USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
this is only for yhtomit.
Response one PADM–04
The authors feel that welfare should be based on fairness and compassion. Those that need aid and are not able to get it for themselves should receive it.
If it is an adult who can help themselves, but they are unwilling to take the necessary steps to support themselves then they should not receive any aid. The current welfare system enables non-working individuals that are receiving aide, and require no constructive behavior in return (Rector, 2018). The food stamp program is in need of reform, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Reform Act of 2017 exemplify a proven and popular reform that stabilize the principles of compassion and fairness (Rector, 2018).
Evaluative criteria that were used to analyze the points made in the article are efficiency, equity, effectiveness, and social acceptability. Poles taken in 2012 and 2015 showed that 83% of Americans are in favor of adults who are receiving well fare assistance to work. The results were socially acceptable with bipartisan support. Both sides agreed that an able-bodied adult with no dependents receiving food, cash, medical assistance, and housing should be required to work or prepare themselves to enter the workforce as a condition of them receiving those benefits from the government (Rector, 2018). The costs and benefits to society in the equity is that by reforming the federal welfare policy and basing it on fairness and compassion it will distribute a level of fairness and benefit society. The program is efficient by limiting abled bodied adults without dependents to three months of benefits within a 36-month period. After an individual complete the 3 months of receiving government assistance they would be subject to work requirements of at least 20 hours per week of work performing community service or participating in a qualifying education or training program. The effectiveness of the program was pointed out when the program was introduced in Maine many adults chose to leave the program rather than participate in moderate activities. The caseload in Maine of able-bodied adults without dependents fell from 13,332 in December 2014 to 2,678 recipients in March 2015 (Rector, 2015), according to the author this could be and an indicator that these adults had unreported income that they used to support themselves.
The alternatives for abled body adults without dependents is eliminating the waivers for work requirements. The current policy has a lot of alternatives that are already in place and a common-sense reform to put them in effect. Requiring abled body adults to work and limiting the number of benefits that they receive if they are not working, participating in other work, or educational activity is in the current law. States currently grant waivers and exemptions for able-bodied adults from the work requirement, that should be incrementally reduced. If they are willing they should have supervised job search activities that will satisfy the work requirement and productive activity portion of the law. As stated the current policy has its own alternative that is included, Americans are favorable for it and politicians on both sides agree. There just needs to be a proper reform to implement these alternatives.
American Public University system, (2018). PADM530, Lesson 4: Evaluating public policy. Retrieved from, https://apus.realizeithome.com/RealizeitApp/ContentDelivery.aspx?
Rector, R. (2018). SNAP Reform Act Offers Sound Basis for Welfare Policy. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/snap-reform-act-offers-sound-basis-welfare-policy
Response two-PADM-04
Dying broke beat the Tax man. This is the theme of Stephen Moore article “Trump is Right on the Death Tax: A Lifetime of Paying Taxes is Enough” (Moore, 2017).
The Death tax has been debated in the US for decades, and in his article, Stephen is arguing against this policy, proclaiming that eliminating the Death Tax is better for the economy. Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation applauds President Trump on the decision to repeal the Death Tax. He questions the benefits of such tax.
Death Tax also called the Estate Tax, which is defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as follows;
“a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death’(IRS).
Stephen thinks that this policy is not logically based, neither is fair to rich people at their death, to be charged for the work they have done for the country during their life. In his views, those who leave a fortune to their families want the money or the business to stay and grow, as this means more job creation and sustained taxes.
Stephen criticizes the Liberals for supporting such a policy move, indicating that, even the socialist and communist regimes have done without the Death Tax.
He adds that, the Death Tax would create an incentive for people to fork businesses asset or close them down to avoid paying the tax. It would also reduce the incentives for entrepreneurship and investment. Therefore, this policy is not good for the economy on the long term.
Stephen, by referring to an IRS report concludes that, more money can be saved by getting rid of the Death Tax.
Evaluation Criteria
The article evaluation of the Death Tax Policy included three main evaluation criteria’s. These were the Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Economic. On the question of Equity, Stephen posits that the tax is not fair. However, he overlooked the concept of Vertical Equity, which considers the consumption of high income people.
The article argues that the policy is not effective and efficient for several reasons. First, because the asset owners think about the deductions from their fortunes, they would seek different ways to legally avoid paying it. For example, one way is to disperse their money and business. Secondly, there is a monetary opportunity cost for collecting this tax, because the administration is complex and expenses are high (Edward, 2017). These reasons result in comparatively less tax collected from the asset.
From the Economic perspective, the author estimates the economic cost as a result of the Death Tax is multiple times the collected amount. The cost is in losses of investments by asset owners, and money circulation. Furthermore, additional investment could be reduced as a result of fear of future confiscation of asset, that would deter new entrepreneurship from entering the market and starting new business. Presumably, the direct losses for the economy would be jobs and lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Greszler & et l. (2014).
Alternative Opinion
The alternative option is keeping the Estate Tax law. In a 2016 article, Suh, suggests that Trump’s Estate Tax Plan Gives $4 Billion Windfall to his Family if calculated today (Suh, 2016). According to Suh elimination of the Death Tax means a loss of $27 billion in tax revenue every year. This suggest that, Suh does not see a significant economic benefit from repealing this tax, and neither there would be excessive administration cost. In other words, the tax is efficient.
On the question of Equity, the deputy director at the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, Huang, posit that cutting taxes at the top might be compensated for by increasing taxes on low and middle income people (Huang, 2017). This projection is also applauded by Debot, (2017). Additionally, even, if there is no compensation tax on low and medium income people, slashing the Death Tax will widen the inequality (Collins & Hoxie, 2017).
Prince of Forbes.com thinks that, the impact of repealing the Death Tax will be for the benefit the Wealthy, but it is difficult to project its effect on the economy on the long term, and it would surely make some people unfortunate on the short term (Prince, 2016),
In conclusion, the Death Tax affects only wealthy people, and eliminating it will only benefit the wealthy people, therefore the intention of the new administration to repeal it may indicate a pressure from the rich, rather than a clear benefit or loss to the US economy.
References
:
Collins, C. & Hoxie, J. (2017), Billionaire Bonanza 2017; The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us, Institute of Policy Studies,
, accessed 24th Jan 2018.
Debot, B. (2017), Trump Tax Plan Would Give 400 Highest-Income Americans More Than $15 Million a Year in Tax Cuts, Center of Budget and Policies Priorities,
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/trump-tax-plan-would-give-400-highest-income-americans-more-than-15-million-a
, accessed 24th Jan 2018.
Greszler, R., Ligon, j., Tyrrell, P. (2014), The Economic and Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Federal Death Tax, The Heritage Foundation,
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-economic-and-fiscal-effects-eliminating-the-federal-death-tax
, accessed 24th Jan 2018.
Huang, C-C. (2017), How President Trump’s Tax Plan Would Really Affect the Middle Class,
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/how-president-trumps-tax-plan-would-really-affect-the-middle-class
, accessed 24th Jan 2018.
Edward, C. (2017), Estate Tax Lobbying, Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/blog/estate-tax-lobbying, accessed 23 Jan 2018.
IRS, Estate Tax,
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax
, accessed 23rd Jan 2018.
Moore, (2017), Trump is Right on the Death Tax: A Lifetime of Paying Taxes is Enough, The Heritage Foundation, URL;
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/trump-right-the-death-tax-lifetime-paying-taxes-enough
, accessed 23rd Jan 2018.
Prince, R. (2016), Who Wins And Loses If The Federal Estate Tax Is Eliminated, Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2016/06/01/who-wins-and-loses-if-the-federal-estate-tax-is-eliminated/#743c6129c72b
, accessed 24th Jan 2018.
Response three-PADM
The think tank I utilized for this week’s post is The Center for American Progress (CAP). The article that I chose from the think tank is entitled Trump’s National Security and Foreign Policy Failures: Year One. The Center for American Progress is an independent, progressive, non-partisan think tank, which looks to challenge conservative “misinformation” with their version of said information. They are a non-profit organization which gathers its funding through donations (The Center for American Progress). I chose to analyze policy alternatives by contrasting this liberal think tank with a more conservative one, The Heritage Foundation. This think tank is a conservative organization that promotes the concepts of free enterprise, limited government intervention, a brawny national defense system, and traditional values (The Heritage Foundation).
The policy I chose to discuss this week is President Trump’s foreign policy. In the article written by the Center for American Progress, they chose to reflect on the past year and highlight the areas in which they felt the President had failed. They discuss the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement amongst other international agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his disinterest in peacemaking with middle eastern countries, specifically Iran, making unnecessary threats against North Korea, his offensive comments in regards to Haiti and similar countries, and his lack of condemnation towards Russian President Vladimir Putin and other autocrats (The CAP, 2018).
This article clearly highlights the lack of political feasibility in President Trump’s foreign policy. Is President Trump’s foreign policy politically acceptable? According to the CAP, it is not. They have accentuated a complete change in policy with the Trump Presidency. The withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership showed a shift in America’s typical global leadership, economic competitiveness, and international collaboration, unlike past policy decision making. Another evaluative criterion exhibited is inter-generational equity. The withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement may have saved the U.S from more than $13 trillion in clean energy over the next decade, however, the decision has neglected to address the effects climate change will ultimately have on future generations. The last evaluative criterion displayed is the ethical impact of policy. The military escalations in the middle east, as well as the hostile attitude towards certain countries, could be analyzed as unethical, immoral and disrespectful (The CAP, 2018).
In comparison, Gonzalez (2018), of The Heritage Foundation, praises President Trump for his policy changes. He is hopeful that these reforms will create more traditional nationalistic goals for the U.S. Gonzalez compares the foreign policy of the Obama administration to that of the first year under the Trump administration, and claims that the new reforms do in fact exhibit political feasibility. He states that in the past, foreign adversaries were criticized and alienated, but with The National Security Strategy composed under the Trump administration, foreign policy, and liberal policy agendas, will no longer be forced onto countries whose values are different from our own. This alternative point of view shows how differently policy can be perceived by opposing political parties (Gonzalez, 2018).
References
Gonzalez, Mike. (2018). How Donald Trump will Reverse Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy Strategy. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from
https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/how-donald-trump-will-reverse-obamas-failed-foreign-policy-strategy
The CAP National Security and International Policy Team. (2018, January 17). Trump’s National Security and Foreign Policy Failures: Year One. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2018/01/17/445109/trumps-national-security-foreign-policy-failures-year-one/
The Center for American Progress. (n.d.). About. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from
https://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/
The Heritage Foundation. (n.d.). About Heritage. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from
https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission
