I agree with this portion of William Galston’s most recent Wall Street Journal column:
The Biden administration must respond with a program that seeks to accelerate economic growth, provide new opportunities for the victims of economic change, and narrow the gaps that the pandemic has widened.
In a closely divided Congress, these measures will need bipartisan support. This will not be easy, because the political parties have different views about the appropriate role of the federal government in the economy. But most people should agree that a high rate of participation in the labor force is good for everyone. If displaced workers stay stuck on the sidelines, everyone will be worse off. The same is true if women retreat from the labor force because their families can’t afford child care. Americans can also agree that the higher the share of workers who earn enough to support themselves and their families, the lower the burden will be on government and private philanthropy. Similarly, helping formerly incarcerated felons re-enter the workforce will rebuild stronger families and communities as well as local economies.
An economic program built on common ground across partisan and ideological lines would serve the needs of the American people. As important, it would help heal the divisions that have disfigured American politics.
I think the greater questions will be ones of priorities. Which is more important? Bipartisan support or party unity? Reducing carbon emissions or bolstering economic growth?
I do wonder about one sentence in the passage I’ve quoted:
But most people should agree that a high rate of participation in the labor force is good for everyone.
I agree that most people should agree about that but I’m not sure that they do. I don’t recall complaints about the Affordable Care Act’s marginal effects on labor force participation (admittedly some deny that it had any).
As I recall, when you looked at the details on labor and the claims about its effects by the ACA from the economists on the right, the claim was that people would be able to retire a bit earlier since they would have affordable health care. In my mind that was not exactly negative. It wasn’t forcing people to do anything, just allowing them to stop working if they were otherwise able to do so. In theory it should have then allowed younger people to join the labor force, which should have been a positive I think.
Steve
“women retreat from the labor force because their families can’t afford child care.”
It’s true day care costs and availability have skyrocketed because of COVID.
(Why hell do we capitalize the whole word?). European countries are far more advanced than us in government subsidization of daycare, and Democrats believe we should join them. It’s only money, right?
So, in order to keep women in the workforce, we will increase subsidies and tax breaks for child daycare so women can work.
Preferably in the fast growing and progressive child day care industry.
The honest truth is, I’ll be surprised at nothing. Especially if D’s win the Senate.
But remember their history, when the Sainted B.H.O. held all three branches, nothing much.
Let’s see, billions to connected solar panel companies, predictably going bankrupt after making their founders rich. Cash for clunkers, thankyou Harvard. Obamacare, expanded Medicaid, funding financialized.
Those of us who have no assets will again watch as Dems fund groups, individuals and programs with only one aim. Self enrichment.
The stated goal will be helping ordinary people. The self enrichment will, of course, be a coincidence.