The Perplexing Policy Status of the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Package: A Case Study Analysis
Abstract
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a bipartisan, non-profit,
non-governmental organization committed to education and promotion of a responsible
budget process. CRFB is currently working on the Moment of Truth Project promoting
the Simpson-Bowles report from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform. In support of CRFB I have put together a report to (1) establish how the fiscal
commission developed the Simpson-Bowles policy package, (2) understand how the media
framed the package and how it affected public opinion, and (3) use John Kingdon’s
garbage can model to question whether Simpson-Bowles has a policy future.
Section I: A “Legislative” History on the Simpson-Bowles Package:
In this section I trace the fiscal commission from its start in February 2010 through
the final vote in December. I discuss the varied expectations for the commission,
their structure and sources of policy ideas, how they negotiated with outside groups
and commission members, the reasoning behind members’ votes, the immediate criticism
Simpson-Bowles received, and what has changed since 2010. While this section doesn’t
draw any conclusions, it analyzes where the policy ideas came from, discusses the
different players who had a stake in the outcome, and highlights the key decisions
and how they were made.
Section II: The Media Framing of the Simpson-Bowles Package:
The press often refers to Simpson-Bowles in broad, vague, or even misleading terms.
This section discusses how the package was framed by the media and the general consensus
among newspapers across the country. I look at editorials from regional newspapers
and compare their content to coverage in the New York Times or Washington post. My
analysis shows that Simpson-Bowles was received well by the media, and was lauded
as “good government” and unlikely compromise. However, it also warns that by not educating
the public on the content of the proposals in the package, the “good government” argument
may break down.
Section III: The Public Response to the Simpson-Bowles Package:
In conjunction with the media analysis, I look at public polling data on Simpson-Bowles
to measure the public’s response. The data help inform whether the discussion surrounding
the package has caused a shift in overall public awareness for fiscal problems as
well as the most effective ways of discussing particular elements of the package.
For example, support for proposed changes in Social Security and Medicare were low,
but when packaged with other ideas (such as closing tax loopholes) or qualified by
protecting lower-income groups levels of support increased significantly. This section
highlights the importance of question specificity when gauging public opinion.
Section IV: The Simpson-Bowles Package & the Policy Stream: Are They Still Alive?:
The public narrative, as seen in the media and public response, tells a mixed story.
The current state, and future, of the Simpson-Bowles package appears uncertain at
best. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the package is still viable. In
this section I apply John Kingdon’s garbage can model to the Simpson-Bowles package,
and show how the policy may still be alive. This model says that problems, policy
ideas, and politics exist as three independent processes, but you don’t see real action
until all three come together. Meanwhile, ideas are in the garbage can waiting until
the right time. Today our fiscal problems still exist, and Simpson-Bowles may be the
go-to policy plan, but the package has yet to earn the political endorsements needed
to move it forward.
Section V: Simpson-Bowles: Lessons Learned:
• Simpson-Bowles lost traction because it lacked political support. In the future,
support from Congressional leadership and especially the President would help the
package.
• The media generally support Simpson-Bowles as centrist and a meaningful compromise,
but also have not educated the public on the content. The package’s critics may eventually
break through the “good government” frame.
As policy tradeoffs are introduced and discussed, support for the whole package increases.
Simpson-Bowles needs to be discussed specifically and holistically.
Type
Master's projectDepartment
The Sanford School of Public PolicyPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8481Citation
Tessier, Emma (2014). The Perplexing Policy Status of the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Package: A Case Study Analysis.
Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8481.More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Sanford School Master of Public Policy (MPP) Program Master’s Projects
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info