It doesn’t happen very often but I think I may agree with all four of William Handke’s policy prescriptions in his post at RealClearPolicy:
The American economy is not what it once was. Picture it as a building: Its foundations were once thick, strengthened by a large middle class and a realistic minimum wage. Its breadth was considerable, with plenty of room for everyone and then some. Its reach was high, but not dangerously so. Its penthouse was well adorned, but not decadent. Surely, some Americans struggled, but most moved upward and many more had the chance to do so.
Now, the economy has grown hollow, its base and woodwork worn through, as middle-class wages have stagnated. Many of its rooms are now poorly kept and packed full, even as its penthouse suites grow roomier and climb higher and higher, their soaring windows accruing rosier and rosier tints, their few and fortuned denizens elevated to such a level that they forget those on whom their wealth was built and ultimately relies. Today, many struggle, some move forward, and fewer have the chance to do so.
To be sure I do have some quibbles. For example, I’d increase the minimum wage more gradually than he proposes with more conditions for increasing it written into the statute. The consensus of economists seems to be that a modest increase in the minimum wage is unlikely to have a serious impact on the number of minimum wage jobs on offer. I’d raise the wage gradually so we could be more sure of that.
I also think we need a tighter labor market so I’d put in some robust workplace enforcement.
I think I would be cautious about “reducing welfare”, too. At this point SSDI is the unemployment insurance of last resort and until we get much more robust job growth than we’ve seen for the last seven years I wouldn’t want to kick the legs out from under it.
That I like his proposals is virtually a guarantee that none of them will be implemented.
Sounds reasonable. I would prefer to find someone way to better distinguish the legitimate disability claims from those (often with professional guidance) who are gaming the system. But it may be impossible, or too expensive.
I think there’s a pretty narrow line between “gaming the system” and “could qualify for disability but prefers to work”.
I think the min wage proposal is irrelevant. Employers will simply hire more illegals if necessary, or inflate prices enough to cover the shortfall. (And don’t expect employers to keep people currently a couple of bucks over min wage in that position – they’ll simply join the min wage population.)
The FICA proposal doesn’t make a key detail clear: if he removes the cap on the amount paid in on SS, will he remove the cap from the benefits? Presumably not, but it’s easy to see the rich people complaining that benefits should be uncapped, and both parties rushing to pay them off.
Good luck with the third proposal.
And for a he fourth: I know people with serious disabilities who would rather work, not just marginal cases. But the work doesn’t exist.