ghostrunner wrote:clement wrote:The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.
I was having an interesting conversation with some friends at dinner the other night (I'm in France atm), and I brought up this very American perspective of how in France there are extremely generous entitlement programs, and there is a great deal of abuse of them. I raised the example of someone I knew who was unemployed for three years, and only got a job 2 months before his very generous (by US standards) unemployment benefits were set to expire. I commented that the system needs to be changed to prevent this kind of disincentive to work. The husband of a good friend of mine (who is thoroughly upper middle class, works as an engineer, never been unemployed) came back and said, "Who cares if people abuse the system? Is it more important to catch the abusers than it is to make sure that the people who really need it get the assistance? Sure there is waste, but I'm not suffering from it. So I pay a little more in taxes, but I'm happier knowing that people who need the assistance will get it rather than worrying about the people who don't need it taking advantage of it."
Now I'm not saying I completely agree with his perspective, but I found that view to be thorough refreshing (and completely un-American). Americans are so hung up on principles of justice and merit that I feel we lack basic compassion for the unfortunate. Sure, many of us will dole out money to selected charities, but for some reason government can't get involved in it or they'll screw it up. Government is viewed as an inefficient bureacracy, but only when it comes to social programs, education and healthcare. But somehow the military, the police, firefighters and other non-social programs are immune from this broad-brush kind of criticism, except when a clear case of abuse has been identified.
Earlier in the thread someone brought up the idea that they would like to be able to save for their own retirement and not be required to put their money toward a low-yield system like Social Security. I understand that sentiment, especially for those among us who are responsible enough to plan for the future. But if you go to that kind of system, what do you do about the poeple who didn't plan or planned recklessly and are left without money at the end? Are you just going to say, "Well, too bad mr. 70-year old retiree, you didn't plan well and so now you have to spend your final 10 years living in a dumpster." Is that really what we want for a society of total personal responsibility?
As far as healthcare is concerned, I just find you can't have an honest discussion about it in our system of political dialogue, just like it's impossible to have an honest discussion about welfare, the military, or even abortion and gay rights. Everything gets caught up in sound bites, scare tactics, and demagoguery on both sides. The reality is, if you are under a managed care or HMO system, the quality of your healthcare is basically worse than most socialized medicine systems in Europe (and more expensive). If you have a truly private health plan, then you are likely better off. But there's no reason to think that the people who are wealthy enough to have this type of plan cannot continue to pay for it in a socialized system. They just might have to pay a little more for it.
I'm wondering who is talking about the environment in this election. If every time we go through an economic downturn or oil prices spike the environment gets sacrificed as an issue, then we clearly are not responsible enough to deal with this issue, and will only be when it's too late. People care about their gas tanks first and foremost and that's a big problem. The amount of discussion about environmental issues in Europe (which is also going thru pretty tough economic times) dwarfs the real discussion and action about it in the US. Unfortunately I'd say Asia is pretty similar to the US in this regard (outside of Japan).
Good comments.
I think there's plenty of waste in the military and law enforcement. Military contracts come under a pretty good deal of criticism - $200 wrenches and so forth. Part of the issue is what you want government doing and what you think it's best suited to. Libertarians (and I lean that way, though less than I used to) tend to think the government ought to be doing specific things that only it can take care of. Defense and law enforcement come under that umbrella. We might not like the way it's done all the time, and have issues with it's use, but without security you can't worry about all this other stuff. So it has warts, but what's the alternative?
I'm still unconvinced about socialized healthcare. I've had an HMO, and parts of that were frustrating, but ultimately I've been pretty satisfied with the quality of healthcare. Though I admit I'm pretty healthy. Paying bills and figuring out what to pay is a different story. I've also heard complaints from Canadians and British about the quality of their healthcare, specifically wait times. Personally, I think employers and employment ought to be taken out of the mix. I don't know why everyone can't be required to have some form of healthcare just as we do with car insurance. If people are out of work, or under a certain income, they could qualify for help. Seems like if we're all pooling money into 3 or 4 insurance companies as individuals, then the benefits and cost ought to be fairly similar to what the government could provide. I also wonder how these insurance companies and their employees would be affected by socialized health care.
Service is a big problem with government too. People don't like going to government offices here, of almost any sort. I don't go to the post office anymore. They deliver mail wonderfully, but the customer service is lousy. I'm not even a big complainer about service, because I've been on the other side. I go to the UPS store just to mail letters now, and I'm much happier. The DMV is another. People have limited interaction with government workers, and to the extent they do it's not a good experience. So it shouldn't be too surprising if people are skeptical about government taking anything over.
On the other hand, the private sector can't seem to get the flimsiest grasp on air travel.
I think the environment is being talked about indirectly through energy. Though the Republican emphasis on drilling is dismaying. Drilling should be done, IMO, but it's not something you make a slogan out of. I don't know why but some have a knee jerk dismissiveness about things as simple as energy saving light bulbs. To the extent government does get involved, they've made a lot of bad decisions. Bush put $1 billion toward fuel cell technology in 2003, which seems like a bad choice. Ethanol has been pushed by the government (more pork) despite it's drawbacks. Obama wants to loan 4 billion dollars to the US auto industry to develop cleaner cars, and I have serious reservations about that.
I don't think Social Security ought to be eliminated, but I would like the choice to opt out, or at least put some of the money elsewhere. But then people have a problem with that because you're not contributing to the pool. There's also the risk that my investments would be bad, and then I end up needing more than my share later. I think this is why it doesn't go anywhere.
