Chart of the Day

Via Dana Goldstein:

flow chart

Goldstein writes:

Matt Yglesias notes the Wall Street Journal is reporting that in his big speech to Congress tonight, President Obama will reaffirm his commitment to a public option — a dinky public option. This awesome chart from Nick Beaudrot shows exactly how dinky it is; the pink boxes represent the public option. But it also demonstrates something else about health reform that you won’t hear any Democrat say: It does more to help the destitute poor than the working or middle class.

This is always scary for liberals, though.  They worry that a program that benefits the poor more than the middle class won’t retain voter support.  This is why means-testing for social security always meets such resistance, because they fear that if only the lowest segment of the population stands to benefit, then whatever program it is faces a much greater chance of future defeat, cuts, and so forth.  This is a sensible concern from that perspective, and something to think about in this current health care reform debate.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

6 thoughts on “Chart of the Day

  1. They worry that a program that benefits the poor more than the middle class won’t retain voter support.

    Which is always a political downside for those who speak for the least powerful, just as pushing through the most important civil rights legislation was a political disaster for liberalism at the time. But it’s our duty.

      Quote  Link

    Report

        • I’m open to means testing as a feature of the welfare state if it means we can pass legislation that will genuinely help those in need sooner rather than later. But if we’re interested in a lean and mean safety net, creating huge bureaucracies to determine who is and isn’t eligible for state help seems counterproductive.

          I would rather see a simpler (a reset of all deductions) more progressive tax code to offset benefits going to the wealthy.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  2. This is always scary for liberals, though. They worry that a program that benefits the poor more than the middle class won’t retain voter support. This is why means-testing for social security always meets such resistance, because they fear that if only the lowest segment of the population stands to benefit, then whatever program it is faces a much greater chance of future defeat, cuts, and so forth.

    This got me thinking and I apologize in advance for the length of the comment. I think that line of thinking sells short the potency of liberalism’s arguments for mobilizing the nation to do good work.

    At their cores conservatism boils down to the importance of individual autonomy while modern liberalism reduces to the value of collective action. They’re both necessary and the great political irony of our age is that the right highlights private collective action as practically sacrosanct while denigrating liberalism though it’s a rather natural political expression of the same human desire to serve one another or work cooperatively.

    I think liberalism is strongest and most seductive when it’s seeking to inspire people to join efforts larger than themselves, when making moral appeals. I think part of the trouble with the political left today is that they’ve hybridized their appeals. Environmental policies aren’t just responsible they’re our key to economic vitality. Insuring the uninsured isn’t just something we ought to do but will be cheaper for us. It’s the magic bullet approach to public policy and by doing so it gives people who are uncomfortable with progressive policies the opportunity to lob on to the more objective appeals and challenge those rather than face a more subjective, but ultimately more powerful appeal.

    I think it makes progressives/liberals lazy debaters. They rely on idealistic plans, science, and supportive facts…until those are challenged and then they relapse into the moral imperative. By then, however, the damage is done – the battle lines drawn and it’s hard to demobilize.

    (i.e. the miraculous cost savings of preventative medicine)

    This isn’t to say that there aren’t progressive policies that are morally good and objectively good – there are. I just think getting the middle class to free ride off the poor so they’ll keep supporting programs is fiscally irresponsible and trading in the inspiration for the bottom line appeal has a higher opportunity cost than Dems/liberals realize.

    People want to work together to do good. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have as many charities, ngos, volunteers, etc… People want to fundraise with neighbours, volunteer with friends, run for medical research. I think liberalism has a lot more potential and power to change things by tapping into that through inspirational, moral appeals than by peddling cure-all wonder tonics and turning from greasy to shrill when confronted by scepticism.

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *