American Public Policy, Environment, Social Security & Education
To view other note of American Government Click Here.
The Environment
Modern environmental policy in the United States began in the 1960s. Around this time, the environmental movement started to put pressure on the federal government to actively protect the country’s resources and preserve the world’s ecosystems.
The National Environmental Policy Act
After an oil well exploded off the California coast in 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, a very important law in the history of environmental policy. The law required all federal agencies to conduct an environmental impact statement before taking any action that could affect the environment. The act also created the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Other Key Environmental Laws
Since the National Environmental Policy Act, Congress has passed other laws regulating pollution and cleaning up the environment, as explained in the table on the next page.
Environmentalism Versus Growth
Environmental policy must balance the needs of the environment with the need for a strong economy. Critics of environmental policies claim that EPA regulations hurt the economy by limiting growth. Businesses spend time and money complying with these laws, which hurts their efficiency and decreases their profit margins. Smaller profits, in turn, mean fewer jobs. Environmentalists reject these claims, arguing that a healthy environment trumps all other economic considerations.
| Law | Date | Purpose/Impact |
| Clean Air Act Amendments | 1970 | Restricted air pollution and authorized the EPA to enforce air quality standards |
| Clean Water Act | 1972 | Set goal of cleaning up waters by 1983 |
| Federal Environmental Pesticide Act | 1972 | Banned the use of pesticides that are harmful to humans, animals, and crops |
| Clean Water Act | 1974 | Set federal standards for drinking water |
| Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 1976 | Encouraged resource conservation and authorized federal control of hazardous waste |
| Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | 1980 | Established a “superfund” for cleaning up toxic waste |
| Clean Air Act Amendments | 1990 | Required reformulated gasoline to be used in large cities and reduced some gases |
| Food Quality and Protection Act | 1996 | Authorized the federal government to regulate the use of pesticides in food production |
| Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act | 1999 | Regulated security and risk management plans at chemical and fuel plants |
| The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act | 2002 | Provided funds to clean up brownfields (environmentally damaged urban areas) |
Social Security
Launched in 1935 as part of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the term social security refers to a federal social insurance program that seeks to keep retired people and the elderly out of poverty. All employers and workers are automatically taxed a certain portion of their wages—7.5 percent for workers as of 2007. This money is then paid out to people who have retired from the work force or who are unable to work.
Many people erroneously believe that social security functions as a pension system and that retired people withdraw money from an account filled with funds saved from a lifetime of working. In reality, social security money exists in one enormous account, funded by today’s working people. Workers’ taxes pay to support today’s retirees. As a result, the money a person gets from social security is not always the same as the amount he or she has put in: Some people will receive more, and some people will receive less. Social security is an entitlement program, which means that certain people are entitled to benefits from the federal government.
The Worker-to-Retiree Ratio
Because social security relies on current workers to pay for benefits to current retirees, the ratio between workers and retirees is important. Ideally, each retiree is supported by a large number of workers so that each worker only has to pay a small part of the retiree’s benefits. As baby boomers grow older, however, more retirees will be eligible for benefits, which reduces the ratio and increases the amount each worker must contribute to social security. In 1946, the ratio was roughly forty workers per one retiree. Researchers project that by the time the baby boomers have all retired in 2030, the ratio will have shrunk to two workers per one retiree.
The Social Security Crisis
Many people worry about an impending social security crisis of having to fund too many retirees from the salaries of too few workers. Although the program has been running a surplus for many years, eventually people will be drawing social security benefits at a rate faster than workers can contribute. This deficit will force the government to either find money elsewhere to maintain benefits or drastically cut those benefits. Analysts also worry that a social security deficit will hurt the federal budget because many agencies have been borrowing from the current social security surplus. These agencies will eventually have to repay their debts to the social security program, causing massive upheaval in federal finances.
Solutions
Politicians and political scientists have proposed a number of ways to save social security before the crisis hits:
- Raising taxes: Raising payroll taxes—either by increasing the payroll tax rate or by raising or eliminating the ceiling on income subject to the social security tax—would generate more social security funds.
- Reducing benefits: Cutting benefits would save money.
- Means-testing: Reducing benefits given to the rich would increase the amount of social security money available to the poor.
- Privatizing: Allowing workers to decide how much to invest in Social Security is an extremely controversial program because it forces workers to take responsibility for their contributions.
Education
Democratic societies extol education as a means of providing people with equal opportunities, a goal that American political culture values. Americans have always left education to state governments and have shied away from too much federal control. As a result, American students do not always receive equal educational opportunities.
The Federal Role in Education
For most of American history, the federal government played little or no role in education. Education was thought to be a local issue, best regulated by local and state governments. In 1965, with the passage of the Higher Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government provided funding for education for the first time. In 1979, Congress created the Department of Education, which heralded a new level of federal involvement in education. Recently, many education advocates have pushed for stronger accountability from teachers and schools. This accountability comes in the form of standardized tests, which evaluate students’ basic skills and knowledge. A school with low-scoring students would be punished for failing to help or adequately educate students.
The No Child Left Behind Act
In the 2000 presidential race, Republican candidate George W. Bush pledged to regulate accountability on the federal level. After becoming president, Bush worked with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001. The act provided more money to schools but required all schools in the country to meet certain educational standards in return.
NCLB has provoked controversy. The powerful teachers’ lobby, the National Education Association, has argued that the act forces teachers to change their curricula and essentially teach only to the tests. Other critics contend that the federal government has not provided nearly enough funds to help schools adhere to the NCLB parameters. Finally, some critics claim that NCLB functions like an unfunded mandate, forcing state and local governments to spend money to meet the law’s standards.
School Vouchers
Government-funded school voucher programs give low-income parents vouchers that can be used to pay for tuition at a private school of the parents’ choice. Voucher programs have sparked much controversy. Some critics argue that the vouchers violate the separation of church and state because parents might use the government money to send their kids to religious schools. Others argue that the money used as vouchers could be used to improve the public school system, thereby eradicating the need for parents to send their kids to private schools.
