Cradle to Grave Conservatism?

Campus Report ^ | January 5, 2009 | Bethany Stotts

[bs9021]

Cradle to Grave Conservatism?

by: Bethany Stotts, January 05, 2009

Airing a new book which purports to think outside the policy box, Joseph V. Kennedy, author of Ending Poverty, explained his solution to the problem of American poverty at Heritage this December.

“Conservatism does not imply the complete absence of government involvement in the market, nor does it imply that economic interests always are paramount and that raising [Gross Domestic Product] GDP should be the sole goal of public policy,” he argued. “What conservatives do advocate for are the importance of individual freedom, restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government, and a firm belief that properly-structured competitive markets will deliver continuous improvements in quality and price.”

Kennedy said his solutions revolved around three principles:

1. “government policy is more effective when it channels market forces than when it overrides them,”
2. “individuals should be given more control over the resources that government spends on their behalf,” and
3. “access to [a] decent life free of poverty should be acknowledged as a conditional right in American society.”

The centerpiece of his plan: wealth redistribution funded through a carbon tax and “strongly progressive income tax.”

“It is impossible to know just how much money would be available for [a] program but I think a figure of $15,000 to $20,000 is possible, especially if we include state payments,” he said. “That would mean at least $30,000 for a two-worker household—well above the poverty line. In addition I call for separate payments to enable individuals to get education and purchase health insurance."...

[12Gauge687]

Sounds like the “country club conservatives” who pooh-poohed Sarah Palin if that what Mr. Kennedy claims to be. As far as I’m concerned, “progressive” means more government whether a Republican (McCain) or a Democrat (Obama) is described that way. And generally, more government is not such a good idea.

[geologist]

“3. “access to [a] decent life free of poverty should be acknowledged as a conditional right in American society.”
___________________________________________________________

Families once took care of their own. When there was no bloated welfare programs, people all worked. Today many do not work. Welfare engenders laziness. The recipients often have little or no knowledge of how to spend wisely ... that which they have.

Buying fast food, eating out every meal, buying on credit (often impulsively). No one can know what they do not know. However, the main basics can be taught, how to benefit from healthy life style choices, wholesome eating, not smoking,or drinking alcoholic beverages, or using drugs, etc

We can prove how ineffectively food stamps and welfare checks are actually used. Plus the emergency rooms (which charge double or triple costs) are filled with people that have colds, stomach aches, head aches sprains, cuts, etc.

Very expensive and not emergency room criteria at all. etc.

Definitely poor economics. Which is the problem with all government programs. The administrative costs are higher that the monies given to recipients.

Foolish indeed.