Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats: From Programs to Policy – a New Vision for Families

Opinion

Democrats: From Programs to Policy – a New Vision for Families

"...The overreliance on programmatic solutions has left Democrats without a coherent policy framework to meet the needs of today’s families," writes Capita CEO/Co-Founder Joe Waters.

Getty Images, The Good Brigade

As the Democratic Party reassesses its direction after last year’s electoral losses, it's encouraging to see new initiatives like Project 2029—a proposed, albeit late, answer to Project 2025—taking shape. But as Democrats rethink their policy, narrative, and electoral strategies, they risk repeating a familiar mistake in domestic social policy: substituting programs for policy.

By “programs,” I mean the specific interventions—like subsidies, grants, and services—designed to address particular social problems. Useful tools, yes, but too often, they are treated as ends in themselves. By “policy,” I mean the broader vision and principles that guide and integrate those tools toward a coherent national goal.


In my conversations with families across the country who struggle to make ends meet, kick a drug habit, manage a child’s complex behavioral challenges, or find dignified work, I hear the same concerns repeatedly: unaffordable child care, unaffordable housing, unaffordable health care, and not enough time with their children. What they want—and are willing to do their part to achieve—is a meaningful life of dignity, predictability, and stability. What they get is a patchwork of bureaucratically administered programs that too often serve the interests of the government-funded service providers, not the people. Many service providers do essential and heroic work. But when social policy is driven primarily by the needs of these organizations, rather than by a vision rooted in the experiences of families, we mistake institutional maintenance for progress.

Take the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the main federal program subsidizing child care for low-income working families. Though it originated as a bipartisan compromise from the early 1990s, it is emblematic of an approach to social policy that focuses too much on programs rather than enabling conditions. This moment of reassessment offers Democrats a valuable opportunity to rethink this approach.

On paper, CCDBG is designed to help parents work by reducing the cost of care. However, in practice, it prioritizes the needs of employers over the full range of what families actually need. This includes more time with their children during the formative early years—when crucial parent-child bonds are built—and flexible benefits for care provided by family, friends, and other trusted caregivers. Meanwhile, providers who receive these subsidies often become politically invested in maintaining the program, even if it falls short of addressing the deeper needs of families.

This is not a case against child care or against programs that help families. It is a case for rethinking the Democratic approach to social policy from the ground up.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of this dynamic more than 50 years ago. In a 1970 essay for The Public Interest, he wrote that American politics in the Great Society years of the 1960s had come to “define public policy in forms of program” and that this mindset had, as a result, “inhibited the development of true policy.” Moynihan, a Democrat then serving as an advisor on urban affairs to President Nixon, who would go on to serve as a Senator from New York, saw clearly that programs are only tools; policy is the vision that guides and knits them together.

Democrats have long lived in the world Lyndon B. Johnson built six decades ago—Head Start, SNAP, Medicaid, and other Great Society programs. These were historic achievements; I do not argue they should be dismantled. However, the overreliance on programmatic solutions has left Democrats without a coherent policy framework to meet the needs of today’s families.

What would a policy-first approach look like?

It would begin with a clearly defined national goal—grounded in our best understanding of child development, poverty, public health, and community well-being—such as ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive, every American is stably housed, or every job pays a living wage. Crucially, any one of these goals would not be the responsibility of just a few underfunded agencies but a shared mandate across the federal government. Just as the Employment Act of 1946 committed the nation to “promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power” and created the Council of Economic Advisers to coordinate that effort, a modern social policy should require every federal agency—from Treasury to HUD—to contribute to the overarching mission of building healthy, stable, and flourishing families in just, peaceful, and prosperous communities on a healthy, safe, and clean planet.

Contrast that with the current Democratic approach, exemplified by the Child Care for Working Families Act. The bill proposes capping child care costs at a given percentage of income, funding workforce development for early educators, expanding preschool, and more. These are worthy goals, sure, but they are still a collection of programs, each addressing a piece of the puzzle without ever assembling a coherent picture of what families truly need to flourish.

For instance, a true policy approach to every child's health, well-being, and flourishing would recognize that ensuring no child under eight sleeps in a homeless shelter is not just a housing issue. It would mobilize the full force of the federal government to make it a reality.

To be clear: I support many of the programs currently on the books. Health care is a right, and some form of government-administered health insurance will always be necessary. However, I can also imagine a world where a well-articulated policy vision directs the range of government programs in a way that reduces the need for programs like CCDBG. The more we create enabling conditions—good wages, good working conditions, generous leave policies, abundant housing—all oriented toward prioritizing family and child flourishing, the less we’ll need to rely on programs as the foundation of our approach. For example, if we had robust paid parental leave—a true essential for the health of parents and the development of babies in the first weeks and months of life—we would likely see fewer infants in child care, easing the supply crunch and improving conditions for older children and workers alike.

From climate change to the economic disruptions of artificial intelligence and the new caregiving responsibilities that demographic changes will impose, families will face new threats to their dignity and the stability of their lives. A coherent policy approach rooted in a clear vision of well-being and flourishing for all families will be far more adaptable to these challenges than the patchwork of programs Democrats now need to defend as Republicans push forward with their so-called "Big Beautiful Bill."

The current Democratic approach puts the program cart before the policy horse. With Democrats out of power for at least another 18 months, now is the time to reconsider some fundamentals. If Democrats are serious about winning back the working class and building a more just society, they must stop designing programs in a vacuum and start crafting a policy vision rooted in the real needs of American families.


Joe Waters is the CEO and Co-Founder of Capita, a think tank working with leaders to craft effective policies for a future in which families and their communities can flourish. He lives in Blowing Rock, North Carolina.

Read More

Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

U.S. President Donald Trump, October 29, 2025.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

In “The Real Shutdown,” I argued that Congress’s reliance on stopgap spending bills has weakened its power of the purse, giving Trump greater say over how federal funds are used. The latest move in that long retreat is H.R. 1180, a bill introduced in February 2025 by Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA). The one-sentence bill would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in its entirety—no amendments, no replacement, no oversight mechanism. If continuing resolutions handed the White House a blank check, repealing the ICA would make it permanent, stripping Congress of its last protection against executive overreach in federal spending and accelerating the quiet transfer of budgetary power to the presidency.

The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was a congressional response to an earlier constitutional crisis. After Richard Nixon refused to spend funds Congress had appropriated, lawmakers across party lines reasserted their authority. The ICA required the president to notify Congress of any intent to withhold or cancel funds and barred them from doing so without legislative approval. It was designed to prevent precisely the kind of unilateral power that Nixon had claimed and that Trump now seeks to reclaim.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.

Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” President Donald Trump said in late October 2025 of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea north of Venezuela.

The Trump administration asserted without providing any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. Fourteen boats that the administration alleged were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck, killing 43 people.

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

America faces its longest government shutdown as millions lose food, pay, and healthcare—while communities step up to help where Washington fails.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Longest U.S. Government Shutdown Sparks Nationwide Crisis

Congratulations to World Series champions the Los Angeles Dodgers! Americans love to watch their favorite sports teams win championships and set records. Well now Team USA is about to set a new record – for the longest government shutdown in history. As the shutdown enters its second month and the funds for government operations and programs run out, more and more Americans are starting to feel the pain.

Over the weekend, 42 million Americans – nearly one-eighth of the country – who use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to feed themselves and their families, lost their food stamps for the first time in the program’s history. This is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Postal Service Cuts Funding for a Phoenix Mail Room Assisting Homeless People

Margarita Moreno works at the mail room in the Phoenix campus of Keys to Change, a collaborative of 15 nonprofit organizations that serve homeless people.

Credit: Ash Ponders for ProPublica

U.S. Postal Service Cuts Funding for a Phoenix Mail Room Assisting Homeless People

Carl Steiner walked to the window of a small gray building near downtown Phoenix and gave a worker his name. He stepped away with a box and a cellphone bill.

The box is what Steiner had come for: It contained black and red Reebok sneakers to use in his new warehouse job.

Keep ReadingShow less