More Policy Debates
The last edition of this newsletter/rambling thought aggregator welcomed the rise of actual policy debates with the arrival of a new administration that is not shy about its policy preferences. Covered there was a “wealth tax” and dramatic increase in the national minimum wage, both of which create fairly clear lines between liberals and conservatives. Into the mix this week comes former GOP Presidential nominee and current Senator from Utah Mitt Romney who has brought forward a proposal to consolidate and eliminate a number of entitlement programs into a revenue neutral proposal to subsidize the stability of the American family. Ross Douthat has a good editorial in the Sunday New York Times laying out the particulars of the proposal, why it is good for the country, why it is conservative, and why some on the right object to it. This bit is from the policy statement released by Romney:
The Family Security Act creates a new national commitment to American families by modernizing and streamlining antiquated federal policies into a monthly cash benefit. Expecting parents will receive the benefit mid-pregnancy, helping them tackle the expenses that start on day one. If enacted, low-income families would no longer have to choose between a bigger paycheck or eligibility for support. This plan would immediately lift nearly three million children out of poverty, while providing a bridge to the middle class – without adding a dime to the federal deficit.
Here’s a look at the particulars:
There is much good about this proposal, in that it sweeps up some out of date entitlements into a tangible, predictable, monthly payment that helps offset the expense of raising children. That the benefit begins in utero strikes me as a crafty provision that both recognizes the costs associated in preparing for a baby, but also that there is something involved worth preparing for—a human life. Additionally, because the benefit phases out at income levels most Americans would recognize as generous, it will help with the costs of raising children across a great percentage of American families.
Seeking to burnish his credentials as a conservative after several years of drinking from the nationalist/populist trough, Senator Marco Rubio released a statement criticizing the proposal on the grounds that it dis-incentivizes work, which has been a conservative objection to many past attempts to alleviate child poverty. And while it remains a useful test against which to measure proposals, its applicability to the Romney plan seems reflexive and unsupported. Here’s how one analyst described his objections:
This concern for welfare disincentivizing work may sound reasonable, especially if you were exposed to Econ 101 at an impressionable age. But it is a dumb and malicious bit of dogma. The theory has some plausibility in a context where there are steep cliffs in eligibility for government aid, such that taking a few more hours from your employer would cost you access to Medicaid or a housing benefit or what have you. But under Romney’s plan, no low-income worker would lose their child allowance by accepting a higher-paying job. The benefit is all but universal.
A couple of other favorable treatments of Romney’s idea by serious conservatives can be found here and here
The Romney Plan reminds one of what could have been. It would be an interesting thought experiment to poll voters who chose Obama over Romney in 2012 and ask a simple question: Would you have voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 if it meant that Donald Trump never became President? The question of the degree to which these voters valued that four years of Obama over the next four years would be worth understanding.
The Impeachment Trial
A weary country will be presented this week with the spectacle of yet another impeachment trial. Its necessity arising from the requirement to both bar Donald Trump from any chance of future office and ensuring that his disciples in corruption understand that an entire term of President is covered by the oath of office, there can be little disagreement that its reality is less attractive. Americans have begun to breathe easier in the absence of the embarrassment we brought upon ourselves, and the prospect of watching nearly half of the Senate walk away from its responsibilities in cowardly fear of character-challenged voters is disheartening. But the trial must go on. That it raises important issues and reinforces the corruption of the 45th President must serve as the desired outcome, as there will not be the votes to convict. Hopefully, things move at a good clip, the points are made, and the country then attempts to solve important problems together.
The disgraced ex-President’s lawyers continue to claim that the proceeding is unconstitutional, ignoring the terribly inconvenient fact that he was impeached while very much still President for offenses committed while President. All signs point to the D’s recognizing the utter immorality of most of the GOP Senate and the impossibility of a conviction. The trial is likely to be a quick one, and again the Cheetoh Jesus will get to claim victory.
Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) did an extended interview with Chris Wallace over the weekend, one that is worth watching for a view of elegance, grace, grit, and principle. It will be interesting to see whether—as time goes on—adults will return to the leadership of the GOP. For now, the Party is adrift.