If Only The Democrats Meant It

Just an observation: One of the factors Dems cite for withdrawing troops from Iraq is the fear that the Iraqis will come to depend on America for police and military functions if we don't. I, and I imagine many others probably agree. Now let's apply the concept to entitlement and other domestic programs the Dems treat like sacred cows.

Doesn't increasing the minimum wage cause low end workers to become dependent upon the government to secure them a higher or living wage, as opposed to pursuing education, or advancement?

Doesn't welfare encourage individuals to become dependent on the government for their income, as opposed to taking responsibility for themselves?

Don't generous mandated public retirement accounts, say like social security, cause people to become dependent on the government to save money for them, as opposed to encouraging them to take responsibility for their own savings and retirement investments? We've been hearing warnings about the low level of savings by the American people for years. Is it because they've been allowed to become dependent on the government?

I think the Dems are right on at least that one aspect of their thinking on Iraq. But I'd sure like to see them broaden their thinking a little on this whole dependence thing. If the concept is good enough for Iraq, maybe it's good enough for America, too. (smirk)

Comments

[Seekeronos]

Things like Social Security and Welfare were meant to be limited safety nets - with SS being a *supplement* to a retirement fund from one's company, or an IRA, or similar savings plan.

Welfare as it exists is a more of a crutch of entitlement than the "bootstrap" program to get people back on track to earning an income again.

Unfortunately, I do not see it going away anytime soon, since much of our manufacturing ability has vanished overseas to East Asia, and following it is our white collar employment at certain levels with call centers and IT support being outsourced in Indochina and elsewhere.

Minimum wage? That is a mixed bag. I mean, the companies and individuals that make use of "undocumented workers" are certainly unlikely to be paying thier under-the-table employees a minimum wage according to the law, as I have seen how some of them live, eight or ten guys sharing a rat-trap apartment who give most of thier meagre incomes back to (supposed) families in Mexico. IMO, we should leave it alone; as the cost of living goes up, people may be encouraged to advance and seek to increase thier income accordingly.

If ever there was a country practicing economic hara-kiri... we would qualify.

[Paul]

Dan - This is the central debate about many domestic policies in a welfare state: how do you create a safety net that balances the needs of those who truly need it (i.e., cannot do without it) against creating a system that disincentivizes (sorry for the long, ugly word) those who could do for themselves, except that with a welfare state in place, won't?

As a former public servant, I can tell you that what frustrated me the most (and this applied to Democrats and lily-livered Republicans alike) was that they seemed to think that the intentions of the program merited whether or not it should exist. I would remind them about the construction material of the road to perdition, to little avail, and argue that results should drive whether a program gets funded or replaced. I tried the "dual dollar" argument: a dollar spent on a failing program is not only wasted on that program, it is one less dollar that could be spent on something that might acually, you know, work.

I lasted one term with that attitude. So don't get your hopes up about the Dems changing their attitude (not that I think you have - it might take a surgeon to get the tongue back out of your cheek).

[Peg C.]

Now I get it. Democrats don't want Iraq dependent on America, but they do want America dependent on Democrats.

It's taken me almost 9 years to articulate in 1 sentence why I left that party. Thanks!

[Mister Snitch!]

The way Dems operate is to create party-dependent unions, who then work to support their candidates and policies. That's why, for example, here iin Hoboken local Dems recently jumped at the chance to underwrite the money-losing ST. Mary's Hospital, without public input or debate. Fact is, the hospital should have been downsized (Hoboken is a SMALL town) to an emergency-care facility - but that would have meant fewer state-dependent workers.

This all comes, of course, at the expense of the taxpayer. During the past week, state unions converged on Trenton, 7000 strong. They were protesting state cuts in their pensions designed to pull the state out of the red. The workers told the lawmakers: 'We put you in office, and we can take you out'.

Same will hold for Corzine's noble and innovative idea to create regional (not municipal) police and fire departments. For various reasons, Jersey is laregely composed of very small towns, like Guttenberg and Hoboken, each maintaining their own fire and police squads. Most of these cities are struggling under the burden, and Corzine's idea makes sense on many levels. However, the savings mean cuts in government jobs, and therefore Corzine's plan will never happen.

There are areas where Republicans behave in pretty much the same way. Parts of Long Island, for example, are run by Republican machines. But by and large it's the Dems who really live and die by the government largesse that's strangling New Jersey with fiscal irresponsibility and official corruption.

If Iraquis voted in US elections, their dependence on American aid would never be mentioned again by any Democrat.

[Tod]

Brilliant. However, Leftists specialize in getting people to believe on thing, and then believe a completely incompatible second thing at the same time.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/a_take_on_the_l.html

Logic and leftism just cannot mix. Well, at least if your goal is the betterment of society.

[Robert Schwartz]

OOWW! That must hurt. That's going to leave a mark. Can somebody get those Dems a bag of ice?

[Former Republican]

"Don't generous mandated public retirement accounts, say like social security, cause people to become dependent on the government to save money for them, as opposed to encouraging them to take responsibility for their own savings and retirement investments?"

Makes sense in theory, but doesn't seem to be an important effect in the real world. Maybe it gets swamped by other factors. European countries are home to generous welfare states. You would think that Europeans would just spend like crazy and let their governments take care of them. But that's not the way they actually act. They have savings rates much higher than that of the US. France's savings rate is 15%, for example.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Former Rep, true, as far as it goes. Europeans are very much in a hunker-down mentality in terms of their personal resources these days. Few children, high savings. But they also are very willing to strike and protest if any of the benefits look to be touched. They don't expect it to last - they want whatever they can get out of it first. That's a very human nature sort of thing. Pessimists save more than optimists.

As to welfare, conservatives should know it's a mixed bag. Most people receiving benefits do want to get off them, and do. There is a core poverty group, however, which has responded to the disincentives as feared, and don't look to be going anywhere soon.

[Dan Riehl]

You would think that Europeans would just spend like crazy and let their governments take care of them.

That's assuming Europeans have any faith in their institutions at all. Could it be that despite the government programs, many Europeans still have an inner sense of fear and or insecurity that compels them to save?

[Bandit]

"Don't generous mandated public retirement accounts, say like social security"

On what planet is SS generous?