"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."
— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.
I wish I lived in the National Review universe, where life is as simple as choosing between noble and idle pursuits. While I can certainly get behind the idea of not taxing or regulating "work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking," I'm less clear as to how idleness and single parenthood is being subsidized by our government. Despite my strong libertarian leanings, I am not blind to our current political realities. When -- not if -- universal health care becomes a reality, there will be no hope of turning back the tide of statism that paleo-conservatives and libertarians fear. To be honest, this hope has been dead for quite some time. Recognizing this, it's important to consider what issues we classical liberals (I'm not speaking for Whyrooters here) can still have an impact on, and how best to direct the governing of a Europeanized America.
FDR once said, "Continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration." I think that is what the NR piece is getting at with its suggestion of subsidizing "idleness and single parenthood." It seems pretty clear, though, that the need for things like welfare for single mothers isn't because we think it will really help improve the lives of the people receiving the benefits, but rather that the alternative is even worse than the maintenance of the status quo. Broken homes exist because the vicious cycle of poverty breeds broken homes from broken homes. Most poor women don't forgo a steady marriage to become single mothers because they want to cash in on welfare bucks. Neither the cure, nor the responsibility for "destructive behaviors" rests with welfare policy. The "pragmatic" classical liberal should instead admire the steps we took in the 90's with the passage of the PRWORA which aimed to create "reform policies attempted to condition employment behavior among single mothers by implementing policies that would make working wages more profitable than welfare benefits and provide incentives to work, disincentives to remain on welfare, and disincentives to remain single or to have children out of wedlock. PRWORA prohibited states from using federal TANF funds to provide benefits to adults for more than five years over a lifetime. Time limits provide direct and anticipatory incentives to work. The direct effect arises from inability to receive benefits; the anticipatory incentive results when a forward- looking person decides to conserve welfare eligibility for when truly necessary. While individuals could prefer welfare benefits to employment at any given time, the prospect of worse employment opportunities in the future would make future welfare benefits more attractive."
As for the pros and cons of taxation and regulation, this is a debate that has been waged since the dawn of American government. I'm not sure what I can contribute with this blog post, but speaking as an advocate of free enterprise, I'd say our current system of rent-seeking and corporate welfare is far more loathsome than any well-intentioned re-distributions of wealth we might see from an Obama administration.
-- Danish Aziz
RSS Feed