2 Comments to 'The good, the bad and the ugly of government social programs'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The good, the bad and the ugly of government social programs'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
The good, the bad and the ugly of government social programs
Posted By katie allison granju
The Vol Abroad is a UT grad living in the UK. She’s a Democrat, an economist and a mother, and she’s trying to reconcile her beliefs in social justice issues - like universal health care - with the negatives she sees in England from too much government dependence.
So in Mitt Romney’s withdrawal speech (full transcript from the NYT) there were some things I agreed with:
Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is culture killing. It’s a drug. We’ve got to fight it like the poison it is.
Yep. I agree. It is a poison. A poison that rots the soul.
But he goes on in that mean spirited Republican way which just sickens me. Sickens me with its mantle of “personal responsibility” - which is just a slick cover for tight-fistedness, for I-got-mine-so-screw-you, and most shamefully for sticking their noses in the trough of public goods that they like (highways, infrastructure, business tax credits and subsidies, policing and defense) and turning off the tap for other social goods that they have access to privately ( i.e. health care) despite the fact that this approach is actually economically inefficient and delivers poorer outcomes overall.
Feb 8th, 2008
That’s poppycock… nothing about espousing personal responsibility is mean-spirited. What’s mean-spirited, and downright insulting, is how progressiveness believes that the central government knows better how to fund my livelihood than I do, and then, when I have the nerve to question the logic, I am called… well, mean-spirited.
Furthermore, the public goods to which the author refers above that are acceptable to conservative-types are not ones that enable dependencies. Infrastructure, defense, and pro-growth policies are necessary. However, I believe this is where access to the government money spigot should end, or at least be pretty damned limited.
Here’s the bottom line. I help people. I help my friends. I help my family. I give to charities that help people that need help. Yet, I do not believe that is the intended role of government. This is not tight-fistedness, nor is it telling those poorer than me to “go screw yourselves.” It is simply an advocacy for people to rise up above their circumstances, and shun dependency on government to sustain them.
Read the whole post - what I’m actually complaining about is Romney’s equating handouts with the idea that the lowest paid should pay very little - or even no income tax - i.e. a minimum income threshold.
And yes, access to health care, too. In a knowledge based economy - people are our infrastructure. Healthy, well-educated people. And that’s at least as important four lane highways. There are just some things that are better delivered collectively as public goods - roads are one of those things (doesn’t mean you can’t have a driveway or a private road) - as are many public health measures (sewers, water treatment) as is some level of access to health care.
I believe in personal responsibility. I really do. And it’s patently obvious that people who DO take personal responsibility do better than those who don’t - at the very least in terms of pride and integrity. But too often mean-spirited people use that as an excuse to kick people when they’re down.
If Scrooge were alive today (and real) he’d be muttering “personal responsibility” instead of “are there no work houses?”.
Sometimes responsibility isn’t just limited to the personal.