a bad thing? In this paper, I will review some basics about polls, discuss their current use by the media and suggest some ways in which their interpretation can be improved. I will argue that polls in general are a positive force in democracy and that more rather than fewer polls are the best defense against misuse of polls.
Norman Bradburn is the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, the Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Business and the College of the University of Chicago. He is also the Senior Research Vice President of the National Opinion Research Center and is the author (with others) of "Polls and Surveys", "Asking Questions" and, most recently, "Thinking About Answers".
Welfare Reform and the Implications for Illinois: CPR Interview with Robert Wright
An Interview with Robert Wright
On September 4, 1996, Co-Editor-in-Chief Doug Lauen spoke with Robert Wright, Director of the Illinois' Department of Public Aid (DPA), on the subject of welfare reform. The federal welfare legislation was passed by Congress this summer and signed into law by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. Under the provisions of the law, no family may claim an entitlement to receive welfare assistance as of October 1, 1996. States are required to submit their plans by July 1, 1997. The block grant funding system also takes effect on that date. While it is clear that academic experts, practitioners, and pundits may only speculate as to the long-term results of implementing the welfare bill, the following excerpts from this interview provides insight into federal provisions and Illinois' approach to planning and implementation.
The Cost and Consequences of Teenage Childbearing for Mothers and the Government
V. Joseph Hotz, Susan Williams, Seth G. Sanders
Editors Note: Over the last year, recent public anxiety towards increased government spending, rising government debt and growing dissatisfaction with the current welfare system produced a base for reform. This reform included cost-saving proposals to address the public's discontentment with perceived dependency and the swelling AFDC-supported ranks of teenage mothers. Proposed to both cut costs and simultaneously target a worsening social concern, the recently passed reform bill incorporates incentives for states to reduce their rates of teen pregnancy.
Reduction of teenage pregnancy rates is believed to translate into smaller AFDC caseloads and lower costs. This is one rationale states have used to institute "family cap" laws that block additional aid for women who become pregnant while receiving public benefits. Though the federal welfare bill does not contain a family cap provision, it does contain incentives for states to reduce rates of illegitimacy. Research has not proven conclusively that reducing illegitimacy and teenage childbearing will reduce costs to the taxpayer. This article examines teenage mothers and finds no significant effect on their earnings over time. Extending this analysis to apply to the probability that these mothers would require public aid, the authors cast doubt on any substantial savings in social costs from decreases in rates of teenage childbearing.
V. Joseph Hotz is a Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago; Seth G. Sanders and Susan Williams McElroy are Professors at the Heinz Graduate School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University.
Establishing Paternity: Can States Meet the 90 Percent Welfare Reform Standard?
Robert G. Williams
With non-marital births now accounting for one-third of all births in this country, Congress has mandated a series of measures to increase the number of out-of-wedlock children who become legally linked to their fathers. These requirements embodied in the recent welfare reform legislation [P.L. 104-193] are directed at the Title IV-D child support enforcement agencies because these are the only public entities charged with establishing paternity. Perhaps the most significant measure is the promulgation of a 90 percent standard: that states must either establish paternity for 90 percent of the cases in their IV-D caseloads (the "IV-D standard"), or they must establish paternity for 90 percent of all non-marital births in the state (the "universal standard"). Although this seems at first to be an Olympian goal, experience of some states suggest that it can be attained with the right strategy and reasonable investments of resources.
Robert G. Williams is President of Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI), a research, technology, and privatization corporation specializing in child support enforcement and other human services programs. He oversees the operations of 16 privatized child support enforcement offices operated by PSI in Massachusetts, New Jersey and several other states. He holds a B.A. degree in Political Science from the University of Illinois at Chicago and M.P.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University.
Immigrant Restrictions to Public Assistance: Implementation Issues for Illinois
Michelle Waslin
Congress recently passed revolutionary changes to the welfare system which will soon affect the lives of millions of individuals across the U.S. With the end of entitlements, states and local governments have been delegated unprecedented authority to determine who will continue to be eligible for benefits and which benefits they will receive. Immigrant and refugee communities will suffer particularly dramatic cuts in eligibility and services. For the first time in history, states will have the option to deny Medicaid and other health care programs to legal immigrants. However, federal agencies and regulators, state legislatures and administrators and local entities will have to make crucial decisions before the new welfare system can be implemented. Meanwhile, immigrants, refugees and many other vulnerable populations await their fate as they struggle to understand the implications of these decisions.
Michele Waslin is on the staff of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Protection and is a Ph.D. student in Government at the University of Notre Dame.
National Success of "Motor Votor" Act Merits Imitation in Illinois
Erin Austin Krasik
Federal legislation in the past three decades to expand the electorate has made voter registration more accessible and voting more protected than any other time in the history of the United States. Most notably, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened doors to African-American voters formerly barred from full participation in the electoral process. Ratified in 1971, the 21st amendment to the Constitution lowered the voting age to 18, enfranchising an entire generation of new voters. In the 1990s, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) is no less historic in its intent and success to protect the nation's democracy, lowering the costs of voting by increasing the accessibility of voter registration. Such national success should be modeled, especially in states such as Illinois that have delayed its full and proactive implementation in the manner the NVRA was intended.
Erin Austin Krasik is Program Director with the Midwest-Northeast Voter Registration Education Project in Chicago, Illinois, and is a student at the Harris School.
|
