The Democrats helped build the social safety net. Why are so many now against its expansion?

Today’s Democrats imagine yourself like a party who trusts proof – wherever it leads. That’s why they invest heavily in science and technology and create the arms of government put this knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways to improve our society, Democrats don’t always act in a way that is based on research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist what the evidence says – especially when it comes to pursuing policies that provide financial benefits to people who rank low in America’s social totem. It’s not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats and American voters generally don’t have a very high opinion of the poor or people of color—there are countless examples of how quickly society dehumanize them and how politicians fight for meet their needs in a meaningful way. These thought patterns as well as misleading images marginalized people too often mean that policies that could help them the most confront again and again.

This opposition, of course, is rarely expressed in terms of antipathy or hostility towards a particular group. Instead, it is often referred to as “rationality” as a commitment to “fiscal conservatism”, especially among GOP memberswho have long held petty-state views. But some Democrats are really no different. Pay attention to President Biden unwillingness to cancel student loan debt or federal government hesitation to provide free community college, or West Virginia Sept. Joe Manchin’s recent objection to the inclusion of a child tax credit in the “Build Back Better” plan, reportedly on the grounds that low-income people spend money on drugs. Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have discovered row of scapegoats use by opposing the expansion of the social safety net, including play on the fears of americans about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs what would help people, that is poor man as well as people of color have become taboo.

What’s striking is that if you really look at most social science research, investment in social safety nets is financially responsible – It brings big dividends both for individuals and for our collective society. Economists have been studying this for decades, finding that the fight against poverty and cash aid programs performed both in the United States and abroad are associated with growth in labor force participation in the workforcebye investment in childcare benefits not only children, but also the economy and society in general in which they grew up. In addition, new initiatives such as writing off student debt could add up to 1.5 million jobs and lift more than 5 million Americans out of poverty, in addition to lifting many Americans out of the debt trap that fuels lagging housing market and expansion racial wealth gap. Another research suggests that those who are saddled with student loan debt are more likely to marry or have children if their dues are forgiven.

This is proof. However, instead of acting on it, there was a tendency to highlight stories and images about people who might waste resources invested in them. And this is often enough to undermine public and political support for these policies. So what we are seeing today from some “moderate” Democrats is probably born out of an innate mistrust of what can happen if you just give people money or help them through an expanded social safety net.

But if we look back in the recent past—less than a hundred years, actually—we quickly see that Democrats have not always been opposed to allocating money to support the welfare of Americans. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt rolled out welfare programs just like Oprah gave away her favorite things. AT response to the Great DepressionRoosevelt led the massive expansion of the social safety net in the 1930s and 40s, including grants states that have implemented unemployment benefits, assistance for dependent children, and funding for business and agricultural communities. Recognizing the importance of the social safety net in protecting people from “uncertainty caused by unemployment, disease, disability, death, and old age,” the federal government also created Social Security, which at the time was considered vital to economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the end of the Great Depression, the government created Medicare program for the same reasons under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.

It is clear from these examples that the federal government once understood the importance of a strong social safety net to the health, well-being, and broader functioning of our society. The caveat, however, is that this general understanding does not extend to our thinking about all Americans; the government supported this policy when most of the beneficiaries were white. But as people of color began to actively use and benefit from these same programs, they are harder to reach and in some cases outright racist.

This was especially true in the 1970s and 80s, when conservative and right-wing political candidates vilified Americans on welfare. During his first presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told stories and made numerous dead-end speeches the focus was on Linda Taylor, a welfare recipient from the Black Chicago area who was nicknamed the “wealth queen”. To stir up anti-government and anti-poor discontent among his base, the then-future Republican villainous president Taylor, repeating claims that she used “80 names, 30 addresses, 15 phone numbers for food stamps, Social Security, Veteran’s benefits for four non-existent deceased veteran husbands, and Social Security” to show that some Americans are a it was the people of color who played the system to get certain benefits from the federal government. However, Reagan was not alone. In fact, his tough stance on alleged welfare fraud and public spending on social programs conservative criticism big government liberalism at the time.

However, the Democrats were no different. Former Democratic President Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it” in the 1990s. included provisions for example, a requirement that a certain percentage of welfare recipients work or receive vocational training. This, in turn, helped reinforce the belief that there are people who play by the rules. and those who didn’t (namely black Americans). And once politicians began to worry that (black) people were taking advantage of the system, the requirements for certain social and financial benefits became even harder to get.

But all this veiled rhetoric about cutting government spending by suppressing marginalized people doesn’t hold water when scrutinizing the evidence. The reality is that fraud among social safety net beneficiaries incredibly rareand much less costly to society than, say, tax evasion among the richest 1%. However, we spend an incredible amount of money trying to catch and punish the poor instead of helping them.

What’s more, polls show that Americans, especially Democrats, overwhelmingly want to expand the social safety net. According to a survey conducted in 2019 Pew Research Centera majority of Democrats and Democratic supporters (59 percent) and 17 percent of Republicans and Republican supporters said the government should give tomorrow help to people in need. Even this October, around the same time Democrats were negotiating the scope of the Rebuild Better than It Was omnibus bill, CNN / SSRS The poll showed that 75 percent of party voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) would prefer Congress to pass a bill that expands the social safety net and enacts climate change policy.

However, while many Americans want an expansion of the social safety net, it is often still difficult to convince voters of these programs, especially if they wrapped in large policy packages (i.e. Obamacare) or associated with someone voters don’t like (i.e. former Democratic President Barack Obama). Please note that Politics / Morning consultation A poll late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received a child tax credit said it had a “major impact” on their lives. At the same time, only 38 percent of respondents thanked Biden for implementing the program.

The fact that many social safety net extensions are initially unpopular makes it easier for Democrats to fall back on the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes these images influence the problems we have about the members of these groups and the explanations we generate why they experience the results they make in life. As earlier social safety net expansions show, the US has not always been allergic to giving people money, but there now seems to be an unspoken idea that the poor and people of color cannot be trusted to spend “free” money or the government. help is good.

This mindset, however, poses a problem for the Democrats because for years they have branded themselves as a party that promotes the welfare of all by advancing racial, economic and social justice. At the same time, they continue to fall short of the promises of the safety net expansion campaign, despite the fact that many poor and people of color fought long and hard put them in office. The fact that so many of today’s Democrats are still prisoners of outdated stereotypes about who gets or deserves public benefits is dangerous because it causes people to push members of these groups out of their own”moral circles– a circle of people whom they consider it a moral duty to help.

Of course, breaking this chain of thought will not be easy, as it will require Democrats to shatter the long held belief that poor people are in their current position. due to a series of “unsuccessful” elections. It will also likely require them to stop worrying about how Republicans might misrepresent social safety net programs as dangerous, especially given ongoing concerns about inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the end, it shouldn’t matter: while policies may be inconvenient right away, and the results of these programs are not immediately visible, this is not necessarily a reason for delaying them. Focusing exclusively on short-term effects not only myopicbut dangerous. And the Democrats stand to lose more than the support of their base if they refuse to act.

What actually causes inflation | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast