I take your point, but a $12,000 check isn’t going to replace Social Security. That’s basically a benefit cut. $12,000 doesn’t even equal the unemployment benefit in the states with the lowest rates.
I base this off the principle of subsidiarity: The smallest and most local body that is capable of administering a policy or program should do it. Each higher level of government is there to serve the lower ones, but only as necessary, and not to co-opt or assume their responsibilities.
In the case of climate change and some other environmental policies, the federal government might be the most capable of handling it, or even a global authority, since it’s a global problem whose causes and effects are distributed widely.
So I’m kind of guessing that a state can administrate healthcare for their citizens, and maybe a basic income, too. But the thing with the subsidiaritist view is that as we understand a problem, we can find the right amount of involvement by every level of government (and non-government). There’s no ideological insistence that the Federal Government or Local Governments can do nothing well.
The goal is to make sure that government is as informed and as responsive to all its constituents as it can be. I would say that a lot of our federal programs would be better operated at a lower level because then it would be less one-size-fits-all, and the details could be suited to the needs of the people in a locale.
So if it were shown that, for example, a UBI could really only competently be administered from the federal level, then that’s where it should happen. It just needs to be proven.
I haven’t researched UBI approaches much, but if states’ basic income amount were different, that might make sense, right? Given the differences in cost of living of various places? That’s one of the theoretical advantages of running things at a more local level. But that’s not to say there is still enough of a tax base in a place like Mississippi to get everyone to the level they need to be, so I think it’s a fair point. And having the federal government fund a UBI that is administrated by the states is totally something that subsidiarity would allow.
It seems like they would have to be. Although at that point, if the money is coming from the federal level, you run into the issue of having states subsidize the cost of living of other states.
For instance, there are legitimate arguments to be made that the cost of living in some places is unnaturally high, due to areas being unwilling to allow new housing developments. Normally, the market should take effect here, and make it less desirable to work in that area, and push employment opportunities into other regions.
If the fed is paying different regions different amounts of money, you’re going to break that market effect, since housing prices will be able to continue to rise, and the fed will just cover the cost, which means you’ll remove the effect of limited supply, and prices will skyrocket. That’d be bad.
So for that reason, it may need to be that everyone in the country gets a fixed amount of money. If that’s not enough to live somewhere, that’s tough, you need to move. I realize that’s not the most pleasant answer, but it’s the only system that actually works.
I guess it depends on the reading of Sebelius. You can think of the Medicaid expansion in the ACA as a sort of test of whether the feds can mandate an anti-poverty program and provide funding for it but which the states must then administer. That’s clearly the intent of the statute, but the Roberts court decided that was unconstitutional overreach and that the expansion was therefore voluntary. I don’t really see why a law enacting a UBI to be administered by the states wouldn’t get the same treatment.
In practice, the places with high rents seem to also be the places that are net positive fiscal transferers. It’s expensive to live in New York, but Mississippi taxpayers don’t fund New York federal programs, it’s the other way around.
This is an effect, surely. But I seem to recall from my Econ 101 classes that demand is a factor in pricing as well…
Absolutely… but if the government was to subsidize that price, then demand is going to go up even more as you’ll be decoupling the demand from the supply.
I think this makes sense, but I’m not sure it’s accurate. I don’t really understand the forces that make California as desirable as it is. I can’t help but conclude that the weather is a big part of it. We’re a liberal state with high taxes, but we don’t really have the public services to show for it. On the other hand, we do have Yosemite.
Gold.
No, kidding.
It’s the weather. (And now tech companies.)
To me we’re missing out on the municipal level issues, which affect us as much or more than federal level:
Urbanizing our cities with public transport, walking, and cycling infrastructure, and improved parks, to make them more sustainable, walkable, healthier places to live and visit.
Public education should be better funded, with more resources to under-performing schools. A higher share of post-secondary education costs to be paid by government. Include high quality public libraries, community centres, and swimming pools in the list.
Climate change and environmental stewardship, expanding and protecting urban and rural parks, limiting sprawl, reduced reliance on fossil fuels.
Note for reference - I am Canadian.
Those are all wonderful ideas. Instead we get stuff like this, a fancy name (aerotropolis) for bog-standard sprawl.
This is what’s wrong with Democrats. The current situation is that 1) a four-year degree confers a massive advantage in economic well-being and 2) a four+ year degree confers even more advantage and 3) for most people, attaining either of these degrees means accumulating a massive debt. Faced with that problem, the Democrats offer a 2-year solution.
Matthew Yglesias notes a paper which finds that a significant level of opposition to proposals like Medicare for All (and other redistribution programs) come from current Medicare recipients.
The argument seems to be that there is a finite amount of money ‘available’ for Medicare, so many current Medicare recipients believe that any expansion of eligibility for the program must come from their own share.
So Trump’s claim that the Democrats will raid Medicare to pay for Socialism has legs; it’s directed at these people.
So, we have to find a new name or system.
Would it be feasible to create a public insurance agency that could compete with private insurance companies, similar to how the US Post office still exists and competes to FedEx and other shipping companies? Maybe require them to have complete transparency so that other companies can benefit from better prices?
Might be more important to talk (realistically) about how it will be funded. I think the answer is ‘higher marginal tax rates, controlling medical service costs, and reductions in military spending’. And they need to make clear statements to the effect that it won’t be funded by reducing Medicare benefits for the elderly.
That Yglesias article illustrates one reason why I think the “Medicare Buy In” concept is more politically advantageous than “Medicare for All”.
In addition, I think a well done “Medicare Buy In” plan (here is my idea) would be pretty good policy wise, and also have less transitional costs / disruptive impact than a swifter shift to single payer.
ooh! My 3
- Income inequality
Wage growth is too slow for the world’s best economy. We all deserve more, our current system arbitrarily rewards pooled wealth, and policies continue that fact - Universal Healthcare
The fact that I even have to worry about what I need to do when I get sick with good insurance through my work, is a huge problem. An unhealthy population won’t compete in this world’s economy. - Climate Change
We need to lead the world in climate change action, by example. The U.S. could be a world leader in green technology, both creating a new tech industry sector, and saving the environment.
That is the big three, I haven’t looked at the other responses, but I gotta assume they are similar.
The problem I have when I talk to most conservatives, is that they for some reason assume that Democrats can’t be fiscally responsible. That we are all about handouts, but that isn’t the case. I see more of progressive liberalism as a “rising tides raise all ships” mentality.
If anything the current GOP has been intensely irresponsible with their spending, passing a tax cut (which I wasn’t completely opposed to, the corporate tax rate is really messed up in the U.S., if the new law closed loopholes and fixed the system) but when it got to a vote the bill was a hand-out to the wealthy, with most economists saying that it won’t be able to increase revenue enough (through loophole closing) to make up for the cuts. i.e. increasing debt.
When did the GOP become the fiscally irresponsible party?
How did I miss this thread the first time around? Fun idea for a thread. I’ll chip in echoing what others have already said:
-
Break the stranglehold that the 1% have on our society. I lump several things under this heading, such as campaign finance reform, overturning Citizens United, and fixing our tax system that was designed for the wealthy by the wealthy.
-
Universal Health Care. Pretty self explanatory. This interestingly ties modestly into number 1 above I believe, as the de-facto requirement to have employer sponsored healthcare suppresses entrepreneurship and forces people to stay in crap jobs they might otherwise leave.
-
Increase federal regulatory oversight of multiple industries (including digital ones) and give the regulators teeth.
Eh, expressed in such a general sense, this is a terrible platform.
Regulations need to have a legitimate reason. You can’t just campaign on increasing regulations.