« Fixing healthcare | Home | Arnold proves me right--so far »
August 4, 2003
Defining "safety net"
As it is an unassailable notion in today's society that the state needs to provide a "safety net," how we define that term is of great importance. Hoover's Jeffrey Jones suggests that the "net" should not be a ceiling, a nest, or an entitlement, but rather should do what real saftey nets were built for: to encourage and enable risk taking and achievement.
Ideals are often difficult to translate into policy, and, regrettably, the vision of a Great Society became the defense of a meager ration. Pre-reform welfare was more concerned with standards of living than with standards of success. In the end, the safety net became a trap for millions of families: a net over rather than under the impoverished, preventing them from achieving or even desiring self-sufficiency. The passage of welfare reform in 1996 led to a new notion of the purpose of welfare, one that acknowledges the presence of injustice in poverty but points toward responsibility and character as the only effective remedies.The change in purpose requires a critical stance toward how the term safety net has come to be used in the debate over welfare reauthorization. Thus, a redefinition of safety net may prove useful in articulating and advancing the goals of welfare reform. Consider how safety nets are used on a daily basis. They are primarily a tool for training. Trapeze artists, gymnasts, and high-wire acts come to mind when one thinks of safety nets. The net is used in practice to build skills and encourage risk taking—an apparatus that helps artists and athletes learn and grow. But when performance time comes, the safety net is removed. It is no longer needed. The trainees have gained the skills they need to complete their stunts successfully without the net. Relying on the safety net is a means to an end, not the end.
In much the same way, welfare reform has altered our understanding of a safety net for the poor. Welfare is now seen as a tool for training the impoverished, not a nest of dependence or a barrier to performance. The reforms focus on giving recipients the education, training, and support necessary to leave poverty behind. Thus, success is gauged by whether those on welfare learn and apply new skills to obtain meaningful employment, decent housing, and a good learning environment for their children. As with all training, we expect welfare recipients who have the benefit of instruction not to fall back down when difficulties emerge. The lessons already bought and paid for will serve to empower the poor first to address trying circumstances on their own. If used properly the social safety net will remain available to support the acquisition of additional skills down the road.
Is it considered welfare when, say, energy companies get government subsidies and tax breaks? For instance, the Bush admn.'s energy policy was designed to include subsidies for oil, natural gas, coal and electricity companies: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-05-30-nceditf.htm
Shouldn't we advocate ending all targeted tax breaks and subsidies for corporations to encourage and enable corporate risk taking and achievement?
Yes, indeed we should and indeed I have: http://www.r21online.com/archives/000036.html http://www.r21online.com/archives/000037.html http://www.r21online.com/archives/000039.html
I'm not in favor of virtually any subsidies, welfare, or tax breaks for corporations. The steel and timber tarrifs and farm and energy subsidies are indefensible from an economic stanpoint but reflect political reality. Whether these sops to special interests will yield worthy results (e.g. steel tarrifs helped Bush gain fast track negotiation) is a political calculation. But in principle corporate welfare should be eliminated. In great part because it's bad for business--entrenched, older, bigger, slower growth, and less innovative players tend to get the favors at the expense of the entrepreneurs.
With ya! There's an interesting book out called "Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists" that addresses how open markets are often subverted by overly powerful commercial interests exercising political power to defend themselves from competition.
However as an addendum I must say I do think there is a proper role for the state in both maintaining some kind of social safety net as well as making sure markets work well (via effective regulatory frameworks). But as with anything else it should be kept in check and hopefully can be as minimal as is feasible.