Examples of the US Bipartisan Success - Coursework Example

The United States Domestic Public Policy Agenda: Three Examples of Bipartisan Success Introduction Most individuals get their information on the United States political system from the cable news networks or from surfing the Internet. Even those who take the time to read the Washington Post or New York Times do not always get a complete and accurate picture of what the federal, state and local governments do every day in managing the nation’s public institutions. Independent public surveys conducted by Gallup or Time-Warner indicate that seventy percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of their government (Gallup, 2010). The reason that this is so is because the public’s perceptions are heavily influenced by the reports in the media of partisan politics, ineffective government policies and out of control government deficits. These themes will sound a familiar chord for those who watched the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates leading up to the election in November 2008. Senators McCain and Obama argued vociferously over the public policy direction that the nation should take in the next four years and beyond. It appeared to the public watching these debates unfold on national television, that there was no room for compromise between Democrats and Republicans and that the gridlock that has been associated with “politics as usual” would continue in Washington, D.C. This is what the media reports because this is what people want to see when they turn on the television or surf the Internet. The reality, however, is that many very important and effective public policies are developed, funded and implemented in a bipartisan manner every year. On some of the fundamental domestic policy issues most Republicans and Democrats agree. But, because this is not newsworthy material most of us never learn of the details and the hard work that takes place at all three levels of government to deliver the hundreds of thousands of public programs that make a difference in the daily lives of Americans. This paper seeks to explore some of the excellent bipartisan effort that has helped shape the nation’s domestic policy agenda. Three policy areas where collaboration between the federal, state and local governments is critical to successful implementation are education policy, transportation policy and energy policy. This paper will explore how a multi-government, bipartisan approach has resulted in some very creative policy outcomes. In these three policy domains at least, more often than not Democrats and Republicans work together. This does not mean to imply that the two political parties agree on everything. In fact, they often disagree but it is precisely through the debates that occur as a result of these policy differences, that better public policies are enacted into law. The Constitutional Dimension to Public Policy In order to have a full appreciation for the importance of bipartisanship in the development and execution of public policy, an understanding of the primary principle under which the United States Constitution was founded is necessary. The Constitution was deliberately shaped by its founders to ensure safeguards against excessive powers being granted to any one branch of government. In particular, the founders feared a strong executive having just fought a war of independence against the King of England. In Federalist 47, James Madison (1788) provides the rationale for the separation of powers doctrine contained in the Constitution. Madison notes that the accumulation of all powers in the same hands (branch) represents the very definition of tyranny (Federalist 47). One argument presented in this paper is that by its very design, the United States Constitution requires a bipartisan approach to governing the country. In the parliamentary model where majority governments (current Cameron government aside) have considerable latitude regarding the public policy agenda, Parliament votes and the majority rules. This is not so in the United States. The Constitution “forces” parties with different political perspectives to work together in crafting legislation. Republicans and Democrats must work together in the House of Representatives and the Senate and if they choose not to work collaboratively, deadlock is the result. At the end of the day, Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President veto power over any legislation that passes both houses of Congress (U.S. Constitution). A second component of the Constitution that promotes bipartisanship comes out of the language in the 10th Amendment which states that all powers not conferred upon the federal government are reserved for the states. The separation of powers doctrine that applies to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, are equally applicable to the constitutional division of policy authority between the federal government and the fifty state governments (Rohr, 2007). In the discussion and analysis that follows concerning the three domestic policy areas, education, energy and transportation, this bipartisan approach that is a fundamental component of effective governance will become obvious. Education Policy Education is arguably one of the most important issues on the domestic policy agenda. All three levels of government are involved in the funding, delivery and evaluation of education programs. Historically, the United States judiciary has also played a significant role in shaping education policy. Education is one of the areas where the Constitution grants the primary policy authority to the states. This is the case for education policy at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Public primary and secondary education is funded by state and local governments and the thousands of school districts across the country are entities of local governments. The public university system receives operating grants through state government and university policy makers are subordinate to state departments of higher education. One then might reasonably ask; why is there a federal department of education if the primary responsibility for education policy lies with state and local government? Here is where it gets rather complicated. The federal government has the constitutional mandate to ensure equal access to a quality public education and the courts have affirmed that role. A child who attends a public elementary school in Mississippi, for example, has the same right to a quality education as the child who attends public school in New York. States cannot use lack of resources as a justification for differential educational standards and the federal education department makes sure that states are in compliance. As we will see below, President Bush used a very broad interpretation of this federal mandate to institute a very controversial piece of legislation called “No Child Left Behind.” No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed by Congress in 2001 and was the first major piece of policy legislation passed by the Bush administration. NCLB provides for sweeping changes in the way that elementary and secondary students are assessed in the content areas of math, science, reading and writing. Public schools are mandated to test students at a variety of levels throughout the educational experience. Schools are required to achieve the standards established in the legislation or the states where the schools are located risk the loss of federal transfer funds (NCLB, 2002). NCLB was truly a bipartisan legislative effort. Republicans and Democrats extolled the virtues of NCLB touting it as a way to make American students competitive with their counterparts in countries where standardized test scores in math and science were much higher. The vote in Congress was overwhelmingly in support of the legislation; 384 to 45 in the House of Representatives and 91-8 in the Senate. As it turns out, NCLB was clearly the most contentious domestic policy reform implemented during Bush’s eight years as President. In fact, most analysts describe the outcome as a complete failure. Why did the initiative meet with so much resistance especially given its overwhelming bipartisan support? The primary reason is that state and local governments were left out of the discussion during the crafting of the legislation or their comments were ignored. NCLB imposed huge cost mandates on state and local governments with no additional resources coming from the federal government to help cover the costs. Moreover, the standards and timeline for implementation outlined in the legislation were impossible to achieve even for large school districts with the resources to try and comply. NCLB is a perfect example of the point made earlier that successful domestic policy requires bipartisan support in Congress and it requires bipartisan support at the state and local government levels as well. NCLB continues to attract attention. During the 2008 elections, Obama and McCain both promised to reform NCLB and promised bipartisan dialogue with state and local officials. The President has forwarded a series of proposed revisions to NCLB to the House Education and Labor Committee for review where it enjoys bipartisan support. Education Secretary, Anne Duncan is traveling around the country meeting with Republican and Democratic governors, school officials and parent groups seeking input for new legislation that will undoubtedly be passed by Congress later this year. A second area within education policy where the federal and state governments collaborate in a bipartisan manner relates to post-secondary education. Expenditures on research and development (R&D) represents a multi-billion dollar annual investment. A significant proportion of these funds are channeled through the nation’s universities. The total research and development expenditures contained in the FY 2011 executive budget is $147.5 billion. This represents an overall increase in non-defense R&D of 7.2 percent from the 2009 budget. The National Science Foundation will receive an increase of 9 percent. This is an enormous amount of money; more than the total budgets of many countries. Yet, year after year the R&D portion of the budget enjoys bipartisan support. In fact, Congress has been known to increase the request made by the President (A New Era of Responsibility FY 2011 Budget). The disagreements normally take place over where the funds should be spent, not on the amount allocated. For example, the National Science Foundation allocates hundreds of millions of dollars each year to capital projects involving the construction of new research facilities, many of which are located on university campuses. Members of Congress, of course, lobby hard to get these facilities constructed in their constituencies and sometimes partisan disagreements result. The examples of No Child Left Behind and R & D programs represent two of many components within national education policy where politics is set aside and bipartisanship wins the day. These items rarely receive media attention because they are not controversial and therefore are not deemed to be newsworthy. Energy Policy This is another critical domestic policy issue that remains as a high priority for Republicans and Democrats at the national and state levels of government. The culprit, of course, is the price of oil and the increasing dependency of the United States on foreign supplies of oil. So the fundamental policy question becomes; how can the U.S. develop an energy strategy that promotes increases in the domestic supply of oil, one that supports the use of alternative energy products and a policy that encourages Americans to reduce their overall energy consumption? This was the energy policy goal of Republican George Bush’s administration from 2000-2008, and remains as the hallmark of Democrat Barack Obama’s administration’s objective as well (Bang, 2010). If one decided to poll members of Congress and the nation’s fifty governors, a consensus would probably be reached fairly quickly that the three components of national energy policy identified above were very important to the long term interests of the United States. The devil, of course, is in the details. The fiscal 2010-2011 budget request of the Department of Energy is $28.4 billion. A major emphasis of this budget is on the development of clean, renewable energy sources and the creation of three million jobs that will form part of the “new energy economy.” (Energy Fiscal 2011 Budget). The twenty-eight plus billion dollar energy department budget contains many programs ranging from investments in research and development to securing the nation’s nuclear materials. What appears to be emerging as the most controversial issue as the energy budget is debated in congressional budget committees, is the small portion of the budget that relates to incentives for oil exploration. President Obama is proposing to eliminate approximately $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies. This proposal opened some old wounds and has outraged many Republicans who support tax incentives for U.S. companies to explore for oil deposits in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and in the coastal waters of Florida and California. The recent BP oil disaster off the coast of Louisiana has fanned the flames of partisan bickering. This political gamesmanship happens every year. In this case, the debate that is occupying ninety percent of the time in budget committee is actually only concerned with about ten percent of the Department of Energy’s budget request. The other ninety percent of the budget will, in all likelihood, go through unopposed. When the elected representatives tire of the debate or when the public no longer seems interested, the Republicans and Democrats will agree on a compromise concerning tax incentives for oil companies. The appropriation bill for energy will receive substantial bipartisan support in Congress and will be forwarded to the President largely intact. There are some other important bipartisan policy efforts underway that are tangential to the discussions over the fiscal 2011 energy appropriations bill. One example is a piece of legislation proposed by the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan organization that works with Congress in assessing energy policy alternatives. House Bill 5019 provides incentives through a federal rebate program for homeowners to retrofit their homes to reduce energy consumption (NCEP, 2010). A Bill introduced in the Senate by Democrat John Kerry and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman, presents a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. The senators claim that this legislation will re-establish the United States as the world leader in clean energy and end America’s addiction to foreign oil (Washington Post, May 12, 2010). Transportation Policy National transportation policy tends to generate considerable discussion at the state and local levels because of the impact that transportation expenditures have on local economies. Transportation funding allocations also attract considerable interest from interest groups and professional lobbyists. The influence that these groups can have on policy outcomes is really quite remarkable. The Federal Department of Transportation’s fiscal 2011 budget request is $79 billion. Forty-two billion (53%) is allocated to federal highways. The Department of Transportation is complex portfolio of fourteen different agencies. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration are two examples (Transportation FY 2011 Budget). Given its size and complexity, transportation policy can be one of the more politicized areas within the domestic policy platform. Part of the reason for this can be attributed to the huge portfolio of activities contained within transportation. The major reason for political disagreements over transportation policy concerns the fact that much of the annual funding goes toward infrastructure maintenance and development. Members of Congress position themselves each year to try and get as much transportation funding for their districts as possible. Historically, the outcomes of these political allocations are often contrary to the objective that the policy was intended to meet. An example will serve to reinforce the point. U.S. Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is notorious for using his power and influence to divert large amounts of transportation dollars to his state. West Virginia is a small state and by comparison to national priorities, probably ranks near the bottom of the list. New York and California on the other hand have seen their transportation infrastructure deteriorate over the years even as their populations continue to grow. The good news for West Virginia is that they have a beautiful federal highway system (Weiner, 2008). The politics of transportation policy is even more acute at the state and local levels. Communities from across the country lobby Congress for funding to construct new roads, bridges and airports and for additional funding to maintain the existing infrastructure. These federal transportation dollars create hundreds of thousands of jobs, they provide opportunities for private sector businesses and they build community capacity that otherwise would not be possible. So, the stakes are high and with such high stakes comes political partisan debate over the policy goals and outcomes. There are three areas of transportation policy that currently represent the major component of the political debate at all three levels of government. They are: the capacity of the nation’s airports and air traffic control systems; the lack of any significant high speed rail system; and, the country’s deteriorating highway infrastructure. Most of the major airports in he United States are in need of major investments to upgrade systems and to cope with the growing volume of air traffic. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that there is a problem but the solution is very complex and expensive. The Federal Aviation Administration has identified five major airports that require terminal and runway expansion and San Diego needs a completely new airport facility. The cost is staggering and the public outcry over runway expansion and a new airport in San Diego is similar to what was experienced in the U.K. over the expansion plans at Heathrow. The technology that forms the backbone of the nation’s air traffic control system is obsolete and the problem is particularly acute at airports such as O’hare in Chicago. The 2011 transportation budget contains $1.1 billion for the Nextgen satellite air traffic control system but this is only a fraction of the amount needed to upgrade the entire system. The Senate Transportation Committee is working on a bipartisan piece of legislation to help address this situation but the costs are prohibitive. One billion dollars in funding is available in the fiscal 2011 transportation budget to begin expansion of high speed rail system on the east coast of the country where a sufficient volume of commuters make these investments worthwhile. The question becomes one of policy tradeoffs. Legislators from the major metropolitan areas along the east coast welcome an expanded high speed rail system similar to those in Europe and Japan. Members of Congress from the rural and much less populated mid-west, however, lobby for the investments in an expanded airport infrastructure (Washington Post, 2010). The $42 billion identified for federal highways will not even begin to address the backlog of infrastructure repair and replacement that will be required over the next decade. As mentioned earlier, the political nature of highway infrastructure investment decisions have not always been in the long term best interests of the country. The federal government now struggles to address a problem that has been growing in severity for several decades. Little in the way of new and innovative approaches to address the enormity of the transportation challenges facing the United States appears to be coming from either Republicans or Democrats. This is probably because the best innovative ideas run head on into the reality of huge budget deficits. The fiscal 2011 deficit projection of 9.9 percent of GNP leaves little room for policy makers to be creative (A New Era of Responsibility FY 2011 Budget). In fact, dealing with a deficit of this size in the years ahead will make all of the other policy issues pale in comparison. Conclusion The United States Constitution was designed 223 years ago to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government engaged in vigorous debate that resulted in a compromise on how to address the major policy issues of the day. In 2010, Republicans and Democrats engage in political wrangling and posturing for the media and for their constituents. But when it is all said and done the majority of federal and state policies are passed and become law. This incremental process of public policy development is a healthy process for the nation as a whole. Rarely, do we see draconian shifts in public policy direction and this is even the norm when a new political party takes over the reins of government. This paper examined three major domestic policies and presented the argument that the majority of the work that takes place in federal and state legislatures is completed in a bipartisan manner. In examining the history of energy policy, transportation policy and education policy one finds that the outcomes tend to be at the center of the political spectrum. This is important because the policy outcomes must appeal to a wide range of Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and different political persuasions. This does not mean to imply that all public policies in the United States successfully transcend the political agendas of the major parties because they do not. There always seems to be at least one policy area that captures the national interest where Republicans and Democrats cannot seem to agree on even a basic starting point for dialogue to begin. Tempers flare as the media captures insults and accusations that the elected representatives hurl back and forth. This year, the contentious policy area seems to be the economy and related areas such as the crisis in the financial system, the level of federal economic stimulus that is necessary to get the economy moving and the debate over the deficit. The President’s economic stimulus program passed the House and Senate purely along party lines. Last year, the contentious policy issue was health care. Republicans and Democrats fought bitterly over the privatization of Social Security and whether federal funds should be used to support abortions. Who knows what the flavor of the day will be next year. Whatever it might be, there will always be partisan disagreements over which public policies are in the best interest of the country. The reality is, however, despite the media attention that is given to the hot policy debates of the moment, the majority of policy legislation is developed, funded and implemented in a bipartisan manner and this is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended. Bibliography Bang, G., 2010. ‘Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns: Triggers for Energy Policy Change in the United States?’ Energy Policy, 38(4). p.1645-1653. The Constitution of the United States. Available at: [http://www.loc.gov]. Accessed on May 13, 2010. Daly, Matthew, 2010. ‘Bill aimed to stem global warming, create jobs.’ Washington Post, 12 May. Gallup Public Opinion Survey. 2010. Available at: [http://www.gallup.com]. 13 April. Accessed on May 14, 2010. Madison, James. 1788. Federalist 47. Available at: [http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed47]. Accessed on May 13, 2010. National Commission on Energy Policy. Available at: [http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org]. Accessed on May 14, 2010. A New Era of Responsibility: The 2011 Budget. Available at: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb]. Accessed on May 13, 2010. No Child Left Behind. 2002. Public Law 107-110 107th Congress. Available at: [http://ww2.ed.gov/legislation]. Accessed on May 13, 2010. Rohr, John, A. 2007. To Run a Constitution. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence. Rosenthal, John. 2010. ‘U.S. high-speed rail’s ship finally comes in.’ Washington Post, 25 April. The U.S. Department of Education FY 2011 Congressional Budget. 2010. Available at: [http://ww2.ed.gov/budget]. Accessed on May 14, 2010. The U.S. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget. 2010. Available at: [http://www.cfo.energy.gov/budget]. Accessed on May 14, 2010. The U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2011 Congressional Budget. 2010. Available at: [http://www.dot.gov/budget]. Accessed on May 14, 2010. Weiner, Edward. 2008. Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: History, Policy and Practice. 3rd ed. Springer. New York. Read More