This is an interesting proposal.
This should not be in the “land of the free.” It is a sad graphic. And remember, much of your tax money is siphoned off by the cronies in industries which are connected and by those in government itself. You are basically an annuity.
This article reminded me of a parody Funny or Die did of a Dodge truck commercial a couple of years ago entitled “God made a factory farmer.”
Farming is one of the croniest areas of the American economy. The industry is rife with subsidies of all sorts, herds of lobbyists, Republican pandering (and Democrat pandering too though most of the Dems have been chased to the cities), and inside political deals of all sorts.
For decades “conservatives” have bemoaned welfare generally, but most of the attention has been on conventional welfare for the poor. And this area of public policy deserves more scrutiny and radical reform. The welfare laws in this country are seriously messed up and have done much to erode the underpinnings of American society. We have created a taxpayer subsidized underclass in this country.
But conservatives have, at least until now, largely ignored the subsidized “overclass” which has emerged in recent years.
If one is trying to get people employed incentivising unemployment isn’t wise. It is however politically great for those who are for a large government. So long as the main part of a person’s income comes from welfare one can rest reasonably assured that such a person will vote for more government.
What is the “welfare cliff?” Why is it important?
The point here is that there is some effort to make welfare recipients go through drug testing etc., and that this is humiliating. So we should focus on the welfare the rich get too.
I’m for that.
Thing is this list, almost completely, lists tax DEDUCTIONS as “handouts.”
Making sure that Ex-Im is not reauthorized later this year is important. No one who believes in free enterprise should be for a bank funded and guaranteed by taxpayers which loans loans at below market rates for the benefit of a few large corporations. (Many of the “small businesses” the bank touts as clients are actually parts of larger corporations.) The Republicans in Congress who hold sway on this issue say that they are for free enterprise.
The Clintons are plenty familiar with big business. They know how to leverage relationships in the corporate world about as well as anybody. They’ve been schmoozing for contributions for decades at this point and they won’t disappoint this go’round.
I think Daniel J. Mitchell sums things up very nicely here. I feel about the same way.
Every time we post a story on crop subsidies there are at least a few people out there who jump up and down and swear that taxpayers paying to subsidize farmers (really agribusiness) isn’t welfare.
First, what is called “Right ” and “Left” is increasingly up for grabs. The winged political paradigm makes much less sense now that a significant part of the population self identifies as “libertarian,” which does not fit into the 20th Century way of looking at politics.
Saying this however we’ll go forward.
The question is whether those who advocate ever larger government have to get people “hooked” on welfare of one sort or another in order to win elections.
How much student debt do you think this guy carried? If he ever carried any it was unlikely the kind of sum kids are graduating with now. Do you think he benefited from a generally rising stock market and economy during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? He looks pretty well fed and well dressed. But “hands off” HIS Social Security. Your security is less important however.
When I was in college one of the first op-eds I ever wrote was on Social Security in the college newspaper.