Democrats increasingly match Republicans' emotionally immature approach to policy — a problem for the party that's supposed to be invested in making government work.
Just want to say that I’m really enjoying the Central Air podcast during my commute.
Regarding policies, I really think laws and regulations have become too complicated for the average voter to understand the implications. I think even above average voters will struggle. It may be time to simplify laws and the role of the government and let the chips fall where they may. It’ll be disruptive to many who currently benefit from the status quo but the alternative is a slow but steady decline. There’s too much micro targeting of specific problems and outcomes instead of simply ensuring fairness. It doesn’t imply libertarianism or small government, just some humility in understanding that there are limits to what can be achieved through policy alone.
Let me give you some perspective from an 85 year old.
Back in my earlier days, the parties were different but closer. The reason: there were meaningful numbers of liberals or moderates in the Republican congressional caucus and meaningful numbers of conservatives and moderates in the Democratic congressional caucus. To get something monumental and conspicuous done there had to be give and take; to get something important but less conspicuous done both parties looked to their"sages" to sort it out.
Committee chairmen and ranking members were respected. Yes, there were staffers, lobbyists and think tanks, but they existed in platoons, not battalions or regiments. And there was order; "regular" or otherwise. The "other side" might be considered wrong; but they were not the enemy. It was a good deal short of perfect, but a hell of a lot better than what we have been experiencing in the first quarter of a new century.
One thing seems clear to me. The notion that significant legislation or regulatory action must be accomplished within one of the two parties, with no or minimal involvement from the other party cannot remain the political norm.
I've heard many pine for a return to the days of parties picking candidates in smoky rooms rather than this messy primary business. I wouldn't have thought I'd agree with that but here we are.
Everyone loves business class. No one turns down a free upgrade, it’s a lot more comfortable especially for very long flights. But not everyone is able and willing to pay for business class. And if not enough people will pay for it, business class goes away- the airlines won’t offer a product that people aren’t willing to pay for. So if you want business class to exist, then you need to buy it.
These new tax plans (Van Hollen and Booker) are basically saying, we want the government to provide all of these services, but only if someone else (the rich? Future citizens via debt?) pays for them. But this is a really bad idea- and not just for the fiscal reasons that Josh outlines. If you are a progressive and believe that these services see important and valuable, you are teaching people that actually they aren’t. They aren’t valuable enough for you to pay for them, we should only have them if we can get someone else to pay. That seems like a strategy for long-term destruction of progressive values. It’s why the Nordic countries tax everyone- it’s better fiscally, but it also invests everyone into the project. We believe these programs are important, so we will all help pay for them. Now- can you ask the rich to pay more? Sure- but I do think it’s important for everyone to contribute something. It is what has helped Social Security and Medicare maintain such strong political support over the years.
From the comments here I am seeing the usual denial of the fact the top marginal tax rates in the US (that’s NYC, CA, etc) are already middle of the pack among developed nations.
It seems like for a long time there was a kind of unspoken ceasefire about policies like the ones you mentioned. Democrats and Republicans absolutely had serious disagreements, but they knew there existed a slew of policy proposals that would probably poll well but would be disastrous from a governance perspective, and left them alone.
Now that shame, duty to country, and seriousness have been mostly removed from politics, the deal is off and the parties increasingly just pound the table about whatever polls well. I feel obligated to mention I primarily blame Trump and the supplicant Republicans for this, because once the can of worms was opened it wasn't realistic to ask one party to be the grumpy father competing with the cool uncle.
Like you said, there are still some politicians from all across the ideological spectrum that take good governance seriously (I'll shoutout Zohran Mamdani and Spencer Cox as two people with very different ideas about the proper size and scope of government, but who seem to agree it should at least be designed to, you know, work). But it's increasingly a field that seems to attract glorified influencers.
I don't know how to escape the slopulist vicious cycle, but it would probably help if politicians with credibility among their bases spoke more about why these "cookies for everyone" policies didn't exist until recently.
Do you like well-functioning public goods and services? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Well, then we can't say that everyone except reasonably-well-off-but-not-rich W2 workers is exempt from paying taxes.
Annoyed about inflation? Me too, but the only way around it is well-designed supply side policy and monetary policy that doesn't involve browbeating and criminally investigating fed chairs until you get an ill-advised rate cut.
Worried about climate change? You should be, but your concern is hard to take seriously if your highest policy priorities are things like a ban on LNG exports which at least arguably *increases* emissions.
I don’t know. I mean, yes. Lots of babies and garbage. But going high when they go low, as it were, didn’t work. Despite whatever policy, in elections the world over in all "advanced" countries- from whatever part of the political spectrum- said policy, from 2021-2024, didn’t work because of: inflation.
Given the Americans in office, which is to say the worst kind of people, personalities and policies our country is capable of producing-also, the side that won- this feels more like garbage time to me. In a game when the outcome is no longer in doubt, one team has won and both teams clear the bench and put the young people, marginal players and LeBrons son out there for other reasons than winning.
Josh offers specifics and I’m just talking rhetoric, but it feels like we are at the end of an era, a certain kind of America is over and another is in the offing (think 1980, 1960 or 1945). None of these policies matter.
Affordability is the booby prize for the 90% who squabble over 30% of the American pie.
If the outcome is no longer in doubt and none of these policies, then why not just embrace good policy? What's the point of still embracing bad policy, especially when Democrats do have power in half of the states and just about every major city and, even if nothing else, can just support and implement that good policy in those places.
Oh, I didn't know we were talking about "good" policy, Sam. Is that the policy where we all agree? What's the difference between good policy and bad policy, the party who forwards it? For most of two decades, close to 60% of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration policy, and there were plenty of good offerings. But the Repubs punted back in 2010 or so, and ended up getting Trump in office twice, and immigration was a disaster starting in 2022 or so and has somehow gotten a magnitude worse. We will be fixing that for a decade or two.
Good policy to me is higher taxes on the wealthy, coming from a CA citizen who feels he is being choked at times by taxes. And I'm not even lucky enough (hard working enough?) to pay between 50-51% of my income in fed/state/local taxes. By the way, those who do, including some family members, have way more real money left over even after paying more than 50% of their income in taxes. Way more. A 1970's era tax scheme, with modifications, is good policy. Or it it good policy in my opinion, Sam?
No Tax on tips - Fine policy, but something like that is all in the details.
No tax on military - bad policy
no tax on seniors - if you can cut out the high % who are hurt by paying taxes. Seem impossible. Why don't we just regulate the cheaters in life, the 3-5% of businesses, private citizens, etc. whose noncompliance and cheating are why we have 85-90% of the regulations we do? Who would disagree, but how could we enforce? No taxes on needy seniors is impossible as a practical idea.
and on and on. Nothing matters, policy-wise. bad policy, except at the margins, were not what cost dems in 2024. No one wants to hear it, but its inflation. Why has Trump lost the independents and new voters since 2024? Cost of living, OF COURSE, hasn't come down.
I think lots of people want to hear things like that. It's more comforting to blame bad things on external forces than acknowledge any failures or mistakes.
There are legions of papers in psychology about such things, Sam. There are also legions of papers about why people vote the way they do, and it's widely established few people vote on the finer points of policy. How many Americans know the corporate tax rate is 21%? I'd guess fewer than 20%..."Polls show that only a small minority of taxpayers correctly identify specific, complex tax rates, with tax literacy studies frequently highlighting a knowledge gap among "beginners" and "intermediates." 20% seems high, in that source (Tax Foundation).
And corporate tax rate is pretty much a huge headline in terms of policy.
I really don't know what you are arguing, Sam. You are arguing, however, perhaps from sensibility
From personal experience, I think the belief that corporations buying up houses is a/the main reason for housing being unaffordable is held by a large majority of people. I believe a decent part of the current president's electoral success is his tendency to take issues where the public's view is generally incorrect and exploit that.
I sometimes think that politicians consider Americans to be stupid, and I disagree. Sure, voters can be frustrating in their inconsistency and lack of attention to...well, everything, but that doesn't mean they are children. They can recognize a pander, and respond accordingly.
Remember back in 2008 when John McCain wanted to suspend the gasoline tax? The "tax holiday"? It was a silly idea that wouldn't really have done much to help anyone, but, sure as Sunday, Hillary Clinton signed right on. Barack Obama, still locked in a primary contest with HRC, was the adult in the race and said, no, this doesn't make sense. He refused to jump on the bandwagon, and was willing to take a stand that the pundits thought was a mistake...and voters didn't hold it against him.
I think that, in general, good policy is good politics. If Hillary Clinton had known that before she supported the Iraq invasion, she would very likely have been the 44th president.
The anti-property tax movement for older people is particularly mindless. I've also seen an absolutely incomprehensible take that once your mortgage is paid off you should for some reason no longer have prop taxes as well. We made a big mistake allowing these to be blended into mortgage payments. Convenient no doubt but people just don't understand the value whatsoever.
The boomer generation are setting records for ladder pulling, somehow surpassing their own mark.
From what I'm reading, is the US really a low tax jurisdiction at all? As a Canadian I hear about us being taxed to death constantly but when you guys add fed, state, local tax + healthcare I'm not sure there are parts of the US I'd like to live in where taxes would be lower than a normal ass Canadian.
Remember "if it ain't broke don't fix it."? Whatever happened to that? Especially where Democrats are concerned. I joined the Democrat party comparatively recently, in an effort to escape the Dumpster fire the Republicans had turned themselves into. Now I see more and more Democrats jumping into the fray. Housing is difficult and complicated enough without adding layers of onerous rules and regulations. Of course my answer is simple. Simplistic. Naive. Beyond the pale: tax the rich.
I don't know that I would be so pessimistic about the future. Things have gotten very dumb lately, but there still are plenty who are doing great work at all levels of government. So far, nobody like Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear or Ruben Gallego have proposed any kind of slopulism.
The country's fiscal situation is going to have to be addressed sooner or later. That will put an end to the dumb stuff we've been seeing. It's easy to do now but the second we have to deal with tradeoffs those gimmicks will go out the window because they won't address it.
You talk about rent to own. Personally I think they should be required to build "affordable" housing to purchase. I live in a University area where there are tons of places to live (owned by Hedge fund companies) that would NEVER want to sell any of their units because the rent is over $1,500 per month per person and they are making butt loads of money. What they need is some sort of provisions to build "smaller" more affordable homes. With regards to taxing corporations and the rich (which would be great if they couldn't find ways to cheat their ways out of it). It used to be that the rich and ultra rich used to pay their fair share and with corporations it was the "trickle down" theory. When they instituted tax cuts. Trickle Down has always been a joke. Cut taxes for all of them and rather than them passing it down to the poor they either sit on their wealth, buy expensive items or stash the reserves in Off Shore accounts. I truly don't know what the answer is to "MAKE THEM PAY" their fair share. After all if your making billions and trillions of dollars a year and pay your fair share most likely you would never even notice it's gone.
Some reasons there isn't more small housing: (1) land costs are the same, regardless of what type of building you put on there; (2) permitting, environmental, and other regulatory hoops are the same, bringing legal, compliance, and interest costs (from delays). What's a reasonable developer to do?
You have a good point there. But where we live is a University community and not unlike places that are resort areas the realty leans toward Students NOT all the people that work in the borough who make less money. It used to be there was cheaper housing options, however, not any more. Meaning the places that were cheap are no longer available.
Just want to say that I’m really enjoying the Central Air podcast during my commute.
Regarding policies, I really think laws and regulations have become too complicated for the average voter to understand the implications. I think even above average voters will struggle. It may be time to simplify laws and the role of the government and let the chips fall where they may. It’ll be disruptive to many who currently benefit from the status quo but the alternative is a slow but steady decline. There’s too much micro targeting of specific problems and outcomes instead of simply ensuring fairness. It doesn’t imply libertarianism or small government, just some humility in understanding that there are limits to what can be achieved through policy alone.
Let me give you some perspective from an 85 year old.
Back in my earlier days, the parties were different but closer. The reason: there were meaningful numbers of liberals or moderates in the Republican congressional caucus and meaningful numbers of conservatives and moderates in the Democratic congressional caucus. To get something monumental and conspicuous done there had to be give and take; to get something important but less conspicuous done both parties looked to their"sages" to sort it out.
Committee chairmen and ranking members were respected. Yes, there were staffers, lobbyists and think tanks, but they existed in platoons, not battalions or regiments. And there was order; "regular" or otherwise. The "other side" might be considered wrong; but they were not the enemy. It was a good deal short of perfect, but a hell of a lot better than what we have been experiencing in the first quarter of a new century.
One thing seems clear to me. The notion that significant legislation or regulatory action must be accomplished within one of the two parties, with no or minimal involvement from the other party cannot remain the political norm.
A lot of this is downstream of two things: (1) gerrymandering and (2) weaker parties.
I've heard many pine for a return to the days of parties picking candidates in smoky rooms rather than this messy primary business. I wouldn't have thought I'd agree with that but here we are.
Everyone loves business class. No one turns down a free upgrade, it’s a lot more comfortable especially for very long flights. But not everyone is able and willing to pay for business class. And if not enough people will pay for it, business class goes away- the airlines won’t offer a product that people aren’t willing to pay for. So if you want business class to exist, then you need to buy it.
These new tax plans (Van Hollen and Booker) are basically saying, we want the government to provide all of these services, but only if someone else (the rich? Future citizens via debt?) pays for them. But this is a really bad idea- and not just for the fiscal reasons that Josh outlines. If you are a progressive and believe that these services see important and valuable, you are teaching people that actually they aren’t. They aren’t valuable enough for you to pay for them, we should only have them if we can get someone else to pay. That seems like a strategy for long-term destruction of progressive values. It’s why the Nordic countries tax everyone- it’s better fiscally, but it also invests everyone into the project. We believe these programs are important, so we will all help pay for them. Now- can you ask the rich to pay more? Sure- but I do think it’s important for everyone to contribute something. It is what has helped Social Security and Medicare maintain such strong political support over the years.
From the comments here I am seeing the usual denial of the fact the top marginal tax rates in the US (that’s NYC, CA, etc) are already middle of the pack among developed nations.
We’re hopeless
It seems like for a long time there was a kind of unspoken ceasefire about policies like the ones you mentioned. Democrats and Republicans absolutely had serious disagreements, but they knew there existed a slew of policy proposals that would probably poll well but would be disastrous from a governance perspective, and left them alone.
Now that shame, duty to country, and seriousness have been mostly removed from politics, the deal is off and the parties increasingly just pound the table about whatever polls well. I feel obligated to mention I primarily blame Trump and the supplicant Republicans for this, because once the can of worms was opened it wasn't realistic to ask one party to be the grumpy father competing with the cool uncle.
Like you said, there are still some politicians from all across the ideological spectrum that take good governance seriously (I'll shoutout Zohran Mamdani and Spencer Cox as two people with very different ideas about the proper size and scope of government, but who seem to agree it should at least be designed to, you know, work). But it's increasingly a field that seems to attract glorified influencers.
I don't know how to escape the slopulist vicious cycle, but it would probably help if politicians with credibility among their bases spoke more about why these "cookies for everyone" policies didn't exist until recently.
Do you like well-functioning public goods and services? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Well, then we can't say that everyone except reasonably-well-off-but-not-rich W2 workers is exempt from paying taxes.
Annoyed about inflation? Me too, but the only way around it is well-designed supply side policy and monetary policy that doesn't involve browbeating and criminally investigating fed chairs until you get an ill-advised rate cut.
Worried about climate change? You should be, but your concern is hard to take seriously if your highest policy priorities are things like a ban on LNG exports which at least arguably *increases* emissions.
I don’t know. I mean, yes. Lots of babies and garbage. But going high when they go low, as it were, didn’t work. Despite whatever policy, in elections the world over in all "advanced" countries- from whatever part of the political spectrum- said policy, from 2021-2024, didn’t work because of: inflation.
Given the Americans in office, which is to say the worst kind of people, personalities and policies our country is capable of producing-also, the side that won- this feels more like garbage time to me. In a game when the outcome is no longer in doubt, one team has won and both teams clear the bench and put the young people, marginal players and LeBrons son out there for other reasons than winning.
Josh offers specifics and I’m just talking rhetoric, but it feels like we are at the end of an era, a certain kind of America is over and another is in the offing (think 1980, 1960 or 1945). None of these policies matter.
Affordability is the booby prize for the 90% who squabble over 30% of the American pie.
If the outcome is no longer in doubt and none of these policies, then why not just embrace good policy? What's the point of still embracing bad policy, especially when Democrats do have power in half of the states and just about every major city and, even if nothing else, can just support and implement that good policy in those places.
Oh, I didn't know we were talking about "good" policy, Sam. Is that the policy where we all agree? What's the difference between good policy and bad policy, the party who forwards it? For most of two decades, close to 60% of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration policy, and there were plenty of good offerings. But the Repubs punted back in 2010 or so, and ended up getting Trump in office twice, and immigration was a disaster starting in 2022 or so and has somehow gotten a magnitude worse. We will be fixing that for a decade or two.
Good policy to me is higher taxes on the wealthy, coming from a CA citizen who feels he is being choked at times by taxes. And I'm not even lucky enough (hard working enough?) to pay between 50-51% of my income in fed/state/local taxes. By the way, those who do, including some family members, have way more real money left over even after paying more than 50% of their income in taxes. Way more. A 1970's era tax scheme, with modifications, is good policy. Or it it good policy in my opinion, Sam?
Do you think the policies Josh brings up in this article are good policies?
2017 tax law - terrible policy
2025 BBB - catastrophic policy
No Tax on tips - Fine policy, but something like that is all in the details.
No tax on military - bad policy
no tax on seniors - if you can cut out the high % who are hurt by paying taxes. Seem impossible. Why don't we just regulate the cheaters in life, the 3-5% of businesses, private citizens, etc. whose noncompliance and cheating are why we have 85-90% of the regulations we do? Who would disagree, but how could we enforce? No taxes on needy seniors is impossible as a practical idea.
and on and on. Nothing matters, policy-wise. bad policy, except at the margins, were not what cost dems in 2024. No one wants to hear it, but its inflation. Why has Trump lost the independents and new voters since 2024? Cost of living, OF COURSE, hasn't come down.
"No one wants to hear it, but its inflation"
I think lots of people want to hear things like that. It's more comforting to blame bad things on external forces than acknowledge any failures or mistakes.
There are legions of papers in psychology about such things, Sam. There are also legions of papers about why people vote the way they do, and it's widely established few people vote on the finer points of policy. How many Americans know the corporate tax rate is 21%? I'd guess fewer than 20%..."Polls show that only a small minority of taxpayers correctly identify specific, complex tax rates, with tax literacy studies frequently highlighting a knowledge gap among "beginners" and "intermediates." 20% seems high, in that source (Tax Foundation).
And corporate tax rate is pretty much a huge headline in terms of policy.
I really don't know what you are arguing, Sam. You are arguing, however, perhaps from sensibility
From personal experience, I think the belief that corporations buying up houses is a/the main reason for housing being unaffordable is held by a large majority of people. I believe a decent part of the current president's electoral success is his tendency to take issues where the public's view is generally incorrect and exploit that.
I sometimes think that politicians consider Americans to be stupid, and I disagree. Sure, voters can be frustrating in their inconsistency and lack of attention to...well, everything, but that doesn't mean they are children. They can recognize a pander, and respond accordingly.
Remember back in 2008 when John McCain wanted to suspend the gasoline tax? The "tax holiday"? It was a silly idea that wouldn't really have done much to help anyone, but, sure as Sunday, Hillary Clinton signed right on. Barack Obama, still locked in a primary contest with HRC, was the adult in the race and said, no, this doesn't make sense. He refused to jump on the bandwagon, and was willing to take a stand that the pundits thought was a mistake...and voters didn't hold it against him.
I think that, in general, good policy is good politics. If Hillary Clinton had known that before she supported the Iraq invasion, she would very likely have been the 44th president.
The anti-property tax movement for older people is particularly mindless. I've also seen an absolutely incomprehensible take that once your mortgage is paid off you should for some reason no longer have prop taxes as well. We made a big mistake allowing these to be blended into mortgage payments. Convenient no doubt but people just don't understand the value whatsoever.
The boomer generation are setting records for ladder pulling, somehow surpassing their own mark.
From what I'm reading, is the US really a low tax jurisdiction at all? As a Canadian I hear about us being taxed to death constantly but when you guys add fed, state, local tax + healthcare I'm not sure there are parts of the US I'd like to live in where taxes would be lower than a normal ass Canadian.
Remember "if it ain't broke don't fix it."? Whatever happened to that? Especially where Democrats are concerned. I joined the Democrat party comparatively recently, in an effort to escape the Dumpster fire the Republicans had turned themselves into. Now I see more and more Democrats jumping into the fray. Housing is difficult and complicated enough without adding layers of onerous rules and regulations. Of course my answer is simple. Simplistic. Naive. Beyond the pale: tax the rich.
We do that already. What else you got?
We'll just tax the billionaires, duh.
Is this sarcasm or are you really just reflexively advocating slopulism right here in the comments to this specific post?
An artist never reveals his methods.
Fair
I don't know that I would be so pessimistic about the future. Things have gotten very dumb lately, but there still are plenty who are doing great work at all levels of government. So far, nobody like Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear or Ruben Gallego have proposed any kind of slopulism.
The country's fiscal situation is going to have to be addressed sooner or later. That will put an end to the dumb stuff we've been seeing. It's easy to do now but the second we have to deal with tradeoffs those gimmicks will go out the window because they won't address it.
You talk about rent to own. Personally I think they should be required to build "affordable" housing to purchase. I live in a University area where there are tons of places to live (owned by Hedge fund companies) that would NEVER want to sell any of their units because the rent is over $1,500 per month per person and they are making butt loads of money. What they need is some sort of provisions to build "smaller" more affordable homes. With regards to taxing corporations and the rich (which would be great if they couldn't find ways to cheat their ways out of it). It used to be that the rich and ultra rich used to pay their fair share and with corporations it was the "trickle down" theory. When they instituted tax cuts. Trickle Down has always been a joke. Cut taxes for all of them and rather than them passing it down to the poor they either sit on their wealth, buy expensive items or stash the reserves in Off Shore accounts. I truly don't know what the answer is to "MAKE THEM PAY" their fair share. After all if your making billions and trillions of dollars a year and pay your fair share most likely you would never even notice it's gone.
Some reasons there isn't more small housing: (1) land costs are the same, regardless of what type of building you put on there; (2) permitting, environmental, and other regulatory hoops are the same, bringing legal, compliance, and interest costs (from delays). What's a reasonable developer to do?
You have a good point there. But where we live is a University community and not unlike places that are resort areas the realty leans toward Students NOT all the people that work in the borough who make less money. It used to be there was cheaper housing options, however, not any more. Meaning the places that were cheap are no longer available.