Basing eligibility on wealth
or income level is phony progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the
right to eliminate social welfare programs that could benefit the entire
population and the common good.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Bernie Sanders’s policy
proposals ranging from Medicare For All and abolishing student and medical debt
to free college tuition and even the right to vote are presented as universal
rights and programs. They are provided to everyone with no exceptions. The
record shows that this is the basis of viable social programs in a democracy.
It is the reason the two most popular and successful federal government
programs in the United States—Social Security and Medicare—have been impossible
for the right to defeat, even though they have been trying to do so since the
moment those programs were created in the 1930s and 1960s respectively.
It is standard procedure for
most Democratic candidates to support Bernie style social programs in theory—or
at least some of them—but then to insert the caveat that “of course, rich
people or even people above the poverty line should not get them for free
because they can afford to pay for them out of their own pockets.” It sounds
very fair and progressive, a blow against crony capitalism and directing
government money to the undeserving rich. It is a staple line regarding the
student debt plan of Elizabeth Warren, for example, and is roundly approved by
the punditocracy. It is the mark of a “serious” candidate. It is called “means
testing.”
But means testing is a phony
progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the right to eliminate social
welfare programs that could benefit the population. We can understand why
corporate Democrats like Biden or Buttigieg or Harris advocate means testing;
the corporate wing of the Democratic Party warmed to means testing in the 1980s
and it began to be embraced as a legitimate device in both the Clinton and
Obama administrations. It is now a common approach for that crowd.
So when someone as ostensibly
progressive as Warren does the same it demonstrates just how pervasive
right-wing ideology has been internalized in our politics.
Why do I call this a
right-wing idea? Because as soon as means-testing is accepted on principle and
introduced for a program, it begs the logical question of why not extend it to
other similar social programs? So if means testing free public college tuition
is such a great idea, then why not have well-to-do parents pay tuition for
their children in public high schools and middle schools and elementary
schools? Why not bill only the rich when they drive on any public roads
or use public libraries or parks or restrooms? Why not charge them for using
the police or fire departments? Where exactly do you draw the line? That is a
slippery slope toward privatization and elimination of government functions.
Why is that the case? Because
when programs are universal it is much harder for the enemies of those programs
to attack them as welfare giveaways to the poor, and an unfair burden on those
who are more successful. Note that it is almost always the wealthy and
privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for
means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive
issue.
The introduction of means
testing creates a layer of bureaucracy to monitor who is eligible and
ineligible for the social program. It produces a completely useless and
unnecessary bureaucracy to eliminate fraud. It drives up the costs of the
program and people become infuriated having to fill out forms and prove they
are eligible. It is as pleasurable as dealing with a health insurance company
or getting a root canal worked on by your dentist. This too plays directly into
the hands of those who wish to establish that progressive government programs
are inherently flawed, inefficient and incapable of being successful. Better to
privatize and turn everything over to profit-seeking corporations in the
marketplace.
Means testing also means
routine humiliation for those who must prove their destitution in order to
qualify for the public good.
So how does a society have
universal social programs without means testing that do not give the wealthy
unfair privileges? That’s easy. Through rigorous progressive taxation,
including wealth taxes, and an end to the income cap on social security taxes.
If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal
social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian,
democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are
far happier living in more egalitarian societies. Not that much fun, I guess,
to live in an armed compound to avoid the masses.
This is why all the great
social democratic programs in Scandinavia and around the world are usually
universal. It is why Social Security and Medicare are universal. And it is why
the countries with the most effective and pervasive universal social programs
tend to have the most progressive tax systems and are generally ranked as the
world’s best democracies.
To his immense credit, Bernie
Sanders gets all this. As Bernie states plainly: “I happen to believe in
universality.” As the reporter Ryan Cooper puts it: “The road to hell is paved
with means-testing.”
Elizabeth Warren has been a
disappointment with regard to means testing. She has opened the door for means
testing with her student debt plan, and with this gesture Warren has signaled
to corporate Democrats that they can work with her on social policies and she
should not be feared. Combined with her recent waffling on her commitment to
single-payer and Bernie’s Medicare For All bill—which she co-sponsored!—this
should be an enormous red flag for voters seeking substantive change.
To her credit, Warren recently
backed down from her earlier position that she would accept corporate money in
the general election campaign were she to win the Democratic nomination for
president, because she saw how hypocritical it made her rejection of such money
in the primary season seem. Warren now needs to formally and loudly back down
from her embrace of “means testing” for social programs. The general rule in
politics is that you usually see the very most progressive side of a candidate
during an election campaign, and it only gets worse once the votes are cast and
the office door is shut and elites return to their usual privileged access. So
this is not a minor issue; it pretty much tells voters how serious she is about
representing the needs of the people, not the powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment