Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- ‘The Common Good’

Source: Politics and Prose

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

In this long PBS style fundraiser marathon of a speech that Robert Reich gave in Washington about his book The Common Good, I got the sense that he was talking about what’s called the social contract. This idea that Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists and some Progressives push that government is there to make sure everyone is taken care and has what they need to live well in society. And Reich is probably using the New Deal from the 1930s and the Great Society from the 1960s, as his idea of what the social contract or the common good is.

As a Liberal I’m all in favor of a public safety net for people who truly need it. And if we’re going to continue to have a public safety net for people who are uneducated and under skilled, than that safety net should be used to empower people so they can get a good enough job to become economically self-sufficient and no longer need public assistance at all. Instead of just giving low-skilled workers and non-workers money that is produced by people who work hard for a living and don’t qualify for public assistance.

I’m all if favor of requiring people to who are on Welfare to go to work and even take the first job that opens up for them that they’re qualified for. As well as giving them child care assistance so they can go to work, if they have kids. As well as education assistance so they can go back to school and further and finish their education, so again they can get themselves a good job. That programs like Medicaid and Food Assistance, to use as examples, Public Housing would be another one, would be for low-income workers, instead of non-workers.

My idea of a safety net ( which I prefer over social contract or welfare state ) is a public social insurance system. There for people who can’t survive even in the short-term without that financial assistance. But also there to help those people get on their feet economically. Similar to auto insurance, or property insurance. You don’t use those insurances to pay your bills. You use them when your car is in an accident, or your house is on fire or gets flooded.

A safety net should be for people who lose their jobs, don’t have a good education, can’t afford health insurance, don’t make enough money to feed themselves, can’t afford housing. Not for people who simply don’t want to work in America.

Politics and Prose: Robert Reich- ‘The Common Good’

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Opinion- Mark Thoma- Are Calls For Wealth Redistribution Based on Envy or Justice?: How to Expand Economic Wealth in America

Money, Money, Money

Wealth or income redistribution, it depends on how you define it because government at all levels does it all the time everyday. And generally when government redistributes wealth it is noncontroversial. It taxes these people who live here to fund a school or fix a road over here. Social Security taxes today’s workers to pay for today’s retirees. So for anyone who says they are against wealth redistribution they should also explain how they feel about public education and roads and so forth. Things that the public uses everyday that if anything most of us tend to take for granted.

But this post is not really about noncontroversial income redistribution because where would the fun be in that. But to talk about the controversial forms of wealth redistribution at least at the hands of government. That is calls from the let’s say so-called progressive-left or even socialist-left that says “the Federal Government should tax the superrich and perhaps just plain rich people. (Perhaps minorities would be excluded) To take care of Americans who aren’t doing very well and perhaps people who aren’t technically but have to work very hard and a lot just to pay their bills”.

If you want a society that is financially free at least in the sense that it is successful and not only able to pay their bills, but set aside money for themselves and even donate to charity and perhaps look after family members and friends who may need a little extra money, that economic success simply has to be encouraged and rewarded. Instead of essentially punishing people for making it on their own and making a lot of money to take care of people who aren’t successful.

Otherwise you will create an dependent society in America instead of that free society where wealth is discouraged and dependency on government in order to survive financially is encouraged. Because you are telling people whether intentionally or not that they shouldn’t be successful because we the government will take a lot of that money from you. And also telling people that “if you aren’t successful the wealthy will take care of you at the hands of government”.

What we should be doing instead as a society especially for struggling Americans is to empower them to become successful on their own. Either by finishing their education or furthering their education. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. And that means reforming public education in America, making educational and job training opportunities universal for low-skilled adults. And for the college educated who now need more skills because their good job left for another country or no longer exists. And investing a lot more in infrastructure especially in underserved communities so they have the roads, schools and business’s that they need to be economically successful.

You want more Americans to be doing well in America you don’t discourage the Americans who are doing well already to stop being successful. What you do instead is continue to encourage people to be successful in this country. As well as empower more Americans to be successful as well.
Media Spin: Milton Friedman- Redistribution of Wealth

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Opinion- Mark Thoma- Inequality in Capitalist Systems: The Role of Social Insurance in a Capitalist System

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

 

I would describe capitalism, or private enterprise, meaning private businesses and wealth controlled by individuals or groups of individuals, not by the state, as the worst type of economic system in the world, except for all the rest.  Actually, as has been pointed out on this blog many times, what I call liberal capitalism is capitalism designed to include everyone, where everyone has economic freedom and is not controlled by the special few or by government.  This is the worst form of capitalism, except for all the rest.

I mention that because there are several forms of capitalism, and all developed countries and rapidly developing countries, large countries like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, have one form or another of a capitalist economic system. And the beauty of each of these different types of capitalist systems is the idea that your competitors cannot just outclass you but also put you out of business. So in this system, you must deliver the best services possible at the most affordable and competitive prices or be driven out of business.

The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people do very well for whatever reason, for example, starting off very rich along with getting the best education possible, or simply coming from modest roots but working very hard and productively and reaping the benefits so they are more than capable of caring for themselves and their families.

But on the other side, there are people at the bottom who, for whatever reason, either through bad personal choices, such as not finishing their education or having children before they were ready to raise them properly, or coming from a low-income family without access to a decent education, now find themselves living in poverty as adults and perhaps raising children as well.

That is where social insurance, or the safety net, jumps in to help the people at the bottom, where they are ignored by the private market or did not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the private market to make a good life for themselves. The safety net covers temporary financial assistance for people living in poverty and not currently working and provides access to education and job training, which provide the tools needed to achieve economic freedom by finding a good job with a living wage.

UMass Economics: Social vs Private Insurance

 

Read Full Post »

Lord Rothschild: Video: The Situation Room: Michelle Bachmann Debates Bernie Sanders

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I don’t know why anyone takes Representative Michelle Bachmann seriously on anything. Except when it may come to satire or what is stupid in the world today. I could just concentrate on the fact that she spends her time repeating Tea Party talking points that are completely false. The Obama War on Women to use as an example, the Obama War on Success or the Obama War on Energy. Are just a few examples and the fact that CNN brings her to debate someone as serious as knowledgeable as Senator Bernie Sanders whose also a gentleman and let’s people speak, is beyond me.

You want to know why CNN’s ratings are down and they are actually losing viewers to that joke called a news network MSNBC, I’ll tell you anyway. Because Wolf Blitzer and other’s at CNN bring on Michelle Bachmann and people just as ignorant and rude as she is. And just basically let her talk the whole time and when they have what they call debates with her there, she not only get’s to speak as long as she wants to, but get’s to take the person’s she’s debating with time as well. Not stopping her awful interruptions and as a result viewers have to listen to all of her garbage. That doesn’t get questioned or turn to another channel.

As far as poverty in America, I actually watched the entire video of the interview of the poor single mom. And what she was said was that she needs additional skills and education so she can get herself a good job and not need public assistance at all. Because she knows she simply can’t support herself on public assistance or working a minimum wage job with public assistance. Which has been one of my main points when it has come to the so-called War on Poverty in America.

Read Full Post »

The McLaughlin Group: Video: The State of The Union, Economic Mobility, Syria, Liberal vs Progressive

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As far as the State of the Union if I’m President Obama or he could hear my advice for him, I would say use this speech to kickoff the 2014 Campaign to Save Congressional Democrats. Keeping the Senate majority and keeping the House Democratic Caucus at about where it is right now. “And this is how we are going to do that by making 2014 all about the economy and the Liberal Democratic vision to move the country forward economically.” If he’s successful in doing that, he could take sixty percent of the country with him who tend to like Democrats more on these issues than Republicans.

Economic mobility is about making 2014 about the economy. Again the Liberal Democratic vision.

1. Extend Unemployment Insurance so people struggling so hard just to go back to work at least have some income while they are doing that. And what we are also going to do is expand job training for these unemployed workers, but also for low-income low-skilled workers. So they can get the skills they need to either go back to work at a good job, or get an even better job from what low-income low-skilled workers are doing right now.

2. We are going to create a ten-dollar an hour minimum wage to make work pay more than not working. And so these workers can purchase more which will help drive consumer spending and economic growth.

3. We are going to create a National Infrastructure System and actually add to that. With a national public/private corporation or National Infrastructure Bank with the simple task of prioritizing infrastructure projects that either have to be rebuilt or built. That would reward contracts to private construction companies to do the work and bring in private investors to pay for the projects.

What President Obama could say to Congress that is the Republican House that isn’t really interested in doing anything that may need Democratic support to pass. And a Democratic Senate that has a Republican minority that is only interested in winning back the Senate. “I’m offering my hand and if you want to be my partner in helping to put Americans back to work and jumpstart the economy. You can either work with me on this, or I’m going to do as much as this by myself as I can. In case you try to stonewall me with the Republican House not doing anything. Or Senate Republicans trying to block anything that the Senate Leader Harry Reid brings to the floor to address these issues.”

As far as Syria the United States lost whatever opportunity it had a year ago or two years ago to knock out the Assad Regime. And at least give the Syrian Opposition a fighting chance to not only defend themselves, but to try to do the job themselves. And now as a result we are at a point where we are trying to prevent the worst from happening with Bashar Al-Assad still as President of Syria. And both sides already know this.

Liberal vs. Progressive or even Social Democrat as I prefer to call it. Is really about the two Democratic economic visions coming from the Left. Liberals want to empower Americans who need it to be able to create their own freedom for themselves. Which is why President Obama is going to focus so much on education, job training and infrastructure. Today’s so-called Progressives are essentially saying that, “the wealthy have too much and what we really need to do is take a lot of money from them so the Federal Government has enough money to take care of everyone else.”

Read Full Post »

CNN: Video: A Governor’s Solution to Ending Poverty

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Senator Marco Rubio actually makes some good points here. As long letting the states doesn’t come with fewer resources and that Congress funds them appropriately, but then says the states can run them under basic fundamental standards. Meaning everyone whose eligible for program A or B or whatever when it comes to public assistance get’s that assistance. Instead of Washington telling Florida or Texas, or California or whoever how to manage these programs for their citizens. Or Washington trying to manage these programs for everyone with very little if any input from the states.

I also like Senator Rubio’s work requirements idea for anyone on public assistance, as long as it just covers mentally and physically able people. That if you are on public assistance even if you are working, you are doing everything you can to do as much for yourself. Including getting job training and additional education so you can get yourself a better job. And taxpayers will help you out where you come up short to pay your own bills. And if you are on public assistance and not working, you are either finishing your education or looking for work. Or a combination of both.

These are the first two times I’ve agreed with Senator Rubio on anything in 2014. And perhaps the only two times I’ll agree with him in this Congress. But when people come up with good ideas, even from party that is close to filing for bankruptcy when it comes to good ideas, I like to give them credit for it.

Read Full Post »

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Heather Digby Parton: David Brooks, “Redistribution Still Not Majority Agenda Because New Yorkers Say So”

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Heather Digby Parton: David Brooks, Redistribution Still Not Majority Agenda Because We Villagers Say So

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I covered this last night, but David Brooks is actually right when he says and the video from last night makes it clear that Americans want to see more economic freedom and opportunity in America. Through things like expanding quality education for all students no matter the income levels of their parents. And expanding educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled workforce. So they can do well in life. In other words expanding economic freedom and independence in America.

David Brooks is also right when he says what Americans don’t want to do as a country. Even though Progressives and Social Democrats people even further to the left of Progressives are for this. They do not want to see new big government programs and taxes that are designed to take from the wealthy to take care of the less-fortunate to expand public assistance in America. Which is why most if not all Democrats who run on these issues outside of the Northeast or Northwest tend to lose. And be labeled as tax and spenders or Socialists. But what Americans would pay for is more educational and job training opportunities for people who are low-skilled. To get the skills that they need to do well in life.

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks Discuss Addressing Economic Inequality

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

David Brooks even though he’s a Conservative, ha, ha is dead right. When he says that it is not capitalism or economic freedom that is the problem in America or that is unpopular, but the fact that not enough Americans have access to economic freedom. And to the tools that they need to live well in America. And that what we need to do is invest more in education and job training for low-income adults in America. And education reform so more Americans can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in America. And that these are mainstream center-left liberal issues that Democrats should be pushing.

Isn’t David Brooks supposed to be getting big government off my backs Conservative. Yet he’s taking a position about marijuana that says the state knows best what Americans should put in their own bodies and government should be making these decisions for people instead. And his position just doesn’t have much intelligence around it when he says that we shouldn’t legalize marijuana. Because people getting stoned all the time is not a good idea. Well no joke David! To keep the language clean here. But neither is getting drunk all the time good for society either. But we don’t see a lot of Americans doing either, now do we.

Read Full Post »

Crooks & Liars: Richard Eskow- ‘Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?’

Source:Crooks & Liars– U.S. House Minority While Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland) speaking at a Third Way policy conference.

“What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today.”

You can read the rest of Richard Eskow’s piece at Crooks & Liars

“A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.”

Source:All Histories– a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories 

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people.

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Read Full Post »

Chicago Tribune: ‘How to Combat Inequality’

Source:Chicago Tribune– money, money, money.

Source:The New Democrat 

“If you’re a low-income African-American with a talent for braiding hair, you might have the idea of making money that way. You could start out doing it for relatives and friends and gradually build a clientele that could provide a decent income without a lot of capital. It could offer a way out of poverty and into the middle class.

But in many states, including Illinois, it’s not so simple. If you want to braid hair professionally, you must be a licensed cosmetologist. And to get that license, you have to get 1,500 hours of training. A poor woman who wants to pick up a little cash off the books can usually get away with it. But if she hopes to earn a living and can’t afford the training, she’s out of luck.

That’s one of the ways in which the American economic system hinders those at the bottom of the income scale. Many of them grew up with bad schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and boarded-up shopping centers. Lots of the auto and steel plants that used to provide a middle-class lifestyle on a high school education (or less) have closed. So even as America has grown wealthier, many Americans have not.”

From the Chicago Tribune

“Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility-the American dream-will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?”

Source:IS Debates– debating what’s called income inequality in America.

From IS Debates 

I agree with a lot of what was said in this Chicago Tribune editorial about the problems of why people at the bottom of the American income scale are at the bottom and why the people at the top are at the top. And as much as so-called Progressives (or Social Democrats) in America like to try to make the so-called income inequality argument in America about the rich stealing from the poor, it is not true at least in most cases.

The wealthy in America tend to be wealthy, because they have a wealth of education and marketable skills that they have used to create their success. And have either gotten those skills by having wealthy parents who were able to send them to good schools including college, or came from strong middle class families. And went to good middle class schools and ended up going to and graduating from a good college by either getting a scholarship, student loans or working really hard and going to school at the same time. Or a combination of all of those, or some of those factors.

But there are also very successful people in America who didn’t come from wealth or even a middle class family. But had strong enough parents to make sure they not only stayed in and finished school, but got themselves a good education. Even if that meant one or both parents working multiple jobs to make that happen. So if you come from a good foundation even one with not a lot of money, but a lot of love and parents who’ll do whatever they can to see that you have a good shot at succeeding in life and you take advantage of those opportunities, you’ll do well in America.

The poor in America whether they are working or not, tend to have gotten off to a bad start in life. Dad walks out, mom left to raise their kid or kids by herself. Or dad in prison and mom not prepared to raise her kids in a proper way without the skills to do so. And then these kids make it worst for themselves by not finishing school and getting whatever education that they can. Having kids before finishing high school and essentially leaving their mother to raise her grandchildren for them.

And of course kids from both poor and rough neighborhoods falling into the wrong crowd as adolescents. Getting in trouble, not finishing high school and now looking at having a juvenile record and doing time. To go along with not having a high school diploma, having kids to take care of too early in life. Without much hope of giving their kids what their parents couldn’t give them. Which is a good start at life coming with a good education and a good shot at doing well in life.

So these are the main reasons for what I call the income gap in America as opposed to income inequality. So then it is about what should be done about these issues. And for me as a Liberal it always gets to opportunity and empowerment coming from education and job training. Having a public education system in this country that is not run by the Federal Government, but where everyone in the country can go to a school that is best for them.

Instead of being forced to going to a school based on where they live. Which is a big reason for the income gap in America with students not getting the skills that they need in life because they live in a low-income neighborhood. And the Federal Government can help with additional resources to our public schools so all of our public school students would be able to go to a good school.

And then with our low-income workforce whether they are currently working or not for our non-employed low-income workforce, it shouldn’t be about just getting them to work, but getting them good work experience as well as the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. Instead of just putting them to work in low-skilled low-income jobs without the ability that they need to get themselves a good job.

This is why job creation with our low-skilled workforce needs to also be about job training as well so this population can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And that means at least getting a degree at a junior college or a vocational school. So they have the skills they need to do well in life. And the Federal Government and private sector with private job training programs can help provide the resources for this.

If you want to do well in America it takes marketable skills and education to make that happen. Without that you are looking at a life of poverty and living in rough neighborhoods dependent on public assistance for your economic survival. And even if you are working dead-end low-skilled low-income jobs with not much if any hope for advancement and making a good living. But with a good education and job skills, you can do as well in life as your talents and you applying your talents will allow which will benefit the country as a whole.

Read Full Post »