Welfare Reform: Liberals Were Chicken Littles

ToogoodReports ^ | May 7, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Lorianne]

"Equality of rights" means that what is legal for A is also legal for B, and what's illegal for A is also illegal for B.

It appears we concur. So, if creating an child you either can't or won't support is irresponsible or wrong for A it is irresponsible/wrong for B as well.

"Equality of condition" means that if A is economicly worse off than B, then it is legitimate to take away some of B's stuff without B's consent and give it to A.

Except that we did NOT take away from B without consent, we voted on funding welfare because most voters thought at the time (1960's) it would solve some problems. It turns out we were wrong about much of the strategy and miscalculated unintended consequences. Ooops. Now we're trying to correct some of those mistakes. Welfare Reform is supposed to be about correcting or recalibrating the welfare system, not creating new problems (like "family caps" did). Let's be more careful and not be so "wrong" again. IMO a better strategy this time around would be focussing on individual responsibility.

You keep saying that we would have a horrible situation without AFDC and the rest of the Welfare State. Prior to the 1960's we did not have AFDC, and we did not have a horrible situation.

That was in large part because we DID require fathers to be responsible moreso than we do today ie "shotgun weddings". I'm not suggesting we go back to that, but the premis of dual responsibility for kids (by the people who created them) is a sound premis. We can build on that.

[SauronOfMordor]

Except that we did NOT take away from B without consent, we voted on funding welfare because most voters thought at the time (1960's) it would solve some problems.

You, perhaps, voted in favor of welfare. I did not. It does not have my consent. This is what I'm talking about.

If two guys walk up to you and say "We need money for a worthy cause. The two of us vote that you should give us the money that we want. We outvote you. Now hand over your purse or we will hurt you", would you agree that you consented to hand over your purse?

You may protest that my example is improper, with a vote of 2 against 1. Well, would it be more proper at 2 thousand against 1 thousand? At 2 million against 1 million? Where does the magic come in?

We are in a situation where a large percentage of the voting population pay little or no income taxes. Over half of income tax revenues come from the top 10% of income producers. The people who pay little taxes have no incentive to keep govt spending down, and every incentive to keep their benefits high.

[Lorianne]

You, perhaps, voted in favor of welfare. I did not. It does not have my consent. This is what I'm talking about.

Well I wasn't around when these big programs got started. If I had been, I might have voted for them, I can't say. A lot of people apparently thought it was a good plan. In any case, it's too late to change history. We tried it, it didn't work (or large portions didn't work) and now we need to move on from there. What I'm suggesting is that in the moving on phase, we not compound our errors by dredging up schemes from the past that didn't work either, like unilateral scapegoating, and pretending that is "reform".

Regarding your metaphor of democracy as thuggery: This is a simplification of how our system works. It has an element of truth to it... the tyranny of the masses sort of thing, but you ommitted that what happens also is a move to the center. Under our system, in general, two extremes cancel each other out and we get a middle position. Whatever your beef is with our system (and I agree it is not flawless) what is a better system for determining public policy?

We are in a situation where a large percentage of the voting population pay little or no income taxes. Over half of income tax revenues come from the top 10% of income producers. The people who pay little taxes have no incentive to keep govt spending down, and every incentive to keep their benefits high.

This is true. One vote per person is a powerful force, and perhaps it will doom us, who knows. But so far, in the overall, it has worked out well for us. This is getting into a much larger discussion than welfare. There are scads of public policies I don't like. I'm sure it's the same for you and most people. What are the alternatives for people who have disagreements with how things are run in our country?