Although I'm actually in debt right now, the fact that I'm relatively rich on a worldwide standard has very little to do with U.S. politics; because our debate right now is about poverty & wealth in the USA. Having worked on half a dozen overseas economic development projects, I would argue in all humility that I know a thing or two about strategies to improve living standards and raise employment in developing & transition countries; and it's really a different ball of wax than trying to do the same in a developed country like the USA.
Yes, I do think taking money (taxes) from the super rich and spending it on day care, health care, education, etc. will improve infant mortality rates and lower dropout rates. You only have to look at Western European countries to see that this works.
You continue to accuse me of supporting "giveaway" programs that "throw money at problems," yet I haven't mentioned any to you, including the above. These are targeted interventions to improve people's health & well being, freeing them up to be more productive. None of them involve giving money directly to recipients.
I gather that your attitude is, no matter how one got rich, by hook or by crook or just good luck, we must accept it. No matter why somebody is poor -- whether bad parents, bad health, disability, poor schools -- we must also accept it. AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN OR SHOULD DO. You believe in "teach a man to fish," but you can't do that without spending money -- that's a giveaway!
You whole tangent about your and your brother's opportunities in life ignores what I've already written: I don't believe in equality of opportunity, or even absolute equality. These are impossible, except perhaps in a communist system, and even then some people will be smarter, stronger, healthier, luckier, etc. Nor do most liberals believe we should enforce equal opportunity (I'm talking in the larger sense, not minority hiring). I do believe in equalizing opportunity to the extent practically and morally possible. We shouldn't do this haphazardly just to "bleed the rich," but under consensus according to what is the best for everybody in the long run. The rich ought to buy into this if they're good citizens who value domestic tranquility, and want a larger pool of qualified, productive, happy workers.
Apparently you wanted an exhaustive list of incentive programs. Sorry. And you ignored (again) my very important point about moral incentives. (Yes, liberals have the right to talk about morals). For example, why do rap videos show black people with gold, diamonds, fancy cars, champagne... and not blacks collecting welfare checks and milking the system to the tune of $30,000 a year? If welfare were all poor black people wanted in life, why wouldn't it be reflected in their popular culture? Because even though they're poor & black, they're still Americans; and they've been taught to want the "American Dream," which to them means flashy wealth and conspicuous consumption. They've also been taught to be ashamed of receiving government assistance. This is a perfect illustration of moral incentives in action! The shame is that many poor, urban blacks see more opportunity to realize that Dream thru selling drugs, being a rapper, singer, or professional athlete than thru traditional education and hard work. I agree, this is an indictment on them, but it is also an indictment on us, as their fellow citizens "all in this together" with them, who have failed to provide the keys to opportunity.
Since you ignore the crucial role of moral incentives in our capitalist society (moral incentives act as the "angels on the shoulder" of otherwise greed-obsessed, radical individualists, and the cash-starved politicians who cater to them), I must conclude that the only incentive you really believe in is greed, i.e. the profit motive. Yes or no? If no, tell me what other incentives you believe in.
Your opinion seems to be that American liberalism was frozen in time circa 1965. I would argue that many of the programs of FDR and LBJ were timely and necessary, and largely served their purpose. (FDR kept our country from falling apart during the Depression, probably averting the birth of a popular Labor or Communist party movement, good for you; and LBJ took on Jim Crow and racial and sex discrimination when no other president had the courage, and in the process, facilitated full & equal participation in civic and economic life).
But again, I don't hear many liberals urging us to go back in time. Despite everything I argue, why do you accuse me of being some kind of 1960's liberal? It would be just as unfair of me to accuse you of being the guy who wants to keep women out of the workplace and blacks in the back of the bus. In fact, one thing I like about liberalism is that it assumes and encourages CHANGE; whereas conservatives, as a rule, must harken back to a mythical Golden Age that never existed, except in propoganda.
Anyway, to answer your question again about the guy who won't work a 40-hour week: Clinton's Welfare to Work program solved that problem. People can't stay on welfare indefinitely. Yes, there may be some abuse of the system, but I'm willing to put up with that, if it means helping the truly needy, especially children, who didn't decide to be born or have the chance to choose their parents. Again, you are so enraged by the cases of abuse (and your rage can't be based on dollars & cents, but rather on emotion, because there is much more government waste in the Pentagon, bridge-to-nowhere pork programs, Iraq, etc.) that you'll condemn the truly needy to suffering. You'll throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ditto with affirmative action. Your opposition must be based on emotion, not statistics. Remember, it only pertains to government jobs and state-funded universities. I'm sure there are cases of unfairness, but, again... baby & bathwater. You want to throw out the program because a couple of white men on the edge of average get rejected in favor of minority candidates. I think it's extremely naive of you to believe that government-supported policies enshrined in law like slavery & Jim Crow could be undone without equal or greater counterforce in law. They had to escort blacks into my school with Nat'l Guard troops for crap's sake! I know, I know: you and every other conservative believe that we've changed our ways, and ever since the "useless" Great Society movement of the 1960s (which wasn't really necessary?? -- explain that logic!), minorities face no racial discrimination in school and employment anymore. But I'm afraid not.
A tax credit does not address availability and affordability of day care for the working poor. A tax credit assumes that a poor person on a budget has enough money to pay for quality day care for a whole year before getting reimbursed; and it and assumes that quality day care is even available where they live, when it probably isn't.
I'm curious what evidence made you conclude that education has gotten better under Bush. Because he's testing kids uniformly (which infringes on state and local rights!), and more often? Tests a better student do not necessarily make.... BTW, ask S.W. about her experience teaching in public schools, and "teaching to the test" requirements. Without having any data, I can't say if Bush has improved education or not. But, I do believe it's a bit silly to impose uniform standardized tests for the whole nation, yet allow every local school board to set its own curriculum. I can't imagine that teaching a kid in Iowa is so terribly different than teaching one in Kentucky. Most nations have a central Ministry of Education which sets curriculum and determines funding for schools. But we've still got leftovers from "Little House on the Prairie"-type parochialism in our K-12 system....
The liberal approach to dealing with those who refuse to be productive is to give them a chance, or even two, and if they don't take those opportunities, that's it. But -- and this is a big "but" -- I do worry about that man or woman's children. Do we let them suffer for their parents' shortcomings? I say no. You seem to imply "Tough shit, junior."
In general, my approach to dealing with the deserving working poor would be to pay directly for their bare necessities in life, not give them handouts. For instance, WIC is great, I wouldn't take that away. It's food for crapsakes. I would build more & better public transportation so people wouldn't necessarily need a car in order to work. (Our systematic dismantling of public transportation and construction of the nat'l highway system perpetrated by the oil and auto industries has acted like a regressive tax, and penalizes the working poor). I would of course fully fund education; and find the money to train, recruit, and hire better quality teachers. I would get rid of funding education based on property taxes; or else supplement with federal funding the districts with below average property values. The current funding system creates a rich-poor imbalance in quality. Controversially, I would keep phys. ed. but get rid of high school sports -- at least gov't funded sports teams. Kids are in school to learn, not score touchdowns. Again, I would build more day care centers near the places where the working poor live and work, and give need-based discounts or free service (not tax credits). I would spend more money on college scholarships -- or just give everybody with a high enough GPA free in-state tuition. And spend more on university research, whence most of the scientific innovations that fuel our economy originate.
Those are just some of my lefty liberal policy ideas, but that's probably enough already to drive you nuts, so I'll stop there.
- Show quoted text -
No comments:
Post a Comment