Four likely Democratic presidential candidates have released plans to address a perceived problem with our socio-economic system. How do they stack up?
- THE BERNIE SANDERS MEDICARE-FOR-ALL PLAN: Does it address a serious problem with our system? Yes, providing truly universal coverage and limiting costs is clearly a worthy objective. Is it plausibly financed? No, the grab bag of taxes proposed by Sanders makes no conceptual sense and would not work. Could it accomplish its objective? Yes, but only if it is modified to make more financial sense, particularly by adding reasonable co-pays. Is it politically feasible? If the Democrats manage to blow the 2020 election, the suicide note will look like this, for the reasons set out in yesterday’s post.
- THE CORY BOOKER TRUST FUND PLAN: Does it address a serious problem with our system? Yes, at a time of declining social mobility, it would provide additional opportunities for the poor. Is it plausibly financed? Yes, increasing the estate tax and rolling back the Trump tax cut also helps to reduce inequality. Could it accomplish its objective? Maybe. There would be issues with the administration of the program–particularly in making sure the funds were not used for improper purposes. Is it politically feasible? Doubtful. Imagine the GOP commercials showing shiftless minority parents using tax money to buy drugs for themselves. It would happen.
- THE ELIZABETH WARREN “SAVE CAPITALISM FROM ITSELF” PLAN: Does it address a serious problem with our system? Yes, it is intended to make corporations more accountable to their workers and the public than they are today. Is it plausibly financed? It doesn’t involve the use of large sums of public money, so that isn’t an issue. Would it accomplish its objective? Maybe–it is largely a bank shot effort to get large companies to increase wages by increasing worker involvement in the corporate decisionmaking process. That doesn’t always work; it isn’t working in Germany today. Is it politically feasible? Warren has been very careful to portray herself as a capitalist reformer, not a socialist. The GOP and business interests won’t see it that way; you could expect to see an avalanche of commercials about Warren and socialism if she gets the nomination. They will probably work.
- THE KAMALA HARRIS “LIFT” PLAN: Does it address a serious problem with our system? Yes, it is intended to provide wage subsidies for struggling workers. Is it plausibly financed? Yes, by rolling back the Trump tax cut. Would it accomplish its objective? Yes, it resembles the EITC, and would be relatively easy to implement? Is it politically feasible? By tying the plan to work, Harris has avoided the Victorian trap. There is some possibility a version of this plan could get votes from a few “reformicon” GOP members.
THE VERDICT: Overall, I think the Harris plan has the best chance of success.