Honesty goes a long way towards winning an election

Let's be honest about the difference between democrats and republicans. Then let's have an election and see if the results are close.

Democrats believe there is a critical role in society for government.
Democrats believe government should be robust.

Republicans believe government should be minimal.
Republicans believe government should stay out of people's hair,
and it's always a good argument to say don't give the government your hard-earned money.

For starters, how refreshing would it be for candidates to agree on that much, owning their own party's position.

Digging into the details gets muddier.

Democrats claim to be the working person's party, the party that cares if you have a job and a decent wage. But democrats aren't honest about trade. They argue that free trade brings lower prices (good for the working person), but they don't highlight what happens to hundreds of people thrown out of work when the factories move to countries with lower wages.

Don't blame democrats, or companies, for pursuing efficiency. Companies don't exist to employ people; they exist to make great products. If companies can make greater products overseas, they should.  Capitalists' strength is  making the best product for the cheapest price. They have every right to claim that strength.

Business cannot claim, however, that capitalism is the only or the best way to create jobs. Today's economy is proof. Supposedly we have low unemployment. That is up for debate. What is not debated at all is our record homelessness and our rates of poverty. If capitalism doesn't create enough decent  jobs, government needs to step in. Democrats can croon about the global economy and free trade only when they also figure out how to guarantee jobs for everyone.

Republicans don't claim that government should be in the business of creating jobs. Strangely, though,  republicans aren't honest about wanting a minimalist government. They don't believe people will support them if they come right out and say we don't need this or that program. So they cut spending for programs and then proclaim that the programs don't work.

I'm a democrat. I believe that in a vibrant economy the government plays a vital role, smoothing the rough edges of capitalism. If you don't think capitalism has rough edges, explain the rationale for one person making $12 an hour and another making $1,200 an hour. No amount of hard work or expertise can justify earning as much in a single year as many people earn in a life time. There's no justification for it, but that's the way life is, and it's not going to change. That's one 'rough edge of capitalism.' Companies can make great products and pollute the dickens out of the air and water. Their shareholders profit and their workers and communities suffer. That's another rough edge.

We should use government to smooth the rough edges, to upbraid the polluters, to identify the disparities in the work place, and provide a helping hand for the least among us. I'm not interested in limiting the high salary. But I am interested in making sure the low salary is enough to live on. If the market place, the holy city of capitalism, cannot provide decent food and shelter for the clerk, the laborer, the secretary or errand boy, then government should step up to the plate and get busy.

Business thrives in America because we are a nation of laws. These laws protect all people, but people with property profit most from the laws. If you own stock, the laws tax you less than if your wages come from a nine to five job. If you have a lot of money, the laws make it easy for you to make more money without even working. If you have a couple of million dollars and half a brain, you can live your life, long or short, with no job at all. Laws, and some common sense, make life pretty comfortable for the well-to-do.

It's time to write some laws specifically designed to support the unemployed and the under-employed.

Here's one: create an Army of Workers. We'll call it the US WARMY (Workers  ARMY). Anyone can enlist. You get ten year tours of duty, and you can re-enlist. You don't fight, you work. The WARMY will house you, feed your family, educate your kids, look after your health, train you and send you anywhere it pleases. You don't get to own your own house, but you will be gainfully employed and a member of a service looked at with pride, if our current Armed Services are any example.
BOOM.
Joblessness, homelessness, shoddy education all tackled with one program. That's a platform a democrat can be proud to hang her hat on. That's a program worth debating, worth ironing out the kinks. That's a program worth paying for.

How about health insurance. Let's cut the crap, cancel Obamacare (at least President Obama's heart was in the right place), and create Bernie Sanders' MedicareForAll plan. This one's even easier than the WARMY. Medicare already exists. The whole plan is already humming, fiscally solvent and providing world class care. I don't hear many over 65 complaining about health premiums. Oddly government health insurance was supported by President Teddy Roosevelt over a hundred years ago, but there were forces opposed, including, incredibly, labor unions, which did not want the government interfering with union benefits (tax-deferred health insurance payments). The history of universal health insurance is full of surprises! The last surprise could be that it is cheaper and easier to implement than 90% of our politicians will admit. Go figure.

Mid term elections are around the corner, and democrats may make inroads because President Trump knows no bounds when it comes to tweeting himself in the foot. But if they do win an election because of the President's incompetence, they will surely lose the next election if they don't show front and center their own competence.

It is time to be honest with the voters. Homelessness and poverty exist in great numbers. Health insurance is wildly unfair for non-corporate workers who aren't themselves in poverty (yet). These are big problems, but they are far from insurmountable.

But surmounting a big problem costs big money, you say. We have to worry about the national debt.
Is that right? Why didn't we have to worry about the national debt when fighting the Iraq war.
Why was money no issue when preparing for Saddam Hussein, but it's a debilitating issue when preparing for full employment?
"No money" is always the excuse when you really mean "not my problem".
I have a (really good) job, I have a (really good) home, I have (really good) health insurance, so don't even think about using my (hard earned) money to pay for your problem.

The truth is that we probably have enough money to fix our problems if we choose to tax the well-off a little more and let the government issue bonds (i.e. increase our national debt) a little more. I say "probably" because I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure because if you ask ten economists to answer this question, you will get ten different answers.

The powerful and the politicians and the economists know full well that the federal government can create money (issue bonds) out of thin air, and as long as inflation is held in check, no harm is done. The federal government is not like your personal budget or your town's budget or your state's budget. Those budgets must balance income with expenses, always. The federal government, however, can create income when it wants to cover more expenses. Put simply it just prints more money. This works. The extra expenses get paid for. The downside is that inflation MAY occur. Prices MAY go up. When inflation occurs, the government can create higher taxes or cut back on spending, and prices will go down (because people have less money to spend). Inflation has been under 6% since 1983 and under 4% since 1992. We have some big problems today, but inflation is not one of them. Neither is our national debt.

If we want to win elections, it's time to stop lying about make-believe problems, it's time to tell the truth about real problems, and it's time to be gutsy with daring solutions. Stop criticizing the other party and start presenting viable plans. When voters hear politicians spouting honest rhetoric, elections will stop being close.