Advertisement
  1. Opinion

Perhaps Sanders and Warren are the ones being politically expedient

Allegations of political cowardice can seem rich coming from candidates unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truths about things such as higher taxes. | Catherine Rampell
Catherine Rampell, Washington Post columnist.
Published Oct. 18

Another Democratic debate, another argument about how anyone who questions the merits of various lefty ideas just doesn't have "the guts" (to use Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' preferred term) to "dream big and fight hard" (quoth Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren).

The moderates, allegedly, are prioritizing political expediency over principle. They're in thrall to polls and focus groups. They're terrified of alienating independent voters perpetually camped out in Iowa diners.

If only those sell-out center-left politicians would show some leadership!

Allegations of political cowardice can seem rich coming from candidates unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truths that, say, solving the climate crisis will require some public sacrifice, including putting a price on carbon. Or that yes, Medicare for All would require higher taxes on the middle class.

Clearly all candidates, to varying degrees, consider the political landscape when deciding what policies to propose and how to make the case for them. Look at South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who sanctimoniously criticized Warren for failing to detail how her Medicare for All would be financed but has provided scant details on how to pay for his own health plan.

That said, it has been frustrating to watch more moderate positions be characterized as solely driven by political calculations.

Many of these center-left proposals are good policies that should be defended on the merits, and not because they may (or may not) be more politically expedient. Moderates should make the affirmative case for what the far left has been writing off as wishy-washy realpolitik.

For instance: It isn't a compromise of values or principles to believe that people who can afford to pay something to go to college should pay something to go to college. A college education is a valuable thing, most of whose benefits still accrue to the person receiving the degree.

Yes, public colleges should be cheaper -- and even free for those who would otherwise be unable to attend. While the degree recipient retains most of the value of higher education, there are indeed significant spillover benefits to having a more educated populace; and as a nation, we also want all individuals to have a shot at achieving their full potential, regardless of their financial circumstances at birth.

In other words, there is both an economic and a moral case for improving overall access to higher education, specifically among students on the margin of enrolling.

But there is neither an economic nor a moral argument for making college free for everyone -- including rich kids who can afford tuition and who are likely to go to college no matter what because they know it’s worth the money.

So if there isn't an economic or a moral argument for free college for the wealthy, you know what there is? An oft-cited political one: that maybe if rich people think they're personally benefiting more from the welfare state, they'll be less resistant to its expansion.

Now who's opting for political expediency, rather than the best policy?

Likewise, it isn’t an abandonment of principles, or of the poor, to say you can guarantee affordable health coverage for all Americans without completely rearranging 18 percent of the economy into a single-payer plan.

Yes, everyone needs health care. But not everyone needs to get it through Uncle Sam or completely for free, as Sanders' Medicare for All bill prescribes. Even the current Medicare program, while universal for Americans over age 65, charges premiums based on income.

Once again, it’s okay to ask people with means to pay for stuff of value, even stuff they need. People need food, and we still don’t make everything available in supermarkets free to all comers regardless of income.

Or let's say you want to raise taxes on the rich, as both far-left and center-left Democratic contenders generally do.

It isn't an act of political cowardice to point out that it might be constitutionally cleaner and administratively simpler to use tools other than an annual wealth tax. Such tools include taxing capital gains at regular income rates; eliminating the "stepped-up" basis; adding an inheritance tax; and imposing a "retrospective" capital tax.

If you're not familiar with these ideas, you're not alone: Whatever their policy merits, these are all wonky, technical changes to the tax code. They're difficult to explain succinctly and clearly on the campaign trail. In fact, one reason Warren and Sanders might be stressing an annual wealth tax, rather than these other ideas, might be precisely because a "wealth tax" -- like "free college" or "Medicare for All" -- is a simpler, more intuitive slogan.

More politically expedient, you might even say.

Catherine Rampell’s email address is crampell@washpost.com. Follow her on Twitter, @crampell.

© 2019 Washington Post Writers Group

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

  1. Pasco County is spending $21.9 million to preserve 845 acres in central Pasco though its environmental lands program. Pasco County
    The plot may be too narrow in places, writes a Sierra Club conservationist.
  2. In this Oct. 22, 2018, photo, people gather around the Ben & Jerry's "Yes on 4" truck as they learn about Amendment 4 and eat free ice cream at Charles Hadley Park in Miami. WILFREDO LEE  |  AP
    An errant comma may affect the interpretation of Amendment 4, writes a law professor.
  3. Jacob "Jake" Weinert, 28, was killed on Nov. 12 when a pickup truck struck him from him behind while he was bicycling to work on U.S. 301 near Sligh Avenue in Tampa. Courtesy Izabel Sgie
    Here’s what readers had to say in Friday’s letters to the editor.
  4. Scott Purcell, a senior geophysicist with GeoView, left, and Mike Wightman, president of GeoView use ground penetrating radar technology to scan a portion of King High campus in search for Ridgewood Cemetery in Tampa, Florida on Wednesday, October 23, 2019.  OCTAVIO JONES  |  Times
    The searches are a solemn responsibility for public and private land owners.
  5. The sun sets in the Everglades just east of Naples as seen from the Tamiami Trail. J. PAT CARTER  |  Associated Press
    The environmental challenges of preserving a place that meant so much and drew so many of us here should serve as a rallying cry for all Floridians.
  6. Should we stop changing our clocks twice a year? CHARLES KRUPA  |  AP
    The Republican senator, along with Sen. Rick Scott, introduced the Sunshine Protection Act earlier this year.
  7. U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland listens to the closing statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. ANDREW HARNIK  |  AP
    Trump’s ambassador provided clarity in the impeachment inquiry Wednesday.
  8. Kamalah Fletcher wears a medical mask over her face saying "No Coverage = Death" during a 2015 demonstration in Miami calling for Florida lawmakers to agree to Medicaid expansion. LYNNE SLADKY  |  AP
    Here’s what readers had to say in Thursday’s letters to the editor.
  9. Leonard Pitts undefined
    Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. rewrites a fairy tale for our times.
  10. David Straz Jr. passed away this week. JAMES BORCHUCK  |  Tampa Bay Times
    The retired banker will be remembered for the range of his philanthropy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement