Conservatives Drift Leftward in the Plan to Rescue America

The run-up to the passage of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) last week showcased the leftward drift of American social policy among conservatives.  

Democrats’ attempt to raise the minimum wage via the ARP was nixed by the Senate parliamentarian, but not before Sens. Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney and Sen. Josh Hawley proposed two Republican-friendly alternative minimum-wage hikes. And as the Democrats’ yearslong efforts to enact a child allowance gained traction as an ARP provision, it was met with Romney’s own child allowance proposal, “The Family Security Act,” which generated considerable second-order debates among conservatives, some of whom argued the allowance should enable parents to  stay home from work.  

These policy debates echo G.K. Chesterton’s century-old observation, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” A consensus has emerged among Washington policymakers, first on the left and now on the right, that working-class—and perhaps even middle-class—Americans need more financial buffers against the headwinds of globalization and large-scale capitalism. In what political scientists call “policy framing,” policymakers on the right and left have cast the boundaries of debate within the twin premises that working families are beset with stagnating incomes and the federal government should subsidize the difference between those incomes and whatever a living wage requires. 

Within this policy frame, conservatives have embraced two typically progressive goals: the prioritization of security over opportunity (hence the name of Romney’s child allowance) and the elimination of mediating structures. 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
Comments (65)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  • I agree with this article. I also agree with Ryan's concerns about the direction of policy and approve of the policy proposals in this article. However I think that Senator Romney and his plan should not be dismissed out of hand. If congress is to "work" again the members of congress have to meet each other in the middle and that might mean taking our ideals and molding them to the preferences of the majority party. If we don't do that then the dems will just push through the most radical thing they can

    I don't see that happening any time soon so it won't matter anyway sadly.

    Collapse
  • Ambivalent on the thesis but I love the pic of ET works.

    Collapse
  • Right on. This is like the old saying about fishing. Give a person a fish, feed them for a day. Teach them to fish, feed them for a lifetime.

    Collapse
  • “ supply every American who wants a better job with the information about the jobs with the best growth potential where they live and a subsidy to prepare for those jobs.”

    What could go wrong?

    Collapse
  • Things have changed since the 90's. Native birth rates have declined to the point that population levels would be falling if not for immigration.

    There are many reasons for that drop, but the costs of raising a child are a large part of it. The child allowance would help offset that cost.

    And if that allows a couple more mothers to stay home with the kids in the early years, that's probably ok too.

    Collapse
  • Here's a radical idea - instead of debating whether it's best to support families or best to help everyone find work, why don't we do both? Romney's plan to support families is revenue neutral so it doesn't cost us more than we spend now. I'm sure that there's a way to reform our current workforce training efforts in a similar manner. That way we address both concerns.

    Collapse
    1. I agree that increased child credits and funding for worker retraining are both good proposals and not mutually exclusive, However, even though not mutually exclusive, prioritization is still required. We cannot afford every government program that might be helpful. Unless a government program increases productivity and stimulates economic growth, revenue neutral means taxes are being raised. In the case of the Romney child credit, revenue neutrality is satisfied by eliminating the state and local tax deduction.

      Collapse
  • No to go all Elon Musk on everybody, but I feel like no one is addressing some of the more glaring oncoming crises. It's not just globalization and capitalism. It's automation and AI. We don't just need to retrain people, we need to retrain them in 21st century skills, even to compete for a collapsing number of blue collar jobs. I don't know when that'll hit, but it's coming, and we're not ready for it.

    Collapse
    1. And there's the rub. The creative destruction of capitalism has generally been supported in our country's history, but that is at least in part due to the fact the jobs destroyed by capitalist innovation were replaced and then some by new and better jobs.

      That job replacement does not appear to be the case with AI and robotics. There will be some new jobs created, but probably not nearly as many jobs gained as the jobs lostdestroyed, and the people whose jobs are lost will not be able to easily switch to the new industries and new jobs that are created.

      Collapse
    2. Good point. I would add it's quite possible there just won't be enough jobs. And the jobs that are there might not be suitable for everyone.

      You're average person might not have the aptitude to code etc

      Collapse
    3. Unfortunately too many politicians refuse to admit this because it’s difficult to demonize. It’s a lot easier to blame everything on free trade and/or China.

      Collapse
  • "costs associated with training, such as moving, transportation, and childcare."

    Why do we need a national funds for this?

    Junior colleges are affordable and flexible. U-Hauls are cheap.

    Agree on childcare - but a direct payment and/or tax credit the most efficient and equitable (think stay at home parents) to offset this cost.

    Collapse
    1. Junior ( community) college in my area is $7,228 a year, $6,973 on average after aid, and that does not include books. That's roughly $600 a month per year for tuition alone.

      Maybe that isn't too bad, but with federal minimum wage set at $7.25 it seems burdensome. Even with my state's rate of 10.10 that would take 690 hours of labor, or about a third of the working year of a full time job to pay for it, and that's before payroll taxes take its wage cut and with financial aid.

      I am with you on a child allowance.

      Collapse
      1. That is about the price of out of state tuition in my state of CA. In state is about 1/3 of that.

        My critique was more on the downside, unintended consequences, and unfairness of the federal government trying to tinker with the costs of moving, college ect. UBI or whatever you want to come up with is always a more efficient and fairer way of dealing with these issues.

        Collapse
        1. Great, we agree.

          Collapse
    2. I just moved last September. U-Hauls aren't cheap unless you're moving from an area which has a glut of trucks I think we were in for $1400.00 on a one-way.

      Collapse
    3. Are you kidding? My husband and I just moved. I can assure you that moving is not easy or cheap. U-Hauls are cheaper than a moving company yes, but it's still a blow to the wallet to pay $1000 or so to rent a huge truck in addition to paying for gas and then include security deposits, rental deposits (first AND last months' rent), hook-ups for internet/electric/gas. Now, whether that means we need federal funds remains to be seen (used to be that companies would reimburse employees the full cost; now people are lucky if they get a reimbursement up to something and it obviously depends on the company - some are better than others) but it's hardly cheap.

      Collapse
      1. Kat - the solution is more generous unemployment benefits. Pretty simple.

        Collapse
    4. I'm sorry, bud, this seems so out of touch with the reality of how a lot of folks live. It is not cheap to move. The costs of U-Hauls aren't always that cheap. I've moved a few times using U-Hauls and it was never cheap or easy. (Whether it was the 2,000 mile move or the smaller 200 mile moves.) Not to mention $2,000 deposits for rent (or $40,000 for a new mortgage, unless you go VA) or the costs of utility connections/insurance changes. It adds up fast. Real fast.

      How in the world would an unemployed person come up with a couple (or few thousand) thousand dollars to make a long move? A lot of folks can barely come up with a few hundred to stay in their homes.

      I don't know, maybe that's cheap to folks, but not to me.

      Collapse
      1. I have done several Uhaul moves - dirt cheap.

        But let's assume you are right.

        An unemployed person needs aid - more than they are given - so they can do what they need to do. Passing out moving vouchers (or whatever you want to do) seems misguided.

        Collapse
        1. Yeah, but dirt cheap compared to what? Other full-service moving companies? You bet it is. Compared to not moving at all when someone has no savings to speak of and/or weak credit? It's expensive. Might even be unreachable.

          I don't know if I agree about the vouchers or not. With companies no longer helping people move, (and never really did help lower wage/salary workers) I'm struggling with what I think on it. I certainly don't want to sound like I know the answers, though. Honestly, I struggle with what I think on this one. It really strains my limited government steak I've tried to hang on to.

          Sorry to be so wishy-washy on it, not trying to be contrary.

          Collapse
  • If you're looking for ways to help people, free or low cost education would be great. I received a master degree from a prestigious university which greatly helped my career prospects. I was able to do it because my company had tuition reimbursement. Fewer companies have that or people don't have jobs at all to receive that benefit. But free education or job training would go a long way in helping people improve their situation. This seems like a better idea than giving money for people to stay home and produce and take care of children. Unless that goal is to remove people from the workforce.

    Why not give money to people who stay home and take care of old folks?

    Collapse
  • Load More