Please respond to the following discussion post using a minimum of 200-250 words

Subject:LawPrice:17.89 Bought3

Share With

Please respond to the following discussion post using a minimum of 200-250 words. Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate, or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions. Please introduce and cite two new scholarly sources

Discussion post:

I chose to analyze a rather interesting case study entitled “Entitlements: What We Must Do” which focuses on the current state of United States federal entitlement programs, specifically Social Security and Medicare. The author notes how both of these programs were well intended when established, but the fact is that over time they have evolved into inefficient, complex, and costly systems in which their original goals are no longer recognizable. Cogan (2018) notes that their incentives undermine the national desire for self-sufficiency and their enormous fiscal costs are a threat to continued economic prosperity (p. 17).

The current state of Social Security and Medicare should come as little surprise to any United States citizen, as federal entitlement programs going all the way back to the 1780’s have suffered similar fates. Cogan (2018) highlights how the country’s original entitlement program, the Revolutionary War pension fund, had honorable intentions of awarding pensions to those who were injured in battle and to the widows of those killed in battle (p. 18). However, it eventually ballooned out of control after the very entitlement program-esque decision was made to grant benefits to all soldiers, militia members, and volunteers. The Civil War pension program followed a similar pattern but was actually more costly in the long run as Congress grossly underestimated just how long the program would last. There is actually one person still receiving a Civil War pension today as the surviving daughter of a Union Soldier.

It would appear at the moment that Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains aimed at bankrupting the country. The question that needs answered is if entitlement reform regarding these two programs is even a possibility or are they simply beyond repair. According to a recent report released by the Social Security and Medicare trustees regarding the current state of the programs, “Medicare Part A will face insolvency in 6 years and Social Security’s trust funds will run out in 15 years” (Committee, 2021, para. 1).

There have been attempts by Presidents in years past to rein in certain entitlement programs, each with differing levels of success. Grover Cleveland tried (and failed) to gain control of the Civil War pension program by vetoing numerous individual pension bills. Franklin Roosevelt was able to convince Congress to pass the Economy Act during his first week in office, which enabled him to restrict eligibility, cut benefits, and remove Veterans from pension bills. And Ronald Reagan imposed restrictions on the Disability Amendments Act of 1980, and in his second term cut federal support for Medicare.

Due to the severity of the situation regarding these two entitlement programs, a form of collaborative governance utilizing various system designs and processes is necessary for any hope of entitlement reform. The New Public Management (NPM) approach is extremely popular worldwide and as Vigoda (2002) notes, it focuses on citizens as sophisticated clients in complex environments (p. 533). However, NPM is too detached from collaboration and it is mutually beneficial for citizens and public administrators alike to take the necessary reform efforts in order to not bankrupt the country. Amsler (2016) states that collaboration is both a process and an outcome, both a means and an end in itself. As an end, it is a public value that is reflected in the history and language of administrative law (p. 704).

It is imperative that politicians and public administrators alike educate the public of the extent to which these two programs are flawed and the financial strain they put on the country each year. And as Amsler (2016) points out, unlike conflict or adversarial governance, collaboration represents broader acceptance of a policy or decision (p. 702). Furthermore, through collaborative governance an administrator’s criterion for decisions are straightforward and relatable. According to Shafritz & Hyde (2017) sans collaboration, administrators often are reduced to deciding policy without clarifying objectives first (p. 174).

The Lord is a great believer in teamwork and views his followers working together to solve problems as mutually advantageous. Proverbs 27:17 reads “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (The Holy Bible, NIV, 2011). Working together is the core of what Fischer (2010) describes as covenantal living, which requires a sense of hesed, teamwork and mutual accountability (p. 68).