Why Trump should overhaul the welfare state to promote Upward Mobility
These policies would solidify Trump's popularity with the working class of all races.
This article is part of an extended series of articles giving policy reform advice to the Trump administration from the Progress-based perspective. If you have not yet done so, I would suggest:
First reading Priorities for the second Trump administration to understand the constraints that President Trump must operate within, and
Then read the rest of the series from the “Table of Contents”.
In my third book Upward Mobility: A Radical New Agenda to Uplift the Poor and Working Class, I argue that most of our current social programs have failed. They have failed primarily because they have the wrong goal.
Equality of Outcome is unachievable, while Equality of Opportunity is not enough. Instead, social programs should mainly focus on Upward Mobility. Upward Mobility is to the individual what material progress is to societies.
I advocate for a Progress-based reform agenda to:
Create long-term economic growth in both wealthy nations and developing nations.
Create a prosperous working class.
Promote a clear pathway that enables youths from low-income families to enter the prosperous working class.
To promote goals #2 and #3, we should overhaul the welfare state with:
Upward Bound accounts based on the Pathway to Success that enable youths from low-income families to make wise Life Choices
Phasing out virtually all current means-tested programs over the next four years.
Of course, this reform agenda cannot be implemented unless one of the major parties adopts its in their platform. In this article, I argue that it is to the political benefit of the Trump administration to do so (and, by the way, it would greatly benefit the Democratic party if they do so, as well).
See more articles on Upward Mobility:
Why Progress and Upward Mobility should be the goal, not Equality
The Pathway to Success (first of three articles in series)
These articles are all excerpts from my third book Upward Mobility: A Radical New Agenda to Uplift the Poor and Working Class, which I am publishing on Substack. Some of these articles in this online book will only be available to paid subscribers.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
In a previous article, I wrote about one of the most important political trends of the last 60 years: the gradual expansion of the percentage of college-educated professionals who embrace a Post-Modern Left-of-Center worldview as their prime moral foundation. This shift is a radical change from previous versions of the American upper class.
Because those college-educated professionals dominate the middle and upper ranks of most American institutions, this ideological shift among the de facto upper class has caused countless ripple effects throughout American society. Below are just some of the results:
The implementation of public policies that undermine the foundations of material progress.
A dramatic expansion of the means-test programs in the American welfare state that undermined Upward Mobility for the poor and working class.
Massive bureaucratization of our institutions that just happened to provide the new upper class with cushy jobs that are relatively isolated from the need to produce results.
DEI policies that undermine Merit in hiring, firing, and promotions within institutions.
Declining education standards and grade inflation so the four-year degree is no longer a sign of higher intelligence, hard work, skills, or positive socialization.
The new upper class preaches values that are very different from their revealed preferences on work, marriage, etc. This undermines the ability of the lower classes to copy the successful.
The new upper class valorizes, or at least tolerates, self-destructive behavior that undermines traditional attitudes that promoted Upward Mobility for the working class and poor.
The new upper class valorizes, or at least tolerates, anti-social behavior, such as confrontational and even violent behavior. Most of all, it valorizes abusing power to forward one’s own ideological views at the expense of the rest of the nation.
The new upper class undermines the moral legitimacy of parents, peer pressure, and law enforcement to deal with self-destructive and anti-social behaviors.
The new upper class brands any opposition to the above as “populism,” “racism,” “misogyny,” “fascism,” or “far right.” Ironically, they tell all dissenters to “check your privilege.”
The long, slow backlash
Working in the opposite direction of this trend has been a long, slow backlash against this Post-Modern Left-of-Center professional class has been the defection of the white working class from the Democratic party to the Republican party. While some see this trend as starting in 2016 with the first Trump administration, it actually goes back much further.
This trend started in the late 1960s and surged in particular presidential elections: 1972 (Nixon), 1984 (Reagan), 2016, and 2024 (Trump). Whereas the white working class was a key constituent of the Democratic New Deal coalition that dominated politics from 1932 to 1968, that same group is now strongly Republican.
Another key trend of the last decade has been the shift of Black and Hispanic working-class men away from the Democratic party. At this time, it is unclear whether this is the beginning of a long-term trend (as happened previously with the white working-class voters) or just a temporary shift.
These two trends apparently peaked in the 2024 election.
2024 is a potential realigning election
In a previous article, I wrote that the 2024 election has the potential to be a fundamental realignment in the relative power of the two political parties on the federal level. American political history can be thought of as “party system” with one party have the initiative to implement fundamental policy reforms. Those party systems are separated by “realigning elections.”
I also cautioned Republicans not to celebrate victory, as:
A “realigning election” is really a realigning series of elections that can only be identified in hindsight. A key part is governance by the winning party after the election and implementing a transformative legislative agenda.
The 2024 election is only an opportunity to create a realignment. One election is not sufficient to create a fundamental realignment. As I write, the Republicans are only about 25% of the way toward a realignment. They must implement fundamental policy reforms that consolidate that realignment. And so far, this has not happened (though in fairness, it has been only a little more than one month).
But it is not an enduring majority
Conservatives must recognize that this trend was more a reaction against progressive overreach rather than true support for conservatives. There is still a strong rift between the beliefs of Republican leadership and working-class voters (though much less than the rift between them and Democratic leadership).
I believe that President Trump and the Republican party can strengthen their hold over the working-class majority with a fundamental reform of the American welfare state, particularly social programs for the poor and near-poor. The reality is that virtually the entire American welfare state was constructed based on the Democratic party, and it is failing to achieve its goals of creating greater Equality and uplifting those who have less.
Current policies hurt the less fortunate
American welfare state programs for the poor and near-poor currently spend $1 trillion per year and the benefits of that money are very unclear. Most importantly, eligibility requirements encourage low-income people:
Not get a job (or at least not declaring their income from their job)
If they get a job, work part-time to avoid losing benefits
Not invest time and money in job training to learn practical skills that enhance your long-term earning power
Not relocate to a metro with better job opportunities
Not get married
Current policies are patronage for Democrats
And these social programs also subsidize the Democratic party by funneling money toward their political supporters. Previously, I wrote that DEI policies and practices are de facto political patronage for the Democratic party. The policies are functional and equivalent to the old urban party machines that dominated urban politics from the mid-19th to mid-20th Century. They enable a flow of money and jobs to party supporters.
DOGE and the Trump administration have directly taken on DEI, partly out of conviction and partly because the policies effectively subsidize their political opponents. But they do not seem to understand the scope of the problem. The government-funded programs exposed are minor in comparison to the American welfare system.
In many ways, social programs perform the same function of political patronage. I believe that this is why the programs are so immune to change despite failing to accomplish their original intended goals. Democrats do not want to reform these programs because the benefits disproportionately go to their own supporters. The long-term negative incentives of these policies are not a concern, as long as the money goes to the right people.
The cumulative negative impact of these disincentives is likely very large for both individuals and society in general. And it persists because Republicans do not have the courage or the vision to offer an alternative vision. They are too fearful to even propose fundamental changes.
Nor has Donald Trump offered an alternative vision.
Performative opposition is not enough
Trump appears to believe that the best way to appeal to the white working class was to:
make flamboyant statements on camera or on social media
take actions that would enrage professional-class progressives.
It worked. Professional-class progressives were enraged, and the white working class loved it. They loved it, not because they agreed with Trump. They loved it because someone was finally standing up for them.
But at the same time, this rhetorical strategy alienated many moderates whose support Republicans needed. The chickens finally came home to roost in the 2020 election. During the recession and pandemic of 2020, Trump desperately needed those voters to get reelected. Trump's losing in 2020 had far more to do with the recession and the epidemic than his rhetorical strategy, but Trump had alienated enough moderates to make his defeat far more likely.
The fundamental problem is that Donald Trump tried to substitute style for policy. Republicans need to embrace policies that will directly benefit the working class of all racial and ethnic groups. Tax cuts will not do it. Nor will verbal attacks on progressive Democrats.
Republicans have been complaining about the failure of the Great Society and other progressive social programs for generations. But when they are elected, they do nothing about it. Worse they have never really offered an alternative. This leaves Republicans wide open to Democratic charges of not caring about the poor or minorities.
Donald Trump showed that the Republican party can build a majority coalition based upon support from the white working class. However, Donald Trump did not enact any policies that directly benefitted the white working class. And his political style alienated far too many voters. Donald Trump understood the white working class emotionally better than any politician since Ronald Reagan. But while Ronald Reagan motivated voters with positive and constructive rhetoric, Trump did the opposite.
The Trump administration and the Republican party should fundamentally reform the American welfare state so that it shifts the focus:
From using social programs to guarantee the poor and near-poor a basic standard of living regardless of individual choices.
To promoting Upward Mobility for working-class families.
A radical but viable alternative
A radical, but viable alternative to the present American welfare state programs for the poor and near-poor would be:
Establishing a Working Family Tax Credit that supplements the incomes of:
married families with children
with at least one full-time worker in the family, and
have a total income of less than $110,000/year.
Creating Upward Bound accounts based on the Pathway to Success that enable youths from low-income families to make wise Life Choices, including:
Graduate High School.
Complete post-secondary education/job training to learn practical skills that enhance your long-term earning power.
(if you live in an area with few opportunities) Move to a metro area with much greater opportunities.
Work full-time.
(If you have children) Get married and stay married.
Phasing out virtually all current means-tested programs over the next four years and the elimination of the departments that administer those programs. The above two programs could easily be administered by the IRS.
The advantages of this reform
This Upward Mobility reform package would have many advantages. It would:
Cost far less money than our current welfare system. Current programs for the poor and near-poor cost roughly $1 trillion per year. My plan costs an estimated $310 billion.
Have extremely low administrative costs. While roughly 20% of American welfare spending goes to administrative costs, my proposal can easily be administered via the IRS with very low administrative costs.
(because of the above) Enable the administration to radically cut back on federal government bureaucracies. This would align with the apparent goals of DOGE.
Be far cheaper than a general cut in income tax rates, which Republicans are currently considering.
Will focus the benefits on:
working-class families (which receive very little from our current welfare state) and
youths from low-income families who make wise Life Choices.
Rather than funnel money to the poor and near-poor regardless of whether they make bad Life Choices, this set of programs will reward wise Life Choices.
Align with the basic values of the American working class (and voters in general) rather than undermining them.
Help to promote long-term economic growth by:
Increasing labor participation rates
Job training
Relocation to metros with growing economies.
Political Consequences of Supporting this Proposal
The policies outlined in this online book will enable the Republican party to become the majority party for the next generation. Since these policies are specifically designed to benefit the working class, they will be a powerful motivator for the white, hispanic and black working class. Adding these two critical voting blocks to the Republican party would create an unbeatable coalition that would win elections everywhere except the most affluent cities of the Northeast and Pacific Coast.
The policies outlined in this book will put progressive Democrats in a terrible dilemma. They are used to attacking heartless and uncaring Republicans. Now they will be forced to attack policies specifically designed to help people of below-average income. Now they will be forced to talk about results rather than intentions. Now they will be forced to defend cuts to policies that benefit people of above-average income.
The loss of Hispanic working-class voters would bring into clear view the fact that the Democratic party is dominated by white professionals with little support from the working- and lower classes. Democrats would undoubtedly be able to keep strong support from Blacks, but that would not preserve a broad enough coalition to compete on the national level.
Make no mistake, whichever party supports the proposals outlined in this book would cause a radical realignment in American politics. That party would redefine its entire public image in a way that would be very uncomfortable for those who currently dominate the two major parties. The amount of money currently being spent on means-tested programs and the radical nature of the proposals would cause permanent changes in voting behavior.
A Republican party that upholds this proposal and fully implements it would become the party of the working class. It would stand in clear opposition to a Democratic party dominated by high-income professionals living in the affluent metros of the Northeast and Pacific coast.
A Democratic party that upholds this proposal and fully implements it would once again become the party of the people. The poor and working-class of all races would loyally support the party, much as they did during the glory days of the New Deal.
But it can wait for 2027 or 2029
I already have gone on record stating that President Trump has 15 months to implement his agenda (as do all elected Presidents). During that time, it is critical to focus on a few policy issues that really matter or risk accomplishing nothing.
For this reason, I believe that implementing the Upward Mobility agenda should wait until 2027 (i.e. after the mid-term election, if the Republicans maintain control of the US House) or 2029 (if they do not).
See more articles on Upward Mobility:
Why Progress and Upward Mobility should be the goal, not Equality
The Pathway to Success (first of three articles in series)
These articles are all excerpts from my third book Upward Mobility: A Radical New Agenda to Uplift the Poor and Working Class, which I am publishing on Substack. Most of these articles in this online book will only be available to paid subscribers.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
I was trying to envision a mechanism to incentivize college and trade school students to complete their educations (and not attempt to succeed at institutions where they are not really qualified to keep up with their peers). One idea was to say "if you graduate" you can take (say) 30% or 50% of your educational expenses off of your taxes over the next 4 (or 6?) years.
This would presumably also be the period when they are getting married, having children, and trying to buy a home, in addition to continuing to gain experience and credibility in their respective field. Thus they could well use the extra money. Later they are getting more income and can start to bear the full load that most adults are responsible to maintain. Sort of a non-GI GI Bill approach, but post graduation rather than pre-graduation.
But none of these ideas will end up having any beneficial impact if we con't find a way to address our debt/deficit bankruptcy. Someone (many someones!!) will end up having to take a "haircut" to their income or their wealth to resolve this and "clear the deck" to go forward with reduced political and social obligations. I don't see any of our more prominent politicos expousing anything like this (beyond Massie, Roy, and Paul? but there are maybe 5 or 6 others?).
You sent this to DOGE right? In the spirit of MAGA and moonshots! :-D