More on the Deserving
A few people commented on yesterday’s post. I was reminded of another event earlier in my life that might cast light on the subject. The commenter basically said that the rich don’t deserve their tax breaks and corporate welfare. I would agree except we have a fundamental problem with that line of thinking.
I remember going to downtown Fort Worth with some classmates to go watch a movie. They came upon a homeless guy and agreed to buy him a Whataburger. However, there was a string attached. He would have to accept a Bible before he would get any of the food. The bargain seemed cruel, but even worse was the assumption behind it.
See, why does he need a Bible? We are assuming that his plight is somehow connected to a lack of faith. If he had more faith then maybe he would be more successful. The Old Testament is full of these stories. Success is tied to virtue. The virtuous have success and the poor and destitute lack virtue. So, you see a homeless man that is hungry and down on his luck and it must be because he has angered God somehow. Therefore, he needs religion to get back on his feet.
Therefore, captains of industry have earned their success through virtue. They’ve earned it through hard work. They’ve earned it through doing the right thing and avoiding the wrong things. Therefore, if someone brings up corporate welfare and whether they deserve their tax breaks the answer will undoubtedly be yes. See, they do right by God and therefore they will do right if we give them the breaks. They’ve earned their reward.
What we understand is that this is really not the case. The successful people are not necessarily the best people. They may not be the most talented people. They may have just been lucky. The reverse is also true of those that struggle. Maybe they made some key mistakes or made bad choices. Maybe they were just the victims of bad luck. We have no way of knowing one way or the other just by looking at them.
Government spending can’t be about who deserves what. Government spending has to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people. Government is charged with protecting our life, liberty, and property. Government is charged with making us better people. They do that through a social safety net. They do that through public works like education, endowment of the arts, or scientific study. They do that by protecting consumers, workers, and citizens from those that would prey on them. They do that by providing security through police and our legal system.
So, the question of corporate welfare vs. welfare for the poor isn’t a question of who deserves it. It is a question of how sound an investment it is. If we help poor people escape poverty we benefit society. If we give rich people more money they usually pocket it or funnel it to stockholders. So, it is ultimately about benefit.
If we forgive college loans, offer free community college, or eliminate interest then we allow young people to spend more. They might be able to afford that first home. That first home is the start of building generational wealth. When we elevate more people out of poverty or into the middle class we benefit more. So, it is ultimately about benefit and not about being deserving.
Prosperity religion has long been preached. It is much easier to believe in it if it is never questioned.
1“If we forgive college loans, offer free community college, or eliminate interest then we allow young people to spend more. ”
It drives me mad when Sen. Warren and others make this argument. In my opinion, this is by far the very weakest possible rationale for if the objective is to “allow young people to spend more,” then why tie the money specifically to education or to young people? Why not give *everyone* a fistful of money to use however they want?
We subsidize education not just because it’s good for the individual but also for their current/future families and for the nation as a whole. An aware citizen is a better citizen. THAT is the good, right argument to make. (And note that I said “education” rather than “college” because I believe that vocational/technical schooling is equally important to our society.)
2AlanInAustin – the children of middle class and working class parents who go on to college are, as a group, those people that will, given the opportunity, be the movers and shakers of their generation. They are also the group most likely to be burdened with large college loans, loans that will limit their opportunities to advance our society.
Just one example. We in the US need general practitioners for routine medical care. This medical specialty – and it is a specialty – is the lowest paid of all medical specialties yet it is the one most in demand. So how to remedy this? Give medical students who pledge to enter that specialty financial assistance to get their degree – and tailor it to where they will pledge to practice. This is already being done in a limited fashion for doctors who will pledge to work for a certain number of years on Native American reservations. But it needs to be expanded to cover all areas of the US where there is insufficient routine medical care available
This is just one example of why student loan forgiveness is a necessity. I’m sure there are many others. Teachers spring to mind.
With respect to technical/vocational, it is indeed important and I believe we need to ensure that those students also receive financial help. In an earlier response to Nick’s initial argument I noted that public education should be expanded to include the first two years of college or up to two years of technical/vocational education. We should also provide funding for apprenticeship programs for the building trades and any other trades where an apprenticeship program makes sense.
3High school graduation is no longer sufficient to ensure our children/grandchildren have enough knowledge to succeed in today’s world.
The problem with the esoteric benefits of education as an argument is that the only people motivated by that already agree anyway. It’s pure cost/benefit analysis. I’m investing billions in something. What’s the return on my investment? Sure, you get a more qualified and educated populace. What does this actually do though? Well, it increases your middle class. It creates economic growth. I think people in general are more into tangible benefits than the intangible ones. Hell, I’m a teacher. I know full well the quality of life benefits to education in general. Most people just don’t care.
4The ultra-rich argue that if you give them the money/ tax breaks/ whatever, they will spend it on things that will employ/ support the poor or middle class or schools or whatever. Somehow, of course, a very large portion of what you give them seems to get stuck in their own pockets, and a very small portion, if any, ever makes it to all those people they claim it will help. Seems like it would be more efficient just to put the money directly where it’s needed, no?
5Bob Boland @3, You wrote the following quote about ‘limited’ government financial assistance to ‘some’ medical students.
There are already such financial benefits available for all, and even foreign medical students qualify for it.
I know this because some years ago I had a foreign MD practicing as a GP, and her husband [and where do most of our foreign MDs come from?], who rented a home from me here in STX, after completing her residency in a NE state.
She was on this program, and was obligated to practice in our backward area for several years.
This rural county doesn’t have any reservations, but is classified as a medically deficient area, so therefore gets the benefit of this widespread government medical subsidy program.
“Give medical students who pledge to enter that specialty financial assistance … This is already being done in a limited fashion for doctors who will pledge to work for a certain number of years on Native American reservations. But it needs to be expanded to cover all areas of the US where there is insufficient routine medical care available”
6Thanks Nick, it helps to understand what makes Conservative tick. IMO it’s psychological fear, many don’t even know they have it. It’s also the root of Bigotry. It’s also a way to justify being a self centered, selfish asshole.
Took me a few years, long ago, to comprehend what Prof. Lakoff meant but it finally sank in and I understand. Sorry but I’m posting this again, oldie but goodie …
‘What Conservatives Really Want’
George Lakoff
“In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.
Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil”
7oops, here’s the link!
8https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-conservatives-really_b_825504
No Whataburger unless you take this Bible first? I sure don’t remember strings attached to any of the meals Jesus gave to the masses. You can’t bribe people into believing.
9