About what David Brooks thinks Republicans think
David Brooks makes a valiant attempt to frame the present clash of political ideas in his column “What Republicans Think.” He may have done his job too well.
Brooks says that “many Republicans have now come to the conclusion that the welfare-state model is in its death throes…to Republican eyes, the first phase of that collapse is playing out right now in Greece, Spain and Italy-cosseted economies, unmanageable debt, rising unemployment, falling living standards.”
Brooks continues, “The welfare model favors security over risk, comfort over effort, stability over innovation. Money that could go to schools and innovation must now go to pensions and health care.”
What makes true Democrats scream is the utter failure to differentiate between entitlements programs and welfare. Pensions, Social Security and Medicare aren’t welfare. Citizens agreed to fund these systems to provide some measure of security in old age. When you’re 80 years old and sick, you’re not too worried about innovation for the next century.
Benefits and contributions in government programs, especially Medicare, need to be revised, but the overall goal to provide social “security” does not. And Brooks’s implication that Republicans want to route taxes that fund these programs into “innovation” creates a spasm in Democrats, who view this as a cynical effort to give more tax breaks (welfare) to corporations.
From the Wall Street Journal November 8, 2011: “Corporate welfare is the offer of special favors—cash grants, loans, guarantees, bailouts and special tax breaks—to specific industries or firms. The government doesn’t track the overall cost of these programs, but in 2008 the Cato Institute made an attempt and came up with $92 billion for fiscal 2006, which is more than the U.S. government spends on homeland security.”
In the six years since 2006 this figure has undoubtedly increased. And the Cato figure does not include the pork in military spending. In the eyes of Democrats, cutting Social Security or Medicare because of deficits caused by other spending is a betrayal of trust of people who paid into the system.
Further, Democrats see proposals to create the so called private Social Security accounts for younger people as an attack on the safety net. And Democrats believe that pressure to cut benefits will multiply as revenues dwindle.
The federal government does contribute to programs that can legitimately be called welfare, for example, Medicaid, SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and food stamps. (However, the food stamp program, originally commodity foods, was designed to support agricultural prices. Nevertheless, it is now essentially a welfare program, but it still sells a lot of farm products.)
No doubt Republicans and Democrats view these programs differently. Republicans think they foster dependency. Democrats think they throw people a lifeline, especially in tough economic times. Fair enough debate.
Some argue that welfare should not be a federal program or that it should be provided privately. Again, fair enough debate.
The fact is though that Republicans and Democrats alike have contributed to the economic mess we’re in that creates pressure to cut social service programs, which I argue are more necessary than providing corporate welfare. Democrats like Medicaid for the poor. Republicans like fancy weapons systems, including some the military doesn’t want. And Republicans created a drug benefit within Medicare without funding it.
Democrats love bringing home the pork to defense firms in their districts, too. The federal government is gearing up to pass a new, nearly trillion dollar agricultural support program. Maybe this was necessary in the depression. But now?
We see the temptation for corporate welfare at the local governmental level, too. Today’s Kansas City Star front page story details a plan for the city to give an $8 million subsidy for a $70 million downtown apartment project when the occupancy rate downtown is already 98%. Exactly when does government decide that the free market can support itself.
Democrats will be loathe to compromise on welfare programs as long as Republicans insist on funding special tax breaks for businesses, innovative or not, as David Brooks describes them. (And, again, to be accurate, Democrats line up for funding their pet business projects, too. It’s difficult to find a consistent politician in discussions about these issues. Even Ron Paul, who thinks Social Security is unconstitutional, collects Social Security.)
But passionate Democrats true to their fundamental beliefs will fight to maintain Social Security and Medicare because they are not welfare but rather are a social contract created by the people. If someone as smart as David Brooks doesn’t understand this, I guess I don’t have much hope for the political parties finding common ground anytime soon.
Tom Ryan
Crossroads, Kansas City
11 months agoGood article, George. Just what are the “fundamental beliefs” to which you refer? I see politicians grappling to explain their beliefs. They lack ideas other than ones that possess a tone one could receive from a stock broker or accountant. Perhaps politics in contemporary memory has always been about economics. The subject is heavily laden in the Federalist Papers. Immediacy combined with the fuzzy concept of pragmatism comes to mind. Brooks sells well because he makes people think on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, making people think, I enjoy his writing from time to time. Yet, he is what I call a “lamenter”…longing for the past too often. I’m guilty of that. Lamenting can be a symptom of experience, age, and above all, regret.
George Harris
Kansas City
11 months agoTom, good question. Actually, I doubt either party has a consistent or universal set of beliefs. The Democrat/Republican Liberal/Conservative dichotomy is too simplistic. The unifying belief of both parties is corporatism.
But I do think there are principled Democrats who believe in the importance of a social contract with which the government protects the vulnerable. The problem, of course, is that it’s hard to differentiate the needy from the greedy. I would rather have a system in which a few people get away with abusing the system if it means protecting the many who desperately need help. Removing the social safety net would stop the cheaters, but the sick, the disabled, the disadvantaged would be kicked to the curb. A bit oversimplified, of course, but there you are.
Steven Fetter
66223
11 months agoThe social contract to protect the vulnerable requires fiscal and political discipline.
The ability to establish a budget, live within it, accurately project the costs/benefits/outcomes of new allocations of capital, and discontinue failed programs are vital to being able to lend a helping hand to the needy.
Government tends to become bureaucratic, adding dependency to both the giver and receiver. A valid discussion is how much and how long is the public obligated to take care of those that will not or cannot sustain themselves. A year? A decade? A lifetime?
Before we spend our next billion, or trillion, please require your politician to project what will happen if we do spend or do not spend and what will constitute success or failure. Then hold them to their projections by measuring how our money was spent.
The main problem I see is that the 2 parties will go to any length to rationalize their failed policies and the voters are happy to enable this farce.
George Harris
Kansas City
11 months agoSteven, good points. How long, for example, should someone be on unemployment compensation?
But…there are many in our society who will never be able to fend for themselves: people with mental retardation, severe psychiatric disorders, overwhelming disabilities.
Phil Cardarella
11 months agoMost recipients of entitlementor welfare programs spend every cent — thereby putting that money back into the economy. So do most low-income folks. This actually supports jobs for others.
Those who make $2 Million a year both pay a far lower % of their money in taxes and spend a far lower % of their money in ways that generate jobs. For a guy like Romney — who at $750 Million isn’t even rich by the standards of those who he hangs out with — the % is less than a decent person leaves as a tip for a waiter.
Progressive taxation — like under that commie Eisenhower — forces that money to be spent in ways benefiting the economy either as taxes or actual investment in stuff like manufacturing (here, not in India or China).
Seriously, you can only spend so much. A steak can only be so tasty, a car only so fast. We have made the rich so rich that they literally cannot spend it all — and cannot even invest in anything except other money! We need to do what Ike did: Take a bunch of that cash and spend it on building roads and bridges and rail and other infrastructure — which will not only create jobs, directly and indirectly, but make our other businesses more profitable.
It is great that Mitt could give each of his kids $100 Million. But, it is time for the Mitts of this world to give the middle class — and the Republic — a bit of pay-back.
Steven Fetter
66223
11 months agoThere you go again Phil, demonizing the rich.
So the rich are now defined as making over $2million a year. I am good with those earning 2million a year paying more. Question, how much more? $5000? $10,000? $500,000? What should we expect to happen if this passes? Should we consider the amount they give to charity?
We have spent trillion of dollars since Eisenhower waging a war on poverty. The only thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that this has not helped.
As far as Mitt giving the middle class a little something back, I will gladly take whatever he gives me and give thanks. I certainly do not expect to be given anything other than that I earn.
Kent Mueller
11 months agoPhil, I was going to let this pass, but it kept getting deeper and deeper as I read your comment.
If as you, and Pelosi, claim that money given to poor people is an ideal economic stimulus, then why don’t we give large sums to bottom 10%. Just give it to them Their spending will make our economy boom. Right? From what you say, it would be that simple. And heavens, when a rich guy puts money in the stock market, it does nothing to support capital formation, right? And when he buys a corporate bond, those proceeds are never used to purchase capital equipment, right? And when that same rich guy buys a municipal bond, the proceeds never go to buy a streetcar or to build a highway or to build a police station, right? From what you say, all the money is lost economically.
You said that the guy (why is it always a guy?)who makes $2 million pays a “far lower percent” of their money. Lower than whom? If you say people in the lower and middle class, you are wrong. Go to the IRS website and check out the facts. We have a graduated income tax rate that collects a high effective tax rate for the rich than for either the lower or middle classes. I know it is fashionable to say otherwise, but that simply is not true. And please don’t mix marginal and effective tax rates like Obama does. It is very deceiving.
A progressive tax rate has nothing to do with the revenues being spent in any particular way, as you wrote. Spending decisions are made by elected officials no matter what the source. And you said progressive taxes (which we have now) results in investment in mfg? There is no cause and effect there. And it’s private industry that is financed by those stocks and corp bonds I mentioned earlier that build mfg plants, not governments.
Phil, we have a graduated tax schedule now, both marginally and effectively. It is a fair debate to question the steepness of the progressiveness, but it you lose credibility when you start out with a false premise. Do you still think Buffet’s secretary pays a higher percent of her income in income taxes than does Buffet? Buffet saying it didn’t make it true.
JR Beillenhouser
11 months ago“Most recipients of entitlementor welfare programs spend every cent — thereby putting that money back into the economy. So do most low-income folks. This actually supports jobs for others.” -
Nancy Pelosi’s and Phil Cardarella’s failed understanding of economic principles.
Mark Hastert
11 months ago“Nancy Pelosi’s and Phil Cardarella’s failed understanding of economic principles”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/about-what-david-brooks-thinks-republicans-think/#storylink=cpy
….enlighten us JR explain to us the multiplier effect, the velocity of money, and the other economic principles. Tell us how Mr. Romney’s off shore accounts are helping the country.
Kent Mueller
11 months agoOhhhhh, now Romney’s offshore accounts are the bogie man. Mark, you say that like you have facts. Please tell us about those accounts. Yes, I know it’s been reported that there are some, but please go into sufficient detail for your comments to have any meaning at all. Given your intimate knowledge of Romney’s offshore accounts, you tell us how, and to what degree they are hurting the country.
Robert Copher
11 months agoI enjoyed this article and every comment so far. Good comments everyone. It seems the trickle down only works when you don’t get blindsided by a “f.u., I got mine”. To help poor who won’t help themself is unfortunate bu necessary for life unless we euthanize or commune. ?? To help the companies that bring jobs and chance for financial gain to people but then leaves them high and dry with mortgages and salary requirements that no other company offers in the area. DO you move your kids away from granma and granpa because you were promised a lifetime job and it was only ten years? When millions are made overnight for one and not in a generation for another, there will be a disparity of living standards. The cold war ended from an ability to appreciate both societal structures, as we appreciate the fact that we all love our kids. If the our political parties can focus on compromise, its amazing what focus can accomplish. Then determine when individual or social needs take precedent, we may share the wealth, we may free 1/2 our prison population, we may stop making people pee in cups to go to work, we may stop scanning people’s private areas at the airport and change a number of individual freedoms that are currently being surrendered for the good of the whole.
JR Beillenhouser
11 months agoMark - very simply. I know it says on your facebook page that you have an MBA, but you must have been sleeping during this part.
Spending money for money’s sake is not a successful strategy. We are not living within our means. So that money that we give away to begin with is borrowed.
Just like the stimulus. We borrowed money and got nothing out of it. It may be short term gain, but we are destroying ourselves in the long term.
If this was such a successful strategy, we would n’t now be seeing the collapse of the euro and in the future the collapse of the dollar.
Your Keynesian strategies don’t work either. True Keynesian theory states that a government should spend money during recessions, but it should save during good times. The democrats are for spending all of the time.
And this is not a question of taxes. We cannot collect enough in taxes to make a dent in the spending. Spending is the issue, it always has been.
I might suggest that you start listening to Dave Ramsey. It is obvious that you have alot to learn.
Kent Mueller
11 months agoMark, are you going to tell us how Romney’s offshore accounts hurt us?
JR Beillenhouser
11 months agoHey Kent..
I hear crickets.