According to David Brooks column today the American and European social support
structure are more or less equally funded. I do not have the numbers directly at my finger
tips—and apparently gauging from the lack of them in his column he didn’t either.
( Or he did, but ignored them because they disproved his thesis) The absurdity of which
is to propose that “the U.S. does not have a significantly smaller welfare state than the
European nations.” (First of all, David, congratulations on that “welfare state” buzz word
insertion.)
Some European governments “offer health care directly”, some
just pay for it directly and some have a not-for-profit system with highly regulated structure . All of them pay a lot less for a lot better
care/outcomes. He infers is that our health insurance
tax structure is welfare. If so it is primarily corporate welfare—for
the insurance companies and the employers.
Much better healthcare is available without these direct subsidies to
the corporations. How do we know—because
the rest of the developed world has done it!
So subtract those corporate tax breaks from your “welfare” total.
The same is true for the other areas he
mentions—childcare, subsidies to industry. The point is rather than his indirect, unfocused
tax breaks, mature societies make mature decisions about where to invest and
then invest—not “untax” individuals or corporations.
Brooks adds in the money the
government doesn’t collect and calls it spending? Really!? What world does he live in? If we collect it and then use it then it is
spending. If we don’t collect it, his absurdist
$10 billion dollar example notwithstanding, then we are not directing its use
for the society.
That is the theory you all want us to buy . The middle of his column does seem to acknowledge
that this is just a sham for redirecting money upward. But, surprise, somehow he gives it all
another mobius twist and ends up calling for LOWER tax rates, without, of
course all those bothersome regulations.
Finally, Reagans tax cuts did not produce any benefits –
except, again, for those that didn’t need it.
In fact he raised taxes several
times primarily on the lower and middle
classes to make up for the hole his cuts caused in the economy. His raising of the FICA was and is the largest tax raise ever foisted on
the middle class. And now they want
that money, too. So much for the right
being concerned about true tax reform.
I would believe that the US spends the same amount of money per capita on the poor, but because we have such a hodgepodge patchwork system it's not nearly as well distributed. It's not uncommon for a potentially-healthy homeless person to run up over a million dollars a year in medical debts related to getting in fights and sleeping in barf puddles. And how much does it cost to care for a single fetal-alcohol-syndrome child? More than the cost of a well-implemented program to prevent hundreds of cases of homelessness and FAS. I would bet that ten percent of the poor receive ninety percent of the money spent on all poor people, while those who can barely make it--single moms working two jobs to keep their kids clean and achieving and fed--get squat.
ReplyDelete