The political sustainability of means tested programs is underrated but that sustainability may be due to the burdens they place on recipients and the low participation rates those burdens engender
People often say “just raise taxes to pay for the bigger program,” well, like how popular are broad based tax hikes? The ACA is janky and stingy because it had to be paid with a pretty narrow tax
Advocates of universal programs often place the cart before the horse, as European style welfare states have tax systems that many progressives would not support (but if we had better programs maybe we’d support the requisite taxes? Who knows)
The one program everyone loves, social security, is funded via a flat tax that excludes a huge portion of the wealthy’s income but gets all of most workers’ wages. Everyone wants to replicate the program design but not the funding mechanism
Also they cut social security in the early 80s 🤷🏻♂️
I really should write this down somewhere I tweet a version of it every six weeks
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
also look at what TANF actually does, getting rid of it while massively expanding and reforming an anti-poverty program to be far more effective is no great loss
in one sense this is embezzlement and fraud being described, but it's not like the money is being taken away from needy families, mississippi takes advantage of the block grant set up to reject viruallly all applicants and instead spends it on whatever
The block grant flexibility frees up states whose government are ideologically opposed to capital-w Welfare but have funding issues to spend it on "Public and private pre-school, child welfare, and college scholarships" cbpp.org/blog/louisiana…
Lots of Never Trumpism (especially that National Review issue) was premised on 1. Trump losing and 2. If he won, not governing as a conservative. So when he won and let Heritage do domestic policy and the Federalist Society do judges, the entire project became obsolete
So, like, it would be really weird for a sitting republican legislator to be anti trump, let alone a conservative pundit. He’s the leader of their movement and party and is mostly doing stuff they agree with. Ethic of responsibility!
And so it’s not surprising that consistent never trumpers either overwhelmingly care about one policy issue that they disagree with trump about (Kristol, Boot) or were already heterodox pre-Trump (Douthat, Forum)