Balance Beams and the Social Safety Net
Any honest assessment of our nation’s financial situation will determine that it is untenable. Spending by all levels of government exceeds revenue by as much as 40 percent. At the federal level, 53% of the budget is represented by Social Security, Medicare and other assistance programs. If we are to reign-in federal spending, as at some point we will be forced to, some reduction of these programs will be necessary. However, we should keep in mind that there are human as well as financial costs associated with these programs.
Welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicaid are often defended as being a kind of “social safety-net” put in place to assist those who are unable or incapable of helping themselves. President Ronald Reagan, no friend to intrusive and expansive government, said in his first inaugural address, “How can we love our country, and not love our country-men? And loving them, reach out a hand when they fall?” In any society there are those who, through no fault of their own, fall onto hard times and are rendered incapable of rising again without some outside assistance. And it is a reasonable measure of a society how it responds to these unfortunates. Safety nets however, should be judged not just by the protection they provide, but by the danger they help avert.
Imagine a balance beam set two feet above the ground. Not many people would refuse to cross it, and those who did cross would do so blithely, unconcerned by the risks of their failure. A net under such a hazard would seem silly and unnecessary. Now raise that beam to twelve feet. A significant number of people would now refuse to cross it. Those that did cross would tread carefully, watching their footing, and they would feel some relief when the task was done. An argument for a safety net here is more compelling, but it could still be argued that it is not needed. Now imagine that beam raised to two hundred feet. Only a very few would even dare mount it. Many who found themselves on that lofty height would turn back, unsure of their ability to cross safely. Those few who did cross would do so trepidatiously, placing each step just so, ever mindful of the consequences of even a single misstep. People finding themselves in such a situation would be greatly comforted by the idea that there is something down below to cushion them should they stumble.
The story of welfare in America over the past century is one of a steady lowering of that beam, and a steady broadening of that net. As consequences have diminished, the rush to cross has grown. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, Aid to Dependant Children, the list goes on. Even the rise in abortions can be traced back to the steady lowering of that beam. According to Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, in their book Freakanomics, after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, conceptions rose by 30 percent, but birth declined by 6. The consequences of falling off the beam were reduced, so more people went trotting across.
The gradual growth in the size and scope of these programs is well documented. A December 12th article in the Boston Globe chronicles the expansion of SSI, or Supplemental Security Income. The author traces the expansion of the program from it’s initial goal, to provide supplemental income to parents raising special needs to children, to it’s current incarnation, a racket where parents drug their unruly children to receive an extra annual income of up to $30,000. And SSI is not an exceptional program, only an illustrative one.
As fiscal reality forces us as a nation to confront the soaring costs of social programs, we should keep that balance beam in mind. There is a way to reduce the cost of government while still protecting those in our society who truly need that protection. The key is to raise the beam. Make it more arduous to access such programs by tightening our requirements for them, and reexamine what exactly are the costs to our citizenry if the safety nets are removed.
The difference between discomfiture and disconsolation is a significant one, but this distinction is too often ignored by those who promote greater access to programs designed to assist the truly needy. We must never forget that it is those who are most in need that will suffer the greatest harm if we ignore fiscal reality. We cannot continue to insist that those who cross a balance beam two feet above the ground are at the same risk as those perched at two hundred feet. We must tighten our nets to ensure that if they fall, we will be able to catch them.
In Which I Ruffle Feathers and Play with Numbers
President Obama, in his address at the 9/11 memorial at the Pentagon on Saturday, once again assured us that we are not at war with a religion, but with a group of extremists who pervert that religion to their own ends. He may be right, but coming from an administration that until recently would not use the phrase “Islamic extremist” this is useless platitude, and tells us nothing about our adversary.
We have been told before that radical Islamists make up only a small portion of Islam as a whole, that most Muslims do not harbor antipathy to America and the West, and this is certainly true. What portion then do hold such views; 1%, 2%, 10%? I don’t know that I have ever heard an official estimate, though undoubtedly given the nature of our enemy such a number is difficult to come by. So let’s run some numbers:
According to the CIA World Fact Book the world’s Muslim population is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6 billion. The armed forces of the United States (second largest in the world, and the largest Western military force) equals about 1.4 million active duty personnel, with another 1.4 million reservists (per Wikipedia). That’s about one fifth of one percent of the World’s Muslims. Even if the percentage of those who call themselves Muslims (using the President’s formulations) and are intent on terrorist actions or the implementation of Islamic culture on the West through violent means is 1%, that is several orders of magnitude larger than the forces which stand between them and us. And the actual percentage is almost certainly higher than that.
What is the significance of all this? Honestly, I couldn’t tell you. Numbers do matter, though (otherwise why would we care what one billion red Chinese think), and in a war in which our leaders are uncomfortable even identifying our adversaries, the math becomes that much more complicated.
Questionable Metaphor
”After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”
– President Obama
uh-huh
King, on King and Beck
In a Washington Post piece today, Martin Luther King III (son of the late Civil Rights leader) addresses the rally to be held at the Lincoln memorial by Glenn Beck, and apparently (because he does not exactly come out and say it) the inappropriateness of Beck’s remarks at that place, at that time.
Mr. King is not his father, and I am always leery of those who tell us what some important figure thought or meant, regardless of their relationship to that figure. Dr King’s words and works leave a lasting memorial, and I think that they illustrate his beliefs clearly. Mr. King wants to make sure we don’t misunderstand them.
My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck’s rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination
I am also leery of those who throw in a “but” when discussing free speech. I am not entirely sure what aspects of Beck’s speech Mr. King believes will express hateful rhetoric or bigotry, as he implies they will. Has Mr. King read Beck’s planned remarks? Was a copy of them submitted to him previously for his review? Or is he in fact betraying some prejudice of his own, expressing an opinion based on his views of Beck’s political leanings?
He [Dr. King} hoped that even in the direst circumstances, we could overcome our differences and replace bitter conflicts with greater understanding, reconciliation and cooperation.
I believe that that is true, but Dr. King understood, as does Mr. Beck, that this kind of understanding does not come easily, and open discussion of differing opinions enables such understanding. Dr. King understood that before compromise, some confrontation must take place. Dr. King forced that confrontation and lead the way through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. Mr. King is confusing (as so many do) compromise with capitulation. It seems to me that Mr. King, while acknowledging Mr. Beck’s right to express himself, is really wishing he would just go away, as many of his father’s opponents certainly did.
If the civil rights movement taught us anything it is this; that nothing changes unless we force that change. Mr. Beck sees problems in this Nation, and has set out to try and change them. His supporters believe in his cause and have rallied to his support to try and effect those changes, exercising their Constitutional rights of free assembly and free speech. I like to think Dr. King would approve.
Senator Boxer, and the Abortion Hole-Card
Over at National Review Online, Kathryn Jean Lopez has a piece on the California Senatorial race between Senator Barbara (Don’t Call me Ma’am) Boxer and Carly Fiorina, in which she discusses the wisdom of Senator Boxer’s new campaign ads regarding her opponent’s stance on abortion.
Mrs. Lopez, I think, is missing the point and making a common mistake among conservatives. Euphemisms are not the issue. Using the word “choice” may soften the blow for some, but most voters are not fooled, and know exactly which side of this issue they come down on. And unfortunately, Senator Boxer’s abortion ads may not be such a bad move politically. Here in Michigan we had a recent example of this when Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero used a similar tactic to come from behind and secure his party’s nomination for Governor. Many conservative pundits here were dumbfounded by Bernero’s foray’s into this subject, as unemployment and a staggering economy were the driving issues, but in the end it may have proven an effective move. In a state like Michigan (or California) where there is a strong Democratic base, raising the abortion issue will almost always be a winner, as it is one of the defining platforms of the party.
Regardless of it’s relevance to the current situation, or the practical impossibility of making it illegal, conservatives and particularly conservative politicians dismiss the abortion issue at their own peril. I think we have to accept that we will always be the losers when liberals bring it up. The left has been successful, as they so often are, at depicting our stance on abortion as extreme and anti-woman.
There are compromises to be made on this issue, but there is little chance that they will be made. Allowing minors to receive abortions without parental consent, and legalizing partial-birth abortions, are extreme positions, but the left has done a fair job of making their views seem mainstream. Our positions, therefore, are easily viewed as being beyond the pale. We should not abandon our principles, but we must accept that when it comes to abortion we will always be cast as the villains, and for Democrats the abortion hole-card will almost always be an ace.
Clearly Labeled as Satire
Wash, DC – President Obama announced today that despite setbacks to his efforts to impose green house gas regulation caused by BP’s successful attempts to stop the oil leak from the damaged Gulf well, he will not be dissuaded from his domestic energy agenda.
A White House spokesman who wishes to remain anonymous told us the President has said in a closed meeting, ”Right now teams of experts are scouring the country searching for the next environmental disaster or potential disaster. We will not rest until this catastrophe is found and we can return to the important work of making Americans afraid of petroleum-based products and imposing on them unwanted and unnecessary energy regulation.”
Snyder Provides Democrats Opportunity, Dilemma
The election in yesterdays primary of Rick Snyder as the Republican candidate for Michigan’s Governor provides his democratic counterpart, Virg Bernero a wide open avenue of attack that the Lansing Mayor is sure to pursue.
Bernero’s campaign for the democratic nomination was based in classic democratic terms of the little guy versus the rich, elitist, Republican machine. Couched in the Wall Street against Main Street rhetoric Democrats have perfected since the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008, Bernero has claimed that large Wall Street lending instructions have starved Michigan of much needed capital and participated in the downfall of what was once the wealthiest state in the nation. Snyder’s past as a venture capitalist plays directly into this position.
This strategy does not come without potential costs however. Michigan has been suffering from recession for years now, much longer than the rest of the country, and the states problems predate the financial crisis. Rampant capitalism, whatever its role in the current national recession, has had little nor nothing to do with the collapse of Michigan’s economy, and most voters are aware of that. In yesterdays election voters turned out at a ratio of 2 to 1 in favor of Republican candidates, and the fact that they selected Snyder over other strong conservative candidates suggests that they are in search of what he offers; knowledge of the private sector, and experience in running a company.
If the Bernero campaign chooses to make this a battle over free markets versus the little guy they run the risk of isolating independents and more moderate democrats who recognize the failures of Lansing to encourage economic stability and growth. It is significant that the republican candidate is a first time office seeker. There is a feeling among many voters that politicians have gotten us into this mess, and perhaps it is time to try something different. Bernero is a consummate political operative, and if he is not careful, he will make himself representative of everything Michigan voters rejected yesterday.
I Would Like to Thank the Academy . . .
Just wanted to say thank you to the folks over at SteynOnline.com for selecting yours truly as this weeks Letter of the Week.
Our Constitution is one of, if not the, greatest tools of government ever devised. Unfortunately much of its original meaning and intent has been lost. If we are to revive and revitalize our nation a deep and profound understanding of this wonderful document is necessary.
To see my letter to Mark go here
To see the letter that started it all head here
And for those who desire a deeper understanding of our founding document I suggest the Heritage Foundation who will send you a free copy of your very own.
Best Friend
Whitney
R.I.P.
You were a good, good dog.
The Dissenting Opinion 