Showing posts with label entitlements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entitlements. Show all posts
11/16/2012
10/18/2012
9/11/2012
Depending on Dependency
Via-RCP
By Thomas Sowell
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.
Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers' money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of an unprecedented rise in philanthropic activity. Going even further back in time, in the 18th century Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations, far beyond what might have been expected from someone of his income level.
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.
Although the big word on the left is "compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent.
The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.
The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media -- whether on billboards or on television -- for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available.
The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a "right" or -- more ponderously -- as part of a "social contract."
You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.
Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers' money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of an unprecedented rise in philanthropic activity. Going even further back in time, in the 18th century Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations, far beyond what might have been expected from someone of his income level.
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.
Although the big word on the left is "compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent.
The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.
The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media -- whether on billboards or on television -- for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available.
The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a "right" or -- more ponderously -- as part of a "social contract."
You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.
4/06/2011
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
By Daniel Oliver
Very few senior citizens have heard of Ephram Nestor. And not many junior citizens, either. Nestor was a Bulgarian who came to America in 1913 and lived here continuously for 43 years. Then, in July 1956, he was deported for having been a Communist from 1933 to 1939, a period of time during which membership in the Communist Party as such was not illegal and wasn't even a statutory ground for deportation.
For nineteen years, Nestor and his employers had made regular payments into the Social Security system. In 1955 he became eligible for payments from Social Security. When he was deported, the government cut off his payments. Nestor sued.
Nestor lost. The case, Flemming v. Nestor (Flemming was the secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare), established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.
Seniors today worry about that principle even though they have never heard of Ephram Nestor. They are right to worry, and all the more so when they read statements like the following one from Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson.
He described as "highly misinformed" Americans, which includes the elderly, who believe that the elderly have "earned" their Social Security through their lifelong payroll taxes. Both Social Security and Medicare, Samuelson writes, "are pay-as-you-go. Today's taxes pay today's benefits; little is 'saved.' Even if all were saved, most retirees receive benefits that far exceed their payroll taxes."
Of course they do! What should they expect? Only to get the same number of dollars back, without any return on the funds and without any compensation for inflation?
Proponents of changes to the Social Security program will not win the support of seniors, or juniors, by making that argument.
People who have paid, for decades, into a retirement system are entitled to think they are entitled to get their money back with decades' worth of interest.
The point Samuelson ignores is that if people had not been required to pay into the Social Security system, they could have put that money in the stock market instead. In which case, their retirement payments would not only be more secure but also larger than the payments they will get from the current Social Security system.
Reformers -- in the nature of things, that means Republicans -- must make a different proposal, one that addresses the concerns of future recipients, who believe, correctly, that their benefits under the current system are no more secure than Ephram Nestor's were.
The only sensible proposal will include allowing workers to save some of their retirement funds in personal accounts that they can invest, in some sort of fund, in the stock market. That obvious concept has been demonized by liberals with the word "privatization," privatization being to liberals what garlic is to Dracula.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) mocks the concept of allowing workers to invest in the stock market: "Boy, that's seems smart, huh? Investing Social Security in the stock market." "Boy, talk about lessons unlearned."
President Obama also dissed the stock market in his State of the Union speech: "We must [solve the Social Security problem]… without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."
Democrats love to dump demagogically on the stock market when it takes a tumble. Today, however, the market is making a magnificent comeback. But the key point is that one year -- one decade even -- does not a retirement fund make.
A few years ago, the Congressional Research Service studied 35 different 41-year time periods and determined that there was not a single period in which a worker would not have been better off investing his payroll taxes in stocks than remaining in the Social Security system. Boy, doesn't that make investing your retirement fund in the market sound like a good idea, huh? Who's unlearned now?
The president said in his State of the Union speech that "the state of our union is strong." Though not strong enough, apparently, for Americans to invest in.
But Chile is strong enough for Chileans to invest in. Chile privatized its retirement system in 1981. Workers are required to invest at least 10 percent of their salary in a personal retirement account, but they can invest more, and they can determine when they retire -- whether it be age 45, age 65, or age 85. The poor and people unable to work can still be covered by a government plan.
If Chileans can have private plans, why can't Americans?
Because the liberals won't let them. And unless the Republicans can learn how to teach Americans about personal retirement accounts, Americans will be doomed to the clunky Model T retirement system designed by Franklin Roosevelt and preserved by generations of big-government liberals.
Small-government Republicans will have a receptive audience. A Pew Research poll taken last September found that 58 percent of the public favors allowing workers younger than age 55 to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. Seventy percent of those younger than age 30 favor personal accounts, while -- pay close attention, please -- 66 percent of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama. Wow! That's called an opportunity.
If Republicans lack the imagination to seize that opportunity, they deserve to be haunted for life by the ghost of an ex--Social Security recipient, a poor, unfortunate, ex-Communist Bulgarian immigrant named Ephram Nestor.
11/28/2010
Woe Is Me!
Via-American Thinker
By Nancy Morgan
In today's America, feelings have replaced facts as our governing policy. Shame has been relegated to the back of the bus, and squeaky wheels have been given the place of honor.
Merit has been replaced by grievance-mongers. Accomplishment and material success are vilified as having been attained on the backs of the have-nots. And that's not fair!
In a rush to attain unearned moral virtue, millions of Americans have bowed to the PC police and advocated issues about which they know nothing in a desperate attempt to appear relevant, compassionate, and non-judgmental. Useful idiots reign supreme.
We now see our elected officials on the floor of Congress debating who has come from the most humble background as they wage a war on those greedy rich people in an effort to show how compassionate they are.
Inconsequential nobodies now have a shot at their fifteen minutes of fame, from the attention-seeking pastor who threatened to burn the Koran to the (shameful) couple who decided to put the question of whether to kill their fetus to an online vote. And let's not forget the founder of Wikileaks, accused rapist Julian Assante, who has put brave lives at risk by his criminal leak of classified documents.
The media has anointed Julian a dedicated truth-seeker instead of a pathetic former nobody so desperate for fame that he is willing to sacrifice innocent lives. The preacher was rewarded with a new car. And the online couple contemplating aborting their child are now somebodies. Finally! No word yet on if the baby will be allowed to live. Stay tuned.
A generation of baby boomers, brought up focused on their rights as opposed to their responsibilities, have turned their gazes from their own navels to register faux disgust as they publicly opine about the current media-anointed bad guys.
"I'm not rich," they exclaim with pride, secretly pleased that their failure in life's arena is not their fault any longer. "Those greedy capitalists are to blame." Whew. It's not my fault that I'm a loser. And if you dare to call me a loser, you're being, gasp, judgmental -- and everyone knows that's a no-no.
America is becoming a nation of squeaky wheels. This race to the bottom is a boon to the stupid and lazy among us as they shrug off the label of loser and adopt the coveted mantle of victimhood. The process relieves them of the need to work hard, attain goals, and become productive members of society.
But there's a catch. The "woe is me" template just doesn't play in Peoria.
We rubes in flyover country understand that the political, intellectual, and educational "elites" who still control and determine the national conversation constitute less than 1% of America's total population.
We understand that the elite's template of victimhood over merit is adopted only by life's losers. And the majority of Americans aren't losers.
Like me, most Americans outside the beltway and away from life in the elite fast lane (the very ones who are paying their bills) still hold fast to traditional values -- values that are continually vilified by the old media. Values like pride of accomplishment, taking care of ourselves, and doing the right thing even when no one is looking. And despite the media sneers, we continue to raise our children to believe in God over man.
For us rubes, respect still has to be earned, and we don't give points for merely advocating the expenditure of other people's money on the cause of the day. We rubes have not allowed the elites to redefine our language.
We have nothing but disgust for those who refuse to help themselves, who are content to suck on the government teat. And we have only contempt for those among us who have succumbed to the politically correct notion that nothing is ever our fault. (Are you listening, Obama?)
We are ashamed of the notion of dependency, and we abhor the concept of victimhood being promoted by our elected officials as they seek media popularity and face-time at the expense of their principles and sworn duty. For shame.
Here's a news flash for those who celebrate victimhood: You, indeed, are victims -- victims of a political system that seeks to foster dependency in order to accumulate more power. You are victims of a burgeoning grievance industry that seeks profit through promoting misery instead of rewarding virtue.
While the media might comfort you with the notion that you have value and everyone is your equal, the majority of Americans see you for what you are: useful idiots who have chosen the easy path of letting others define you and weaklings who have willingly adopted standards set by others instead of tackling the much harder task of setting your own. And that is nothing to be proud of -- no matter what they say on TV.
By Nancy Morgan
In today's America, feelings have replaced facts as our governing policy. Shame has been relegated to the back of the bus, and squeaky wheels have been given the place of honor.
Merit has been replaced by grievance-mongers. Accomplishment and material success are vilified as having been attained on the backs of the have-nots. And that's not fair!
In a rush to attain unearned moral virtue, millions of Americans have bowed to the PC police and advocated issues about which they know nothing in a desperate attempt to appear relevant, compassionate, and non-judgmental. Useful idiots reign supreme.
We now see our elected officials on the floor of Congress debating who has come from the most humble background as they wage a war on those greedy rich people in an effort to show how compassionate they are.
Inconsequential nobodies now have a shot at their fifteen minutes of fame, from the attention-seeking pastor who threatened to burn the Koran to the (shameful) couple who decided to put the question of whether to kill their fetus to an online vote. And let's not forget the founder of Wikileaks, accused rapist Julian Assante, who has put brave lives at risk by his criminal leak of classified documents.
The media has anointed Julian a dedicated truth-seeker instead of a pathetic former nobody so desperate for fame that he is willing to sacrifice innocent lives. The preacher was rewarded with a new car. And the online couple contemplating aborting their child are now somebodies. Finally! No word yet on if the baby will be allowed to live. Stay tuned.
A generation of baby boomers, brought up focused on their rights as opposed to their responsibilities, have turned their gazes from their own navels to register faux disgust as they publicly opine about the current media-anointed bad guys.
"I'm not rich," they exclaim with pride, secretly pleased that their failure in life's arena is not their fault any longer. "Those greedy capitalists are to blame." Whew. It's not my fault that I'm a loser. And if you dare to call me a loser, you're being, gasp, judgmental -- and everyone knows that's a no-no.
America is becoming a nation of squeaky wheels. This race to the bottom is a boon to the stupid and lazy among us as they shrug off the label of loser and adopt the coveted mantle of victimhood. The process relieves them of the need to work hard, attain goals, and become productive members of society.
But there's a catch. The "woe is me" template just doesn't play in Peoria.
We rubes in flyover country understand that the political, intellectual, and educational "elites" who still control and determine the national conversation constitute less than 1% of America's total population.
We understand that the elite's template of victimhood over merit is adopted only by life's losers. And the majority of Americans aren't losers.
Like me, most Americans outside the beltway and away from life in the elite fast lane (the very ones who are paying their bills) still hold fast to traditional values -- values that are continually vilified by the old media. Values like pride of accomplishment, taking care of ourselves, and doing the right thing even when no one is looking. And despite the media sneers, we continue to raise our children to believe in God over man.
For us rubes, respect still has to be earned, and we don't give points for merely advocating the expenditure of other people's money on the cause of the day. We rubes have not allowed the elites to redefine our language.
We have nothing but disgust for those who refuse to help themselves, who are content to suck on the government teat. And we have only contempt for those among us who have succumbed to the politically correct notion that nothing is ever our fault. (Are you listening, Obama?)
We are ashamed of the notion of dependency, and we abhor the concept of victimhood being promoted by our elected officials as they seek media popularity and face-time at the expense of their principles and sworn duty. For shame.
Here's a news flash for those who celebrate victimhood: You, indeed, are victims -- victims of a political system that seeks to foster dependency in order to accumulate more power. You are victims of a burgeoning grievance industry that seeks profit through promoting misery instead of rewarding virtue.
While the media might comfort you with the notion that you have value and everyone is your equal, the majority of Americans see you for what you are: useful idiots who have chosen the easy path of letting others define you and weaklings who have willingly adopted standards set by others instead of tackling the much harder task of setting your own. And that is nothing to be proud of -- no matter what they say on TV.
10/12/2010
Feingold Versus Johnson
Via-Townhall
Thomas Sowell
One of a surprising number of old, well-established politicians being challenged in this year's election by some unknown newcomer is Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. In a recent debate between Senator Feingold and his new challenger, businessman Ron Johnson, the difference between the old pol and new guy on the block stood out.
Feingold was clearly smoother and more glib-- and his arguments may have sounded more plausible to those unfamiliar with the facts. But what Ron Johnson said would have resonated better with those who did know the facts. How many people are in which category may determine the outcome of this election.
Senator Feingold wants Social Security kept pretty much the way it is. That would mean that there is not enough money to pay what is owed to the baby boomers who retire. Ron Johnson wants to keep Social Security as is for those who have already retired and for those approaching retirement years, but would not make it mandatory for younger people to join, if they don't want to.
Russ Feingold was on it in an instant, accusing his opponent of denying the benefits of Social Security to young workers and forcing them into the risky stock market for their retirement.
Although Senator Feingold cast himself in the role of a defender of Social Security, Ron Johnson pointed out that members of Congress like Senator Feingold had in fact undermined Social Security financially, by spending its money on other things.
This is in fact the dirty little secret about Social Security. In all the years when the money coming into Social Security exceeded the money being paid out in pensions, Congress simply spent the difference on everything from junkets to earmarks.
The fiction of a Social Security "trust fund" was maintained by giving government bonds in exchange for the money taken. But these bonds changed nothing, since they were just claims on future taxpayers.
If these bonds had never been printed, future taxpayers would have been on the hook for future shortfalls. Neither the government nor anyone else can spend and save the same money.
But the question is: How well did Johnson explain it to people who don't know the facts? That is also something that could determine the outcome of this election.
As for the dangers of the stock market, it would take a very poor index mutual fund to do worse than Social Security, even if the investor retires when the stock market is down.
After Ron Johnson referred to having recently read the Constitution, Russ Feingold pounced and depicted that as showing that his opponent hadn't read the Constitution before. It was the kind of political trick that may impress people who don't pay close attention.
But, to those who do pay attention to what goes on, the mention of the Constitution should remind them of the McCain-Feingold bill, which restricted free speech by some in the closing days of an election campaign. Just what part of "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech did Senators Feingold and McCain not understand?
Apparently quite a lot. The Supreme Court has already declared part of that law unconstitutional.
The rationale for the McCain-Feingold law was to reduce the influence of money in political campaigns. But did you notice any reduction in the role of money after that law was passed and before it was declared unconstitutional? Feingold and McCain sold our birthright and didn't even get the mess of pottage.
Finally, there was that old favorite from the liberal playbook, "tax cuts for the rich." According to Senator Feingold, we cannot allow high-income people to continue to get the Bush administration tax cuts because the federal budget needs the money.
It has been shown so many times, in many administrations, as well as in other countries, that reductions in tax rates do not imply lower tax revenues. Often it has meant more tax revenues, when people change their behavior in response to tax cuts, and the resulting increase in economic activity generates higher incomes.
It is "tax cuts for the economy," but that does not have the same political pizzazz as "tax cuts for the rich."
The question in Wisconsin, as elsewhere, is whether the voters want more political cleverness of the kind that has gotten this economy into its present predicament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)