Policy Comparison

Affordability: How Democrats, Republicans, and the Common Good Plan Actually Compare

Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for your wages, your bills, and whether you can afford the life you're working for.

New to the Common Good Party?

We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares affordability approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.

The Big Picture

The cost of living in America has become the defining economic issue of our time. Since 1990, the cost of housing has risen 149%, healthcare 286%, childcare 220%, and college tuition 213% — while median wages have grown just 29% in inflation-adjusted terms. Americans are working harder than ever and falling further behind. Sixty-three percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Forty percent cannot cover a $400 emergency expense without borrowing. The American Dream — work hard, get ahead — has become a mathematical impossibility for most families.

The affordability crisis is not caused by inflation alone. It's caused by structural failures in markets that don't work: healthcare dominated by monopolies and administrative waste, housing constrained by decades of underbuilding, childcare treated as a personal expense rather than public infrastructure, and an education system that saddles students with $1.77 trillion in collective debt. Each of these problems has a policy solution. The question is which approach actually solves them.

This page compares three approaches to the affordability crisis: the Democratic approach of targeted subsidies, the Republican approach of tax cuts and deregulation, and the Common Good Party's structural reform plan that addresses the root causes of unaffordability.

Full Comparison Table

How the three approaches stack up on the costs that matter most to your household budget.

Affordability Policy Comparison: Democrats vs. Republicans vs. Common Good Party
IssueDemocratsRepublicansCommon Good
Minimum wage$15/hour (stalled)Oppose federal minimum$20/hour, indexed to inflation
Healthcare costsACA subsidies, cap insulinHSAs, cross-state sales$0 premiums, single-payer
HousingVouchers, down payment helpDeregulate zoning3M new homes, anti-speculation
ChildcareTax credits, some subsidiesPrivate market, tax deductionsUniversal, capped at 7% of income
Education costsFree community college (proposed)School choice, reduce regulationFree CC, capped tuition, trades equal
Grocery pricesSNAP expansion, price gouging billsMarket competitionAntitrust enforcement, local food support
Energy costsClean energy tax creditsDrill more, lower gas pricesClean transition, efficiency rebates
TransportationEV tax credits, transit fundingHighway spending, low gas taxesPublic transit expansion, EV incentives
Student debtTargeted forgiveness (blocked)Oppose forgivenessIncome-based repayment, prevent future debt
Overall approachTargeted subsidies + tax creditsTax cuts + deregulationFix root causes + raise wages

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau, Federal Reserve, Kaiser Family Foundation, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.

The Democratic Approach

What they propose

The Democratic approach to affordability centers on targeted subsidies, tax credits, and regulatory interventions. Key proposals include raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, expanding the Child Tax Credit (which lifted 3.7 million children out of poverty during its temporary expansion in 2021), capping insulin prices at $35/month, enhancing ACA subsidies, funding affordable housing through vouchers and the Housing Trust Fund, making community college free, and expanding SNAP benefits. Democrats have also proposed anti-price-gouging legislation and supported student debt forgiveness through executive action.

What it gets right

The expanded Child Tax Credit was one of the most effective anti-poverty measures in American history, demonstrating that direct cash assistance to families works. Capping insulin at $35 provides real, immediate relief for millions of diabetic Americans. Enhanced ACA subsidies have made health insurance more affordable for millions of marketplace enrollees. Democrats are correct that the federal minimum wage — stuck at $7.25 since 2009 — is a moral and economic failure. The recognition that affordability requires government action, not just market forces, is fundamentally sound.

What it misses

Subsidies address symptoms, not causes. ACA subsidies make overpriced insurance slightly more affordable without fixing the system that makes it overpriced. Housing vouchers help individual families but don't build a single new home in a market that is 3.8 million homes short. The $15 minimum wage proposal — first introduced in 2012 — hasn't passed in over a decade and is already below a living wage in most metropolitan areas. Student debt forgiveness (repeatedly blocked by courts) addresses the debt that already exists but doesn't prevent future students from accumulating the same debt. The Democratic approach is a series of Band-Aids on structural wounds.

For more on housing costs, see the housing deep-dive explainer.

The Republican Approach

What they propose

The Republican approach to affordability emphasizes tax cuts, deregulation, and economic growth as the primary tools for reducing costs. Key proposals include making the 2017 TCJA tax cuts permanent, reducing regulatory burden on businesses and housing construction, expanding domestic energy production to lower gas prices, opposing minimum wage increases that they argue destroy jobs, promoting school choice and vouchers as an alternative to increased education spending, and relying on market competition to bring down healthcare and childcare costs. Republicans oppose student debt forgiveness as unfair to those who paid off their loans or chose not to attend college.

What it gets right

Republicans are correct that excessive regulation can increase costs. Zoning restrictions — often in blue states and cities — are a major driver of housing unaffordability, and the Republican push to deregulate construction has merit. Energy costs are a real burden on families, and increasing domestic production can provide short-term price relief. Tax cuts do put more money in people's pockets in the short term. The critique of student debt forgiveness as a one-time fix that doesn't address systemic costs is valid.

What it misses

Tax cuts for the wealthy do not make life more affordable for working families. The 2017 TCJA delivered 83% of its benefits to the top 1% over 10 years while adding $1.9 trillion to the national debt. Opposing the minimum wage while corporate profits hit record highs means defending a system where full-time workers can't afford rent. "Market competition" hasn't reduced healthcare costs because healthcare is not a competitive market. Deregulating childcare without increasing supply or worker pay means lower quality, not lower prices.

The fundamental flaw in the Republican approach is the assumption that economic growth alone will solve affordability. GDP has grown substantially over the past 40 years. Corporate profits have reached record levels. The stock market is at all-time highs. And yet, real wages for the bottom 50% of workers have barely moved. Growth without equitable distribution is not a solution to the affordability crisis — it is a description of its cause.

For a deeper analysis of wage stagnation, see our affordability explainer.

The Common Good Approach

What we propose

The Common Good Party addresses affordability at its roots, not just its symptoms. Healthcare: single-payer coverage eliminates premiums, deductibles, and copays — saving the average family $5,000+/year. Housing: build 3 million new homes, cap rent increases in tight markets, crack down on corporate landlords, and provide shared-equity homeownership assistance. Childcare: universal access capped at 7% of household income, with professional pay for childcare workers. Wages: $20/hour minimum indexed to inflation, plus strengthened unions and sectoral bargaining. Education: free community college, capped public university tuition, expanded Pell Grants, and equal investment in trade and vocational programs. Energy: accelerated clean energy transition with household efficiency rebates. Groceries: antitrust enforcement against food industry consolidation. Student debt: income-based repayment capped at 5% of discretionary income with forgiveness after 20 years.

Why it's different

Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't subsidize broken systems — it fixes them. Subsidizing overpriced healthcare doesn't make healthcare affordable; replacing the payment system does. Unlike the Republican approach, we don't pretend that growth alone will solve affordability when 40 years of growth have demonstrably failed to. The CGP plan raises wages and reduces costs simultaneously. When your healthcare is covered, your childcare is affordable, your housing market is competitive, and your wages keep pace with productivity, the affordability crisis ends — not through a single policy, but through a comprehensive framework that addresses every major cost driver.

The evidence

Countries that invest in universal public goods — healthcare, childcare, education, housing — have dramatically lower cost burdens on families. Danish families spend 5% of income on childcare versus 27% in the US. German families pay $0 for university education. Canadian families pay $0 in healthcare premiums. Nordic countries have the highest minimum wages in the world (through sectoral bargaining) and among the lowest poverty rates. These aren't theoretical policies — they are proven systems operating in economies that are as dynamic and innovative as ours.

The money is already in the American system. We spend more per capita on healthcare, childcare, and education than nearly every other wealthy nation — and get worse outcomes. The CGP plan redirects that spending from administrative waste, corporate profits, and inefficient private markets into universal public goods that serve everyone.

What Would This Mean for You?

The numbers tell the story. Here's what the Common Good affordability plan would look like for real American households.

Family of 4, household income $65,000
Current costs: Health insurance: $6,575/yr (employee share). Childcare for two kids: $21,700/yr. Rent: $22,800/yr (40%+ of income). Total essentials: $51,000+ — leaving almost nothing for savings, emergencies, or quality of life.
CGP plan: Healthcare: $2,600/yr (4% payroll). Childcare: $4,550/yr (7% cap). Housing: stabilized rents + homebuyer assistance. Estimated total savings: $21,000+/year.
Single parent, income $40,000, one child
Current costs: Childcare: $10,853/yr (27% of income). Marketplace health insurance: $3,500/yr after subsidies. Student loan payments: $350/month. After essentials, approximately $200/ month remains for everything else.
CGP plan: Childcare: $2,800/yr (7% cap). Healthcare: $1,600/yr. Student loans: $83/month (5% of discretionary income). Estimated savings: $13,000+/year. Breathing room.
Young couple, combined income $90,000, renting
Current costs: Combined student debt: $87,000. Combined health insurance employee share: $5,000/yr. Rent: $24,000/yr. Saving for a down payment at current housing prices would take 15+ years.
CGP plan: Healthcare: $3,600/yr. Student loans: income-based, forgiven after 20 years. Shared-equity homebuyer program reduces down payment barrier. Homeownership becomes reachable, not theoretical.

Want to see exactly how the plan affects your household? Enter your income, family size, and current costs.

Open the Tax Calculator

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about affordability and how the three approaches compare.

Have a question not answered here? Read the full affordability explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.

Related Resources

Dive deeper into affordability and economic policy.

You shouldn't have to choose between groceries and rent.

The richest country in the world can afford to make life affordable. Read the full plan, run the numbers, and see which approach actually fixes the problem.

Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.