10 comments

• 

  Hayekian

  11 months ago

  Cowen is absolutely correct. Leftists frequently claim that forced wealth redistribution from the "rich" to the "poor" is justified on moral grounds. Questions about the morality of coercion aside, it baffles me why many of these same people have no objection to the redistribution of wealth from the middle class young working families to wealthy retired people, many of whom are healthy and perfectly capable of working, but do not do so.
  
  The poltical problem is that these wealthy old people vote in large numbers, and they have a very powerful voice in America's most obnoxious lobbying organization : the AARP.
  
  Anecdotal evidence of the obstacle facing entitlement reform : A co-worker of mine and his wife earn a combined income of well over $200K / year. They are in their late 30s. Yet, when I recently mentioned to him the idea of means-testing Social Security and Medicare, he lapsed into the typical mantra " By God I paid into those programs, and I deserve my benefits". And I know for a fact, he votes in every election.
  
  There is not getting around it. This attitude is what the Left now supports.
  reply
• 

  DWAnderson

  11 months ago

  I have no objection to the aspirations of means testing but there are some pretty significant practical problems, as I write here.
  reply
• 

  GilM

  11 months ago

  "Nothing could be worse than what we’re in for if we stick with the status quo."
  
  Never say that!
  
  I think you underestimate the creativity of Congress.
  reply
• 

  muirgeo

  11 months ago

  " If taking care of the poor is the real value in welfare programs, those programs should be sold as such to the electorate."
  
  
  I wouldn't say that is the goal of universal health care. The goal of universal health care is the same as universal access to our highways, our treasury, our justice system, or a common defense.
  
  Universal health care will save money and improve the health of the nation and secondarily it will improve the economy. It has nothing to do with a transfer program as all citizens will be contributing. The reason for universal health care is the same reason for the preamble to the constitution.
  
  We, through our government already pay over 60%, of all health care cost. We need an additional$120 billion a year to provide a universal system. That additional amount could have been covered by the extra amount of interest on debt payments we now make yearly after the last 7 years of overspending by the current "fiscal conservatives" in charge.
  
  A universal system will make businesses, entrepreneurs and workers more competitive. It's a no brainer.
  
  One of the foremost experts in medical economics is Uwe Reinhardt from princeton. You can read or see him talk here.
  
  Mr. Reinhardt is the opening speaker. You can watch his speech or read the transcript. I'd suggest to watch it as he is a very good and even funny speaker.
  
  http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_...
  
  
  If we are gonna talk about honesty, democratic transparency and transfer programs I suggest we include fed/treasury policy... that being to privatize profit and socialize losses to the benefit of those on top.
  reply
• 

  John V

  11 months ago

  If we are gonna talk about honesty, democratic transparency and transfer programs I suggest we include fed/treasury policy... that being to privatize profit and socialize losses to the benefit of those on top.
  
  We do. We're the only ones in fact. But nobody listens. Mainstream policy, Left and Right, simply doesn't go there. They simply make excuses for the fundamental flaws in Fed Reserve policy and blame its mistakes on each other.
  reply
• 

  muirgeo

  11 months ago

  John,
  
  I read multiple libertarian blogs. They almost never comment on corporate welfare and are completely harangued and fixated by any social welfare.
  
  They completely deny any effect of corporate welfare on increasing income inequality choosing instead to assume it's all related to productivity and people earning what they keep.
  reply
• 

  John V

  11 months ago

  where? take you're blinders off.
  reply
• 

  GilM

  11 months ago

  "They completely deny any effect of corporate welfare on increasing income inequality choosing instead to assume it's all related to productivity and people earning what they keep."
  
  Citation Needed
  
  "Almost never comment on" and "Completely deny" are very different things.
  reply
• 

  GilM

  11 months ago

  By the way, I'm seeing lots of libertarian blogs complaining these days about protecting Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and corporate welfare in general.
  
  It's not always topical, but when it is there are lots of complaints.
  
  If you look, you can find it too.
  reply
• 

  John V

  11 months ago

  If you look, you can find it too.
  
  Ah, yes. That's the key. :)
  reply