Two must read pieces by David Glenn and Mark Schmitt (discussion below fold).
First, David Glenn turns a book review at Dissent of Jason DeParle’s The American Dream into an extended meditation on welfare reform and the left. It’s one of the richest and most thought-provoking short articles I’ve read this year.
DeParle’s thick description of one extended family’s life is worth careful reflection precisely because it does not map neatly onto left-liberals’ usual arguments about jobs, wages, and caregiving. There is nothing here that could be distilled into a policy tract. DeParle offers a highly complex response to the welfare debates that tore apart the Democratic Party a decade ago.
…
The second reason why leftists should reflect on the social crisis is that it occupies so much of the psychic energy of the poor themselves. When I reported on a campaign to unionize home-health-care workers in Milwaukee in 2001, accompanying workers as they knocked on one another’s doors, I noticed how quickly conversations would move from anxiety about wages to anxiety about crime.
Second, Mark Schmitt tells us why the American conservative tradition is “shattered and bankrupt.”
Tax cuts are not conservatism. They are not a coherent worldview. They were a part of the conservative philosophy, but not an end in themselves. Stripped out of the larger framework of smaller government, of modesty about the possibilities of change, of respect for tradition and history, and of the sense that central government can be oppressive as easily as it can be liberating, tax cuts amount to nothing more than a material benefit for a few, and a long-term liability for everyone else. Put another way, imagine that the animating ideas of liberalism were reduced to this promise: “We will create a new cabinet-level agency every single year.” That’s not a vision that can attract deep loyalty, and neither is the promise of a tax cut every year.
When Schmitt notes that
Bush-DeLayism’s greatest betrayal of conservatism is in its rejection of this modesty about social scheming. Because of its corruption and incompetence, their practice has consisted of ever more complicated schemes of incentives and penalties to change behavior
he’s articulating a point that I tried to make myself recently (but expressing it much better).
Like Schmitt, I don’t think that the decay of conservatism is any cause for celebration. The American conservative tradition has been linked to some deeply unpleasant causes (most notably the defence of institutionalized racism), but the conservative temperament, the “urging to be modest about the degree to which human behavior can be modified by law or other collective decisions, and to be respectful of the role that tradition, custom, religion, greed, etc. play in all of human life” has something real to contribute. It’s a shame that this has degenerated into rampant political hackery.
A couple comments on that Schmitt piece (or rather your excerpts; will read the full article when work permits):
Speaking as more-or-less a fiscal conservative, I think Schmitt may be missing two big things. First, according to the theory behind Bush’s radical tax cutting, increased economic growth will make up for all or most of the loss of tax revenues over the long term, due to the structural (as opposed to merely fiscal) stimulative effect of cutting the marginal tax rate. Whether this is true or not I don’t know; I’m neither an economist nor a statistician, but I have seen pretty graphs (usually in the WSJ) that purport to show that this happened after major tax cuts by Reagan and Kennedy. And the evidence (published in the Detroit paper, I believe) that the upper tax brackets now contribute an even larger share of total tax revenues, even though they received the bulk of the cuts, suggests that this phenomenon is already at work – although even if true, it obviously hasn’t made up the difference yet.
Second, there is reason to believe that Bush would approach economic policy from two other directions in his second term: by cutting the major cost items in the Federal budget (Social Security and Medicare) and by reforming (not just slashing) the tax code. Admittedly this is mostly my own speculation and wishful thinking, but there are signs. For one thing, Social Security reform is inherently a second-term activity due to the political risks involved – and it’s been part of the Bush economic platform (particularly means testing and partial privatization) at least since 2000. Moreover, Bush would have the great advantage of being able to frame Social Security reform as a deficit reduction package. As for tax code simplification, that’s not so politically risky, but it’s not an obvious winner either – yet Bush made a point of mentioning it in his convention speech, as if to lay the groundwork for a second-term mandate.
Together, these two factors (structural reform of the tax code and the intent to attack spending at the most important front) make the Bush tax cuts look less like “political hackery” and more like a genuine effort to make our economic system both more efficient and more fair.
Caveat: this is putting a lot of faith in the Bush Administration, which obviously a lot of people do not have. I’m not sure I do either. While I think Bush himself is sincere (the question of whether he is a dope is discrete) I deeply distrust the Republican leadership in Congress. Much of what they’ve done in Bush’s first term (that thuggish and dishonest Medicare bill, the thickly-larded corporate tax cut) can safely be filed under “political hackery.” If I had to vote for Bush or Kerry on purely economic grounds, I’m not sure where I’d come out. But I don’t think his signature first-term economic reform – the tax cuts – is a complete departure from the conservative worldview. Yet.
George—the Reagan tax cut leading to higher revenue is a myth. It depends upon taking tax revenue at the depth of the 81 recession and moving forawrd, ignoring the tax increase Reagan authored. As to why the welthy pay a higher percentage its becuase they are the ones seeing income growth.
As to Social Security reform, it will cost not save money to change Social Security.
Ditto rob on tax cuts. Spend a little time with Brad DeLong for details. If the graphs George mentions come from the editorial page of the WSJ they’re better suited for fish wrap than policy making. Even from the reporting side, I’d be very careful.
Reform of the tax code is a coming thing. Happens every 15 years or so in the US. Like taking a ship into drydock and scraping off as many barnacles as possible. (Last done in 86.) It’s overdue, and it’s a vote-getter, as people see the special breaks that lobbies have gotten. K/E are getting a little mileage from this with the line about no tax breaks for outsourcing. There’s more popular acclaim to be had there and a ready-made issue for 2006 mid-terms.
On the Dissent piece, I was surprised that the author was surprised about how concerned poor people, esp poor black people were about crime and security. Had they never had contact with poor people before? Never been in the “bad” neighborhoods? Gracious me, apparently not. Well, at least some eyes were opened.
Doug - where exactly does David say, or even hint, that he was surprised at poor people’s concerns with safety? You’re reading a level of bemusement and condescension into the piece that simply isn’t there. He’s reporting on what he saw, and pointing out that it can’t be reconciled with some of the simplifications that left-liberals make about welfare.
Brad DeLong is not generally to my taste, but I’ll take your word that he is against the idea. So like I said, there is educated opinion on both sides. (The WSJ Op-Ed page does publish some amazing crap sometimes, but they also publish plenty of very fine stuff. They get outside contributors, you know.) Just because one diasagrees with the theory doesn’t mean that there IS no theory (which is what the phrase “political hackery” would imply).
George: I actually looked at the real statistics, as published by the U.S. Treasury, for tax receipts after the Reagan tax cuts. Income tax receipts plummetted, as you would expect. Income tax receipts did not reach 1981 levels again until Reagan’s tax hikes of 1987 (“tax reform”) took effect.
What the Wall Street Journal corruptly did was count social security taxes as “tax receipts”. It turns out that in 1982, Alan Greenspan and etc. held a series of conferences regarding “The Future of Social Security”. They decided that in order for Social Security to be secure for the future, a massive hike in social security taxes was needed. Rep. Dick Cheney and others thus voted for a massive hike in Social Security taxes in 1983, hiking them from 9.350% in 1983 to 14% in 1984, then 15% by 1990. And this massive tax hike was strictly on the poor — due to income caps, rich people paid not a single dime more, and there are no (zero) exemptions to payroll taxes, they are a flat tax on earned income period. In short, Reagan managed to transfer a huge chunk of taxation from the rich to the poor. Doh, who woulda thunk it?!
In short: Reagan raised taxes in 1983 by more than he cut taxes in 1981, and that, not any magic “supply side” fairy dust, is why revenue recovered — albeit as IOU’s in the Social Security fund, rather than as actual cash-in-hand. In short, Reagan was the biggest Credit Card President we ever had until George W. Bush took office.
- Badtux the Statistical Penguin
Caught me skimming a bit; it’s not the author that are surprised so much as unnamed leftists. In reading quickly, I conflated the two.
David says, “It is also the case that no leftist who reads this book attentively will come away with the idea that if only we had better jobs, housing, and health-care subsidies, all would be well.” I’m left wondering if anyone believed that, and if so, whether that belief survived actual contact with poorer neighborhoods.
Further down, “The second reason why leftists should reflect on the social crisis is that it occupies so much of the psychic energy of the poor themselves.” Again, unknown leftists are supposed to hold a position that’s hard to believe was grounded in reality. Is the author constructing straw men for some intra-lefty quarrel?
Then, “A similar point is apparent in DeParle’s book. Caples, Jobe, and Reed tend to see their jobs as background noise; if they lose one low-wage job, they can find another one relatively easily. They’re more inclined to worry about what do to with an alcoholic boyfriend or a recalcitrant son-things over which they exercise at least some control-than about any farfetched scheme to organize a union or to change the labor market to their advantage.” To which I thought, well wouldn’t you, too?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review