Democratic ‘Better Deal’ robs from the future
Having performed dreadfully in the past two elections, and hoping to improve their lot in 2018, Democrats have unveiled a package of legislative proposals they hope will attract voters. Dubbed “A Better Deal,” their package focuses on such areas as corporate mergers, drug prices and infrastructure spending.
That the Democrats are offering this now reflects the realization that that they will need more than an anti-Trump platform to gain at the polls. Although Trump is doing a pretty good job of selfdestructing, history provides numerous examples of how simply running against the other party doesn’t work. In 1998, for example, Republicans were dumbfounded when they lost seats with what they considered a can’t-lose agenda of tormenting President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The Democrats’ plan, released last week, contains an odd mixture of the good, the bad and the puzzling:
The best ideas in the Democrats’ proposal are investing in infrastructure and allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug makers over the prices it plays. But infrastructure spending is not strictly a Democratic idea, and the drug proposal is not new. It didn’t help Democrats in 2014 and 2016, and it’s hard to see it having much impact in 2018.
The worst idea is a national minimum wage of $15 an hour, which would devastate jobs in rural and low-income areas. Forcing employers to pay way above market rate would lead to reductions in hiring and hours. There is some evidence that this is happening even in prosperous Seattle, which passed a $15 minimum wage in 2014.
A Better Deal also contains some head-scratching ideas, such as a newfound resolve to challenge corporate mergers. Mergers have not been a significant practical problem or political issue in years, if not decades. Indeed, when Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was asked recently about mergers he found objectionable, he cited the combination of Exxon and Mobil. That took place nearly 18 years ago and hasn’t had a measurable effect on what people pay for fuel.
Perhaps most disappointing — but understandable given the nature of politics — is the lack of boldness in A Better Deal.
Washington’s spending priorities are not particularly progressive, and Democrats show little inclination to change that. The federal budget has turned into a vehicle for moving wealth from the young, who are taxed and have ever larger amounts of debt heaped on them, to the old, who benefit from a broad array of benefits. Almost two-thirds of federal spending these days goes toward some form of benefit, much of it for seniors.
A Democratic Party that was truly progressive would pay more than lip service to creating economic opportunity and lifting people out of poverty. But it can’t do that while turning a blind eye to fiscal realities that rob from the future and overburden young people.