Public Attitudes Toward Social Spending in the United States: The Differences Between Direct Spending and Tax Expenditures

This paper uses a survey experiment to examine differences in public attitudes toward 'direct' and 'indirect' government spending. Federal social welfare spending in the USA has two components: the federal government spends money to directly provide social benefits to citizens, and also indirectly subsidizes the private provision of social benefits through tax expenditures. Though benefits provided through tax expenditures are considered spending for budgetary purposes, they differ from direct spending in several ways: in the mechanisms through which benefits are delivered to citizens, in how they distribute wealth across the income spectrum, and in the visibility of their policy consequences to the mass public. We develop and test a model explaining how these differences will affect public attitudes toward spending conducted through direct and indirect means. We find that support for otherwise identical social programs is generally higher when such programs are portrayed as being delivered through tax expenditures than when they are portrayed as being delivered by direct spending. In addition, support for tax expenditure programs which redistribute wealth upward drops when citizens are provided information about the redistributive effects. Both of these results are conditioned by partisanship, with the opinions of Republicans more sensitive to the mechanism through which benefits are delivered, and the opinions of Democrats more sensitive to information about their redistributive effects.

Agricultural Policymaking: Interest Groups and Access to Governmental Officials

Conservation agriculture that focuses on soil recovery is both economically and environmentally sustainable. This lies in contrast with many of the current agricultural practices, which push for high production, which, in turn lead to over-depletion of the soil. Agricultural interest groups play a role in crafting farming policies with governmental officials. Therefore, my study examined three interest group types agribusinesses, farmer organizations, and environmental NGOs that seek to influence agricultural policy, specifically focusing on the federal farm bill, due to its large impact throughout the nation. The research in which data wasgathered through subject interviews, a literature review, and databases found that access to governmental officials affects the amount of influence a group can have. Access is contingent upon: 1) the number of networks (social, professional, and political), 2) amount of money spent through campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, and 3) extent of business enterprises and subsidiaries. The evidence shows that there is a correlation between these variables and the extent of access. My research concludes that agribusiness interest groups have the most access to government officials, and thus have the greatest influence on agricultural policies. Because agribusinesses support subsidies of commodity-crops this indirectly impacts conservation agriculture, as the two programs compete in a zero-sum game for funding in the farm bills.

Trends in the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Obesity in U.S. Adults: 2002-2012

Since the 1980s, the prevalence of obesity has more than doubled to over 30 percent of the adult population (Thorpe, 2004). Obesity is a key contributing factor to continually rising national healthcare costs. Addressing its negative implications is essential not only from a cost perspective, but also for the betterment of our nation¿s general health and wellbeing. Obesity is reportedly associated with a 35% increase in inpatient and outpatient spending, as well as a 77% increase in related necessary medications (Sturm, 2002). Obesity, which some have argued should be classified as a disease in itself, has roughly the same association with the development of chronic health conditions as does 20 years of aging (Sturm, 2002). Defined as ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, these obesity-related chronic health diagnoses ¿ like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension ¿ are in turn the primary drivers of current healthcare spending, as well as future predicted health expenditures. It is well established that lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher rates of obesity and the subsequent development of aforementioned obesity-related conditions. Socioeconomic status has traditionally been defined by education, income, and occupation (Adler, 2002); however, this study found empirical evidence for education being the most fundamental of these three SES indicators in determining obesity outcomes. For both men and women, as education levels increased, the likelihood of an individual being obese decreased. However, with less education, there was increased disparity between the obesity rates for men and women. Women consistently saw higher rates of obesity and were more impacted in terms of obesity onset by belonging to a lower SES category than men. In addition, this study assessed whether the impact of one¿s socioeconomic status on obesity-related health outcomes (specifically the negative impact low-SES as measured by education level) has changed over time. Results deriving from annual data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for all years from 2002 to 2012 indicate that the association between low-socioeconomic status and negative health outcomes has not increased in magnitude over the past decade. Instead, obesity rates have increased across the overall U.S. adult population, most likely due to a number of larger external societal factors resulting in increased caloric intake and decreased energy expenditure across every SES group. In addition, while the association between low-SES and obesity has not worsened, a consequence of the Great Recession has been a larger percentage of the U.S. population in lower-SES, which is still consistently subject to the same worse health outcomes.

State Pharmaceutical Assisstance for the Elderly and Disabled: Planning Issues for Program and Non-Program States

The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA) would have mandated federal assistance for Medicare beneficiaries who have high annual prescription medication costs, High national expenditures for such drugs have encouraged the development of private and state insurance programs to help with these costs. Ten state pharmaceutical assistance programs (SPAPs), designed to help certain elderly, low income, or disabled people, exist for those ineligible for Medicaid or unable to purchase coverage privately. Coordination of state and federal benefits was a consideration for established programs, and programs being planned needed to determine the feasibity of integration of federal assistance. But the enactment and subsequent appeal of the Act affected both planning and policy implications for these SPAPs. All U.S. states and territories were surveyed before the bill's repeal to collect data on the effects of MCCA for those with prescription drug programs and those without. The repeal of the federal program places pressure on the nonprogram states to proceed, perhaps more cautiously, to initiate program; for their own residents, given increasing out-of-pocket and insurance costs, and no federal program.