Written for the student textbook blog, Everyday Politics.
In 1964, voters sent a new, young generation of Democrats into Congress.
Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election against Barry Goldwater. With
Democratic control over both Congress and the White House, Johnson and
Congress passes a series of major legislation, including The Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Medicare, and Medicaid. Another group of laws were passed aimed at
reducing poverty, improving education, and improving life in inner
cities.
Regardless of your opinion of the outcome of these laws,
there is no question that major change happened in 1964, and it
happened quickly. These laws marked a sharp departure from the past.
Government bureaucracy, as well as the federal budget, ballooned in
size. Lives changed.
When Obama came to office last year with a Democratic
majority in both houses of government, many thought it was 1964 all
over again. He promised major legislation in health care, education,
and infrastructure.
One year later, Congress still has made no
progress on health care. Their Democratic majority is slowly eroding,
and the public has grown cynical.
Why was Johnson so successful in 1964, and Obama has not yet passed health care reform?
There
are many possible answers to this question. Instead of giving you one
definitive answer, I'll propose three possible answers to that question
and let you debate this matter in class.
1) Some might point to
intervening variables, including the failing economy and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1964, the economy was booming, and Americans
were wealthier than ever before. They were more willing to part with
the tax money than Americans are today.
2) Stephen Skowronek, in addition to coming up with this nifty model for classifying presidents,
wrote that it has grown increasingly difficult for presidents to make
change in the United States, because of the thick layers of bureaucracy
that have formed and the customs that have arisen. In the past, when a
Reconstruction President came to office, it was easier for him to act
as a "battering ram" and create new orders. Now, even strong, talented
presidents can only make small, incremental changes.
Skowronek
might say that bureaucracies and powerful interest groups have arisen
in the past several decades, and they have a strong interest in
perpetuating the status quo around health care policy. They drag down
the system and prevent change.
3) Others might argue that Obama
is having trouble today, because all change is difficult in the United
States. 1964 was the outlier or an anomaly. What made 1964 significant
wasn't the party composition of Congress, but the mood within the
country, which was unusually optimistic and in agreement that change
needed to happen. That broad agreement and optimism from within the
public was a freakish blip in our nation's history.
That unusual
public spirit is the only way that radical change can happen in our
country, because our governmental system was designed by James Madison,
the master worrier. Madison was terrified of rapid change. He worried
that with the increasing the franchise, the unwashed masses might make
unreasonable and unwise demands of their government, so he put in all
sorts of fail safes into the constitution. There are checks upon checks
and a million ways for bill to go off course. Just look at how
difficult it has been for the conference committee to find compromise
between the Senate and the House versions of the Health Care bill.
Which explanation seems most plausible to you? Do you have a better answer to the question?
Apt. 11d 
Hey, how about a post-Kennedy assassination sense of duty and urgency to enact the policies of the fallen hero (even if not all of the policies passed were those of the fallen hero)? There might be a rather unique historical-cultural quality to 1964 that cannot be replicated….
LikeLike
“There might be a rather unique historical-cultural quality to 1964 that cannot be replicated….”
That was right around the point where there would have been a lot of WWII veterans entering political life. In Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that the WWII generation behaved very differently than succeeding or preceding generations.
LikeLike
LBJ went to a middling state school and was a huge asshole. Today’s leaders don’t have that kind of connection to the average voter.
LikeLike
LBJ went to a middling state school and was a huge asshole. Today’s leaders don’t have that kind of connection to the average voter.
*snort* MH wins.
LikeLike
Other factors:
Dramatic changes in the state of the press.
The rise of evangelical fundamentalism.
The decline of social/fraternal organizations.
The legacy of decades of right-wing organizing at the local level (say what you will about the left—it ain’t organized).
Historical amnesia—people have forgotten the great good that was done during the FDR administration; back in ’64, they still remembered.
Democratic cowardice. (yeah. cowardice.)
LikeLike
“Historical amnesia—people have forgotten the great good that was done during the FDR administration; back in ’64, they still remembered.”
Or maybe people’s lack of enthusiasm for getting on the bandwagon has something to do with the fact that we’re still cleaning up after the major government programs and reforms of the last century–school desegregation, urban renewal, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Even seemingly neutral activities like dam-building or the interstate highway system or the work of the Army Corps of Engineers have had unexpected consequences and look a lot different in retrospect. We’ve had 46 more years of experience than the Americans of 1964 and we’ve had a chance to see how their projects turned out.
Also, there is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns. As my husband likes to remind me about housework, you get 80% of the results with 20% of the work. It’s not at all unlikely that we’ve already done that 20%. (Although, more seriously, the US could do a lot better with education, but it may be just a question of investing our 20% more wisely.)
LikeLike
Speaking of FDR and the consequences of past programs, that’s how we got into the current situation where health coverage is linked to employment.
LikeLike
Amy P, Medicare and Social Security remain incredibly popular, probably because the vast, overwhelming majority of the United States doesn’t earn enough money to support their parents in their old age, nor do they earn enough to set aside enough of their own money to retire at the age when their employer is putting them on the street (we’re going to see some real problems in the future when the majority of our elders have no pensions).
And surely you are not suggesting that segregated schools were a good thing? In any case…it’s a moot point now. White flight has effectively re-segregated the schools—maybe not to the extent that existed before racially, but definitely economically.
Did FDR’s programs end the Great Depression? No, it took WWII to do that. But those programs provided a hell of a lot of people with real work and dignity—the McJobs of our current time aren’t doing that. McJobs don’t pay the bills (it takes the still-remaining FDR programs to do that—tax dollars make up for the lack of a living wage. ‘nother words, we’re subsidizing corporations to pay less than a living wage—those CEO’s are getting rich on our dime, even if we don’t shop at their stores). Out here in the Rust Belt, we would love to “get on the bandwagon” of decent paying jobs, with benefits.
There is a religious faith in the market system, with no basis for that faith in reality. Not here in the rust belt. FDR-style programs to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, provide living-wage jobs, “green” the economy, etc. would do a lot to stimulate the economy and alleviate a lot of problems. Expecting consumers with little-to-no disposable income to do that is ludicrous.
Also, there is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns. As my husband likes to remind me about housework, you get 80% of the results with 20% of the work.
That is probably true for housework. It doesn’t hold true across the board. You mentioned education above—I doubt that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. I work in construction—I can say unreservedly that 80% of the results are not coming from 20% effort!Some results require more investment than others. It all depends on what we value.
Speaking of FDR and the consequences of past programs, that’s how we got into the current situation where health coverage is linked to employment.
Sort of. Wage freezes during WWII created that—but it didn’t have to remain that way (and wasn’t intended to).
LikeLike
One more thing on the Pareto principle: we had a contractor in my Local who famously cited that during contract negotiations when pressed on why he wasn’t going after light commercial or residential work: “I only want the 20% of the jobs that represent 80% of the profit.” His idea was that since it takes an estimator roughly the same amount of time to bid a small job as a large one, he wouldn’t waste his time on the small jobs.
His competitors had other ideas, of course. They gleefully picked up those small jobs, and eventually became bigger contractors. Big enough to compete against him on the bigger jobs. And win.
He’s dead now, and his company is in financial straits—all because of the company strategy of “80/20” that doesn’t hold true in our world. Because here’s a little secret—while real money can be made in new construction, it’s repair and maintenance that will keep your lights on…so to speak. Especially in the residential market. There’s more money in service calls than there is in new construction—it’s just that contractors can’t be lazy in going after that market (like they can with new construction).
Anyway. Gotta get to work. Temporarily off my soapbox now!
LikeLike
Sort of. Wage freezes during WWII created that—but it didn’t have to remain that way (and wasn’t intended to).
As a consolation for wages freezes, they got the tax write-off for employer contributions to health care. Wage freezes can’t change the tax code by themselves. That the write-off wasn’t intended to remain but could be removed is kind of my worry about this round of health care reform. A subsidy for the poor or an expansion of Medicaid gets my vote. A new program to take money from the middle class, filter it through another layer of bureacracy, and give it back to the middle class doesn’t.
As for Social Security and Medicare, right now we use the fear of being poor in old age (or having mom and dad move in after they retire) to justify a vast subsidy of many very wealthy elder people. Of course, if they did it with a means test, you would have to support the people didn’t save for retirement and the people would couldn’t save just the same.
LikeLike
“Medicare and Social Security remain incredibly popular, probably because the vast, overwhelming majority of the United States doesn’t earn enough money to support their parents in their old age, nor do they earn enough to set aside enough of their own money to retire at the age when their employer is putting them on the street (we’re going to see some real problems in the future when the majority of our elders have no pensions).”
Do you think that 40 years from now, that you and I will be collecting Social Security and Medicare in anything like the form that they exist now? I don’t.
“And surely you are not suggesting that segregated schools were a good thing? In any case…it’s a moot point now. White flight has effectively re-segregated the schools—maybe not to the extent that existed before racially, but definitely economically.”
Exactly. I was looking around the internet earlier today, and US schools have around the same level of racial segregation that they did in the late 1960s. School desegregation has not been a success, and as you mention, it drove middle class families (and their tax dollars) away from the cities, while achieving very, very little. I’m sure there are other factors (the highways, urban renewal, a decline in manufacturing, etc.) in urban decline, but having all of these hit at the same time was a disaster.
“FDR-style programs to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, provide living-wage jobs, “green” the economy, etc. would do a lot to stimulate the economy and alleviate a lot of problems. Expecting consumers with little-to-no disposable income to do that is ludicrous.”
Where would the money come from? I’ve talked about this before, but our existing debt would already make FDR pour himself a couple of stiff ones. If you look at the chart showing federal debt to GDP over the last 100 years (I’d link, but I’m on a slow computer), the current debt ratio is only exceeded by WWII, when the US was waging war on several continents and feeding and arming allies. There really isn’t margin for doing more. As bj has mentioned, even though the federal budget is monstrously large, percentage-wise there’s very little to federal spending beyond Medicare, Social Security and defense. And Medicare and Social Security are only going to suck up more money as more and more Boomers retire. Sure we could cut defense spending, but from a Keynesian point of view, war spending ought to be a dream come true–you buy stuff, it goes boom, and then you buy new stuff.
While I’m doom and glooming, I’d like to give a special shout-out to current federal housing policy. This is probably old hat to La Lubu, given her trade, but humor me. We’ve all heard about how the evil Wall Street fat cats made risky bets on mortgage loans, blah blah blah. However, under current housing policy, essentially the only low-downpayment loans being made are FHA (3.5% down). It’s now common to say that FHA loans are “the new subprime,” which should cause us some anxiety, given what happened to the old subprime. If you combine 3.5% down with the $8,000 tax credit we’ve all heard so much about, it turns out that for lower-cost homes, the zero-down mortgage that has caused so much grief over the past several years is alive and well. If the economy continues to tank over the next several years (which it will) and if housing prices continue to drop (which they will), we the taxpayers are going to be making up the difference when all those marginal FHA homebuyers walk away (which they will).
LikeLike
If the economy continues to tank over the next several years (which it will) and if housing prices continue to drop (which they will), we the taxpayers are going to be making up the difference when all those marginal FHA homebuyers walk away (which they will).
On the plus side, now everybody can play “privatize the gains, socialize the cost.”
LikeLike
As for Social Security and Medicare, right now we use the fear of being poor in old age (or having mom and dad move in after they retire) to justify a vast subsidy of many very wealthy elder people.
The fear of being poor in old age is a rational fear though, especially for women who earn less and live longer. Even if you save for retirement, if you only earn a modest income, you’re not going to be able to put much away. Not enough to live off of when you’re too old to work (and face it, if you’re only earning a modest income, you’re very likely working the kind of job where you can’t work into your seventies. That’s hard for people who work desk jobs to remember). I’m lucky—I have a pension (I save too, but since I’m a single parent, I can’t afford to put away more than 10% in my 401k, which took a huge hit. I’m really glad I won’t have to rely on my 401k to live on).
Most young people won’t have the advantage of a pension. Their only form of retirement savings is going to be their own savings—or if they’re really lucky, an inheritance if their parents die before they get old. Pensions are going away, and that will be a problem.
I’m not so worried about coughing up a little to the rich elders who just “didn’t save”; if that’s the only way we can politically keep the program alive (since most people in the U.S. are unwilling to contribute tax dollars to a benefit that they can’t or don’t see as benefiting themselves, hence the modern hostility to public schools, college grants for poor students, anything that smacks of “the commons”). No one who has the choice would simply divest themselves of all their assets to get a small Social Security check. In the meantime, I’m glad it’s there for my grandmothers. And I’m glad it’s there for my parents, as I’m an only child and don’t earn enough to support them.
Where would the money come from? I’ve talked about this before, but our existing debt would already make FDR pour himself a couple of stiff ones. If you look at the chart showing federal debt to GDP over the last 100 years (I’d link, but I’m on a slow computer), the current debt ratio is only exceeded by WWII, when the US was waging war on several continents and feeding and arming allies.
Point taken, Amy P, but our federal debt to GDP ratio was half of what it is now back in the seventies—you know, back when the top tax bracket was 70%. Now, the top bracket is 35%.
School desegregation has not been a success, and as you mention, it drove middle class families (and their tax dollars) away from the cities, while achieving very, very little.
I wouldn’t say it has achieved very, very little. It could have achieved more, but integrated schools (actually integrated schools, that is) do challenge and change attitudes in a way that better prepares children for adulthood. We can alleviate the financial problem by removing property taxes as the main school funding source. Make public schools state and federally funded, and then if middle-class parents want a “say” in how their money is being spent in the schools, they can move their happy asses back to the city and participate.
As for housing policy….this needs to be engineered for different regions of the country. They dynamic you’re describing is not/was not in operation here. There was no “housing bubble” in my neck of the woods, in the Rust Belt. Houses aren’t going up in price (much), but they aren’t dropping, either. In this region (and most of the rust belt), low-to-no down payment programs are getting lower income people off the rent treadmill. I actually pay significantly less per month on my mortgage (Craftsman-style, 2-story, 3-bedroom, sketchy neighborhood) than I would on a 2-bedroom apartment (in a similar or even worse sketchy neighborhood). Seriously.
People can save money by owning a home, as unlike rent, the payment stays the same (on a fixed rate mortgage). They can borrow against their home value in order to send their kids to college (there’s no borrowing against twenty years of rent payments!—don’t get me wrong, I’m the kind of commie-pinko that thinks college should be free, but that’s unlikely to happen). They can use a reverse-mortgage to live on if need be when they’re older. And increasing owner-occupied housing helps stabilize decaying neighborhoods. That’s money well spent.
LikeLike
“Most young people won’t have the advantage of a pension.”
A lot of middle-aged people who think they have pensions aren’t going to get them.
“Point taken, Amy P, but our federal debt to GDP ratio was half of what it is now back in the seventies—you know, back when the top tax bracket was 70%. Now, the top bracket is 35%.”
I suspect we really can’t compare the top brackets as apples to apples. I don’t know the dates, but the tax system has had a lot of changes over the last half century. Interest deductions are different (you used to be able to deduct credit card interest, rather than just mortgage interest), the dependent deduction is way down, and we have more and more earners qualifying for the Alternative Minimum Tax. (When I grow up, I want to be a CPA!)
“There was no “housing bubble” in my neck of the woods, in the Rust Belt. Houses aren’t going up in price (much), but they aren’t dropping, either.”
A lot of bubblistas would argue that in the rust belt, the housing bubble manifested itself in price stability (home prices not dropping).
“I actually pay significantly less per month on my mortgage (Craftsman-style, 2-story, 3-bedroom, sketchy neighborhood) than I would on a 2-bedroom apartment (in a similar or even worse sketchy neighborhood). Seriously.”
I’m sure you do. I just hate to see people with no emergency money buying houses–there are a lot of stories in the news about adorable 20-something couples buying a house with the $8,000 tax credit and telling the reporter that they wouldn’t have been able to buy otherwise. We’ll be buying a house within the year, and even as 30-something “rich people” I don’t know that we’re ready to deal with the financial risks of home ownership. (Maybe I shouldn’t have watched The Money Pit?)
LikeLike
I’m not so worried about coughing up a little to the rich elders who just “didn’t save”
Me neither. But if they remove the payroll cap (i.e. the income after which you don’t pay SS taxes) without reducing the pay-out to retirees who are actually wealthy, I’m going to mug Bob Dylan just to get back at the Boomers.
LikeLike
There was no “housing bubble” in my neck of the woods, in the Rust Belt. Houses aren’t going up in price (much), but they aren’t dropping, either.
I have no idea what the future will bring (excepting the vast frustration produced because our dentist insists it is essential to floss a three year old), but Forbes just said Pittsburgh has the best housing market. Maybe I can HELOC myself into a boat.
LikeLike
“…our dentist insists it is essential to floss a three year old…”
One word: flossers.
LikeLike
Yes, we use those. But, I still don’t get it. He gets a whole new set of teeth soon.
LikeLike
“He gets a whole new set of teeth soon.”
And being baby teeth, they’re spaced out like t h i s. Yes?
Speaking of dental advice, When my husband was a kid back in Eastern Europe, his parents were told just to have him eat an apple to keep his teeth clean.
LikeLike
(Maybe I shouldn’t have watched The Money Pit?)
heh. That’ll take the taste of home ownership right outta your mouth! But…it’s not that bad. Especially if you like doing home projects yourself. I’ve been painting the inside of my house this winter, doing faux plaster finish on the addition (that doesn’t have the actual plaster walls). If you enjoy that sort of thing, you’ll dig having your own place.
A lot of bubblistas would argue that in the rust belt, the housing bubble manifested itself in price stability (home prices not dropping).
There’s only so far prices drop, if the bottom has already been reached (that is, as long as the house remains sound…which is another good reason for those low-to-no down payment programs….keeps more houses out of the hands of slumlords and/or from becoming crack houses).
I’m going to mug Bob Dylan just to get back at the Boomers.
Now that’s funny! I’m gonna steal that line at my first opportunity! I don’t know what the future is going to bring, either, but I suspect there will be big changes as the price of gasoline climbs. In Illinois, Carlinville is now considered a suburb of St. Louis because of the number of people who commute from there to a St. Louis job (look at a map…not that close). In Springfield (population 120,000), an additional 40,000 travel in-and-out Monday through Friday for work from surrounding communities. All that is due to the already-collapsed economies of small towns and less-populous counties. If I had to make a wild guess, I think many of those people may be wanting to move closer to where they work when gasoline gets too expensive.
But…I don’t think you’re going to see rust-belters evacuating the midwest in droves like the Okies did in the Depression. There isn’t anywhere to go for jobs. Too many chairs have been taken away in the economic musical-chairs game.
Flossing for three year olds? Sigh. My daughter seemed to like the dinosaur flossers, but at that age she never really did it like she was supposed to. In fact, she never really got into tooth brushing like she was supposed to until she got old enough to give a damn about bad breath (and not having it!). I used to have to stand over her like a drill sergeant saying, “you’re not done yet!!” Oh yeah….good times.
LikeLike
His teeth are really close together, so flossing can be a trick. And the only time he keeps his mouth open for a long time is when he is chewing and we’re trying to have a nice dinner.
…but I suspect there will be big changes as the price of gasoline climbs.
Maybe, but I’m not attuned to the priorities of people with long commutes. I still spend way more on parking than I do on gas, even with a vehicle that could have been dumped as a clunker.
LikeLike