Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Legislative Strategies for Reducing Inequality
|
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Legislative Strategies for Reducing Inequality
David Super
Income and wealth inequality
has exploded in this country since the 1970s.
Scholars debate the relative importance of various causes: the U.S. labor movement going into sharp decline,
Ronald Reagan breaking the Democratic Party’s previously solid connection with
white working class voters, Democrats’ courtship of a segment of the affluent
to redress imbalances in campaign finances, changes in the world economy (and
this country’s place in that economy), and several others. Some have interpreted
Thomas Piketty’s work
as suggesting that public policies cannot fully check the growth in
inequality. Even if that is true, however,
those concerned about inequality presumably want to do what they can, at a
minimum preventing public policy from exacerbating inequality. But how? This post evaluates the various legislative strategies
open to those seeking to reduce inequality.
A crucial starting
point for this discussion is knowing what one means by combatting inequality. Although inequality results from the
combination of the greater income and wealth for those at the top and reduced
income and wealth for those at the bottom of spectrum. In practice, most people discussing
inequality focus on either the top or the bottom but not both. The Occupy
Movement and others lambasting “the one percent” are clearly focused on the
top. These advocates no doubt think
benign thoughts about those struggling to avoid homelessness and hunger, but
they devoted relatively little of their attention to advancing concrete
proposals for the poorest. This may make
some political sense – those in the middle three quintiles are more likely to join
a battle against “the one percent” if they believe that the proceeds of any
redistribution will come to them. I have
characterized
this group as “redistributionists”; they are firmly associated with the left. The other major set
of anti-inequality advocates focus much more on those at the bottom of the
spectrum. They would happily finance
increases in housing assistance, food aid, and the like with funds from any
group that is higher on the economic spectrum.
I have called
these people “humanitarians”, and at least until fairly recently their ranks included
some
quite conservative Republicans. Humanitarians’ political premise is that the
poorest of the poor are doing so badly that even relatively small amounts – amounts that more affluent or even
middle-income people would not notice – can make a big difference. To keep costs below the political radar, they
commonly resist expanding initiatives to serve people too far up the income scale. Whichever approach
to inequality one has, three main legislative strategies are available. First, one could seek to move stand-alone
legislation to make specific changes one-by-one that would inequality by
raising taxes on the affluent, by reducing taxes or expanding benefits for those
with lesser means, or both. Second, one
could advance omnibus legislation making several such reforms together. And third, one could seek to attach specific
policies that reduce inequality to legislation containing policies that would
benefit the affluent. The problems with reforms
individually are the same problems with moving any individual piece of
legislation: it is much easier to block
legislation than to advance it. Public
choice problems, and the general disempowerment of low-income people, make it
difficult to generate enough momentum for anti-poverty reforms to make it all
the way down the legislative track; massive public choice problems derail freestanding
attempts to raise taxes on the top, usually before they start. Changes in the federal budget process enacted
in 1990 made it harder to move fiscal legislation that does not contain
offsets, and both committees’ jurisdictions and other aspect of budget process
rules make politically viable offsets difficult to include in standalone
legislation. The challenges of
the one-step-at-a-time approach led anti-inequality advocates to shift their
attention to omnibus legislation. This
may sometimes be a broad reauthorization of expiring programs. For example, some reauthorizations of the
Higher Education Act have expanded student aid.
More commonly, the
omnibus legislation is a budget reconciliation act that involves several congressional
committees and is immune to the filibuster.
This can solve the problem of offsets by bringing the tax-writing
committees – House Ways and Means and Senate Finance – into the same
legislation as other committees with jurisdiction over anti-poverty
programs. During periods when
pay-as-you-go rules were not in effect, this sometimes eliminated the
procedural need for budgetary offsets (although the political need often remained). Reconciliation acts have expanded food
assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, child-care subsidies, and other inequality-reducing
programs. Most dramatically,
Rep. Henry Waxman
and his allies (including both moderate and anti-abortion Republicans) grew
Medicaid from a tepid adjunct to Aid to Families with Dependent Children into a
major force in health-care financing by including one or another set of expansions
in annual reconciliation acts from 1984 to 1990. Many observers believed that these expansions
were in fact funded by reductions in Medicare’s provider reimbursements, but with
both sets of provisions buried in much larger packages Members of Congress did
not have to defend such a shift publicly.
A key problem with
omnibus legislation is its very size.
Just as single-purpose legislation may lack sufficient mass to generate
support, omnibus legislation has so many components that inevitably some of
them will draw opponents who might sink the bill. Omnibus
legislation also can trigger unrealistic ambitions among supporters. Progressive welfare reform legislation
proposed by Presidents Nixon and Carter that would have dramatically improved the
position of low-income families with children failed when progressives disappointed
that the plans did not go father allied with conservatives against it. The 1993 reconciliation act, containing several
fairly large initiatives, almost failed when moderate Democrats wanted more
deficit reduction. Last year’s Build
Back Better reconciliation bill, which would have made transformational changes
in nine different areas, collapsed when progressives disappointed that two
other sets of reforms were left out and alienated Sen. Manchin with a crude
pressure campaign. This has led to
increasing interest in inequality-reducing offsets for proposals that benefit
wealthy special interests. This is not an
altogether new idea: farm bills
expanding anti-hunger programs and pro-developer legislation expanding housing
assistance have moved intermittently since the middle of the last century. Speaker Tip O’Neill insisted that the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 yield favorable distributional effects notwithstanding its sharp
reduction in top marginal tax rates. In recent years,
however, the principle that legislation benefiting the affluent should not move
unless it contains some provisions benefiting those with the least has gained
considerable traction. Quite remarkably,
managers of the 2017 tax bill, which showered favors on the affluent and did not
depend on any Democratic votes, nonetheless felt obliged to include an
expansion of the Child Tax Credit for lower-income people. The second, third
and fifth coronavirus relief acts combined deep corporate subsidies with substantial
expansions of food assistance, health care access, money states and localities
could spend for rental assistance, and above all unemployment
compensation. Progressives later decried
the corporate subsidies, and the Trump Administration’s steering of that money
to its friends, but most congressional Democrats understood all along that
those subsidies’ main purpose was to secure cooperation from Majority Leader
McConnell and President Trump to enact the anti-poverty initiatives. At this writing,
two significant efforts to attach inequality-reducing legislation to bills with
strong special interest support are underway.
Ohio Senators
Sherrod Brown (D) and Rob Portman (R) are seeking
to raise the amount of savings that the low-income elderly and people with
disabilities may have without being denied Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits. This legislation
would be a natural inequality-reducing offset
for pending legislation to liberalize the Internal Revenue Code’s treatment of
upper-income people’s retirement savings.
Despite half-hearted efforts to sell this “pensions” legislation
as helping workers across the income spectrum, it is a special-interest vehicle
whose benefits flow overwhelmingly
to the affluent. Another set of
business interests is seeking
major tax breaks on the “COMPETES
Act”, whose core provisions seek to improve this country’s international
competitiveness in various technology fields.
Although these big corporate tax cuts were in neither version of the
bill that passed the two chambers, special interests have a good chance of adding
them in the current House-Senate conference committee. An effort is underway to insist
that the price of any upper-income tax breaks must be lower-income tax
benefits, particularly reinstatement of some of the 2021 improvements to the Child
Tax Credit. Establishing a
norm that inequality-increasing legislation must also contain inequality-reducing
provisions would follow the example of the “pay-as-you-go” budget process
rules. Beginning in 1990, these rules obstructed
passage of deficit-increasing legislation based only on the promise that some
revenue-raising or expenditure-cutting legislation would follow along later to rebalance
the scales. An obstacle to the
inequality offsets approach is that Members who might be inclined to support it
also want to win the favor of the special interests promoting the underlying
legislation. They can expect fewer
rewards if they qualify their support by saying that they only want to pass it
with offsets. And if they become too
vocal in favor of the special interest legislation, they may not be able
credibly to threaten to withhold their support if the offsets fail. That was the problem with the fourth coronavirus
relief bill: so many Democrats had
enthusiastically supported deepening the corporate subsidies in earlier
legislation that Majority Leader McConnell and President Trump called their
bluff and refused to consider any significant inequality-reducing components. A similar dynamic
destroyed pro-immigrant Members’ longstanding plan to pair a path to
citizenship for the undocumented with tougher border enforcement and implicit
business subsidies through increasing the numbers of very-high- and very-low-skill
workers admitted to the country. So many
Members were eager to associate themselves with the border enforcement and
business immigration proposals that anti-immigrant Members saw no reason to
deal. The success of
efforts to entrench the inequality-reducing offset principle in our political culture
remains to be seen. Unless the current, virtually
even, ideological division of the electorate changes, not enough Members may
care enough about inequality to impose this principle. Nonetheless, in a country that has difficulty
paying attention to small and medium-sized legislative proposals or agreeing on
grand, transformational ones, any movement toward offsets is encouraging. @DavidASuper1
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |