February 4, 2004
THE RIGHT VS. ITSELF (via Kevin Whited)::
The FlexDollar Welfare State (Arnold Kling, 02/04/2004, Tech Central Station)
"Freddie Mac provides its employees FlexDollars to help pay for the benefits our employees select. These funds offset the cost of employee's medical, dental, vision, life insurance and vacation purchased."
-- Freddie Mac web siteAs pundits geared up for the 2004 Presidential campaign, a number of President Bush's defenders have argued that he is redefining conservatism. Rather than shrinking government, the President is, like Freddie Mac, giving people more choices within their menu of benefits. One might say that, according to these pundits, the new conservative ideal is the FlexDollar Welfare State. [...]
The Bush-friendly conservative pundits cite Administration initiatives on school testing, health care spending accounts, and private accounts for Social Security as evidence of the new focus on choice. The argument is that once these initiatives are in place, they can be expanded to make choice available to more Americans, giving us the sort of flexibility provided by Freddie Mac and other companies that offer "cafeteria-style" benefits.
My own view is that it is very risky for Republicans and conservatives to embrace the FlexDollar welfare state. The reforms involved may be too timid and peripheral to have any lasting meaning. I fear that, like the drip castles that my daughters and I like to build when we go to the seashore, whatever miniscule reforms are enacted during this era of Republican ascendancy will be washed away the next time that the tide sweeps the Democrats into power. [...]
As with corporate benefits, I am not sure why the public does not see through the scam of government benefits for the middle class. However, one possible reason that people under-estimate the cost of the welfare state is that much of that cost has been shifted into the future. The taxes that will be required tomorrow to meet the promises that we make with Medicare and Social Security today are staggering to contemplate.
If Social Security and Medicare were defined-contribution plans, in which the money you spend in old age comes from principal and interest on the money you pay into the plans while you work, then they might be perceived differently. People would see a stronger connection between taxes and benefits. [...]
My own view is that at some point we should confront and overcome the public's desire for middle-class government benefits, because they require heavy taxes and impose large economic costs. Perhaps the FlexDollar Welfare State is a necessary step in that direction, because people who do not trust economic theory will nonetheless believe experiments that they can see with their own eyes. But if all of the experiments turn out to be as weak and ineffectual as the No Child Left Behind Act, then the political capital that the Administration is spending on limited reforms will go to waste. Given the likelihood of such an outcome, the enthusiasm of George Will and others for conservatism redefined as the FlexDollar Welfare State is difficult for me to share.
Just in case you wondered why conservatives are the Stupid Party. Try to follow the logic of this essay:
(1) The middle class majority insists, as is its right in a democracy, on a government safety net, even if it's inefficient.
(2) George W. Bush believes it can be made more efficient by having individuals fund their own safety net directly, though via government mandate.
(3) Conservatives believe he's not going far enough fast enough, so they oppose his efforts.
(4) Which will leave us with the admittedly inefficient, but popular, system we have today. Well, not really, because as the population ages we'll keep heaping on more benefits.
And so we see how the putative advocates of transforming entitlements are in fact the enemies of any reform because it will not be the perfect reform of their anti-democratic imaginations. Thus is the New Deal/Great Society welfare state propped up by the Right just as surely as by the Left.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 4, 2004 10:22 AMThe American "Buy Now,Pay Later" welfare state is going nowhere but up and out,which,contrary to OJ's fantasy,puts us in the same boat as Europe.The number of high skill,high wage net tax payers is shrinking rapidly in relation to the number low wage(or no wage) net tax consumers.
It doesn't matter how many choices Bush offers,it still costs money,as California has discovered.Arnold's solution,borrow more,is hardly revolutionary,but rather part of the systemic problem.
We will eventually hit the "Pay Later" phase,as Europe is doing now.Our system,like their's,will go until it collapses.
Posted by: M. at February 4, 2004 11:14 AMOJ you are great!
However, as "M" says above you are on the verge of being a utopian dreamer. I listen rather diligently to what Bush says, and I don' recall his setting your convoluted reforms as his goals, or are you suggesting that like Democrats, Republicans must keep their agenda secret from the public, because we would lose otherwise.
One is forced to admire OJ's resolve to play the role of majority whip among conservative bloggers and commentators. Less admirable is his implacable sophistry.
That's right, folks: to oppose the Bush administration's embrace, in its actions but perhaps more damaging in its rhetoric, of the principles of welfare liberalism, is ro in fact fetter conservative reform and lend aid to the welfare state. Left is right. Up is down.
Let it be noted, also, that OJ's argument contains a hidden premise: namely, that Bush does indeed have a grand plan for the gradual privatization of the welfare sector. Perhaps he will forgive me if I admit that I do not share his confidence in the administration's long-range planning.
Perserverance it has; sagacity it does not.
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 4, 2004 12:46 PMPaul:
Here's the great unanswerable for the Right: What do you propose to do about middle class entitlemts?
Posted by: oj at February 4, 2004 12:48 PMh:
Suppose we only go by what's he's done:
Social Security: he proposes beginning the process of privatization
NCLB: testing and vouchers when the tests are failed.
Medicare: means testing and Health Savings Accounts.
FBI: he's using executive orders to turn social services over to religious organizations.
As Nixon said: watch what we do, not what we say.
Posted by: oj at February 4, 2004 12:50 PMOJ:
How about this: (1) Not expand them; (2) not demonize anyone who (a) opposes their expansion or (b) reiterates the age-old arguments against them; and (3) put principled pressure on our duly-elected representatives repeating the arguments of (a) and (b).
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 4, 2004 1:08 PMSo, as I said, you oppose reforming the welfare state we inherited.
Posted by: oj at February 4, 2004 1:10 PMHeck, I'd be relatively happy if the mortgage tax deduction was capped at the middle-class level.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 4, 2004 1:33 PM"Here's the great unanswerable for the Right: What do you propose to do about middle class entitlemts?"
Nothing can be done,so it will all collapse,much as Europe is doing now.
Posted by: M. at February 4, 2004 1:46 PMPaul:
Here:
"How about this: (1) Not expand them; (2) not demonize anyone who (a) opposes their expansion or (b) reiterates the age-old arguments against them; and (3) put principled pressure on our duly-elected representatives repeating the arguments of (a) and (b).
Posted by Paul Cella at February 4, 2004 01:08 PM "
Well alright: now whenever a Democrat proposes to expand the welfare state, he can just call it "reform," because, as OJ has shown with ironclad logic, expand and reform mean the same thing.
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 4, 2004 5:45 PMOJ,
Not so much a matter of want,welfare is both politically unreformable(if it means less stuff)and economically unsustainable.The math is simple,the number of people expecting free stuff is growing massivley,the number of people able and willing to pay for it all is shrinking in realtive and absolute terms.
Your REpublican "choice" welfare state or a Democrat top down welfare state,*it*still*has *to*be*paid*for*,by somebody.And there simply aren't enough somebodies.
Paul:
There's nothing wrong with your support for the current system--it's conservative of you.
Posted by: oj at February 4, 2004 9:15 PM