Democrats need a big tent to beat Trump, and taxing more Americans won’t build it

The Democratic Party must remain a big tent under which all are welcome, and every candidate should avoid negative campaigning that risks alienating voters. However, such principled restraint should not prevent us from critiquing the proposals of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates; it’s how we can identify the best person to win our nomination and the White House, too.

Yes, it’s important for the candidates to have proposals for us to consider, but it is equally important that they tell us how they would pay for them. For example, we all want to improve family leave or make college more affordable — but the rubber meets the road when it comes to funding such goals.

An illustrative example is the financial transaction tax, an idea that has been floated by some Democratic candidates as the best way to raise revenues for new social programs. Taxing all market transactions isn’t a new concept: America did it decades ago. But Democrats were largely responsible for the eventual repeal of such taxes — and that’s because the results were so disappointing. Indeed, other countries have seen similar poor results when they have experimented with a financial transaction tax.

What’s most troubling about the financial transaction tax is that it would affect the retirement programs that more than 130 million Americans rely on, the education savings accounts that nearly half of all American families have built for children and even the agriculture futures that farmers use as a price management tool.

The impact of taxing these transactions would be substantial.

At best a 0.1 percent tax rate would force the average employee to work two-and-half years longer to make up for retirement fund losses, and it would require the typical university student to go an additional $7,500 in debt. It would also narrow the profit margins for farmers and lead to an increase in food costs. Now just imagine the consequences of a 0.5 percent financial transaction tax rate, which has actually been proposed by at least one Democratic presidential candidate — Sen. Bernie Sanders.

That candidate’s supporters will likely counter by spelling out the advantages of all the programs they favor, but those benefits do not spread evenly to those paying the bill. For example, Medicare for All might sound wonderful to some — but not to retirees already on Medicare whose 401(k)s would take devastating hits. Nor would it sound wonderful to so many union members who prefer to keep their existing health benefits and pensions in place.

By the same token, providing a free college education obviously has its appeal. But whether it’s limited to community colleges or includes all public institutions, such a plan would still leave out many students who need other forms of training — and who will not receive refunds on the money invested in education accounts.

The devil is in the details, and one’s values are often hiding in those details, too That’s why I want a clear-eyed Democratic nominee who is prepared to take a stand for working families of every age bracket and demographic.

After more than three years under President Donald Trump, America has had enough of groups being singled out for special treatment or condemnation. The best antidote to Trump’s governing style of favoritism and blacklisting is to have a leader who embraces a governing style of fairness. The Democratic candidate who best embodies this fundamental value will be the one most likely to build the big tent we need to beat Trump.

A Columbia-based Democrat, state Sen. John Scott represents District 19.

This story was originally published March 4, 2020 at 3:46 PM.