Social policy can be described as the policies that governments put in place for welfare and social protection. Social policies are set out to meet human needs and human welfare— they have a responsibility to address welfare needs and service provision in a social context. While social policy is primarily about the needs of individuals, the policy level focuses on collective needs and wellbeing as well as the collective response to them. Developed in response to social problems, social welfare policy does not share a linear relationship to social problems and not all social problems result in social welfare policy (Karger & Stoesz, 2009). In society, government enacts laws, makes policies, and allocates resources.
One of the biggest issues in the 1992 presidential election was how much the United States was in debt, and what each candidate would do in terms of tax policy. At that time, our debt was about 4.6 trillion dollars. The final candidates were Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Rose Perot. Bill Clinton, an identified Democrat, believed business or government should provide health care, had a 50 year deficit reduction plan, spoke about taxing the wealthy and cutting defense spending, and believed in having an open trade. George Bush, an identified Republican, called for tax breaks and legal changes so it would be easier for citizens to afford health care, but opposed mandated health care, expressed no raise in taxes, and called for a balanced budget amendment. Ross Perot, ran as an Independent, was anti NAFTA sentiments and expressed the issue was the federal deficit (Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles, 2008).
In the presidential debates, each candidate consistently expressed their views and visions: Bush discussed how he was going to continue to push towards the progress of world peace; Clinton focused on economic problems and the need for change; Perot concentrated on government issues and officials. All three candidates spoke about the economy, specifically tax policies throughout the campaign. Bill Clinton wanted to cut taxes for the middle class. He also wanted to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As a Republican, Bush wanted to cut the deficit by cutting spending, not raising taxes. He had also given his categorical pledge in the 1988 election of “no new taxes”—made all the more categorical by his “read my lips” preamble to the pledge (Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles, 2008). For Perot, he believed that America needed a growing job base in order to have a growing tax base. It was crucial for it to happen as quickly as possible or else the $4 trillion debt wouldn't get paid off.
Clinton stated he wanted to change the economy, the tax economy, and to develop growth,
He directed a need for change from the American people; he believed that the people had to agree to change before he could start progressing towards it. His tax increase triggered in on families that had an income of $200,000 or above. He wanted to give people permanent incentives on investment tax credit, low-income housing tax credit, & long-term capital gains for new businesses and expansions. Clinton recognized that in the last 12 years, 60 percent of the economic growth had gone to 1 percent of the American people. That the bottom 80 percent of the American people had barely gotten 10 percent of the growth. The bottom 40 percent had actually lost ground (Dukert, 1992). In a press interview Clinton said to the reporter: “You want to talk about an ethical problem or a slick problem–that the president vetoes this tax bill, which would have bumped our economy, given economic incentives to get the thing going again, but had an increase on the taxes of upper-income Americans–that's what I think we should be doing, just the reverse of what President Bush recommended” (1992). Clinton argued that two-thirds of the deficit this year and next year is paying for S&L and bank failures (Dukert, 1992). He offered a plan to reduce bank failures. He claimed if that occurred, there would be a cut of about two-thirds on an annual basis. Clinton explained that with “controlled health care costs, reduced defense–at least, in five year, it'll be a $90-billion-a-year peace dividend, minimum, maybe more, cut the administrative costs of government, and limit current increases, you're going to have the money to reduce this deficit. We can't survive with $280-300 billion a year in interest payments” (1992). For his part, Clinton argued throughout his campaign that change was necessary, especially as it concerned economic policy, reflecting his campaign’s internal mantra—“it’s the economy, stupid.” He supported tax increases for wealthy Americans, greater public investment, and reform of both healthcare and welfare policy. Charging in television ads that Bush had “the worst economic record of any president in 50 years,” the Clinton campaign sought to motivate voters with the claim that it was “putting people first.”
Bush disagreed with Clinton’s idea that taxing people over $200,000 wouldn't raise $150 billion. He, instead, believed that using the old system of “soaking the rich” would still result in the poor being the ones who end up paying the bill (Myers, 1996). Bush expressed that he believed the way to decrease the deficit would be to control the growth of mandatory spending programs. At the beginning of Bush's administration, the economy Reagan had claimed was peaceful and prosperous was really nearing a recession. Bush inherited economic issues that had been either caused by or simply ignored by the Reagan administration (Wilensky, 2002). Pressures on the economy included overbuilt commercial real estate resulting in deposit insurance and lax regulation, weakness in financial institutions, and decreased defense expenditures. Bush said balancing the budget was his top priority, but his efforts to do so were constantly hindered by his "no new taxes" pledge. He held conservative views on government spending; he believed that issues like homelessness and crime were important, but that the government should not use more tax money to fix such issues. He wanted to impose a "flexible freeze" to keep expenditures down. The idea was for some expenditures to be cut in order to make room for increasing others.
Ross Perot is a Texas billionaire business-man born in 1930 who made a strong third party showing in the ’92 election (Zaller & Hunt, 1994). Perot’s campaign relied on a grassroots movement as opposed to a traditional party led candidacy. The premise of Perot’s campaign was that the U.S. economy was in jeopardy due to its growing debt and the failure of "trickle-down" economics, and that Perot, as a successful businessman, was qualified to fix the problem. Used the United We Stand, America as support. Mentioned the national debt that went from $1 million to $4 million during Bush and Reagan’s time in office, and hosted infomercials that approached Americans in a friendly way. When asked in an interview to clarify his policy on federal taxes— should they be raised or cut “I have said we will not raise taxes,” Perot answered, adding that to raise taxes “is like giving cocaine to an addict while you’re trying to take them through detoxification” (Bennett, 2013). This response was problematic because a couple years prior, he had written that “we must cut spending and raise taxes, we all know it, let’s make sure our leaders understand that this must be done” (Perot, 2013). It was evident that he was simply trying to be on both sides of an issue at the same time. Perot sold an alternative fiction which a lot of people bought. That fiction was that we could manipulate global trade and trade agreements in a way which would prevent both a loss in manufacturing jobs and
maintain the standard of living associated with those jobs.
Perot’s campaign was largely based on economic fears about increased free trade and the soaring budget deficits, and he took the unusual step of purchasing national television time for 30-minute infomercial-style campaign programs where he used flip charts and graphs to detail his take on the economy for the voters.
Both Bush and Clinton believed America’s future depended upon sustaining open trade and creating an effective strategy to improve the US competitiveness. Both expressed they would shift federal spending from defense spending to enhancing support for education, training, infrastructure, and civilian research and development. Both claimed they would seek to slow the dramatic growth of health care costs and develop a more pro-investment tax structures. And both recognize the importance of long-term deficit reduction, though as Ross Perot claimed, neither had been honest with votes about the “fair-shared sacrifice that will be necessary” (Zaller & Hunt, 1994). How the two candidates differed was how to move and over who would pay. Clinton believed in the government’s ability to prompt growth and advocate social equity. Equity meaning the tax system being fair so no one bears too much or too little of a tax burden Determining Fairness by the benefits received principle. Based upon that, a person should pay taxes based on the level of benefits he/she expects to receive from the government. He promised to give the economy a boost by increasing public investment spending some $142 billion over the next four years, and by cutting $60 billion of taxes on the middle class and offering another $53 billion in tax relief on new business investment (Bennett, 2013).
Bush, on the other hand, said he would put deficit reduction first. He called for a steady, yet substantial slowdown in the growth of required federal spending programs. If Congress gave him his spending cuts, he pledged to lower taxes by as much as $132 billion over four years—and promised not to raise any new revenues (Bennet, 2013). Bush based his campaign for re-election on the premise that an unpredictable world needed a president with experience. The president repeatedly emphasized that only he possessed the experience to handle such changes they would undergo. His campaign also continuously attacked Clinton’s proposals to increase government spending, claiming that the Clinton would increase taxes on all Americans. Yet Bush did not explain how his list of tax cuts would reduce the deficit.
Our State Taxes are important because they pay for general education as well as higher education, Medicaid, public assistance, prisons, transportation, and supports people with disabilities, gives pensions and health benefits for public employees, creates economic development, helps environmental projects, pays police force, and gives general aid to local governments. There are different types of taxes. Federal Taxes: a tax charged by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on annual income of people and businesses and other legal association. State Taxes: a tax imposed at the state level. Has separate set of deductions and credits from federal taxes that could be awarded for certain activities (Wilensky, 2002). Bush was depicted as not having a coherent domestic policy strategy, while Clinton's campaign emphasis on the need for change was viewed favorably. Generally, Bush was recognized for his foreign policy leadership, while Clinton's inexperience in this area and questions about his draft status during the Vietnam War were noted. Perot's hesitancy in becoming a candidate and his alleged unwillingness to detail his proposals were emphasized (Myers, 1996).