GOPideas... ideas done right

Many of the policy proposals of the Democrats focus on ameliorating some level of insecurity: insecurity over an individual’s health care, over the ability to pay for college, over the ability to find a job and over the ability to save enough for retirement. When the issue is framed in such a manner, the choice for non-politically active individuals is easy: they feel insecure, the Demoracts promise to take away that insecurity and all the it will cost is a higher tax burden on the “wealthy.”

This is a compelling, logical argument that the Republicans have yet to refute. Freedom and liberty and not relevant if someone is in fear of contracting a disease or is heartbroken because he does not have the money to send his child to college. Medical savings accounts for someone making minimum wage are unfeasible and tax-advantaged retirement accounts are useless to families living paycheck to paycheck. The issue becomes how Republicans can assist those seeking to find that security without compromising their principles.

The answer is to combine classical economics with individual responsibility by structuring incentives to align with the social good that that the Democrats promise. Specifically, by creating programs that are tailored to meet the needs of individuals who find themselves in a circumstance not of their own making. Such an approach has three benefits over most of the approaches created by the Democrats:

• It addresses the core insecurity borne by the individual
• The policy is not based on entitlement, but based on a transaction
• By tying the transaction to a social good, incentives are aligned to provide benefit to both the individual and society.

Such a formula would have a dramatic effect on the policy debate because by moving policy from entitlement-based to transaction based, significant cost savings will occur. More importantly, the argument that Republicans refuse to assist others will be conclusively debunked --- however, the notion that Republicans believe in individual responsibility will remain intact. 

For Republicans who huff that such redistributive tendencies are “socialist,” please answer the following true story:

A crack-addicted teenager gets pregnant and continues to use during her pregnancy. She gives birth in a hospital and leaves without taking the baby. The maternal grandmother and another sister are willing to take care of the baby, but the mother has disappeared, the baby is in an incubator and the family does not have the financial wherewithal to fund care. How should society treat this child and this family? What do we say to the grandmother who is willing to raise the child (a significant savings to society), but needs financial assistance to do so?

The current Republican answer is: good luck with that (or leave it to the states and localities). Instead, the Republicans should advocate for policies that enhance the ability for the remaining family members to provide care: additional assistance, guaranteed health care for the child, providing a quality education --- and the ability to get a higher education. Do everything that policy can do to keep the child in a stable, loving, permanent home with family members --- provided that those family members continue to provide care. This aligns incentives because a productive citizen will be a boon to America. In the case of a low income, crack-addicted baby, balancing the expected value of the cost of such a child (high health care costs, potential incarceration, drug use and other wealth-draining maladies) against the expected benefit of a well-adjusted employed, healthy individual makes an easy case for spending the money up front.  

Comments are welcome, but for the comment to post to the public, you must supply an email address (this is to avoid spam comments). The email address will not be posted publicly and your email address will not be shared, sold or disclosed.