Policy Analysis Policies Are Sometimes

Policy Analysis

Policies are sometimes ineffective, have unintended side effects, or allow or exacerbate negative market externalities. Critically analyze current or previous policies that have been critiqued as dysfunctional or ineffective in addressing the problems they seek to address. How do they fail to effectively "solve" the problem or make the problem worse? What options exist to improve them?

The recently repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy of the United States military demonstrates in amazing style how an adopted policy can not only fail to solve a problem but also actually acerbate it (Files, 2003). The policy, adopted as a compromise by the Clinton administration in its failed attempt to allow the entrance of gays, lesbians, bisexuals into the military, served to illustrate how in an attempt to resolve the intended issue the Government created many other issues (U.S. Congress).

For too long alternative life-style members of the military have had to suffer in silence while they stood by and witnessed their heterosexual comrades openly display their emotions with their loved ones as they left for deployment or arrived home. They have had to withhold their comments as they sat around the bunk and listened to their buddies talk about their wives and families. They have had to disguise an essential part of who they were because of policy enacted by a government willing to sacrifice the fundamental rights of some of its citizens because of the prejudiced beliefs of some of its other citizens. For the gay and lesbian members of the U.S. military to openly display their emotions to a loved one would likely result in a separation from the service.

The DADT policy, as it was applied by the U.S. military, was ineffective on many different levels as the policy failed to address the underlying issue. The policy was enacted to avoid the issue as to the inherent right of gays and lesbians to engage in an open relationship the same as any heterosexual couples might. The intent of the Clinton administration was to recognize this right but when met with opposition from individuals and groups who offered a plethora of arguments to the contrary the Clinton administration regrouped and, eventually, agreed to the compromise which became DADT. In drafting the policy, however, Congress and the Clinton administration should have dealt with the basic issue and not attempted to step around it (Belkin, 2010).

The basic issue underlying the adoption of DADT was the moral prejudice against the practice of homosexuality that has existed in American society since the country was first being settled. This bias against such practices was even codified in many jurisdictions under sodomy laws. Court cases have ruled that such statutes are unconstitutional and most jurisdictions have removed them from their books but the prejudices that caused such laws to be enacted continue. The implementation of DADT served to provide these biases with legitimacy. By forcing gays and lesbians to deny their sexual orientation the policy served to say to the rest of the world that homosexuality was wrong while the purpose of the policy was to essentially do the opposite. The policy was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military while bending to the prejudices of those who found such conduct reprehensible or immoral. By doing so, the policy was flawed.

The DADT policy as implemented actually resulted in a much more aggressive effort to drive gays and lesbians out of the services. In other words, for actual gays and lesbians service members, the situation actually worsened after the adoption of DADT. The DADT debate brought the issue of homosexuality in the military to the forefront. The issue of how to handle homosexuality in the armed services is not a new issue that suddenly appeared in the early 1990's. It has been addressed by military leaders since the Revolutionary War and it has been dealt with differently throughout military history (Katz, 1992). As gay and lesbian support groups began to more aggressively campaign for the lifting of the ban on homosexuals being allowed to enlist in the military the public became more aware that the situation existed and opinions began to develop on either side of the issue. Clinton's election following his campaign promise to work for the lifting of the ban on homosexuals serving in the military placed the issue center stage. Unfortunately, the DADT policy did not rectify the real problem which was the very real bias in the upper levels of the military against those with alternative life-styles. Those prejudices remained and likely will for some time regardless of the new public policy supporting the admitting of gays and lesbians into the military. The adoption of a public policy does not ensure fair treatment.

Interestingly, the public sentiment for the position of gay and lesbian groups has grown to be strongly in favor of admitting homosexuals into the military without any restrictions (Associated Press, 2010). The overwhelming support for such position should result in its being considered as part of public policy. Yet, even with the repeal, there remain restrictions on the implementation of process of admitting gays and lesbians into the military which only serves to further emphasize the invalidity of the DADT policy.

Presently the DADT policy remains in effect awaiting the receipt of Defense Department report on the effect of the repeal of said policy on military readiness. Surprisingly, the report has already taken nearly five months and there is no word as to when it might become available or what the report might reveal. The policy has been a poor one from the beginning and it remains so. Hopefully, the report will be conducted in an unbiased way and a policy that has been poorly thought out and caused far more problems than it solved will fade into history.

2. How do policy problems, as well as the consequences of proposed or implemented policies, relate to concerns over equity? Consider equity across demographic factors (such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or socio-economic status). You can also think about equity in terms of regional impact. Analyze how equity concerns relate to both who bears the costs and who receives the benefits of policies.

One of the problems facing our society today is how it is going to handle the ever increasing number of retirees (Brandon, 2006). Social Security was enacted to address this concern but Social Security was never intended to be the exclusive source of retirement income. Instead, it was intended to be a supplement to other sources. At the time of its enactment privately funded pension plans were still prevalent in the work place as an included benefit in most employees' place of employment. Because of this fact it was believed, as a matter of public policy that Social Security would serve as a good supplement for existing pension plans (Beland, 2007). Unfortunately, over the years since the enactment of Social Security social and economic conditions in the United States have changed. Today, private pensions are rapidly disappearing as offered benefits by many employers and, in an era where retiree numbers are escalating, the ability of new retirees to retire comfortably has become a serious social problem (Weisenthal, 2009).

It has long been the public policy of the United States to see that its' elderly live comfortably in their declining years (Fuchs, 1999). As noted, this was one of the underlying justifications for the enactment of Social Security. The public policy has not changed but the ability of society to provide for its' elderly, either through the provisions of Social Security or other means, has changed. With funding a real issue the collateral issue of equity becomes more germane.

Those facing retirement today face the real possibility that the system that they paid into for years may not be able to support them. This is not a question of individuals looking to the Government for benefits that they never contributed toward in the way of money such as welfare or educational grants. The receipt of Social Security benefits involves the return on monies that these individuals actually contributed. These retirees contributed to the Social Security fund for all of their lives and now they are expecting to reap the benefits of their contributions but are now being told that this might not occur.

The beauty of the Social Security plan was its' equitable nature. Every American citizen was eligible for enrollment and there was no defined classification based upon artificial standards or categories. It was designed to provide all Americans with a security blanket. For the most part it has done so successfully but as the problems of Social Security have been brought to the attention of society so have the inequities of the private pension system.

The private pension system is rapidly disappearing. It has become too expensive for many employers to continue funding the pension plans that they have previously offered to their employees. This has resulted in a large segment of our society having to depend on Social Security as their only guaranteed source of retirement income and it has also caused criticisms of the public sector pension system. In the public sector employees continue to be largely covered by generous pension plans and, unlike in the private sector, there has been decrease in the number of plans or the amount available for funding. This differential between the public and private sector has raised the high brows of many and has brought into question the imbalance now present between private and public employment.

The present situation that exists between the availability of pension plan coverage between the private and public sector has caused government officials and voters to look at the equities of the situation (Brown, 2011). In essence, the private sector is being asked to fund the pension plans of the public sector and being asked to provide the public sector with benefits that are virtually non-existent for private employees. Many question the fairness of such a situation and are, therefore, clamoring for change.