This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/opinion/democrats-green-new-deal.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why Americans Love Social Security Why Americans Love Social Security
(1 day later)
Despite the diversity and number of candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination, there has been a lot of agreement on a number of big policy ideas. All of the contenders want the government to guarantee paid parental leave. Nearly all want to significantly raise the federal minimum wage. Most support a Green New Deal to address climate change. Their agreement is notable, particularly on issues that in past contests were seen as radical.Despite the diversity and number of candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination, there has been a lot of agreement on a number of big policy ideas. All of the contenders want the government to guarantee paid parental leave. Nearly all want to significantly raise the federal minimum wage. Most support a Green New Deal to address climate change. Their agreement is notable, particularly on issues that in past contests were seen as radical.
But there is still a huge fault line in the field: Should big, new public programs be available to only those with the most need, or to all Americans? The argument has become most apparent as candidates have brawled over their plans to lower the cost of college. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed making public college free for all, while Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar want to direct aid solely to low- and moderate-income families.But there is still a huge fault line in the field: Should big, new public programs be available to only those with the most need, or to all Americans? The argument has become most apparent as candidates have brawled over their plans to lower the cost of college. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed making public college free for all, while Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar want to direct aid solely to low- and moderate-income families.
This same philosophical split is in the background as candidates have debated whether to enact a “Medicare for all” single-payer health care system that provides government insurance for everyone, or to continue with something akin to the current one, where only some people get government subsidies and care. The issue also comes up in proposals for child care: Some candidates favor a universal solution, while others offer tax credits to help offset the cost for the poorest.This same philosophical split is in the background as candidates have debated whether to enact a “Medicare for all” single-payer health care system that provides government insurance for everyone, or to continue with something akin to the current one, where only some people get government subsidies and care. The issue also comes up in proposals for child care: Some candidates favor a universal solution, while others offer tax credits to help offset the cost for the poorest.
This is the most important argument to emerge from the 2020 Democratic contest so far: whether the party stands for giving public benefits only to people with the fewest resources, or for making them available for all. It’s a worthy debate. But the winning argument, particularly for the big, important programs that candidates have proposed, is with those who want to provide them equally to everyone.This is the most important argument to emerge from the 2020 Democratic contest so far: whether the party stands for giving public benefits only to people with the fewest resources, or for making them available for all. It’s a worthy debate. But the winning argument, particularly for the big, important programs that candidates have proposed, is with those who want to provide them equally to everyone.
Those who favor making new programs available based on need typically do so to keep costs low. Mr. Buttigieg has explained that he doesn’t want to provide relief from the high cost of college tuition to “the children of millionaires and billionaires.” He wants to make sure that the wealthy, who can afford to pay for college tuition or child care, don’t get assistance they don’t really need, leaving more resources for the truly needy.Those who favor making new programs available based on need typically do so to keep costs low. Mr. Buttigieg has explained that he doesn’t want to provide relief from the high cost of college tuition to “the children of millionaires and billionaires.” He wants to make sure that the wealthy, who can afford to pay for college tuition or child care, don’t get assistance they don’t really need, leaving more resources for the truly needy.
But there are administrative costs that come with delineating who gets benefits and who doesn’t. Programs that are narrowly targeted can be less effective. And, most important for presidential candidates, they lack political support. Universal programs, on the other hand, not only cultivate strong support but also tend to get recipients more politically involved.But there are administrative costs that come with delineating who gets benefits and who doesn’t. Programs that are narrowly targeted can be less effective. And, most important for presidential candidates, they lack political support. Universal programs, on the other hand, not only cultivate strong support but also tend to get recipients more politically involved.
Social Security is an exemplar universal program. We all contribute to it, we all rely on it, and its broad scope has given it equally broad appeal and strength. President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed Social Security into law, designed it this way for this very reason. As he told an adviser, the taxes everyone pays in gives people “a legal, moral, and political right” to the benefits, which means “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” Social Security is an exemplar universal program. We all contribute to it, we all rely on it, and its broad scope has given it equally broad appeal and strength. President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed Social Security into law, designed it this way for this very reason. As he told an adviser, the taxes everyone pays in give people “a legal, moral, and political right” to the benefits, which means “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”
Social Security remains incredibly popular today, even with Tea Party members who want to dismantle many other government benefits. Social Security has also turned seniors into one of America’s most influential political constituencies.Social Security remains incredibly popular today, even with Tea Party members who want to dismantle many other government benefits. Social Security has also turned seniors into one of America’s most influential political constituencies.
The G.I. Bill, passed during World War II, had a similar effect. Veterans who took advantage of education, job training and mortgage assistance under the law felt valued as citizens, and that, subsequently, made them more involved in politics and civic life.The G.I. Bill, passed during World War II, had a similar effect. Veterans who took advantage of education, job training and mortgage assistance under the law felt valued as citizens, and that, subsequently, made them more involved in politics and civic life.
The evidence is not just anecdotal. Two political scientists found, in a study of social programs in developed countries, that public benefit programs that rely more on universally distributing resources enjoy more political sustainability.The evidence is not just anecdotal. Two political scientists found, in a study of social programs in developed countries, that public benefit programs that rely more on universally distributing resources enjoy more political sustainability.
On the other hand, offering benefits through more opaque and income-reliant ways tends to dampen these effects. As the political scientist Suzanne Mettler has noted, in a 2008 poll, many people who had received benefits funneled through the tax code, such as the mortgage interest deduction, swore they’d never used a government program. They were therefore less likely to believe that the government had helped them get ahead.On the other hand, offering benefits through more opaque and income-reliant ways tends to dampen these effects. As the political scientist Suzanne Mettler has noted, in a 2008 poll, many people who had received benefits funneled through the tax code, such as the mortgage interest deduction, swore they’d never used a government program. They were therefore less likely to believe that the government had helped them get ahead.
People who receive cash assistance — for which they must prove their poverty and their willingness to work, and in some states, even undergo a drug test — are actually less likely to get involved in politics than those who do not. As the sociologist Jamila Michener has found, similarly punitive policies in Medicaid make people feel disempowered, causing them to withdraw from political participation.People who receive cash assistance — for which they must prove their poverty and their willingness to work, and in some states, even undergo a drug test — are actually less likely to get involved in politics than those who do not. As the sociologist Jamila Michener has found, similarly punitive policies in Medicaid make people feel disempowered, causing them to withdraw from political participation.
The heavy administrative costs to determine who qualifies for a benefit aren’t just a burden on governments. (States spend millions on drug screening for welfare recipients and rescind checks from those who screen positive.) The beneficiaries bear the administrative cost of repeatedly proving that they make little enough to qualify. Such paperwork often dissuades people from enrolling in programs at all. When Arkansas required low-income residents to report their work hours to stay enrolled in Medicaid, more than 18,000 people lost coverage in a span of seven months.The heavy administrative costs to determine who qualifies for a benefit aren’t just a burden on governments. (States spend millions on drug screening for welfare recipients and rescind checks from those who screen positive.) The beneficiaries bear the administrative cost of repeatedly proving that they make little enough to qualify. Such paperwork often dissuades people from enrolling in programs at all. When Arkansas required low-income residents to report their work hours to stay enrolled in Medicaid, more than 18,000 people lost coverage in a span of seven months.
Universal programs also seem to be more effective at attaining the desired results: lowering poverty and reducing income inequality. Universal preschool programs, for example, improve reading scores for low-income students, while targeted programs do not. Universal child care systems in Quebec and Washington, D.C., have also significantly increased the share of women in the labor force.Universal programs also seem to be more effective at attaining the desired results: lowering poverty and reducing income inequality. Universal preschool programs, for example, improve reading scores for low-income students, while targeted programs do not. Universal child care systems in Quebec and Washington, D.C., have also significantly increased the share of women in the labor force.
The government doesn’t need to make every single benefit universal. But the public goods that are essential to a full and healthy life — health care, education and child care — should be available to all. Some presidential contenders have finally realized the political benefits of designing them this way.The government doesn’t need to make every single benefit universal. But the public goods that are essential to a full and healthy life — health care, education and child care — should be available to all. Some presidential contenders have finally realized the political benefits of designing them this way.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.