The Biden Agenda: What He Might Do for Working Families

His message of ‘I care’ is loud, clear, and believable, but his proposals come at a cost.

By
81

Welcome to the latest in our series, “The Biden Agenda.” We’ve invited some of the smartest thinkers and subject-matter experts we know to contribute to what will become an occasional series on what a Biden presidency might look like. Abby McCloskey, an economist and adviser to several GOP presidential campaigns, examines what policies Biden might implement to alleviate the stress and worry faced by working families since the beginning of the pandemic. She also looks at the downsides of some of his more progressive ideas, like universal preschool.

The 2020 presidential election comes at a time when America’s working families are under extreme duress. Democrat nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden brings compassion and policy reforms to provide relief and opportunity to families, but his proposals are not without downsides.

Families are facing a shattered labor market: Unemployment rates reached a historic peak of 16.2 percent for women in April 2020 and 13.5 percent for men. Mothers are disproportionately represented in low-wage and service jobs that leave few options for balancing demands of family and work in normal times, but those sectors have been devastated by COVID-19, making things worse. In a recent Bipartisan Policy Center poll, unemployed parents not looking for work cited caregiving as the primary reason. The unemployment rate has improved somewhat but remains at peak Great Recession levels, and the Congressional Budget Offices projects elevated unemployment for years to come, with accompanying financial, social, and emotional pressures.

Furthermore, school and childcare closures alongside experiments in remote learning have created tremendous uncertainty about the well-being of children and stymied educational progress and rising socioeconomic disparities. While our immediate focus has been on protecting vulnerable populations and essentially workers, children increasingly are the ones facing generational loss from forgone education opportunities and financial investments.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
81
By
Comments (81)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

    This is one of the better articles on Biden. Focused on the data, drew from bipartisan studies, generally (though not entirely) left out bias. I like it a lot.

    I would love to know what this expert and others think about if and how such policies could counter the falling birth rates in this country. We don't talk much about it, but falling birth rates is the shoe slowly dropping.

    Thanks for the piece!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Evan Donovan

    So much condescension toward lower-income people on this comments section. Mandatory birth control for people on public assistance , as was suggested by someone here, reminds me of what China did with the one-Child policy and is certainly a more overbearing government response than expanding the child-care tax credit would be. How would you even enforce that?

    You could make it free, but I think the ACA already mandates that.

    Many on public assistance , especially if you count SNAP and WIC, are working. The free market is not delivering all they need. As someone pointed out on here, the main beneficiary of corporate tax cuts are shareholders . All the while, companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's consistently underpay employees, relying on public assistance to pick up the slack. A 15 mandatory minimum wage is excessive , especially federally, due to variation in costs of living, but the federal minimum should be increased somewhat.

    In contrast to many of the comments, which appear to defend federal non-intervention in childcare or family leave through old stereotypes about the poor and about gender roles, the article itself is an excellent and balanced analysis , except that it assumes too much, in my opinion, about the benefits of corporate tax cuts for workers. Obviously corporate taxes, raised above a certain point, lead to increased offshoring, but cuts that come with no strings attached , such as requirements for onshore labor, have problems too, especially when, like the recent ones, there was no provision made to pay for them.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    JohnM.

    An excellent, comprehensive read. This is why I subscribe to The Dispatch. Thank you, Abby.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    “...the cornerstone of which is free universal preschool for all 3 and 4 year olds.”
    Biden says this will be high quality. Where will it be done? Parents need this to be near home or work. Elementary schools are not equipped for this. Teachers are not equipped for this.
    And what are they to be taught? Do parents get a choice? I have 10 grandchildren, 7 of the 10 have been in preschool. Each parent chooses a different school for different reasons.
    But mostly the parents assume that responsibility because they are the parents. When do parents surrender responsibility for their children? And when they do so, who assumes this and what decisions do they make?

    Collapse
  5. Joe1776

    I agree with much of the economic analysis but why go so far off base with racism and abortion issues? Why not just address the issues dealing directly with family economics.

    "And it is natural to ask the question heading into November—who sees what I am going through and cares enough to do something about it? On this question, Biden decisively holds an edge."

    Why would you say that when you explain how most of his policies would hurt low income families, women, and the overall economy? Clearly he does see what you we are going through and clearly he is more concerned about political optics than helping you or anyone else.

    Simply because a politician says "I care" really? Biden (like Obama before him) is completely divorced from most people trying to run a business. It is interesting that Biden had some small business people at the DNC but they didn't indicate a single policy that would help them or a single policy where Trump hurt them. Does the DNC platform have a section devoted to small businesses in their platform. That is odd because they employ almost half of the workers in the USA. So the outcomes created for small business will have a big effect on many families.

    We know what trump will do. He will have policies that lead to low unemployment and more prosperity for the short term at least. But he likely will not balance the budget like it should be balanced.

    I never really understood where the numbers are coming from for the cost of Biden's proposals. For example he says he wants all state colleges to be free. Is that included in the 4 trillion?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2020/09/04/the-surprising-cost-of-bidens-free-college-tuition-plan/#b9958116f7fd

    According to some of Biden's own figures currently public college costs 70 billion per year. (700 billion over 10 years) But of course if the federal government is going to make this free more people will want to enroll in public colleges. So colleges will of course expand like crazy. The break down of public to private school is close to 90% to 10%. I think we should expect something like that to happen. I mean it would be crazy to think private schools will be able to compete with free very often - especially when college costs are so much higher than k-12. So how is that factored in? Is it factored in to the 4 trillion?

    Going down that free college rabbit hole a few more points:

    What about the cost in quality of education we will pay when we mirror our college system with our medicore k-12 model? Our colleges are the best in the world by far. Look at any list of top world colleges and US colleges dominate. Then look at lists that compare k-12 educations and see where we come in.

    Finally consider the real threat to the freedom of our institutions. The person funding education has a say in what is taught. Now we have enough private colleges and the states politics are diverse enough that we have a diversity of views. But there are always catches when it comes to federal funds. And when federal college becomes free it will become the dominant propaganda machine for young people.



    Collapse
  6. William Griese

    A mostly well-thought out and reasonable critique marred by a frankly ridiculous claim that raising the corporate income tax from 21% to 28% would hurt the economy. If that was true, then how do you explain economic expansions that occurred under Clinton, Bush, & Obama when the corporate income tax was 35% (a whole 1/3 higher than Biden proposes)?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      If you want cheap labor, you have to have a way for workers to be fed until you need them. If they don't have any money, who will buy what you're producing?

      Collapse
      1. William Griese

        (1) I don't want cheap labor, and (2) what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          That’s why we get automation.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            rlritt

            Then what happens to the excess people who are no longer needed for working jobs?

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      Where does the additional tax revenue come from? Corporations do not keep boxes of money. Ultimately it comes from us, the people, corporations will not be hurt.

      Collapse
      1. William Griese

        Corporate income taxes are taxes on shareholders, not employees. Case in point, what did most of the biggest corporations do when Trump cut their taxes from 35% to 21%? Share buybacks. Not salary increases for employees.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Corporations pass costs onto customers. And they find other ways to minimize tax exposure. Many pharmaceutical companies are now based off shore, Ireland being popular.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Bingo.

          Collapse
  7. Kant B. Real

    Horrific that this even being discussed at the Federal level. This is an individual choice and local matter. In no way should this be nationalized.

    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      The article at least mentions federalism but such an intrusive federal government should be rejected out of hand by anyone concerned about our constitution.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        I agree. But that is the same argument against the Dept. of Education.
        So who is trying to present such an argument? No one, and Trump is not capable. No is when the position you are trying to get across is that the government cannot solve your problem.

        Collapse
    2. William Griese

      Child care is hardly horrifying

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        Finding and paying for good childcare is a nightmare.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Why? Are they not worth the effort?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            rlritt

            Of course its worth, but finding good child care is not as easy as it sounds. Lot of bad childcare. And its expensive. When I got my new job after my son was born almost my entire paycheck went to pay child care for 2 kids.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        ....I was a child once and I am sure my mother might disagree.

        Collapse
  8. JMD

    This is beating a dead horse, and one that had long ago left the barn, but the #1 solution to childcare is not having kids until you're financially stable (not necessarily high income, but stable, on a career track) and married will save people -- including the children involved -- a lot of stress, heartache and negative outcomes. And there's no childcare like a parent.

    Also, this is why a lifestyle and economy built on the necessity of two incomes is bad, bad, bad. The second income should be the safety net for temporary loss of the first income. Bank it for a rainy day.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Evan Donovan

      I will agree people should get married but not everyone can expect financial stability, and, unfortunately , not everyone will stay married - sometimes through no fault of their own.

      I also agree people should not live right up to their maximum standard of living , if possible , but many people couldn't live on just one income, through no fault of their own. If you are referring only to people making 400k or more a year, though, I'm not concerned about tax increases decreasing labor force participation , since those people likely are not as constrained in their economic choices.

      Collapse
    2. Ender

      I don't disagree with the bulk of your position, but immediately see the tension with outlawing all abortion - so it must be said. It's become crystal clear that, while abortions continue to go down year after year, the vast majority are chosen by the low income, unstable, no career track women you mention shouldn't be having children in the first place (which I agree with!).

      Surely enabling these at risk women with limited to no ability to support unwanted children to control their own reproductive choices would be a net benefit to all involved? Let's just leave the knee-jerk reactions to the side and be clear eyed about what we are recommending.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photostaff-badge-circle
        Rachael Larimore staff-badge Staff

        I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate. Personally, I try to take a "holistic" approach to reducing abortion. I don't think legislation gets us where we need or want to go. I think the real net benefit comes from persuading women in unstable situations that they have better options than abortion. That means those of us on the right need to support safety-net measures like access to health care and WIC/food stamps, some kind of childcare support (vouchers, even, as McCloskey mentions), etc., that make women feel they will be supported in a challenging time. And it means those on the left should stop acting like all unplanned children are unwanted, or pushing abortion as the best or first option.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure if poor women are getting abortions. I worked in a training program for a year and the girls were between 18 and 22. ALL of them had children

        I don't know the demographic for women seeking abortions.

        Collapse
        1. Ender

          I remembered the point from I think David French's writings, but went to look for the specifics: https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2017/abortion-rates-income

          tl;dr 50% of abortions (as of 2014, but the trendline was increasing) are done by women under the federal poverty line,

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photostaff-badge-circle
      Rachael Larimore staff-badge Staff

      With all respect, sometimes both partners in a couple WANT to work. They have career goals, or interests beyond staying home with kids. There are problems with, as you say, an economy built on the necessity of two incomes. (Elizabeth Warren even used to agree so much she wrote a book on it!) But treating one spouse's job as just a safety net kind of diminishes their contributions.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Evan Donovan

        I don't see Rachael's comment as rude. She was simply pushing back against. The condescension of NMcK who presumed to prescribe how all people in America should live their lives.

        Saying people have other goals besides raising children doesn't mean children are not important to them. Somehow men are never criticized for lack of interest in their children if they have other career goals as well.

        Collapse
        1. JMD

          I don't care how you live your life. I do care when other people's bad choices cause my taxes to go up.

          Suggesting that making right-ordered choices leads to stability isn't exactly "condescending".

          What's condescending is being told I couldn't possibly have any interests or goals because I didn't outsource the raising of my children, and being told I was suggesting women should only work to provide a financial safety net when I suggested that dual earners should save one or part of one salary for a rainy day rather than make both incomes absolutely necessary for basic survival.

          What's also condescending (and shockingly ignorant) is some man telling a woman that it's impossible for her to have interests and goals, to develop those interests and goals, unless she does it outside the home and for cash.

          Last time I checked, women expecting government to be their daddies and their husbands and the fathers for their children wasn't exactly a conservative view. What's even sadder is that now men like you expect the same thing so you don't have to live up to your responsibilities or prioritize your choices.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Evan Donovan

            And by no means do I *expect* that women should work. I work full-time and I live frugally and I am simply defending that women shouldn't feel ashamed of wanting to work outside the home as well during their childbearing years - if that is what they want to do.

            If the family is making a reasonable income, though, I *do not* believe the government should pay for their childcare. They should pay for it themselves.

            Thus, I oppose Biden's plan, and the overall progressive agenda, on that point - as I do for universal higher education also.

            In both cases, it can create perverse incentives for people to consume services they don't need, since they appear to be "free," and removes any cost containment. So if that is all you meant to be saying, then we are in agreement.

            I only spoke up because you appeared to be going beyond that to question people's life choices.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Evan Donovan

            I think you're misreading Rachael's comment if you think she was saying you couldn't have personal interests or goals without having outside childcare.

            I would argue though that you *are* being condescending if you say that those who use daycare are "outsourcing the raising of their children." That is not necessarily the case.

            Regarding the point about dual earners saving a salary for a rainy day, I did agree with you later on that when I read your comment more closely.

            To be clear, I *don't* believe that women (or men, for that matter) have to find their primary fulfillment outside of raising children through what they do for pay. And I don't have *any* criticism for those who choose to have one or the other parent stay home with the kids full time.

            My point is that it is a choice that people should have to make for themselves, because the government isn't going to be able to legislate cultural change. The government can create incentives for a certain state of affairs, but if it tries to regulate people's relationships too closely, that is more draconian than economic programs would be.

            I don't think that Rachael was arguing that "government should be daddies and husbands and fathers for children." Neither am I. In fact, I would argue with Abby McCloskey in the original article that universal pre-K is wasteful of taxpayer money and will not achieve the ends that it aims to achieve.

            That being said, I also agree with McCloskey that an evidence-based childcare policy would involve more funding for childcare for lower-income people. Even out of our own self-interest, middle and high-income people should support this because it will improve the life outcomes for the children who are able to attend it; therefore, they won't be as likely to go to prison or be unemployed later in life. Paying for quality childcare and education when people are young costs a lot less than paying for prisons or welfare when they are adults.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Men who take little interest in their children are criticized, the “hobby guys”, or you can pick on golfers. In Little League it was noticed and talked about, which dads did not show up. Many activities dads are expected (not dance).

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Evan Donovan

            Not to the same extent as women. Showing up to games usually doesn't happen during working hours so it doesn't affect the issue of childcare. Showing up is important , but it is not the same level of involvement women are often expected to have.

            Collapse
      2. JMD

        I understand that. It's not about treating a _job_ as a safety net. It's about living within a set budget that calculates one of the incomes, or part of one of the incomes, as a safety net.

        This isn't the Mommy Wars. It's economics of family budgeting. Yes, when Warren wrote her book, and when I was first having children, this was the issue -- that it was great for women to have all kinds of options, but it was going to be a bad thing when living up the max of dual incomes created an economy in which dual incomes were necessary just to afford a home or, for lower income earners, to survive. And here we are.

        Interesting and meaningful work has nothing to do with money, anyway. Yes, some interesting and meaningful work is paid work, some is not. And some horrendously dull, soul-sucking work is paid work.

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        “They have career goals, or interests beyond staying home with kids.”
        Lucky little buggers.

        Collapse
        1. JMD

          Yeah, could that have been any more condescending and rude? Because if you love your children, and are willing to make sacrifices in their best interests, I guess you have no interests or goals. I hear echoes of Hillary Clinton's "stay home and bake cookies" snark.

          Women who think like that shouldn't even have children. Heck, they shouldn't even have pets.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photostaff-badge-circle
            Rachael Larimore staff-badge Staff

            I certainly wasn't trying to condescending ... it's just a reflection of reality. And I actually have made sacrifices in my career because certain opportunities were not in the best interest of my kids. Further, I would have probably been an awful stay-at-home parent. But I have been able to demonstrate to my three children (all honors students and well-rounded, polite kids) that hard work can be rewarding, that men and women can contribute to the household equally.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Bill Nelson

            When you have children, they are priority 1-10. And you as the parent are responsible. You cannot outsource this to schools or daycare. Yes, you may use daycare, but you are responsible for your children’s development.
            Any other goals or interests come after.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      But what if the parents work in a factory or Walmart? What you don't realize is that the are millions of people who don't have career track or skilled jobs. And unfortunately there are women who are unmarried or divorced who have kids and work at low paying jobs. Even if they have a career track job they may only make $30,000 a year. I won't get into an argument about waiting to have kids until you can afford them-- I was 35 and 37 when my kids were born---but we were professionals and could hope for increasing income. The customer service people where I worked could not. And people with less education and are unskilled seem to have the most children. I don't know how you change that mindset.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        Anyone can always gain skills to make themselves more valuable to employers. Education beyond basic reading writing and arithmetic is often not even that important as compared to what you can learn on the job.

        Collapse
      2. JMD

        And that's the trap of not securing a good education (doesn't have to be university, can be tech or specific skills that lead to better paying jobs) and/or not getting married before you have children.

        You change that mindset by not approving of kids having sex. You change that mindset when you don't outsource moral teaching to teachers' unions.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          J.R.

          While I agree with increasing long-term thinking and career counseling, I'm not seeing your rebuttal to the points made in this article. Unless we're willing to relegate an entire generation of children now to poor outcomes and legislate pregnancy planning, we need a better approach than simply telling people to stop having children. Even if we could make people wait until they could "afford" kids, doing so would likely tank the US and global economies and make western capitalism as it currently works completely unsustainable. We need to govern for the world we live in, not the world we wish we had. As the article lays out, the idea behind better pre-K funding and options is that it improves later childhood development and achievement rates; the idea behind addressing business practices (paid leave, wage standards, earned-income credits) is that it increases economic stability, with the knock-on effect of increasing family and childhood stability. What policies do you support that addresses these issues differently?

          A moral panic regarding teachers unions is unsupported in the same ways most moral panics are, but it's completely unsupported by the decreasing rates of teen sex and teen pregnancy in the United States.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Nelson

            “...the idea behind better pre-K funding and options is that it improves later childhood development and achievement rates...”
            That’s the idea, but the reality is different. Head Start, which is still around, has not proven to have much impact.
            Childhood development comes down to parenting. Parenting by the parents and extended family with influences from society.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Moral teaching to unions. What does that even mean? Most teachers I know are pretty straight laced.

          Collapse
          1. JMD

            Get rid of public sector unions. I didn't send my kids to public school, anyway, but for those who have to, the unions are not working for YOUR best interests, or your children's, they're working for the union leaders' best interest.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        “...we were professionals and could hope for increasing income.”
        No, you were responsible people who knew, as parents, that you were responsible for your children. The majority of parents are not “professionals” but insure they are responsible for their children.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Yes, but its easier to make those decisions when you are smart and have options for a better future.

          Collapse
    5. William Griese

      So should all of the not well off people with kids in America get 30th trimester abortions? I don't understand what your solution is.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        They should have access to birth control.

        Collapse
      2. JMD

        Did you miss the "not high income" part...?

        There's no solution, really, for people who find themselves in this dilemma now. But there are lessons to be learned for future parents.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Childcare is a problem but not equally. Some have no difficulty with grandparents around. Or a homemaker sister with a child who's willing to help out. Others have no where to turn and have to pay for it. When we had our first child, we added up 12 hours of daycare 5 days a week and it turned out we'd net about $100 of my wife's salary. So she stayed home for 12 years before going back to work. I am for direct payments for childcare to single unwed mothers provided they finish school, or attend a junior college or trade school. The women who decide to have a child out of wedlock take super highway to long term poverty if they are young with no marketable skills. Let's break the cycle...and send them for training.

    Collapse
    1. William Griese

      Make birth control over the counter, free for most, and required for anyone on public assistance.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        Just like China.

        Collapse
      2. JMD

        And teach your kids to keep their clothes on.

        Collapse
        1. William Griese

          I do. But I'm also prepared for hormones to do what they do. Remember, even the hallowed 1950's, 1800's, and medieval times were swarming with illegitmate children.

          Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        I don't know about required. That would be hard to do, but definitely free and easily obtained. A good marketer could make a pro birth control campaign that would probably lower the birth rater by 10%.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      So you and your wife made it, and your children benefited from mom being home?

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Well.. wrong.
    First- you must be a well paid Elite. Truly. You have no idea about how your "Tax Credits" and "Tax Refunds" work. Like that stupid Flexible Spending Account. I had to tell my CEO.. that while he could risk $3,000 with a 33% savings..$1,000; my workers, his workers making $18,000.had to risk 2 months salary!! For maybe saving ..$200..

    No.. you're childcare tax refund and credit is ANTI-family. It doesnt help low wage working mothers.

    Collapse
Load More