Many people refer to domestic policy as public policy meaning it is the same thing. It plays the role of presenting decisions, programs and laws that the government makes. All these relate directly to issues and activities that are within the country. Therefore, domestic policy has the definition of set laws and regulations established by the government within the nation’s boarders. Domestic policy is different from foreign policy in that foreign policy talks of how the government advances in politics of the world.
Domestic policy wraps many areas including education, business, energy law enforcement, money, health care, taxes and natural resources. It also covers social welfare, freedoms and personal rights. Decisions from domestic policy reflect a nation’s experience and history, economic and social conditions, priorities and needs of its people as well as the government’s nature. It is a frequent source of disagreement among people from different philosophies and backgrounds.
According to recent standards of history, the victory of Barack Obama in 2008 was impressive. He won with 53%, which was a higher percentage than any other president was ever since 1988 when George W Bush was the president. In congress, democrats increased their majorities by 24 seats and in the senate by 8 seats. During this time, Obama crusaded on an obvious agenda promising a comprehensive reform in health care and a major package of economic stimulus. Domestic issues dominated his campaign and the difference between the two parties was in the foreign policy issues, which were considerable. A serious fiscal dislocation ensured the domestic issues were to remain salient in voters’ minds. Most of these issues were concerned with employment and distribution. Unemployment was over 6% towards the end of 2008 and this was rising in a rapid tendency. (Clark, 456)
Many households at this time were reeling from financial crisis effects because of crashing house prices and an end to the easy credit, which was dramatic. This led to the fuelling of the consumer’s spending bonanza. Both the republicans and the democrats, during the campaign, had promises to each find solutions to these problems. This was very different from Barack Obama’s campaign, which was to be true with the majority of voters. As promised, he did a package of economic stimulus. He gave tax breaks to most Americans who were working and a comprehensive health care reform. This he did not only say while campaigning but did it while in office. This made him different from many other presidential candidates and through this; he improved his popularity in the whole world. (Bok, 135)
Freedoms and personal rights
Despite president Obama’s healthy and speedy change mandate, he did not enjoy the many advantages, as there were reforms from the previous presidents. Some of the presidents who had liberal reforms were like Franklin Roosevelt and Johnson Lyndon. Other reformers included Ronald Reagan. The present president of the United States of America experiences both economic and political problems. The political problems include the polarizing of parties, which has continued for more than a century. The republicans had the determination to halt the reforms of the democrats in the houses of congress. The republicans voting as one group and as a solid conventional block did this. Voting as one group translated to more votes thus a win. (Clark, 64)
This is contrast to 1981, when many democrats including the then house speaker Tip O’Neil supported Reagan’s reforms such as the economic and welfare. Subsequently in 1933, there were many democratic supporters, who were enough to sweep the republican opposition aside. On top of that, influential opposition had reflections from the media and press and split over the shape, which reforms should have taken. This division indicated a political problem that was deep that up to date the making of policies is still difficult compared to thirty or forty years down the line. Entrenched interest group positions now characterize every policy issue that makes any change complex.
Therefore, be it health care, financial regulation, job creation or the environment regulation, major reforms of any kind will hinder the stakeholders who have direct access to the many prohibition points in the system of America. This is regardless of whether their operations are in the congress, the courts or the states. This is nothing new in the politics of America; policy failure potential is higher in the present than it has been in the past. As result, clear majority lacks to support the policy options that many assume to be in the national interest. This is contrary to the earlier periods like the New Deal, early Reagan years and Great society when there was an existence of a broad elite consensus that stressed on the need for radical changes that were specific. A complicated economic environment that was also unique mixed up this problem. The rapid change in technology has made sure that there has been creation of few jobs in the recovery that began in 2009. Most of the American employers cost structures have resulted to the jobless recovery in subject. (Clark, 99)
Many companies do not create jobs because they want to maximize on returns but for productivity improvement. It is therefore in this economic and political context that president Obama’s domestic policy gets wrong. After his good start, the agenda he had encountered problems mainly because of three issues. (Clark, 123)
Health care reform
Many democratic presidents since Harry Truman’s government have attempted to make reforms on America’s health care system. All of them failed apart from Lyndon Johnson who became successful after passing the Medicare, which cares for the old and Medicaid, which cares for the poor. This was in 1965 and it was a success because since then, both private and public health care deliveries have grown. Having all this information in mind, it is important to note that until 2010 there were forty million uncovered Americans. The reason as to why they were not getting a medical cover was the fear of losing since insurance links with occupational schemes. Another reason is that insurances have conditions that pre exist and hinder them from getting the cover. Because of medical professionals and insurance companies opposing government control, any comprehensive reform in the past has not been successful. Many Americans also fear that the American government under president Obama and his congress team would ration and compromise the quality of medical care. All the way to 2009, the system had become too expensive and at the same time bloated. This led to immediate call for reforms as 16% of GDP goes to health care compared to a mere 9% OECD average. This led to fighting and wrangling in the representatives’ house but in the end of November 2009, they passed a landmark bill by a margin of 220-215. During this passing of the landmark bill, not even one republican voted in its favor. This means that all the voters in favor were congressional representatives and president Obama himself. The passed bill made extensions for health care to about 36 million American citizens. 36 million people are about 96% of the population and that is a good number of covered Americans. (Bok, 99)
The landmark bill banned all the insurance companies from locking out and refuting coverage of the Americans with earlier conditions. This was possible by setting up an insurance scheme regulated by the government. It is under the government regulated insurance scheme that private companies could compete with the government so-called public option in selling policies. It was unfortunate for Obama that the senate version did not get an easy passage. Everything seemed to be going well and in December 2009, the senate passed its own bill of $871 billion package of reform with a sixty to 39 majority win. For the second time, no republicans present voted for it but luckily, the democrats had 60 necessary votes to obstruct a filibuster. (Clark, 345)
On 23rd march, president Obama was able to sign a version of the bill, which was final, into a law. The bill was the most important social welfare piece passed since the 1960s although it was a compromise. The passage through congress, despite being twisting, uncovered the profound divisions between the parties. This was a lasting division and was to come up again in other important areas of policy during the premature years of Obama being the president.
The republicans immediately pledged their repealing of the legislation on the passage of the bill at the first opportunity. Any time their presidential candidate came into power they would do away with the bill but Obama was doing the right thing and that gave him a majority vote. (Laura, 113)
Energy and the environment
President Barack Obama committed himself to making significant changes in the United States of America’s policy of environment and energy during the campaign in his first year in office. In January 2009, there was an introduction of the energy bill in congress that involved a range of policies like control of stricter emissions, alternative sources of energy subsidies and a carbon-pricing regime that was ambitious for carbon emissions. The pricing regime is known as the cap and trade.
When the house did the passing of the cap and trade bill, the senate opposed it from the very beginning. This however did not discourage the congress or president Obama but in the early months of 2010, the senate made it clear that it could not accept specific emissions targets under the policy of cap and trade system. It is from there that Barack Obama conceded and acknowledged that there could be passing of a major energy bill separate from the cap and trade. (Laura, 323)
The new passed bill would provide subsidies for other alternative energy sources including nuclear and stricter controls on emission of carbon. The 2010 oil spill brought into light some contradictions in the United States of America policy, blaming the administration for lifting the ban on new offshore drilling. In the mid 2010, the senate had not yet passed the energy bill including the one involving cap and trade. (Laura, 203)
Taxing and spending
There are two sets of issues that have dominated the agenda of taxing and spending. The first one is the obvious president Bush’s tax cuts for Americans earning over $250,000 a year. Obama committed himself to letting the bill expire arguing that the middle class deserved the tax cuts and not only the rich. He said that the rich only wanted to enrich themselves and stifle the poor and the middle class. The republicans in congress got small support from a few democrats for the very fist time in extending the cuts for two more years. (Bok, 231)
Obama did not accept their position and argued that the only time he would support them was when they would provide individuals and firms with inducement to create jobs and invest This was because of reduced federal spending. Reductions in the deficit would strengthen the United States international position. (Bok, 98) In the first two years of presidency, president Barrack Obama operated under very tough conditions because he was reforming the corrupt government and at the same time introducing new policies that would see the country prosper and not individuals aiming to enrich themselves. Obama wanted the middle class and the poor to share the national cake with the rich. In his regime, there has been no easy money. If given another term of presidency, it is clear that congressional representatives under the leadership of Obama would do a great job.
Works cited
Bok, Sassily. Violent entertainment and censorship, San Diego: Greenhaven press, 2002, 323.
Clark, Laura Blackwell. Energy, New York: Macmillan, 2003.
McWilliams, John. New England's crises and cultural memory: literature, politics, history, religion, 1620-1860. New York: University Press, 2004.
Miller, Arthur & Abbotson, Susan. Freedom and personal rights. New York: A&C Black, 2010.
Miller, Arthur & Bloom, Harold. Domestic policies. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010.
Caner, Biker. Governance by Supranational Interdependence: Domestic Policy Change in the Turkish Financial Services Industry. Turkey: Emeralds, 2006.
Batten, Kearney. Emerging European Financial Markets: Independence and Integration. Emerald: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2007.
