I like Paul Krugman. The man writes so anybody can understand, and he does it so well. I just had to post this one...well, because time is ticking against the supercommittee that is supposed to come up with some great plan for reducing our deficit and all that jazz.
Krugman says he's betting they won't come to an agreement, and that's not a bad thing. "Failure Is Good" is the name of his most recent article from the New York Times. He writes:
"It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a complete turkey! It’s the supercommittee!
By next Wednesday, the so-called supercommittee, a bipartisan group of legislators, is supposed to reach an agreement on how to reduce future deficits. Barring an evil miracle — I’ll explain the evil part later — the committee will fail to meet that deadline.
If this news surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. If it depresses you, cheer up: In this case, failure is good. "
Read more here...
If this news surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. If it depresses you, cheer up: In this case, failure is good. "
Read more here...
And don't forget to check out the comments for the most highly recommended post there. It's post #13 and is written by Meredith. She nailed it.
You say social programs “serving the moral imperative of providing basic security to our fellow citizens and helping those in need.”
It’s much more. Why are there so many needy in the first place? We are seeing a downward spiral toward lower economic classes. In mid 20th century social programs created a launching pad for Americans to develop themselves, releasing energies, ambitions, and talents that millions previously didn’t even know they had. This individual development through expanded opportunities lifted up the whole society.
The success of America wasn’t due to a few superior ambitious people coming from out of nowhere, starting businesses, inventing things, and working hard to create. It was due to millions of people becoming capable of doing these things. But where did they come from? Their ancestors way back tilled the land, could hardly read, and looked up to a thin layer of advantaged gentry safely separated from the hard labor of getting food out of the ground. Only in the 20th century did the great mass of people really further their own development. It was social security, the GI Bill, unemployment insurance, labor unions with work safety, 8 hour days and 5 day week, health insurance, and accessible public education that freed up the next generation to aspire to higher education and become professionals, and workers in skilled occupations. They got the security and leisure to do things beyond just work, eat and sleep and thus develop appreciation for the finer things, arts and culture, hobbies—things not directly related to basic survival. Standards of living rose to a level unique in history, leading to a more stable, advanced society we were proud of. And a spiral of mass purchasing power supported big and small business, multiplying jobs.
So it’s not just doing a favor to keep alive the poor unwashed masses that we should keep govt programs. Voters who elect anti govt politicians don’t have any idea what their lives would be like without the very programs they disdain. Their naiveté makes them vulnerable to predators who want to privatize everything for their own profits.
They must learn that Social Security spread elder support through the whole society, so freed up the individual youth from crushing burdens that left no surplus for their own advancement. Thus elders could live with dignity, while also the whole society could advance.
Before all these govt programs, most working people didn’t aspire to college, but looked for work or apprenticeships after junior high or maybe high school. Today’s emphasis today on college prep for the masses, on test taking, huge student loans, on resumes, is all very recent--after we evolved to a majority middle class, enabled by the govt programs and unions. It’s very incomplete to just frame this in terms of moral duty to the poor unfortunate vs the gop line that govt programs unfairly take away assets from the well off to benefit the less deserving masses. If these programs are gutted, America will spiral down to ever lower economic classes, with less skills, less purchasing power, and ever lower horizons.
It’s much more. Why are there so many needy in the first place? We are seeing a downward spiral toward lower economic classes. In mid 20th century social programs created a launching pad for Americans to develop themselves, releasing energies, ambitions, and talents that millions previously didn’t even know they had. This individual development through expanded opportunities lifted up the whole society.
The success of America wasn’t due to a few superior ambitious people coming from out of nowhere, starting businesses, inventing things, and working hard to create. It was due to millions of people becoming capable of doing these things. But where did they come from? Their ancestors way back tilled the land, could hardly read, and looked up to a thin layer of advantaged gentry safely separated from the hard labor of getting food out of the ground. Only in the 20th century did the great mass of people really further their own development. It was social security, the GI Bill, unemployment insurance, labor unions with work safety, 8 hour days and 5 day week, health insurance, and accessible public education that freed up the next generation to aspire to higher education and become professionals, and workers in skilled occupations. They got the security and leisure to do things beyond just work, eat and sleep and thus develop appreciation for the finer things, arts and culture, hobbies—things not directly related to basic survival. Standards of living rose to a level unique in history, leading to a more stable, advanced society we were proud of. And a spiral of mass purchasing power supported big and small business, multiplying jobs.
So it’s not just doing a favor to keep alive the poor unwashed masses that we should keep govt programs. Voters who elect anti govt politicians don’t have any idea what their lives would be like without the very programs they disdain. Their naiveté makes them vulnerable to predators who want to privatize everything for their own profits.
They must learn that Social Security spread elder support through the whole society, so freed up the individual youth from crushing burdens that left no surplus for their own advancement. Thus elders could live with dignity, while also the whole society could advance.
Before all these govt programs, most working people didn’t aspire to college, but looked for work or apprenticeships after junior high or maybe high school. Today’s emphasis today on college prep for the masses, on test taking, huge student loans, on resumes, is all very recent--after we evolved to a majority middle class, enabled by the govt programs and unions. It’s very incomplete to just frame this in terms of moral duty to the poor unfortunate vs the gop line that govt programs unfairly take away assets from the well off to benefit the less deserving masses. If these programs are gutted, America will spiral down to ever lower economic classes, with less skills, less purchasing power, and ever lower horizons.
(Recommended by 915 Readers at post)
I'm bracing myself against the media blitz against this supercommittee and its charge. With the deadline less than a week away, they will slice and dice the topic to microscopic proportions. Usually I'd buy into all the hype about what is going to happen if they don't agree on something significant. But after reading Paul, I'm thinking I won't bother to worry. It's really okay if they don't agree. Maybe the vote will go to the people, and we'll get to vote for ourselves. Think of that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete