One of our newer readers (at least in terms of comments) challenged my budget proposals and offered some new and interesting suggestions. I say they were interesting because they were well thought out, but they deserved some attention. I thought about replying to them directly, but decided to use the concept as a jumping off point. This is going to be one of those audience participation kind of things. The concept of the sacred cow is somewhat negative. It is meant to depict something that is outdated and yet people are afraid to get rid of it. I prefer the term "non-negotiables" but I will keep sacred cows for the time being.
The problem with these sacred cows is that we take them for granted. Someone attacks them and we are left speechless. "Surely everyone agrees we should keep......." The problem is that since we assume no one would attack these, we are left flat-footed when someone attacks them. This is why it is always a good idea to reexamine them if for no other reason then to give us ammunition when someone does attack them. I am going to participate too and list some of mine. This list is not an exhaustive list but a good start. Please feel free to challenge mine or add some of your own.
Social Security/Medicare
I'll jump right to the heart of the matter. The reader suggested phasing out social security. His plan seemed reasonable enough in that it pledged to protect those currently in the system. While it was well thought out, it misses the mark in my view. My suggestion from a previous reply stands. Everyone should pay their fair share. Just because you earn 500,000 doesn't mean you should pay the same amount in real dollars as someone at the current maximum. Lift the cap. Let it me a normal tax like another tax. Then, it would serve as a flat tax. Funny, but that was all the rage in 1996 when Steve Forbes ran for president.
However, vague notions of how to fund it don't get at the basic human decency that comes from making sure the elderly are taken care of. Should everyone save for retirement? Of course they should. Social security was never meant to be the sole provider for a family, but for those that don't earn enough to save or ran into some rough patches where they had to spend their savings, social security could be the one thing standing in between them and poverty. We could be a society that tells even its elder, "too bad, so sad, you should have thought ahead," but I don't want to be that society and I don't think anyone else should either.
Welfare/Unemployment Insurance/Medicaid
This was another driving force in the sacred cow discussion. As most of you know, I hit on this earlier with much controversy. That's how it goes when you attack sacred cows. I think most people would agree with the general statement that everyone's basic needs should be provided for. Now, we get into the rub of deciding what constitutes a basic need and how long that should be covered for. Naturally, even this rub has a rub of its own. Some people have more needs than others. Some people are legitimately unable to work because of physical, mental, or psychological conditions. Some people have what I would call LAS (Lazy Ass Syndrome). How many there are depends on your perspective and experience. I see quite a bit of it in my line of work, but then again I live in a pocket where a good amount of people are in this situation.
The trouble with not picking up people's basic needs is two-fold. First, you have children that live in those situations. If their parents aren't getting their needs met then they aren't getting their needs met. In this case, you are dooming a hefty percentage of them to struggle as well. Secondly, is it decent to allow people to suffer inside your own borders? You have that guy that comes on late at night trying to guilt us into sponsoring a child in a foreign country. What's next? Without welfare, Medicaid, CHIPS, or like programs are we going to have that guy trying to get us to sponsor Johnny on Washington and Main?
Public Education
I realize I'm skipping over some important stuff, but I can't fit it in and I feel I can be a good advocate for this one. The ultra conservatives would like to see public education disappear. In its place would be vouchers for you to choose the private school of your choice. It sounds wonderful. We could kill the Department of Education and nearly eliminate the entire federal education budget. I'm sure the state level could drastically reduce its budget as well. Heck, if you combine a $5000-7500 voucher in your federal income tax with maybe a $2500 one in the state you could talk about a $10,000 a year education. Sign me up right?
Well, your voucher fans either aren't thinking ahead or worse, they are thinking ahead and hoping you won't put two and two together. In their own arguments, they assert that private schools would outperform public schools because they don't have follow those stingy regulations that hold public schools down. You know all of those pesky rules that just add to the paperwork and kill the innovation. On the flip side, you have people like David Barton that assert that parochial schools outperform public schools because they have prayer in school. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at that idea.
Private schools do sometimes have innovative ideas that help, but they succeed for two basic reasons. First, the class sizes are typically smaller. If any studies in education ring true time and again it is that teacher to pupil ratio is crucial in determining how much learning takes place in the classroom. This is why the state mandates a 22 to 1 ratio through the third grade. Secondly, private schools succeed because they get to pick and choose their students. Trust me, there are some students that you couldn't pay me $100,000 to take into my school. Private schools know if they take those kids then they risk losing 10, 20, 30, or 40 more. Ability to pay isn't the issue.
So, it doesn't matter how much of a voucher you give to parents. Some kids will not be accepted into any private school. If you force private schools to accept kids they don't want then you negate their advantage. So, only support vouchers if you feel comfortable with a considerable segment of the population going uneducated. Picture Cletus the Slack-jawed Yokel from the Simpsons and his children. That would be the kind of culture you're leaving behind. Worse yet, if kids can't go to the school and they can't work, then what are they going to do?
I've taken up a lot of space already. There are more than three sacred cows, but I can't add them all in. If need be, I'll come back and add some more in, but I'm hoping to get some audience participation here.
Unemployment Insurance is purchased through taxation of employers (except for 3 states)for workers during years of employment. They've already paid their part through their labors.
"Purpose
In general, the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under State law), and meet other eligibility requirements of State law.", http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp
Voluntary community involvement is still grand!
As Senator Harrison put it in the debates leading up to the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935, a penniless old age " may happen to any person, no matter how careful he may be of his investments, and it is almost a certainty for many of our fellow citizens with meager incomes." [Quoted in the 1935 Congressional Record p.8223.] " , http://firedoglake.com/2010/07/25/not-lucky-social-security-is-for-you/
damn, that's good!
I think we leave way too many compensation issues up to companies. So I have some sacred cows that I think should be examined:
- minimum wage; it's too low; ya can't save for retirement when all your money is needed for today's expenses
- actually, we don't "save" for retirement, we invest in funds that we hope will grow more than a savings account might; so let's consider another option for our retirement funds; could we design a better scheme than underwriting the very people who screw us over?
- I think pensions should be required, not optional, for employees who work X number of years for a corporation
- companies that reach x size in revenues may not pay minimal wages to any employee who does not have ownership in the company
That's it for now.
I like your idea, too. I like to mow, so as I recently joined the ranks of the unemployed, I'd be quite happy to be assigned some medians in my neighborhood. It's honest work. And if I didn't mow, I'd have to join a gym. . . :-)
However, some time ago, I actually talked to both city and county officials about an idea like yours. They both said that it's management of the volunteers and liability issues that stop them.
For example, they can't figure out how to deal with no-shows in a timely way that gets the grass mowed before it becomes weeds. And if somebody got hurt, who pays the medical bill? Would there be lawsuits?
They might have to hire someone to manage the program, the opposite of what you think could happen.
Not a bad idea, but one of the requirements of receiving UI is to be searching for work, so the two goals might collide.
This is only a half thought out idea. More a concept I suppose. I've often considered that a requirement for long-term unemployment insurance(say, longer than six months and you are able to work) should be to give something back to the community. For example, volunteer work at a hospital, or doing some roadside/community cleanup, working with Meals-on-Wheels.. Even just attending a town council meeting. Nothing major, not more than a few hours a week, or even a few hours a month. The only real cost for the individual would be a small bit of their time in order to keep receiving their unemployment.
I don't know how it could work in practice, but I like the idea. I think it would benefit both the unemployed, the community, and the govt.
Thoughts?
Where's Carguy when you need him?