"We have lost something important as a society," Thoma explains, "as inequality has grown over the last several decades, our sense that we are all in this together. Social insurance is a way of sharing the risks that our economic system imposes upon us. As with other types of insurance, e.g. fire insurance, we all put our money into a common pool and the few of us unlucky enough to experience a “fire” – the loss of a job, health problems that wipe out retirement funds, disability, and so on – use the insurance to avoid financial disaster and rebuild as best we can."
One of the themes that jumps out at me from my reading of actions during World War II: American servicemen completely grasped that we were all in this together - they didn't abandon their fellow soldiers and sailors to the enemy. The order to "abandon ship" didn't mean "abandon your shipmates." It didn't mean "you're on your own." The French say "sauve qui peut," literally "save [oneself] who can" or "every man for himself." That wasn't the way of the American warrior. It is the way these days of wealthy Republicans.
"But growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them." The two strata Thoma is referring to are the 1% at the top of the ladder and the other 99%. "As that has happened," Thoma goes on, "as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined."
During World War II, even the wealthy dared not violate rationing, even when they could easily afford black market prices. Nor did they dare evade the draft. It wasn't patriotic.
"Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs."
I didn't miss the Republican message conveyed during last year's election. The theme was "you hard working white folks have to pay taxes to support those lazy, shiftless blacks and hispanics (all illegal immigrants)." Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans and recent immigrants of all varieties got the same message: The Republican Party has become the party of White Supremacists. Indeed, both supporters and opponents of the GOP understand that "politically conservative" is another way of saying "White Supremacist."
"Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves." ( in their own imaginations) "They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else." Balderdash!
The American industrial planner who most clearly articulated the antidote to this nonsense was the late W. Edwards Deming. He understood that success was a result of collective rather than individual effort and particularly opposed bonuses. He described giving a manager a bonus for his organization's quarterly success as akin to rewarding the weatherman for a pleasant sunshiny day.
"Those at the bottom, on the other hand," the comfortably wealthy assert, "are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem," according to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, "and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves." And how did the Koch brothers provide for themselves? The old fashioned way. By choosing wealthy parents.
The people who have made poor choices in recent decades are our political leaders who dismantled very effective protections put in place eighty years ago. We are all suffering as a result.
"Of course, this is a false view of how the system operates," Thoma explains. "The wealthy would not have the opportunity to make so much money if it society didn’t provide the infrastructure, educated workforce, legal protections, and other building blocks critical for their success. And we shouldn’t forget that many of the wealthy got where they are through the privilege and advantage that comes from familial wealth rather than their own merit."
I might add that another way the super wealthy got that way is by buying politicians to change the rules by which we all live. To their advantage, of course. They have rigged the system.
This
political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the
size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by
Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate
spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security,
Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no
accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing
income inequality. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
This
political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the
size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by
Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate
spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security,
Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no
accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing
income inequality. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from
the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem
until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin
increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So
finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems
to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See
more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from
the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem
until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin
increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So
finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems
to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See
more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In
fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a
debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does
finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health
care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that
already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt
problem. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In
fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a
debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does
finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health
care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that
already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt
problem. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment