If a high-benefit, low-cost approach is available, then following that approach that would make sense, but it doesn’t seem to me that that’s politically feasible?
Whereas, it may be more politically feasible to defund high-cost, low benefit approaches.
I honestly can’t understand this policy outcome from my model for US politics. Shouldn’t the Democrats be all for more funding, with the Republicans being somewhat against it (fiscal conservatism) but not intensely so (not a hill worth dying on)? Instead we get both parties ignoring it entirely. I would really appreciate an attempted explanation, because it just boggles the mind.
If a high-benefit, low-cost approach is available, then following that approach that would make sense, but it doesn’t seem to me that that’s politically feasible?
Whereas, it may be more politically feasible to defund high-cost, low benefit approaches.
I honestly can’t understand this policy outcome from my model for US politics. Shouldn’t the Democrats be all for more funding, with the Republicans being somewhat against it (fiscal conservatism) but not intensely so (not a hill worth dying on)? Instead we get both parties ignoring it entirely. I would really appreciate an attempted explanation, because it just boggles the mind.