With news of means-testing fever re-emerging, I thought it'd be good to resurface this piece on government inefficiencies and how things like means-testing makes programs more cumbersome to administer—therefore making it harder for the benefits to be felt.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Every time we've been given the opportunity to make social welfare programs universal, there's always an effort to make sure that *certain* groups aren't getting any "extra benefits" they "haven't earned."
This is flatly racist, and it'd be nice if we started saying so loudly.
This is flatly racist, and it'd be nice if we started saying so loudly.
When Clinton said the "era of big government is over," he really just doubled down on Reagan's hobbling of the social safety net.
When Manchin bemoans an "entitlement mentality," he's really just opposing a safety net that works for *anyone* who needs it *whenever* they need it.
When Manchin bemoans an "entitlement mentality," he's really just opposing a safety net that works for *anyone* who needs it *whenever* they need it.
Shoring up government inefficiencies and building trust should be a cornerstone of the progressive movement moving forward.
How can people buy into an undertaking like Medicare for All when the IRS doesn't even automatically tell people if they owe something on their taxes?
How can people buy into an undertaking like Medicare for All when the IRS doesn't even automatically tell people if they owe something on their taxes?
Reaganism's most lasting and insidious impact is crippling public institutions and services and then turning people against those same institutions and services because they don't work.
This cycle can be broken, and the work before Congress right now is a great place to start.
This cycle can be broken, and the work before Congress right now is a great place to start.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
