586 Chapter 16Chapter 16 || Social PolicySocial PolicyInterest groups
In general, interest groups that advocate for social policy are not as influential as
business or labor groups, many other professional associations, or even other public
interest groups that focus on specific issues such as gun ownership or protection of
the environment. A major exception is AARP, one of the most powerful lobbies in the
United States (see Chapter 10). AARP has long had a strong voice on behalf of Social
Security and Medicare. For example, when President George W. Bush proposed
“personal savings accounts” to replace part of the Social Security system, AARP
mobilized its significant political muscle to crush the idea before it could receive
serious debate in Congress. Similarly, when Medicaid and Medicare were targeted
for deep cuts in the 2019 fiscal year budget, AARP was a powerful voice for protecting
those programs (while Medicaid is based on financial need rather than age, many
seniors in nursing homes receive assistance from the program).^31
Many interest groups and think tanks work on behalf of the poor, the homeless, and
other disadvantaged people, but decision makers in Washington, D.C., generally are
less responsive to their concerns because these groups and the people they are aligned
with are not politically powerful. The poor tend not to vote or donate money to political
campaigns. Many politicians in Washington care deeply about issues concerning
poverty, homelessness, and other social-policy problems, but the interest groups and
think tanks that try to focus politicians’ attention on these issues face a particularly
difficult task because of the relatively disadvantaged position of the people they
represent.The policy-making process
Another way to understand the role of key players in making policy is to examine the
various stages of the process. The How It Works graphic shows the stages by which
Social Security was conceived and enacted, but all policies go through similar steps.
The first stage is to define a problem as an issue that requires the federal government’s
attention. Of the thousands of possible issues, Congress acts on a relatively small
number. Consider a social policy such as food stamps. Poor and hungry people have
been part of American society since the arrival of the first settlers, but this was not seen
as a problem requiring government intervention until the twentieth century. What
causes a society to change its assumptions about whether and how government should
address social problems?
Sometimes there is a triggering event: the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy led to the passage of gun control legislation, the energy crisis of the early 1970s
led to the first comprehensive discussions of energy policy, and Hurricane Katrina led to
a reexamination of our readiness for emergencies and our social safety net. Sometimes
redefining an issue can move the policy to the next step of the process. For example, the
estate tax has been part of our tax system since 1917, but when Republican leaders in
Congress redefined it as the “death tax” in the late 1990s, they transformed the politics
of the debate and made it a problem that needed a solution. After all, who could support
a tax on dead people? (Of course, dead people don’t pay taxes—the estate’s heirs do—but
that nuance was lost in the redefinition of the problem.)
Recognizing and defining a problem is just the first step; it still needs to come to
the attention of political leaders and then get on the policy agenda. The basic idea
is that when conditions are right, with the appropriate national political mood andTRACE THE STEPS THROUGH
WHICH PROBLEMS ARE
ADDRESSED BY SOCIAL
POLICIESpolicy agenda
The set of desired policies that
political leaders view as their top
priorities.Full_17_APT_64431_ch16_572-613.indd 586 16/11/18 11:28 AM