Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Liberalism is Good Business: 25% of American Children Live in Poverty
Inspired by the awesome debate in Healthcare as Good
Business, linked here,
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/universal-health-care-is-good.php
I wanted to continue the discussion about liberal ideals as good business. Moreover, I want not only to market liberal policies as common sense, and appealing to the right, but all liberal values as such. I want to take “liberal” back, we are much stronger than the current perception. The Left is stronger on almost all topics, and agrees with the vast majority of American people on important supposedly weak Liberal issues including security, foreign policy and religion, than the Right. Despite what the media tries to tell us, Liberal values are the real reflection of the majority of Americans. I will blog on these topics later if people like this post.
But lets talk the economy.
Im a converted republican leaner and CPA, so this is a topic that kept
me in chains with the GOP until events called on me to educate myself on realities
behind the hype. Good business is a
powerful marketing concept for any Dem platform, as Desidero saw with the well received
post.
So to begin, we all know the economy has done better under Democratic presidents in recent memory, deficits have grown less fast and stock markets done better. But even on traditional issues of Liberal concern, Dems have very persuasive arguments for fiscally conservative counterparts that they in fact have the stronger position, one that is more economically beneficial. Consider:
Universal Welfare.
Healthcare makes us more able to work, helping the economy. Child welfare is important to our economy, up
to 25% of our country’s children live in poverty.
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm
Your income and neighborhood are some of the biggest
determinants of how well you will do in life, so more money invested means more
productive future workers. Yet we invest
in children’s financial well being shamefully poorly. Our poverty rates are among the world’s best
for seniors, terrible for children. Why? After welfare reform, people got left out,
whereas social security is universal coverage and beyond “Liberal” labels. People feel less angry about senior free
rides, after all we will all be less able older citizens someday and will hope
to depend on the good nature of younger citizens to care for us, even though we
can’t pull our weight as much as before. But this justification is just marketing. Considering the amount of a welfare check is
hardly enough to live on, much yet to incent people not to get a job, there is
much less free riding than there is resentment of the possibility. But Liberalism has solutions good for
business there too- make them work, like in Holland.
They create jobs just to employ people.
Such a program would add another $2 billion to our tax burden, but hey,
get out of Iraq
and we can fund that in one week. Plus, don’t
forget workers actually contribute stuff…
Deregulation. Oh the
burdens of laws. Sure, they can go
overboard and restrict progress, but much of the deregulation we have seen in
the past few decades has its most major societal impact not on heightening
progress, but restricting it. Consider
the relaxation of ANTITRUST laws. These
laws don’t help foment competition- we can all agree competition helps the
economy right?- it helps crush competition, innovation and progress. Further, relaxing pollution laws doesn’t help
the economy overall, it helps owners of corporations make money, and passes on
a bigger bill to the public to clean
up. Yes, Big Pharma may benefit from
medicine sales to treat those poisoned by pollution
and additives (all of us), but the cost we bear has increased as a result,
overall bad for business, but good for owners of polluting corporations and
other entrenched interests. And we haven’t
even begun to talk about the last three
recessions are directly correlated to the Right’s deregulations in housing
(2008), financial sector (late 1990s Asian monetary collapse) and the S&L
crisis (early 80s). Of course, if you
ask Joe Scarborough, or McCain, it was due to greedy speculators flipping
houses.
Environmentalism. The Right has been blocking solutions to global warming since the day it began. They claim its bad for business. No. Innovative solutions are good for business and help fuel the economy and our economic leadership in the world. It is bad for Big Oil and The Big 3 automakers though, for example. Not because they cant make money selling things like the electric car (someday), but because its RISKY. They have a good thing going with the whole oil thing, they have the market controlled, game theory says milk that until its gone. Sure, they could jump to making innovative cars running on saltwater (yes someday this could be possible!), but your company isn’t made up of creative Silicon Valley types. And if they do develop the market and the right technology, the new market will attract competition and making additional profit from the risk over the long haul. Environmentalism is better business overall, just not for the companies making money killing the planet. We don’t need to kill whales to have a thriving economy, sorry Dick.
Taxes. Thanks to the Iraq War, Dems don’t have to defend an increase in taxes to fund many programs, such as infrastructure relief, education et all. Whether it’s a reduction in the deficit or increase in current taxes, the overall burden on the average American would be lower post war. Most of the tax controversy has been and will be, war or not, that the richest Americans basically lie about the middle class impact to get the support needed. See the Death Tax discussion of 2003. Notice today how the talk about taxes centers on capital gains, yet McCain’s more regressive tax plan is left unfettered. The truth is the Left’s tax plan has been more fiscally responsible, the Right’s propaganda about tax and spend Liberals more effective. But we are factually better on this issue that the GOP. Yes, higher taxes haven’t stimulated the economy since the days of FDR, but Liberals championing rollbacks of tax cuts for the richest Americans is good business, lest we overburden future generations with more irresponsible debt. Unpopular for Rupert Murdoch, but better overall. Thank God we can prove that trickle down isn’t good for the economy, but, as George Senior said, it is voodoo economics after all.
If you liked this discussion please recommend!












Comments (19)
Excellent summation.
Liberal and Damn Proud of It
May 3, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
TY. I have found these facts persuasive in talking to conservative , some of whom cant believe the above is true, whether my facts are in hand or not. But most of the time its somewhat eye opening. No one taught liberal values are good for business in MBA school.
May 3, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
I SWIFTLY EAT ME CHILDREN!
COMBATS THE SCURVY!
I EAT LIBERALLY. PLENTY O'MEAT ON DEM BONES! FAT CATS THAT THEY ARE!
ARGH!
May 3, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be a Grackle, but I brought this up on another thread and it seems to apply here - where does the fact that 63% of Black households are single parent fit in? I'm not sure that changes to welfare did badly in the 90's (and Black poverty went way down), but how do you avoid that many children live under poverty when they have one parent (along with educational issues and other lack of opportunity)? Single parent households went from 9% in 1990 to 16% in 2000 (although the poverty rate for custodial parents fell by a quarter during the same period, likely due to the strong economy).
It's hard to blame our government when more parents choose to live apart, splitting their income and diluting it between multiple houses and other resources.
May 4, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.lisproject.org/workshop/JanttiandBradburyChildpoverty.pdf
p30: lone motherhood effect negligible.
p71{ US is an outlier, more poverty than our income would predict
Yes, we can do better. Before and after welfare reform there is plenty more the government can do to solve this problem. The Finnish model, for example, is cheap compared to what we are spending in Iraq, and it delivers more production from the recipients and less child poverty (4%).
May 4, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at page 28 of the same paper:
The poverty rate of US lone-mother children is the highest. At 59.6 percent, it exceeds by more than 15 percentage points the next highest rate,
Canada (45.3). In both countries, children in lone-mother households are around 3 1/2 times more likely to be below the poverty line than children in
two-parent households. Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom have poverty rates for children in lone-mother families close to 40 percent. Sweden
has the lowest (4.5), followed by Poland and Finland. The association between lone motherhood and poverty is quite clear.
May 4, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 4, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gets touchy, especially with charges of eugenics not far behind. I personally think there are better approaches, but certainly abortions aren't going away.
May 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eugenics is about breeding. Abortion is about preventing birth... so I don't see the connection.
Sadly abortions are going away according to the latest statistics. Even though they are still a legal option, fewer people are taking advantage of them. Given that the issue today is one of overpopulation and resource strain (and the fact that the US is the more resource use intensive country in the world), the last thing we need is more Americans. Especially coming from accidental pregnancies.
But you are correct, this is a touchy issue and neither the left nor the right will allow a proper discussion of it.
May 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right wing and pro-life groups like pointing out that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was into eugenics and that her support for abortion was based on her concept of "race hygiene". Wiki it, interesting stuff.
May 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well those type of arguments can be dealt with similarly to the "don't you believe in god?" arguments.
May 4, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Page 28 does not negate page 31, in fact they present the facts in order to conclude its negligible. Im not saying single parenting isnt part of the problem, but it doesnt explain a gap of 4% to 25% child poverty. Single mother homes are not the key driver, the data is clear. Your argument only makes sense if you challenge the statistical analysis capabilities of a well regarded study. Can we get past the defensiveness and potential Bill Clinton critique and look at the issue: Cant we do better? NPR did a report on this, and the price tag is low compared to many things in our defense budget. Dont you want to move toward 4%?
May 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not how I read it - page 31 says you can't extrapolate American results to other cultures.
May 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, note Canada has a much lower child poverty rate, with high single parent proportions. Dont buy the red herring, it keeps us from solving solvable problems.
May 4, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would cite other references but you cant see with blinders on. We will as a society get there someday.
Sad we are looking at data and stubborn to admit our thinking might be wrong, and not talking about how to right the real injustice. And further a shame because the solutions are presented here, and the rationale to fund solutions justified by contributions to society- GOOD BUSINESS. The same rationales which brought us the new deal, plus more to counter free rider anger. Its all there, its all good business.
Great Britain has similar rates of poverty, for the same reasons as the US, selfishness, and they are outraged. How did they get past defensiveness so fast and on to caring for the young?
May 4, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the gratuitous "blinders" comment. Your inability to persuade does not equal my being blind. Try harder if you can. Or contemplate that maybe you're not completely correct.
May 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You too. Try harder? I shouldnt have even started to try, but you should take up your logic with the authors- they say single parenting is negigible while you "deduce" they excuse America without them actually stating anything of the kind anywhere. I mean Wow. Better to talk to a wall. At least I learned something- I gave your ability to be unbiased too much credit. 20 million kids, and your arguing nonsense.
May 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I basically pointed out what the study says: "In both countries, children in lone-mother households are around 3 1/2 times more likely to be below the poverty line than children in two-parent households." I pointed out that the study says you can't automatically extrapolate results to other societies - Sweden has a huge childcare system that we'll never have in the US and doesn't have anything like our inner-city poverty along with other societal differences. The main point is obvious - if you want child poverty to drop in the US/Canada, the easiest way is to discourage single parent households, primarily children by unwed mothers but other areas as well. You can also try to boost resources for those same groups, but economically rewarding failure leads to more failure. If you want to start off with "the US can be like Sweden", sorry, not going there. The US will never be like Sweden, though in some cases we can take lessons. Your "lone mother effect negligible" reference in terms of the US is simply flawed.
May 5, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And check out Thomas Friedman's wonderful endorsement of Obama in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?em&ex=1210046400&en=740ad78e29276577&ei=5087%0
May 4, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment