Welfare State

Obama associated with Marxists and other lefty radicals when he was young. This is not controversial. The real question is whether he still associates with such radical riff-raff today, or worse, is secretly carrying out their nefarious plans. In one case the answer is: we can only hope so.

I am referring to the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy, an undemocratic plan to force a basic income guarantee by overloading the welfare system with applicants. Numerous writers have associated Obama with Cloward and Piven, and it is certainly true that Obama spent much of his career carrying out the strategy – that’s what  a “community activist” does. But we cannot prove conscious intent.  Or as Zombie puts it in Pajamas Media:

Me, I have a different explanation. I think it’s unconscious. I think Obama is on auto-pilot and never really sat down and pondered the distinction between trying, on one hand, to save the economy with government spending and, on the other hand, to ruin the economy with…government spending. It all blurs together after a while, doesn’t it?

Whether the conspiracy theorists are right, and Obama is secretly carrying out the Cloward-Piven Strategy, or whether the more charitable Zombie is correct and Obama is simply acting on a subconscious mind brought up on a combination of 60s radicalism and Keynesian pseudoscience is beside the point.The real point is we can use this facet of Obama either way – if we get out of echo-chamber thinking and actually study what Cloward and Piven actually wrote in The Nation. They did not call for destroying the capitalist system in this paper; they called for destroying the welfare system.Destroy the welfare system!? That sounds rather Republican to me!In particular, Cloward and Piven wrote:

If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

A guaranteed annual income is not the same as destroying the capitalist system. It isn’t socialism. It isn’t even welfare. It is replacing myriad  need-based welfare programs with the simple arrangement of just sending everyone the same amount of free money from the government. Do so and we can send 80+% of the welfare bureaucrats and social workers back into the private sector. (The only ones left would be those for running mental institutions and other venues for the truly disabled.) A guaranteed annual income is to welfare what school vouchers are to public education.I am not the first freedom lover to like the idea. Milton Friedman called for a guaranteed annual income in the form of a negative income tax. Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, calls for an even simpler guaranteed income in his book: In Our Hands. An income guarantee is an essential part of the Fair Tax proposal; i.e., “the prebate.”Play our cards right and we can have a sequel to the glory days of Gingrich, who got a chastised Bill Clinton to go along with a plan for welfare reform that exceeded anything Reagan was able to accomplish. Under Obama, we might eliminate the welfare state entirely, even unto Social Security, and expel thousands of bureaucrats from Washington in the process. We eliminate the marriage penalty for the poor, as well as the work penalty. We’ll be able to get those public housing dwellers to mow our golf courses instead of importing work ethic from Mexico. Come to think of it, we’ll be able to privatize those public housing complexes while we’re at it.

But some of you will be tempted to continue thinking of the Cloward-Piven Strategy as a socialist plot. After all, it was first published in The Nation, and the language is very lefty. But try to overlook the enemy rhetoric and focus on the goal: replacing welfare with a guaranteed income. We have one state that already has a (small) guaranteed income: Alaska, home of Sarah Palin. Is Sarah Palin some sort of crypto-socialist?

What do you think of federal taxes? Do you pay too much? Too little? More importantly, do you think you are getting value out of what you pay?

I would guess that most people feel that they pay too much in taxes. This belief seems likely given the Pew Research poll published over the weekend showing that only 22% of Americans feel they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time. Tough to pay taxes to a government you don’t trust. The poll also finds that nearly 50% of the population feels that government programs are run inefficiently. But are they right?

Professor Tom Schaller would argue they are not. In a recent article he contends that,

“Dollar for dollar, America offers the most effective and efficient government on the planet, doing so for about 20 cents on the dollar nationally, 28 cents if you include state and local taxes. If you ask a conservative to name a country that provides as many quality services for less, or more and better services for the same price, they can’t name one.”

There are two obvious flaws in Schaller’s logic that undermine his attempt to bait conservatives into an argument. One, the government of the United States is sadly rather unique in today’s world given the proliferation of the European nanny-state. This makes it hard to find any of the comparables he asks for. Hard to name a country that does more with less because that is not the name of the game in European style welfare states who are built around the principle of high taxes and more services.

Second, and more pertinent to the national mood, our huge national debt and operating deficits suggest we are not providing programs efficiently as he suggests. The national debt has reached a staggering $12.8 trillion and 2009s budget deficit was a record $1.4 trillion – figures which Schaller failed to include in his analysis. Eventually this unsustainable spending spree must be dealt with. The two clear paths are either higher taxes or cuts in government programs. Given that this choice is an inexorable part of our future, the efficiency and effectiveness of our tax dollars will wane greatly.

In contrast to Schaller’s argument, that we are getting bang for our tax buck, another liberal strategy has been to extol the virtues of Europe. This argument, exemplified in a recent article by noted political writer Steven Hill, posits that the European style welfare state actually delivers more. In the piece Hill recalls a conversation between a fiscally conservative Senator and a man who lived in Sweden.

“The problem with Americans and their taxes is that we get nothing for them.” He then told the senator about the comprehensive services and benefits that Swedes receive.

“If Americans knew what Swedes receive for their taxes, we would probably riot,” he told the senator. The rest of the ride to the theater district was surprisingly quiet.

Hill goes on to list all the things they receive including health care, affordable child care, retirement pensions, subsidized university educations, job retraining, paid sick leave, ample vacations, etc.

Hill and Schaller both approach the problem from the liberal perspective but take two completely different sides of the argument. Schaller argues that the United States government is incredibly efficient at using our tax dollars to fund programs for Americans. Hill on the other hand argues that the European welfare state model deliver an enormous amount of services at a comparatively modest cost in taxes. Despite two opposite positions they are both used to gird the same conclusion – that we should drop our fears of “big government” and pay more in taxes.

Talk about a heads I win, tails you lose argument. No matter which position conservative adopt to limit the size of government liberals have an answer. But only one of them can be right…right?

Frankly, in my view they are both wrong. The problem is they start from the wrong premise. Why should we compare ourselves to European welfare states at all? We are not Europe and we should not seek to be Europe. America was built on a foundation of limited government and personal freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

A nanny state and a mommy government in the mold of Europe is just not in our DNA. From the absence of those traits has sprung a United States that is different and blessedly unique in its vision of government. We want it to pave the road for individuals to succeed but not be driving the car. Why now should not now feel the need, or allow anyone to impress upon us the need, to stray from the principles that made us great in the name of mirroring what other nations are doing?

In returning to the words of our founders, George Washington wrote that “[s]ome day, following the example of the United States of America there will be a United States of Europe.” How sad would he have been to find it turned out just the opposite.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

read more: www.collegerepublicans.org

While I’m away with family today, I’d like to introduce you to the lady who pulls all the levers and oils the bearings that make this thing work. Doing a daily column is a lot of work and my editor Dee is the one who gets it all done. Here is her guest editorial. Skip.

Living in Britain for a number of years has given me a perspective on current US events that relatively few can claim to possess. Readers of Drudge Report may be familiar with the frequent links to UK news items from quality newspapers such as the ‘Telegraph’ and ‘The Times’ (the latter, incidentally, was originally called ‘The Thunderer’ in its early days – what a wonderful name!), along with some from the ‘knee-jerk’ papers, often called ‘red-tops’ due to their colored header background. According to a recent survey, there has been a huge rise in the number of American online readers accessing and commenting on these British sites.

So why the increased interest in the affairs of Blighty from over the pond? Apart from the obvious connections of friends, family and expats, along with the sometimes strained ‘closest ally’ relationship, I believe there is something deeper – something that could help to save the US.

Socialism and communism (someone once said that “socialism is communism in a hurry”) are newcomers to the American political scene, at least at Congressional and, dare I say it, Presidential level. If you’re not familiar with something, there is a tendency to let it play out and see what happens first. The naïve (and usually younger) voter may be blinded by these Utopian sounding ideas. The more wary amongst us, often older with longer memories, will look further ahead and further afield to examine the effects of socialist policies. British newspapers are a great place to start.

The biggest impact on the individual is the removal of freedoms, many of which form the basis of the US Bill of Rights. Let’s look at the First Amendment to begin with. While it is ‘acceptable’ to criticize the Christian churches or Israel, any public criticism of Islam could find you charged with anything from racism to inciting hatred, amongst various other public disorder offenses. This is in a country that fought valiantly in the twentieth century against the national socialists for the rights of Jews and other minorities, the nazi doctrine sharing much in common with that of jihad.

It was this freedom of expression that managed to get Michael Savage and Geert Wilders banned from the UK. The UK government finally backed down in the case of the latter. Well, it’s pretty difficult to ban someone from an EU country when they have a ‘free movement’ passport. That is, of course, unless the person commits a crime. Wilders’ only crime was speaking his mind, thoughts which the Westminster socialists did not like.

Geert Wilders

This hypocrisy of the left channels down to education, where establishments have been instructed not to liaise with Israeli institutions. Is that any surprise when there are Members of Parliament who openly support terrorist organizations like Hamas? George Galloway was challenged on this point a couple of years ago by talk radio host Rusty Humphries. When the questions got too hot to handle, Galloway called security to remove Humphries from the building. That of course sums up the attitude of a left-wing government – they are NOT answerable to the people.

George Galloway

Of course, control of the media is an important factor to the left (watch out for the fairness doctrine coming down the pike!). The BBC, Auntie Beeb as she has been affectionately known in Britain, has become Nanny Beeb, the official organ of the nanny state. For decades, it was respected for factual coverage of news and current affairs. Its entertainment output was the envy of broadcasters worldwide, high quality period dramas being one of its hallmarks. While the quality of programing has deteriorated and its ‘factual’ programs become ever more left-leaning, the compulsory license fee (tax, basically) increases annually. For $227 a year, you can enjoy programs that espouse the dangers of global warming, the plight of Palestinians (but not the Israelis who were bombarded by their rockets), soap operas that make juvenile drunkenness and drug abuse look acceptable, not to mention children’s entertainment with not-so-hidden political messages.

I saw an episode of Doctor Who, produced by the BBC, on the SyFy channel recently. That’s not a misprint – they changed the name from Sci-Fi for copyright reasons! It involved the Doctor and his equally provincial-English speaking assistant (Oxford English is frowned upon these days, which is probably why people like Stuart Varney took their eloquence to the US) arriving millions of years in the future. When asked by his assistant how the Doctor knew that a building was a hospital, he replied “The green crescent, the universal symbol for a hospital”. Not a red cross, not a Star of David or the snake and staff, but a green crescent. This is only one example.

So what does the British taxpayer get for their hard-earned bucks? Those who decide to work, that is, rather than those who ‘play the system’ for welfare benefits, that can be financially better off than if they were employed. A police force that has no teeth, who might attend a 911 call “within an hour”, which is the standard control center reply. A police department that tells a supermarket manager (of my acquaintance) that their time was being wasted for attending a shoplifting incident. A system of law and order where a person can get incarcerated for a longer period for possessing a weapon in their home for personal defense, than a person who inflicts serious injuries on an innocent member of the public. Considering the fact that Britain is a ‘gun-free’ society, the rising number of shootings in public places is something to worry about. Proves the point that the bad guys will always get guns – leaving the innocent, law-abiding folks defenseless.

I guess it keeps the health service busy, what’s left of it. A gunshot wound would put someone at the front of the line, no mean feat when it can take three weeks to get a doctor’s appointment, a year to see a specialist for a serious shoulder injury (both of these are my personal experiences), eighteen months for cataract surgery, or years for hip surgery. I know a guy who hobbles around at work all day that has been waiting over two years for surgery. I have nothing but praise for the medical professionals that I have personally encountered. They are overworked, underpaid (especially when compared to their US counterparts) and sometimes even physically abused. But they are like the crew of a sinking ship – no matter how good their seafaring skills, if the hull is seriously flawed there is nothing on Earth that will stop it going down! Free health service? Hardly! More and more tax money is being pumped in every year, with nothing to show for it. You’ll see soon enough with Obamacare.

There you have it, folks. A little taste of what is to come in the Socialist States of America. Enjoy what freedoms you have left while you can. Of course it can be reversed, in the US at least. The disease has taken root in Britain and people get used to it, it is all the younger generation have ever known. It would take a major revolution to change British society now and quite frankly there seems to be no-one on the horizon up to the job. The last hope, in the form of the Conservative party, seem more interested in kowtowing to the voter than upholding beliefs – their support of global warming legislation is testimony to that. The name Daniel Hannan springs to mind, maybe there are more like him who put belief before popularity.

YOU, the American citizen, CAN stop this slide towards total government control. The longer you let it slide, the harder it is to pull back. It might sound melodramatic, but if America is lost, all is lost. Rekindle the spirit that said NO to Britain in 1776, but this time aim your protests at the Capitol. Start by sweeping clean Congress in 2010. The choice is simple. Follow the British example, where the people work for the government – or make the government work for the American people. Keep reading those Brit newspapers, it will give you the impetus to avoid making the same mistakes!

Oh, did I say "right-wing"?  I meant "Nancy Pelosi".

I believe I have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate, but it is my decision on how I will meet that obligation.  I can help out family and friends.  I can donate money or volunteer my time.  I can work to improve myself, knowing that through self-improvement I'll be better able to serve my customers, coworkers, and bosses.  There's a limitless number of ways that I can decide to serve others.

Enter Nancy Pelosi & the Democrats.  They too believe that everyone has a moral obligation to help their fellow human beings, but they have decided to define what that obligation is for everyone.  To them, my obligation must include buying health insurance.  No exceptions.  Because my health insurance premiums will serve to lower the premiums of everyone else, thereby making health care more affordable.  (Maybe.)   

So why should I continue to serve my fellow man voluntarily?  The state is deciding for me how I must do so, under penalty of jail time.  Why should I spend my valuable free time helping the less fortunate?  Isn't that now what I do when I pay my taxes and, if Nancy has her way, buy health insurance?

The problem with the liberal welfare state is that it gradually turns its citizens into selfish bastards.  I no longer need to have charity in my heart; I can live the most self-centered life that I desire, and I can still have a clean conscience when I pay my tax bill.  Liberals blame excessive selfishness on capitalist consumerism, but that is merely a symptom, not a cause.  Why would a good person, with a big heart and a generous spirit, spend his hard-earned money on toys for himself instead of on the less fortunate?  He will, if he believes that his money isn't necessary, that the state is picking up the tab instead.  And that's what is happening as the state decides to become the nation's largest charity.  Slowly, those who are charitable in spirit lose that desire to help others through simple neglect of that part of their being,

Or, as it should be more appropriately known, the Generational Theft Act of 2009.

From The Corner, with charts and all!

Bottom line: This bill is a huge step towards European-style social democracy.  You know, the kind that has permanent 10% unemployment rates.

"Yet though hot socialism is probably a thing of the past, some of its conceptions have penetrated far too deeply into the whole structure of current thought to justify complacency.  If few people in the Western world now want to remake society from the bottom according to some ideal bluepoint, a great many still believe in measures which, though not designed completely to remodel the economy, in their aggregate effect may well unintentionally produce this result.  And, even more than at the time when I wrote this book, the advocacy of policies which in the long run cannot be reconciled with the preservation of a free society is no longer a party matter.  That hodgepoedge of ill-assembled and often inconsistent ideals which under the name of the Welfare State has largely replaced socialism as the goal of the reformers needs very careful sorting-out if its results are not to be very similar to those of full-fledged socialism.  This is not to say that some of its aims are not both practicable and laudable.  But there are many ways in which we can work toward the same goal, and in the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society.  The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achive the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come."

-Hayek, in the Preface to the 1956 Edition of The Road to Serfdom.