Sens. Elizabeth Warren, left, and Bernie Sanders speak at the NALEO Candidate Forum in Miami, Fla., on June 21, 2019.
Means Testing: Sanders vs. Warren on the Single Most Important Policy Idea for Progressive Success
Basing eligibility on wealth or income level is phony progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the right to eliminate social welfare programs that could benefit the entire population and the common good.
Bernie Sanders's policy proposals ranging from Medicare For All and abolishing student and medical debt to free college tuition and even the right to vote are presented as universal rights and programs. They are provided to everyone with no exceptions. The record shows that this is the basis of viable social programs in a democracy. It is the reason the two most popular and successful federal government programs in the United States--Social Security and Medicare--have been impossible for the right to defeat, even though they have been trying to do so since the moment those programs were created in the 1930s and 1960s respectively.
"Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue."
It is standard procedure for most Democratic candidates to support Bernie style social programs in theory--or at least some of them--but then to insert the caveat that "of course, rich people or even people above the poverty line should not get them for free because they can afford to pay for them out of their own pockets." It sounds very fair and progressive, a blow against crony capitalism and directing government money to the undeserving rich. It is a staple line regarding the student debt plan of Elizabeth Warren, for example, and is roundly approved by the punditocracy. It is the mark of a "serious" candidate. It is called "means testing."
But means testing is a phony progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the right to eliminate social welfare programs that could benefit the population. We can understand why corporate Democrats like Biden or Buttigieg or Harris advocate means testing; the corporate wing of the Democratic Party warmed to means testing in the 1980s and it began to be embraced as a legitimate device in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. It is now a common approach for that crowd.
So when someone as ostensibly progressive as Warren does the same it demonstrates just how pervasive right-wing ideology has been internalized in our politics.
Why do I call this a right-wing idea? Because as soon as means testing is accepted on principle and introduced for a program, it begs the logical question of why not extend it to other similar social programs? So if means testing free public college tuition is such a great idea, then why not have well-to-do parents pay tuition for their children in public high schools and middle schools and elementary schools? Why not bill only the rich when they drive on any public roads or use public libraries or parks or restrooms? Why not charge them for using the police or fire departments? Where exactly do you draw the line? That is a slippery slope toward privatization and elimination of government functions.
Why is that the case? Because when programs are universal it is much harder for the enemies of those programs to attack them as welfare giveaways to the poor, and an unfair burden on those who are more successful. Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue.
The introduction of means testing creates a layer of bureaucracy to monitor who is eligible and ineligible for the social program. It produces a completely useless and unnecessary bureaucracy to eliminate fraud. It drives up the costs of the program and people become infuriated having to fill out forms and prove they are eligible. It is as pleasurable as dealing with a health insurance company or getting a root canal worked on by your dentist. This too plays directly into the hands of those who wish to establish that progressive government programs are inherently flawed, inefficient and incapable of being successful. Better to privatize and turn everything over to profit-seeking corporations in the marketplace.
Means testing also means routine humiliation for those who must prove their destitution in order to qualify for the public good.
So how does a society have universal social programs without means testing that do not give the wealthy unfair privileges? That's easy. Through rigorous progressive taxation, including wealth taxes, and an end to the income cap on social security taxes. If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies. Not that much fun, I guess, to live in an armed compound to avoid the masses.
This is why all the great social democratic programs in Scandinavia and around the world are usually universal. It is why Social Security and Medicare are universal. And it is why the countries with the most effective and pervasive universal social programs tend to have the most progressive tax systems and are generally ranked as the world's best democracies.
"If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies."
To his immense credit, Bernie Sanders gets all this. As Bernie states plainly: "I happen to believe in universality." As the reporter Ryan Cooper puts it: "The road to hell is paved with means-testing."
Elizabeth Warren has been a disappointment with regard to means testing. She has opened the door for means testing with her student debt plan, and with this gesture Warren has signaled to corporate Democrats that they can work with her on social policies and she should not be feared. Combined with her recent waffling on her commitment to single-payer and Bernie's Medicare For All bill--which she co-sponsored!--this should be an enormous red flag for voters seeking substantive change.
To her credit, Warren recently backed down from her earlier position that she would accept corporate money in the general election campaign were she to win the Democratic nomination for president, because she saw how hypocritical it made her rejection of such money in the primary season seem. Warren now needs to formally and loudly back down from her embrace of "means testing" for social programs. The general rule in politics is that you usually see the very most progressive side of a candidate during an election campaign, and it only gets worse once the votes are cast and the office door is shut and elites return to their usual privileged access. So this is not a minor issue; it pretty much tells voters how serious she is about representing the needs of the people, not the powerful.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Bernie Sanders's policy proposals ranging from Medicare For All and abolishing student and medical debt to free college tuition and even the right to vote are presented as universal rights and programs. They are provided to everyone with no exceptions. The record shows that this is the basis of viable social programs in a democracy. It is the reason the two most popular and successful federal government programs in the United States--Social Security and Medicare--have been impossible for the right to defeat, even though they have been trying to do so since the moment those programs were created in the 1930s and 1960s respectively.
"Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue."
It is standard procedure for most Democratic candidates to support Bernie style social programs in theory--or at least some of them--but then to insert the caveat that "of course, rich people or even people above the poverty line should not get them for free because they can afford to pay for them out of their own pockets." It sounds very fair and progressive, a blow against crony capitalism and directing government money to the undeserving rich. It is a staple line regarding the student debt plan of Elizabeth Warren, for example, and is roundly approved by the punditocracy. It is the mark of a "serious" candidate. It is called "means testing."
But means testing is a phony progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the right to eliminate social welfare programs that could benefit the population. We can understand why corporate Democrats like Biden or Buttigieg or Harris advocate means testing; the corporate wing of the Democratic Party warmed to means testing in the 1980s and it began to be embraced as a legitimate device in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. It is now a common approach for that crowd.
So when someone as ostensibly progressive as Warren does the same it demonstrates just how pervasive right-wing ideology has been internalized in our politics.
Why do I call this a right-wing idea? Because as soon as means testing is accepted on principle and introduced for a program, it begs the logical question of why not extend it to other similar social programs? So if means testing free public college tuition is such a great idea, then why not have well-to-do parents pay tuition for their children in public high schools and middle schools and elementary schools? Why not bill only the rich when they drive on any public roads or use public libraries or parks or restrooms? Why not charge them for using the police or fire departments? Where exactly do you draw the line? That is a slippery slope toward privatization and elimination of government functions.
Why is that the case? Because when programs are universal it is much harder for the enemies of those programs to attack them as welfare giveaways to the poor, and an unfair burden on those who are more successful. Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue.
The introduction of means testing creates a layer of bureaucracy to monitor who is eligible and ineligible for the social program. It produces a completely useless and unnecessary bureaucracy to eliminate fraud. It drives up the costs of the program and people become infuriated having to fill out forms and prove they are eligible. It is as pleasurable as dealing with a health insurance company or getting a root canal worked on by your dentist. This too plays directly into the hands of those who wish to establish that progressive government programs are inherently flawed, inefficient and incapable of being successful. Better to privatize and turn everything over to profit-seeking corporations in the marketplace.
Means testing also means routine humiliation for those who must prove their destitution in order to qualify for the public good.
So how does a society have universal social programs without means testing that do not give the wealthy unfair privileges? That's easy. Through rigorous progressive taxation, including wealth taxes, and an end to the income cap on social security taxes. If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies. Not that much fun, I guess, to live in an armed compound to avoid the masses.
This is why all the great social democratic programs in Scandinavia and around the world are usually universal. It is why Social Security and Medicare are universal. And it is why the countries with the most effective and pervasive universal social programs tend to have the most progressive tax systems and are generally ranked as the world's best democracies.
"If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies."
To his immense credit, Bernie Sanders gets all this. As Bernie states plainly: "I happen to believe in universality." As the reporter Ryan Cooper puts it: "The road to hell is paved with means-testing."
Elizabeth Warren has been a disappointment with regard to means testing. She has opened the door for means testing with her student debt plan, and with this gesture Warren has signaled to corporate Democrats that they can work with her on social policies and she should not be feared. Combined with her recent waffling on her commitment to single-payer and Bernie's Medicare For All bill--which she co-sponsored!--this should be an enormous red flag for voters seeking substantive change.
To her credit, Warren recently backed down from her earlier position that she would accept corporate money in the general election campaign were she to win the Democratic nomination for president, because she saw how hypocritical it made her rejection of such money in the primary season seem. Warren now needs to formally and loudly back down from her embrace of "means testing" for social programs. The general rule in politics is that you usually see the very most progressive side of a candidate during an election campaign, and it only gets worse once the votes are cast and the office door is shut and elites return to their usual privileged access. So this is not a minor issue; it pretty much tells voters how serious she is about representing the needs of the people, not the powerful.
Bernie Sanders's policy proposals ranging from Medicare For All and abolishing student and medical debt to free college tuition and even the right to vote are presented as universal rights and programs. They are provided to everyone with no exceptions. The record shows that this is the basis of viable social programs in a democracy. It is the reason the two most popular and successful federal government programs in the United States--Social Security and Medicare--have been impossible for the right to defeat, even though they have been trying to do so since the moment those programs were created in the 1930s and 1960s respectively.
"Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue."
It is standard procedure for most Democratic candidates to support Bernie style social programs in theory--or at least some of them--but then to insert the caveat that "of course, rich people or even people above the poverty line should not get them for free because they can afford to pay for them out of their own pockets." It sounds very fair and progressive, a blow against crony capitalism and directing government money to the undeserving rich. It is a staple line regarding the student debt plan of Elizabeth Warren, for example, and is roundly approved by the punditocracy. It is the mark of a "serious" candidate. It is called "means testing."
But means testing is a phony progressivism and a crucial tactic promoted by the right to eliminate social welfare programs that could benefit the population. We can understand why corporate Democrats like Biden or Buttigieg or Harris advocate means testing; the corporate wing of the Democratic Party warmed to means testing in the 1980s and it began to be embraced as a legitimate device in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. It is now a common approach for that crowd.
So when someone as ostensibly progressive as Warren does the same it demonstrates just how pervasive right-wing ideology has been internalized in our politics.
Why do I call this a right-wing idea? Because as soon as means testing is accepted on principle and introduced for a program, it begs the logical question of why not extend it to other similar social programs? So if means testing free public college tuition is such a great idea, then why not have well-to-do parents pay tuition for their children in public high schools and middle schools and elementary schools? Why not bill only the rich when they drive on any public roads or use public libraries or parks or restrooms? Why not charge them for using the police or fire departments? Where exactly do you draw the line? That is a slippery slope toward privatization and elimination of government functions.
Why is that the case? Because when programs are universal it is much harder for the enemies of those programs to attack them as welfare giveaways to the poor, and an unfair burden on those who are more successful. Note that it is almost always the wealthy and privileged and very rarely the poor or working-class that drive the push for means testing. That alone should demonstrate how phony this is as a progressive issue.
The introduction of means testing creates a layer of bureaucracy to monitor who is eligible and ineligible for the social program. It produces a completely useless and unnecessary bureaucracy to eliminate fraud. It drives up the costs of the program and people become infuriated having to fill out forms and prove they are eligible. It is as pleasurable as dealing with a health insurance company or getting a root canal worked on by your dentist. This too plays directly into the hands of those who wish to establish that progressive government programs are inherently flawed, inefficient and incapable of being successful. Better to privatize and turn everything over to profit-seeking corporations in the marketplace.
Means testing also means routine humiliation for those who must prove their destitution in order to qualify for the public good.
So how does a society have universal social programs without means testing that do not give the wealthy unfair privileges? That's easy. Through rigorous progressive taxation, including wealth taxes, and an end to the income cap on social security taxes. If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies. Not that much fun, I guess, to live in an armed compound to avoid the masses.
This is why all the great social democratic programs in Scandinavia and around the world are usually universal. It is why Social Security and Medicare are universal. And it is why the countries with the most effective and pervasive universal social programs tend to have the most progressive tax systems and are generally ranked as the world's best democracies.
"If the tax code is truly progressive, then, in combination with universal social programs, there is the foundation of a more humane, egalitarian, democratic and happier society. Ironically, research shows that rich people are far happier living in more egalitarian societies."
To his immense credit, Bernie Sanders gets all this. As Bernie states plainly: "I happen to believe in universality." As the reporter Ryan Cooper puts it: "The road to hell is paved with means-testing."
Elizabeth Warren has been a disappointment with regard to means testing. She has opened the door for means testing with her student debt plan, and with this gesture Warren has signaled to corporate Democrats that they can work with her on social policies and she should not be feared. Combined with her recent waffling on her commitment to single-payer and Bernie's Medicare For All bill--which she co-sponsored!--this should be an enormous red flag for voters seeking substantive change.
To her credit, Warren recently backed down from her earlier position that she would accept corporate money in the general election campaign were she to win the Democratic nomination for president, because she saw how hypocritical it made her rejection of such money in the primary season seem. Warren now needs to formally and loudly back down from her embrace of "means testing" for social programs. The general rule in politics is that you usually see the very most progressive side of a candidate during an election campaign, and it only gets worse once the votes are cast and the office door is shut and elites return to their usual privileged access. So this is not a minor issue; it pretty much tells voters how serious she is about representing the needs of the people, not the powerful.