Whether it’s conservatives deriding the “nanny state”, former president Bill Clinton declaring the era of “big government” to be over, or Ted Cruz attacking “New York values”, big government seems to be perpetually under attack.
But what if the fight over “big government” simply comes down to how much you value a human life?
That is the implication of a groundbreaking study from the Health Inequality Project on the impacts of inequality in the United States. The study’s authors reviewed years of tax earnings and social security death records, and came to two notable conclusions.
First, the bad news, considering our widening income gap: the rich live longer than the poor. In the early 1980s, the top 10% of earners lived 2.8 years longer than the bottom 10%. By the 1990s, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, that gap had grown to 4.5 years. This latest study found that the richest American men – the top 1% – live 15 years longer than the men in the bottom 1%, while for women the divide is a decade.
In other words, extreme income inequality doesn’t just hamper economic growth, lead to wealth being hoarded rather than circulated healthily through the economy, and promote a banking sector devoted to gambling instead of job creation. Extreme inequality also kills people.
Now, the good news: those big-government policies that Republicans – and even some Democrats – love to condemn might actually save lives.
The same study found that the gap in lifespan varied not only based on income, but also location. Poor Americans in liberal enclaves such as New York City and San Francisco lived longer than those in cities such as Dallas and Detroit, a surprising statistic which the study’s authors chalk up to social spending and public health policies in those areas.
New York City, for example, spends heavily on healthcare assistance and anti-poverty programs. The budget of the department of social services is second only to city spending on education, and the city makes significant investments in medical assistance.
But it is government policies that promote healthy habits which make the biggest difference, according to the study’s authors. The cities where the poor live longer also promote walking and have strong systems of public transit, instead of prioritizing cars over pedestrians and cyclists.
They also make it harder for international corporations to peddle death-dealing products. A pack of cigarettes costs more in New York City – more than $12 – than in any other US city save Chicago, thanks to a combination of state and local taxes. New York City also banned trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease, and forces chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menus so that diners are informed about what they are eating.
These are the “New York values” that Cruz, a possible Republican presidential nominee, famously attacked at a debate in the fall – and they help people live longer. Imagine the benefits if all of America were to adopt the same philosophy, or pursue big, ambitious ideas such as guaranteeing all Americans a subsistence-level income.
Conservatives want us to believe that walkable neighborhoods are a hippie dream, and public transit is a waste of funds. They may decry outright tax evasion, but they still balk at the idea that the wealthiest few should pay back society for helping them get rich, and that money should go to assistance for the poorest among us. They insist that companies should have the liberty to put profits over healthy food and, until crushed by the weight of public opinion, long mounted campaigns arguing diners should have the right to fill a tight space with second-hand smoke if they so choose.
But there is nothing more American than insisting that someone’s economic class should not dictate whether they live or die. Liberal policies that promote public health don’t undermine our national character; they enhance our freedom to live our lives to the fullest. Republicans have become so addicted to defending privilege and power that they have forgotten about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The real debate is not over the size of government. It is whether you think right-wing economic principles matter more than real human beings.
If big government means valuing lives, then sign me up.