Universal programs have three important advantages. They don’t create work disincentives through benefit cliffs; they can create a sense of social solidarity; and they are popular with middle-class white people who see targeted programs as “welfare” designed to assist lazy minorities. Their chief disadvantage, of course, is cost.
So when is it appropriate to create a universal program? Here are some of the considerations:
- How universal is the demand for the goods or services in question?
- Does the market provide them adequately for people of means?
- How big a priority is the program, relative to other uses for the money?
- What are the economic impacts in terms of interest costs, “crowding out,” etc. of creating a large new program?
- How badly do you need to generate as much political support as possible among white middle-class people for the program? Can it be sold successfully as a targeted program?
As you can see, this is a complicated, fact-intensive analysis. Each program has to be viewed individually; there is no applicable general rule.
For the GOP, on the other hand, defeating new or expanded safety net programs is a two-part process. First, you complain that the proposed universal program costs too much, and will burden our successors forever; then, if you prevail on that point, you make the argument to your constituents (probably only implicitly) that this is just another example of the Democrats preferring lazy minorities to hardworking “real Americans.”
It doesn’t require much imagination, but it usually works.