Obama_V_Clinton

Obama V. Clinton: and I do not mean Hillary Two of most progressive presidents America has seen in the last two decades are Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Each made tremendous progress in each of the two major aspects of progressive social spending, Welfare and Health care. Clinton sought to “change welfare as we know it” while Obama refinished the foundations of healthcare reform Clinton started. Yet to declare the presidential champion of progressive social program reform one must first examine the socio-political environment these men played in. The economy, public opinion, existing polices, and the structure of the proposed policies all act as determining factors to the relative success of each of these policies and these presidents and to determine if the current administrations should look to the past for policies development or if America is headed in the right progressive direction. First round in the battle of progressive dominance is Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. Looking at the policies that were in practice when Clinton took office one can see why he needed to be a progressive. The major welfare program at the time was AFDC (American Families with Dependent Children) with over 5 million cases including 14.2 million individual recipients during 1994 according to the Heritage foundation Index of dependency. (Beach, and Tyrrell) Financially speaking AFDC was a black hole in the budget, its structure was as such that the more cases the states granted the more federal money the states would receive as reimbursement for the program without a cap on spending. To make matters worse the program only seemed to expand. As coverage included: originally just dependent children in 1935, expanding to unemployed parents of dependent children in 1961, next a second parent if the family had an incapacitated or unemployed parent in 1962, then came the ‘essential person’ defined as any individual deemed essential to the child in 1968, finally coverage extends to unborn children in the third trimester in 1981. (Aspe) AFDC was seemingly out of control with expansion with no signs of stopping and very little in the ways of incentives to pull one’s self out of poverty and off welfare. Congress attempted to off work training programs and work incentive programs. For example, The CWT (Community Work and Training) which gave federal money to pay unemployed members of a family to work and receive on the job training with the hopes of progressing into the workforce. However, programs like CWT did not offer enough help or incentive to decrease welfare rolls thus broader base reforms were necessary and possibly discouraged able-bodied adults from work. (Beach, and Tyrrell) Reforming welfare marks one of the several successes of President Clinton’s administration. Clinton realized that citizens were not motivated to work under the current policies of AFDC and in 1996 signed the PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) effectively scrapping the old AFDC and creating TANF (temporary assistance for needy families). TANF changed the rules of the welfare game emphasizing the temporary part of its namesake. The primary goals of Clinton’s reform of TANF were to reduce dependency on welfare by promoting job preparation, work and marriage. (Acf) With the reduction of welfare rolls of 4.4 million to 1.9 million families from 1996-2009 the budget began to level out with the significant decrease in welfare payments. ((Beach, and Tyrrell) Despite its success, the PRWORA and formation of TANF fell under the scrutiny of many critics in its origin. Public opinion split on the idea of a welfare to work program, opponents saw TANF as pushing people into poverty by leading welfare recipients into low wage jobs with no more help from the government. Proponents of TANF focused on the lack of incentive, and even disincentive, to work the old AFDC program provided. (Library index) With the two opposing sides, one also needs to look at the political nature of passing such a reform in congress. According to the Research at NYU, the politics of welfare reform break down into categories of political styles, Scale of government and Dependency, and political levels of Principals and Conditions. The idea of work test and limiting government spending was a republican ideal, which held appeal in the Republican congress during Clinton’s administration. (Mead) On the other hand, the ideals of helping a larger portion of the poor and giving them a greater opportunity appeased the Democratic side of the argument. The political success of the TANF was the fact that it spent less and gave more opportunities and incentives to the poor to work. TANF truly is a bipartisan program. Now fast forward to the Obama administration and take a look at the most recent attempt at welfare reform. Obama also seeks to create new jobs with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Better known as the Stimulus bill Obama used 787 billion dollars in a shift from Clinton’s fiscal policies, to a monetary policy resembling the ideals of AFDC. A monetary policy believes that by putting money in the pockets of the citizens the citizens will spend the money stimulate the economy. ((Beach, and Tyrrell) Granted Obama did not inherit the economic situation that Clinton created, there was ‘that other president’ in between the two administrations. However, the economic situation means both presidents started administrations in level playing fields of economic crisis and just handle it differently. Keith Hennessey, a economist with an award winning blog who served as an economist for the Senate budget committee and was involved in many of the economic reforms of the Clinton era, draws various comparisons to Obama’s economic approach to social spending and Clinton’s. Clinton’s policies created a 3.3% surplus with only 5.2% unemployment, while Obama has a 6.2% deficit with a 9% unemployment rate (these numbers also do not include the interest on the deficit incurred from predecessors in an attempt to make a cleaner comparison). (Hennessey) The numbers bring the truth; Obama spends more on social programs and pulls less people out of poverty. Hennessey’s points really show how a monetary policy on social spending in general does not have the same progressive success that Clinton’s fiscal policies. Hennessey also is not saying that the stimulus package did not work he admits the stimulus package did create jobs and help relieve pressures of the recession in accordance with the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). Hennessey merely claims that in a comparison the cost benefit of the stimulus package does not stand up to the Clinton era policies. (Hennessey) Though not perfectly identical political playing fields, Clinton takes the first round of the progressive championships with welfare reform. The next round in the battle of the progressive looks at structure, politics and the success or failures in Clinton and Obama’s different health care reforms. Healthcare reforms both made waves in the each administrations political media. Both Presidents looked to expand the scope of healthcare. Both presidents looked to increase coverage while protecting the private market. The only major difference between the two reforms is one passed through congress and was signed into action, the other did not. Clinton truly had a revolutionary idea, at least by American standards, to health care. Clinton wanted to guarantee health security to all individuals much like social security guaranteed a pension. Clinton saw the flaws in the health care system as it was and sought to improve American health care by covering: those who lose their jobs, new small business owners, early retirees, those with preexisting conditions, and if anyone in the family falls life threateningly ill. (Skocpol) According to Paul Starr, a professor of Communication and Public affairs at Princeton University, face value of the Clinton plan seemed too good to be true and easily gained public support, in fact polls showed after the initiative’s introduction the plan had a public approval of two-thirds. (Starr) However, the structure of the health security bill never could cope with the political environment at the time. One contention about the politics behind universal health care reform was that Clinton rather than taking a consistent moderate approach to the bill took shifting stances on either side of a moderate agenda. (Starr) First, Clinton appealed to the right with the idea of a managed competition within a budget to gain the support from republicans. Clinton then counter balance the appeal with the setting the starting point beyond a minimum barebones package but rather a comprehensive health package. The comprehensive package garnished support from the middleclass America to counter balance the vehement opposition of fiscal conservatives. Lastly, the president should have made another appeal to the right but decided against pre mature concessions. Thus, the personalities of key players in the legislative process and their inability to compromise hindered the success of universal health care reform. Other theories about the failures of health care reform have also surfaced. According to a policy expert Joshua M. Wiener, ‘pride of place’ hindered support for universal health reform. People want change for the poor without having to change their own health care. (Skocpol) Skocpol also asserts that Clintons plan was too specific of a change for the public opinion at the time when she states, “public opinion in general never chooses among exact policy options.” (Skocpol) Public opinion later showed that it supported general policy changes rather than Clintons sweeping reforms. Beyond the fact that it failed to become a social program the Clinton universal health reform laid the foundation to health care reform agendas. Obama takes a different approach to the idea of health care reform. The Obama plan is more about building upon the system already in existence. Obama wants to expand the coverage of people who already have insurance for more stability and security, to offer affordable choices to those who are not insured, and to modernize and rein in the cost of Health care for families, business and government. (Whitehouse) Examining the structure of this bill in its three separate parts starting with expansion of existing coverage one sees a rather familiar contention to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Obama also looked to form a new insurance market place called the Exchange giving the uninsured an option in a competitive price market. The last major portion of Obama’s health care reform is to reduce overall cost and monetary waste in the health care industry. Now if one can think back 15 years ago, or better yet a few paragraphs ago, you see the similarity in Obama’s ideas and the failed health care reforms of Bill Clinton. Therefore, what is the reason then for Obama’s success with Clinton’s foundations of health care reform, one argument follows that the differences outweigh the similarities. One of the major flaws of the Clinton health care reform was the employer mandate since it appeared to hurt small business owners. Obama learns for the prior discontent and focuses the mandate on the individual instead which seems more palatable for influential groups such as small business owners. (Howard lecture) Obama also phases this reform in over ten years rather than an overarching reform all at once, taking a different policy approach then his welfare reform Obama is looking to spread out the long-term costs while reaping the immediate benefits. (Howard) Obama does not push the audacious ‘fortune 500 plan’ that Clinton tried to promise everyone, but rather starts with the essentials gaining more moderate support. In fact according to Jacobs and Skocpol Obama’s greatest advantages was the broad based principals which he left congress to expand on rather than taking Clinton’s approach of a 500 person commission and a 1300 page document which was so detailed no one understood. (Jacobs et Skocpol) The broad nature of Obama’s proposals left room for congressional compromises making it more plausible that the bill would even reach the voting stage. Another instance of Obama’s political savvy in preserving the life of his health care reform was dealing with major health care stake holders. Rather than trying to take on the opponents from the health sector, who in the past had instrumental roles in blockading health care reform, Obama demonstrated the benefits of an increase in customer basis. The increase in medical volume would potentially make up the difference or even be more profitable for the medical industry thus in May 2009 six major players in the health care industry publicly demonstrated support for the health care reform.(Jacobs Skocpol) Obama effectively took a roadblock and turned it into a starting block. Obama had a third strategy to keep health care reform moving forward. Obama knew the success of the reform revolved around the support of CBO and that balancing the cost benefit was a quintessential necessity. Jacobs and Skocpol outlines the way Obama focused more specifics on the budgetary aspects of the health care reform than the actual benefits. Essentially the thought process is ‘what is the point of benefits if you can’t afford them’. Obama’s fiscal policy on the issue of funding for health care reform was to cut the narrow scoped programs in order to funnel more money into boarder public benefits. (Jacobs Skocpol) With those three key strategies, Obama took Clintons foundations of universal health care learned from the flaws in the bill and the flaws of the political approach and created comprehensive health care. Obama lets the policy makes of congress define the actual policies around his braod based guidelines, Obama gained the support of classic opponents to reform. Most importantly Obama focused his energies on the most contested part of reform the financing and essentially changed the traditional means of fiscal policy with the shifting of funds rather then the typical cutting of both funding and spending. (Jacobs Skocpol) Naturally since Obama’s bill actually passed and came into existence he receives the credit as a superior progressive in health care reform, despite his the fact that he builds of the concepts of the Clinton Administration. Two presidents, two monumental reforms that greatly impacted the social spending tendencies of America. Seemingly, it is not possible to determine a clear winner as to who was more progressive. Clinton had great success with his welfare reform decreasing welfare rolls, creating jobs, and pulling people out of poverty all while decreasing social spending and creating economic ‘golden age’. Clinton however did not have the same fiscal success with healthcare reform as politics and economics did not mesh with his overreaching goals of universal coverage. Obama on the other hand took a less frugal approach with welfare economics but made greater headway in the healthcare reform, through restructuring the failed plan of the past with more strategic politics and more forgiving funding policies. The two administrations met different challenges with different economies, different ‘bush predecessors’, and different public desires. However both administrations took the necessary steps to broaden and utilize the American social spending system to the best of their ability thus both administrations essentially tie for the most progressive reformers and one can only hope future administrations move forward with a composite of ideals from these two great presidents. Bibliography ACF, . "About TANF." Administration for Children and Families. US department of Health and Human Services, 20 Nov 2008. Web. 13 Apr 2011. . ASPE. "A brief History of the AFDC Program.” Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Us department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 13 Apr 2011. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/afdc/baseline/1history.pdf Beach, William, and Patrick Tyrrell. "The 2010 Index of Dependence on Government." The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation, 14 oct 2010. Web. 13 Apr 2011. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/The-2010-Index-of-Dependence-on-Government "Comparing the New TANF with old AFDC-Public opinion polls, A brief background of AFDC, AFDC-up, Federal spending on AFDC and TANF." Library Index. net industries, 2011. Web. 13 Apr 2011. http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/78/Comparing-New-TANF-with-Old-AFDC.html Hennessey, Keith. "Comparing Obama economics to Clinton economics." Your guide to American economic policy. Keith Hennessey, 04 aug 2010. Web. 13 Apr 2011. . Hennessey, Keith. "Obama Economy Facts." Your guide to American economic policy. Keith Hennessey, 04 aug 2010. Web. 16 Aug 2011. . Howard, Chirs. class . WM gov't. morton 40, WILLIAMSBURG. 11 apr 2011. Lecture Jacobs, Lawrence, and Theda Skocpol. "Hard Fought Legacy: Obama, Congressional Democrats, and the Struggle for Comprehensive Health Reform."Russellsage. Russell Sage Foundation, oct 2010. Web. 13 Apr 2011. . Mead, Lawrence. "Welfare Politics in Congress." NYU, 02 sep 2006. Web. 13 Apr 2011. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/mead/Research/WelfarePoliticsinCongress4thdraft.pdf Skocpol, Theda. Boomerang: Health Care Refrom and The Turn Against Government. 2nd. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Comapny , 1997. 1-19. Print. Starr,Paul. "What Happened to Health Care Reform'" The American Prospect no. 20 (Winter 1995): 20-31. United States. Obama Plan: Stability and security for All Americans. DC: , 2009. Web. 13 Apr 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/obama_plan_card.PDF