Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

Healthcare is probably the single biggest issue in our country right now, as republicans try to dismantle our current system and progressives push for single payer healthcare. Indeed, more Americans than ever are interested in single payer healthcare: 33% say we should adopt such an approach to healthcare (up 14% from 2014), and 60% say that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure its citizens have healthcare coverage (whether that be public or private).

This stands in stark contrast to the current republican government’s approach to healthcare, which, judging by the legislation they’ve written, is that you should only get healthcare if you can pay for it. Naturally, republican politicians have taken to all forms of media to speak out against single payer healthcare.

But really, there isn’t much of a data-driven argument against single payer healthcare. We know that it’s significantly cheaper. We know that the health outcomes for people tend to be the same, if not better. No, people in Canada and Sweden aren’t dying in the streets because of “rationed care.”

The main objection to single payer healthcare, as far as I can tell, is completely philosophical and boils down to one simple question:

Is healthcare a right or a privilege? 

Ask most conservatives and they’ll probably tell you it’s a privilege, not a right. I’ve had numerous conversations about that with people lately, and I’d like to closely examine this argument.

There’s an underlying assumption in this conservative argument that healthcare is a privilege, namely that there is some finite amount of rights in existence, and everything else is just a privilege. The conservative argument that healthcare is a privilege seems predicted on treating rights as if they’re matter or energy–they can be neither created nor destroyed.

To that end, many conservatives use the constitution as the end-all-be-all of rights. If it isn’t in the constitution, it isn’t a right and therefore must be a privilege. This meme perfectly illustrates this line of thinking:


This is a particularly bizarre argument given that the founding fathers purposely created a constitution that can be changed, amended. And indeed it has been, 27 times. 100 years ago this meme could have said, “Trying to find in the constitution where it says women have the right to vote.” Or you could have run this meme in 1859 to say, “Trying to find in the constitution where it says black people aren’t personal property.” It’s just a foolish argument.

But the point is that rights aren’t some static, finite thing. You’re given new ones all the time. The 26th amendment gave 18 year olds the right to vote. The 17th amendment gave you the right to vote for your own state senators. Prior to those amendments being written, those rights did not exist.

Similarly, rights can be taken away. The 18th amendment took away your right to manufacture or sell alcohol. That one was repealed, thankfully.

The ultimate point here is that rights aren’t written in stone. We give ourselves new rights all the time, as the previous examples showed. So why couldn’t healthcare become a new right?

It almost was. FDR was on the verge of introducing a second bill of rights in the 40’s, shortly before the end of WWII.

Unfortunately, FDR didn’t live long enough to see this enacted, and it became a mere footnote in American history. I’m sure though, that many conservatives would argue that FDR was some kind of communist for this proposal. Ironic, given that in this short speech he seems intent on protecting free markets.

So then, what would be the argument that healthcare is indeed a right? Well, if you’re having a conversation with someone who wants to use to constitution as an argument that it’s a privilege, try giving them this line:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It’s right there in the preamble. “Promote the general welfare.” What’s the argument that single payer doesn’t fulfill this part of the constitution? Or, conversely, how does a “you can have it only if you can pay for it” model promote the general welfare?

But, one might argue, even if healthcare were a right, that doesn’t mean that government run healthcare is. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of the government ensuring that you have access to affordable care. On the surface, this seems like a valid argument.

Well, this is where I would point out that single payer healthcare is vastly cheaper than the alternative. But even ignoring that point we could still make an argument for it. If we were to argue that “promote the general welfare” means that the government is obligated to look after the health of its citizens, that doesn’t necessarily follow that you need to use it. If you want to buy your own private insurance, you should be free to do so. And indeed, in many countries with single payer healthcare, citizens have every right to buy their own supplemental or private coverage. Just because the government offers a single payer option to its citizens doesn’t mean your right to choice vanishes. Indeed, perhaps a little competition between the government and private industry would be a good thing.

If nothing else, we could look at this issue through an ethical lens. If your neighbor was dying and could be saved, but he doesn’t have the means to save himself and you do, are you ethically or morally obligated to help him? What would you want if you were the dying neighbor?

Ultimately, I think I can walk away from this post to leave you with a couple of ideas. First, in reality, there is very little difference between a right and privilege. Indeed, I might argue that a right is simply a legally protected privilege. Which means, as we’ve seen throughout history, we are capable of being granted new rights if we demand them, if there’s a referendum on them. Second, if a government has an obligation to look after the welfare of its citizens, there is no reason why this should stop at healthcare. We’ll subsidize your education, your protection, your infrastructure–the line drawn at healthcare seems completely arbitrary.



America’s problem with welfare

Well, folks, welfare is front and center in our national political discourse once again, and the image of the “welfare queen” is still burned into the collective retinas of a generation. The Trump administration’s latest budget is proof that the idea that welfare recipients are lazy scammers is thriving in conservative politics. They’ve proposed cuts to social programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), housing, etc.

This article and this article, from real RealClear Politics and Breitbart, both expound upon the virtues of slashing assistance programs and forcing able-bodied moochers to get back to work. That’s the rationale behind the administration’s proposals to cut $190 billion from SNAP alone over the next ten years. Mind you, this is the administration that wants to eliminate Meals on Wheels because there’s no financial return on investment.

But does this narrative that conservatives spin really ring true? As always, there are data we can look at.

According the US census for 2012, 21.3% of Americans received some form of government assistance that year. Those under the age of 18 were more likely than anyone to receive means-tested benefits than all other age groups. In an average month, 39.2 percent of children received some kind of benefit. The greedy little bastards.

Furthermore, 12.6 percent of people older 64 years or older received a benefit of some kind. Come on, granny–get a job, you lazy old bat!

Meanwhile, only 33.5% of unemployed people received some kind of benefit. Of people who aren’t considered part of the labor force (like retired folks, folks with disabilities, etc), only 25% received a benefit.

17.6% of part-time workers received benefits, and 6.7% of full time workers did as well. In other words, many of the people who receive assistance are already working. Or they can’t work, because they’re too old, too young, or disabled.

And for a lot of people and families who received a benefit, it really was temporary. Almost 2/3 (62.9%) of people participating in TANF did so for less than 12 months. And food stamps? Again, almost 2/3 (63.4%) of people used the program for less than 3 years. The majority of the people on these programs really do only use them temporarily, to get back on their feet. Most of the people who are “permanently” on welfare are the folks who really should be–the elderly and the disabled.

In fact, a recent study out of UC Berkeley highlights the fact that many people who receive government assistance do work, finding that over half (56%) of combined state and federal public assistance spending goes to working families.


So what’s really going on here? As the study from Berkeley points out, the real problem with welfare in America isn’t laziness–it’s a lack of high paying jobs. Turns out that people who make a decent living don’t need government assistance, a fact that’s been lost on many big employers who let the taxpayers subsidize the low wages they pay their workers.

The real hourly wage of the median American worker has only increased 5% since 1979. And for the bottom 10% of workers, their real hourly wages have actually fallen 5% in the same time interval. There are entire industries in our economy where the pay is so low, close to half of the people working in them still need public assistance:


We spend literally billions of dollars every year on public assistance so that places like Burger King and Walmart don’t have to pay their employees a living wage.

But there is a group in America that receives billions of dollars in welfare every year who absolutely do not need it. Corporate America.

Corporations that turn hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year receive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars.

Nike has taken a little over $2 billion in government subsidies. Intel has taken $3.8 billion. Alcoa has taken $5.6 billion. And Boeing is the biggest welfare queen of them all, having taken over $13 billion in government subsidies. You can see the whole list here. The point is, we’ve given away hundreds of billions of dollars to companies turning immense profits. And for what? Apple, which is on the list, has taken almost $500 million in free government money and they have $230 BILLION stashed overseas.

If that doesn’t outrage you, but a single mom trying to feed her kids does, then there really is something profoundly wrong with America.


Why the GOP can walk all over its voters–and get away with it

The GOP finally got their bill to repeal and replace the ACA out the house. It’ll now go to the senate, where it’s pretty much doomed. If it doesn’t collapse altogether, it’ll be sent back as a much different bill. Regardless, pundits and experts are predicting that the AHCA has shown the republican hand, namely that they care more about tax cuts for the rich and not at all about your health.

That’s certainly true.

The bill sees hundreds of millions of dollars cut from medicaid and a corresponding tax break for the wealthy. It also allows insurers to drop you if you become ill or have a pre-existing condition. It’ll raise premiums for the elderly. It’s just an awful, awful bill. Which is why pundits are predicting a major backlash against the party come 2018.

I don’t think we’re going to see that.

Ultimately, a few red districts in blue states may flip, but it won’t be enough to shift the balance of power. Because I don’t think that this will perturb republican voters. History has shown, time after time, that they’ll vote against their own self-interest and I don’t think that this moment in history is an exception. Many of the deep red states have had republican governors, legislatures, and courts for 30+ years. And yet things keep getting worse for those states. If republican voters were ever going to finally wake up to the fact that they’re voting against their own interests, it would have happened by now. In fact, it’s probably never going to happen.

Here, take a look at this:


Every single one of those states is solid red, and every single one voted for Trump. And every single one of those voters with a pre-existing condition will see their insurance either disappear or skyrocket in price. But I’m willing to wager that come 2018 they’ll still vote for the very same congressman who voted to strip them of healthcare. Why? Because many republicans are single issue voters. And what is that issue, you ask?


As long the GOP continues to be the party that opposes abortion and wants to overturn Row v. Wade they can pretty much do whatever they want to voters and still get re-elected.

59% of republican voters think abortion should always be illegal. Even among moderate or ‘liberal’ republicans, 41% think it should always be illegal. And that number has shifted up from where it stood in 1995; 20 years go, republicans were split almost evenly, 49%/48%. In the last two decades, republican voters have only become more conservative on this issue. In 2015, 21 percent of Americans said they would only vote for a candidate who shared their abortion views, up from 13 percent in 2008.

Particularly ironic, given that the AHCA isn’t friendly to pregnant women or babies and children. But I digress.

Economically, many conservatives align with progressive values. 52% of republicans with family incomes <$30,000 say the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for everyone, up from 31% just last year. And in a recent Gallup poll, 45% of republicans said they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes. They hate those free trade deals that sent their jobs overseas–something Bernie Sanders talked about extensively during the election.  In other words, conservative voters know that they’re getting screwed over economically. As time goes on, they seem to be getting more progressive economically.

And yet…when it’s time to step into that voting booth, they always pull the red lever. And what does it get them? Healthcare? Gone. Overtime pay? Gone.  Clean water and air? Gone, too. Taxes? More income redistributed from the middle and lower classes to the donor class.

But hey, abortion, right?

The new GOP “healthcare” plan

In case you missed it, republicans are back with a re-vamped version of their failed ACA repeal. The new American Healthcare Act (AHCA) is somehow even worse than before after a new amendment was added by Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). The problem with the last bill was that it apparently didn’t screw enough people over, so the “freedom caucus” (hint: the freedom they want is the freedom for you to die destitute) lifted their noses in disgust and said no. The new amendment by MacArthur aims to bring those ultra-conservative members of the freedom caucus over to their side. How does this amendment do this, you ask?

I am so glad you asked. Here’s a copy of the actual amendment to the bill. The proposed changes are many, but I’d like to focus on one specific part which I think illustrates why this bill isn’t really a healthcare bill at all. One of the main focuses of this amendment is eliminating the mandate that insurance plans offer certain “essential health benefits” as outlined by the ACA. Here’s the actual text of the amendment:

(B) In the case of plan years beginning 2 on or after January 1, 2020, for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small  group market in such State, to apply, subject to paragraph (5), instead of the essential health benefits specified under subsection (b) of section 1302 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, essential health benefits as specified by the State.

“Essential health benefits” are things that, by law, insurance is currently REQUIRED to cover. So, what kind of things did the ACA define as “essential” to your heathcare plan?

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

Right off the bat, we can see some major hypocrisy here. I find it truly insulting that the party that claims to be about “family values” and touts how “pro-life” it is says you don’t need newborn care, maternity care, and screw your children’s pediatric care. They don’t give a fuck if your child’s teeth rot out or he can’t get glasses.

Second, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, republicans are the first people to shout, “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem!” So naturally their healthcare plan would allow insurance companies to drop mental health coverage.

Third, and also just as disgusting: Trump campaigned on the opiate epidemic. Remember that? He talked about how it’s a tragedy and he feels their pain. So of course now they can just take the whole substance abuse treatment part out of your plan.

So how does this save you money? Well, let’s say your insurance company says, “Sure, we can provide all ten of those benefits for $500/month. But what if we lobbied the state, and now your plan looks like this…”

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

“There. We’ll just provide you with those 4 benefits. You won’t need to visit the hospital, right? And you didn’t want drug coverage, did you? And forget preventive care–you don’t need to waste your money on avoiding illness. If we take all of those things out, we can give you a plan for $50/month.”

The problem with this amendment is that it allows states and insurance companies to decide what’s essential, and let’s them pare down the plans they offer to the point that you aren’t even really receiving healthcare anymore. Of course healthcare will be cheaper if nobody is actually offering you healthcare.

It saves you money in the same way that selling a car without windows, doors,  mirrors, seat belts, airbags, a back seat, and brakes would save you money on a vehicle.

Of course none of this is an issue if you’re rich. If you’re wealthy, you can afford everything that’s essential. But if you’re poor? Screw you, you have to pick and choose from bare-minimum plans that don’t cover everything necessary to keep you healthy.

If you’re middle or lower class, here’s your GOP healthcare plan:


What happened to those bootstraps?

Does anyone else find it supremely ironic that republican and conservative voters elected Donald Trump on the promise that his government would bring jobs back? Because I certainly find this sentiment to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

For decades now, all we’ve heard from the GOP and other conservatives is that the government is horrible and meddlesome, and everything would be better if there was less government interference and everyone took more personal responsibility for their lives.

Conservatives 2008/2012: “The government just makes things worse. Get rid of the government and everything will be fine–it’s not the function of government to create jobs, you libtards.”


It’s galling to me that the party of moxie and rugged individualism is now the party that applauds a government that directly gets involved in business and trade negotiations–the very things conservatives were crying the government should stay out of for the past 30 years.

How many times have we seen conservative politicians and voters say the following about welfare or the minimum wage: “We don’t believe in handouts. If you want to make more money, improve your situation, work harder, etc. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps like a real American.”

Well apparently conservatives in 2016 have thrown out their old bootstraps.

This article on CNN interviews people in a Kentucky town, “the poorest city in America,” that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Here are some snippets:

Beattyville residents want jobs, especially ones that pay more than the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They think if anyone can bring jobs back, it’s Trump.

Yeah, of course. The guy whose Trump brand suits and ties are made in Chinese factories is going to bring your job back. The same guy who immediately nominated the CEO of a fast food company who hates the minimum wage, Andy Puzder, as labor secretary.

Here’s what one of the men Kentucky elected to the senate, Mitch McConnell, had to say about the minimum wage: He cited a Congressional Budget Office study that he claimed said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would “destroy half a million to 1 million jobs. […] That’s not the way to grow our economy,” he added.

And here’s what Kentucky’s other senator, Rand Paul, had to say about raising the minimum wage: ‘The minimum wage is a temporary’ thing, Paul said. ‘It’s a chance to get started. I see my son come home with his tips. And he’s got cash in his hand and he’s proud of himself. I don’t want him to stop there. But he’s working and he’s understanding the value of work. We shouldn’t disparage that.’”

Good luck getting jobs that pay beyond the minimum wage, Beattyville. You elected people who propose the very opposite of that, who think, in Paul’s case, that trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job is great because it’ll build your character and teach you the value of hard work!

“If you got a job here in Beattyville, you’re lucky,” says Amber Hayes, a bubbly 25-year-old mom of two, who also voted for Trump. She works at the county courthouse, but is paid by the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program (K-TAP), a form of welfare.
The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid — 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security.

But I thought that welfare was just for the takers? Isn’t that what all the conservative politicians campaign on? Haven’t we all heard some iteration of that from conservative friends and relatives? Isn’t that what Mitt Romney said just 4 years ago, that 47% of the country votes to just get free stuff?

Here’s what Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell said about food stamps as recently as last September: Asked about the improving economy, McConnell scoffed: Business leaders tell him they have “a hard time finding people to do the work because they’re doing too good with food stamps, Social Security and all the rest.”


Residents of Beatyville would apparently beg to differ with Mr. McConnell.

From the outside, it’s easy to wonder why people in Beattyville don’t just move somewhere else. But out of all the people CNNMoney met in Beattyville, only one wanted to leave. The rest are drawn to the beauty of the place and the friendly community. “I’m country to the core,” laughs Puckett. He husband of 39 years nods beside her. Judge executive Mays puts it this way: “We’re perceived as a hillbilly, backwoods, all this and that. But we’re a good people.”

Again, whatever happened to those bootstraps, hmm? That’s what Paul Ryan or Rand Paul would tell you to do–work to improve your own situation and don’t depend on the government to save you. If you lose your job, find another, even if it means moving. Retrain yourself. Oh, you can’t pay for that? Well, you just need more gumption and definitely less of that darned government in your life, always making things worse.

Look, I have lots of sympathy for the people of Beatyville. They’re certainly in a bad place. Yet at the same time, they and the rest of their state have repeatedly voted for people who have told them that the government will make their life worse. That getting rid of food stamps will create an incentive for people to get a real job. That social security and medicaid should be cut or outright privatized. That the problem with America in general is too much reliance on the government.

In the end, Beatyville and other red cities in red states that are suffering are the victims of their own voting. It’s particularly tragic that they now expect the same government that believes that the government shouldn’t be engaged in safety net programs or other forms of public assistance to save them. If the democrats were smart, they’d get out grassroots campaigns to go to towns like Beatyville and help explain this to residents.


I guess we’ll see what happens in 2018.

The Pollyanna party


I was surfing the internet the other day and came across this article about a group of conservative students in Texas who had a bake sale designed to highlight how bad affirmative action is. Indeed, I hear things all the time about affirmative action is really just reverse racism. People should be hired or admitted to place based on merit, not the color of their skin or their gender. Indeed, here’s how the students described their bake sale:

“YCT is a truly colorblind organization,” the Facebook event reads, “and believes that all government institutions are constitutionally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race in all circumstances, including affirmative action.”

Well, that’s certainly nice in principle. I do happen to agree that people should be judged based on their individual accomplishments and merit, not on the color of their skin. However, unlike these students and other conservatives who make similar arguments, I also live in the real world.

Racism still exists, kids. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I’d like to live in a world where there wasn’t discrimination, but the fact of the matter is that we still live in a country where people will throw away our your application or resume just because of your last name, your address, or the color of you skin. So is affirmative action a perfect system? No. But is it better than the alternative? In my opinion, yes.

And this instance is a prime example of why I just can’t ever get behind conservatism, particularly the libertarian flavor: I live in the real world where people aren’t perfect. Conservatives seem to believe that we can trust businesses to always do what’s best and that individuals will always take care of each other. While that’s certainly a warm blanket of happy feelings, that isn’t the world we live in. As much as I’d like it to be true, you can’t trust businesses and individuals to act altruistically all the time. Will the majority of people always act in a manner that benefits others? Maybe. It probably depends on what we’re talking about specifically. In the case of racism, it’s pretty evident that there are still a good number of people out there who hold minorities and other races in disregard.

So no, I don’t trust people to be colorblind. I don’t trust businesses to place environment or people over profit, or any other warm fuzzy thing conservatives think about people and free markets. Because history has shown that this isn’t the case time and time again. And it’ll probably continue to be that way for a very long time. So yes, we need regulation. Yes, we need oversight. And sadly, yes, we need laws that prohibit people, businesses, and institutions from acting on any inherent racism they might have.

In a way, conservatives kind of remind me of Pollyanna, always seeing the world and people through rose colored glasses. Which really made me think of a famous scene from the 80s/90s prime time soap opera, Knots Landing:

I agree with you, Michele Lee. Nice should be the norm. Unfortunately, though, it isn’t.


Conservatism to a liberal


I don’t really think it’s a secret that I have viewpoints that many people would classify as liberal in the political sense. I don’t really shy away from that. Indeed, I wholly embrace it. But I’m not ashamed to say that in local elections I’ve voted for conservatives. Because when it comes down to it, I’ll vote for whoever has the best idea, and despite the fact that I overwhelmingly disagree with most of the conservative agenda or platform, they are capable of putting forth good ideas.

And that’s the thing, there are certain conservative principles that most people, even staunch liberal democrats, could probably get behind. The problem for many voters is the way in which the GOP approaches those issues. So, since we’re in the middle of election season, I thought I would take the time to enumerate the things that do and don’t make sense about the republican party from the point of view of someone outside of it.

So let’s take a look at some issues and areas where there is a lot of overlap between parties and where conservatives lose a lot of moderate and independent voters–and perhaps even voters on the other side of the aisle.

1. The size of government and government spending.

Where we could agree: Can the government get too big? Sure, absolutely. Is it too big now? It probably is in some places. I don’t think there’s an American of voting age who would argue that there aren’t programs that could be combined, reduced, or cut somewhere in the federal government. If something could produce a similar result using less resources, I’m all for that. And I would argue that spending money that doesn’t produce results is indeed wasteful. There is probably a lot of spending in government that is unnecessary or ineffective/inefficient. I would not be against a cost/benefit analysis of each dollar spent by the federal government to ensure that we were getting the biggest bang out of buck, so to speak.

Where they lose people: Where they propose shrinking the government. As long as conservatives continue to write blank checks for the military without oversight on how the money is spent, they’ve completely and utterly lost any chance they had of getting me to listen. It’s incomprehensible to me that many conservatives want to gut the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education because they’re “unnecessary and wasteful” yet can’t wait to just fork their tax dollars over to the military for planes and tanks and boats we’ll never even use. Cut the defense budget in half and then maybe I’ll give you enough credit to listen to ideas you have about reforming entitlements. And speaking of the military…

2. War. 

Where we could agree: I don’t think anyone wants to see America attacked again. I think we could all agree that national defense is an important issue, because there certainly are real threats out there, people who do really want to harm us.

Where they lose people: But the way to keep us safe isn’t by fighting endless wars in the middle east. It isn’t by “standing up to Putin” with tanks and missiles and troops. It absolutely blew my mind during last night’s GOP debate when Carly Fiorina went on and on about how we need a heavier military presence in Europe to keep Putin in check. No thanks, because I remember reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis in history class.

Conservatives are right in that the nation needs to be defended, but they’re wrong about how to do it. The next war isn’t going to be won with battleships and tanks. It’s going to be won with computers. Cyber security is the next big frontier, and America is woefully unprepared because a lot of our politicians are still trying to fight Gorbachev in the 80’s. China and Russia could cause much more damage to the US by compromising our electronic infrastructure: water, power, communications–they could even hack into our cars. That’s much more devastating and quite frankly a lot more cost effective than spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year building war machines.

And enough about America “leading.” That was also a resounding theme last night. America “doesn’t lead” when it comes to military issues around the globe. I don’t care. We don’t have to. Other nations have just as much military capability to respond to issues as we do. I never thought I would agree with Donald Trump, but he said something last night I thought rang true: European and Middle Eastern countries (like Jordan) are probably laughing all the way to the bank because we’re fighting the wars in their own backyard. Let them clean it up for once. The German, French, and British governments are more than able to respond to ISIS and other threats in the region.

3. Tax cuts. 

Where we could agree: Conservatives could probably find common ground with the average voter when it comes to taxes, at least when it comes to small businesses. I could very easily see how tax cuts and credits would help a small business out tremendously. So I could probably get on board with something like that. I could also see the argument that letting middle class folks keep more of their money means more money for them to pump back into the economy.

Where they lose people: The problem is that the conservatives running for office think those cuts should also extend to wealthy individuals, which is where they lose me. Giving breaks to a small business is very different than giving breaks to the CEO of a huge conglomerate. Giving a tax break to a small business could mean that more people are hired by it; giving a CEO a tax break means he or she is probably just going to invest that money and effectively take it out of economic circulation. Wealthy people aren’t wealthy because they spend all their money, they’re wealthy precisely because they invest it rather than spend it. And that’s within their purview, but giving them a break on taxes isn’t going to magically filter down to the rest of us, because Tim Cook doesn’t pay Apple employees out of his own personal checking account. So, to recap: conservatives could make huge gains for reforming the system for small business if they just stopped trying to lump wealthy individuals into that plan as well. 

4. Government is always the problem.

Where we could agree: I’ve said on this blog numerous times that a government is only as effective as the people elected to office. So if we put incompetent people in the government, it shouldn’t be shocking that we then end up with an incompetent government. Could an incompetent government “get in the way” of growth and progress. Yes, absolutely. Conservatives are fond of saying that government never generates solutions; solutions are the domain of the private sector.

Where they lose people: Conservatives are mostly correct when they say that the job of government is not to be a solution machine. But that doesn’t mean that government doesn’t have a role in creating solutions. It’s the government’s job to be a partner and an ally to the private sector. A competent government would use taxpayer money to invest in and support programs that help the private sector create those solutions. But simply getting rid of all government or all government regulation is not the way to accomplish that. Government support of medical and scientific research taking place in the private sector is an excellent example of what such a partnership should look like. Perhaps we don’t see those benefits anymore because, when it comes to spending, investment in “general science, space, and technology”  is only about 1% of the federal budget:


It should be clearly obvious that the government doesn’t do innovative and supportive things anymore because we’ve stopped funding those things. The government created the Interstate Highway System and helped put a man on the moon. It could do those things and things like it again.

5. Social Programs. 

Where we could agree: Look, I would love to see fewer people on welfare. I would love it if people made enough money to care for themselves and their families without government assistance. And I think that even the most hardcore conservatives would agree, if pressed, that some kind of a social safety net is necessary.

Where they lose people: There’s no effort on the conservative front to make education more affordable, to implement job-retraining programs, or to address student debt. There’s nothing addressing the fact that parents who try to go back to school to make a better life for themselves and their families need affordable childcare to do so.

The conservative answer is to just lower taxes and privatize everything. And that just doesn’t work. Lowering taxes for everybody might give the average Joe a little more money in his or her pocket, but that won’t make a dent in any tuition. It probably wouldn’t even make a dent in childcare costs.

Privatizing social security and healthcare also doesn’t mean anything if you hardly make any money. Telling people to use Health Savings Accounts is fine and dandy, but for people living paycheck to paycheck, there’s no money left at the end of the month to save; they literally need every penny of their paycheck. Privatization also doesn’t address one of the biggest reasons healthcare costs so much in this country: the government isn’t allowed to negotiate directly with drugs companies and other manufacturers. Which is why medical care is so much cheaper abroad than it is at home.

If conservatives are really serious about getting people off social programs and other “entitlements” (a loaded word) then they sure as hell better show up to the table with a plan to make things more affordable than “Just let the free market work itself out.” And speaking of free markets…

6. Government regulation.

Where we could agree: Is there such a thing as too much red tape? Or too much bureaucracy? Sure, absolutely, and I could see how that could hinder a lot of things.

Where they lose people: The problem is trying to remove regulations that we know provide a benefit to people, which is a popular thing among republican politicians and candidates. Going back to the EPA, getting rid of that agency is a dumb idea. Just ask someone who remembers LA smog. Do environmental regulations make doing business harder? Sure. I can see how they  would. But does that mean it isn’t worth it? No. If Starbucks or Dow Chemical have to pay higher fees so that I can enjoy clean air and water, I’m fine with that, because Dow and Starbucks aren’t going out of business anytime soon because of fees and regulations imposed by the EPA.

Similarly, eliminating regulations on Wall Street is a bad idea. We already know what happens when there are no regulations: economic bubbles and crashes. So why on earth would they want to get remove any regulations that prevent that from happening again?

There probably is a balancing act when it comes to regulations for small businesses and large companies/corporations, but the republican tactic of “cut and gut” all across the board does more harm than good for the average person. Again, it’s a poor strategy to try and lump big business with small business when it comes to regulation.

And while we’re on the subject, if liberals are guilty of trusting the government too much, then conservatives are too guilty of trusting people to police themselves. If people and corporations consistently acted in an altruistic manner, that would be one thing when talking about nixing regulations. But we know that they don’t and that they won’t, at least not across the board. People and companies will cheat and take advantage of others, history has proven this. Even if it’s not the majority, it only takes a few bad apples to fuck it up royally for everyone else. So yes, regulation is necessary; making sure everyone plays fair and by the rules is not a bad thing, and it isn’t antithetical to a free market system.

7. Social Issues. 

Where we could agree: People have the freedom to believe whatever they want and practice whatever religion they want. That’s about as far as I can take that.

Where they lose people: Trying to legislate certain beliefs over others is going to alienate an increasing amount of people as time goes on. Attempting to legislate what a woman does with her womb or who people are free to marry seems antithetical to the idea of “personal freedom” and “keeping the government out of your life.” I just can’t reconcile the two ideas when it comes to conservatives.

Similarly, the war on drugs didn’t work. Enough with it. Can we stop spending money trying to criminalize pot? Half the people on the stage at these GOP debates still think pot is Satan incarnate, but have no problem with alcohol, which kills way more people and ruins way more lives. Again, the delineation here is arbitrary and nonsensical. People shouldn’t be jailed and have their lives ruined for carrying or using a substance that really doesn’t harm anyone (and would stimulate the snack food economy).

I think there is plenty of common ground that liberals and conservatives could find and share. The problem is that much of the discourse in this country tends to be hyperbolic. There was a time, though, when democrats and republicans did work hand in hand in the government, and compromise wasn’t a mythical unicorn within the halls of congress. It could be that way again, but people have to try to start from a point of commonality instead of a point of difference.