By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, January 10, 2014
This week marks the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson's
"War on Poverty," and as the joke goes, "Poverty won." Five
decades after a blizzard of programs began descending on the American people,
the poverty rate remains essentially unchanged.
That's a little unfair. What counts as poverty today
would not have seemed so impoverished 50 years ago, when many of the poor lived
without electricity and were no strangers to hunger. Today, the biggest health
problems of the poor are more likely to stem from obesity than anything
approaching starvation. Defenders of the war on poverty -- and the massive
bureaucracy that has built up around it -- insist that underfunding is to
blame.
That's a tough sell. The Heritage Foundation's Robert
Rector estimates that we've spent $20 trillion on these programs -- not
counting Medicare and Social Security. We spend $1 trillion to $2 trillion more
every year, depending on how you do the math. But apparently for liberals,
that's still too stingy. Perhaps the problem isn't how much we're spending, but
how we're spending it.
If you drew a Venn diagram of where the hard left and the
libertarian right agreed, the overlapping shaded part would include a bunch of
social issues -- gay marriage, drug legalization, etc. -- but almost no economic
issues. Save one: the Universal Basic Income.
The UBI is a pretty simple idea. Everyone gets a check
from the government. (Actually, it's a little more complicated than that
depending on how you implement it, but you get the idea.)
Charles Murray, my colleague at the American Enterprise
Institute and a legendary libertarian social scientist, wrote a wonderful book
a few years ago, "In Our Hands," in which he proposed an annual grant
from the federal government of $10,000 for every American over 21 who stayed
out of jail and still had a pulse. He was building on arguments made by two
titans of libertarianism, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who also
supported some version of a UBI.
On the left, the idea has been popular for generations as
a way to instantaneously alleviate poverty and to defeat the ol' devil of
income inequality.
So what's the catch? Why aren't we getting a fat check
from Uncle Sam every month? Some cite the cost, which obviously would be hefty.
But that's a secondary problem. The real sticking point is that the libertarian
argument is largely an either/or proposition, while the left-wing version is a
both/and deal. The libertarians want to liquidate much of the welfare state and
convert it into cash payments. The left's version is that the money would, for
the most part, augment the welfare state.
New York University professor Lawrence Mead identified
the chief flaw with both the libertarian and left-wing approaches to fighting
poverty, either through existing welfare programs or through a UBI: the
"competence assumption." This is the presumption that the intended
beneficiaries of government anti-poverty programs always "behave
rationally enough to advance their own self-interest." We all know enough
people in our own lives (never mind what we know about ourselves) to realize
this isn't always the case. Lots of folks are determined to do things that
aren't in their long-term self-interest.
The problems afflicting many poor people are often of
their own making, at least in part. Having children before getting married,
dropping out of high school, etc., are transparently bad choices that millions
of people make. (Also, some anti-poverty programs create incentives that make
bad decisions seem rational.) But many poor people have just had rotten luck.
There's good reason to believe that, with a little help, they can work their
way up the economic ladder. And for countless others, the truth probably lies
somewhere in between.
For 50 years, we've run a massive experiment around one
approach: that bureaucrats and social planners can fix the lives of others by
telling them how to live. For some it's worked, for others it's been an abject
failure. But few can claim it's all been a smashing success.
Perhaps a compromise can be worked out. Why not give poor
people a choice? They can stay within the rat maze of the current welfare
state, or they can cash out. According to Rector, 100 million Americans receive
aid from the government at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. Surely some
of them are equipped to spend that money better than the government. Why not
give them a shot at proving it? If they fail, they can always switch back to
the old system. If they succeed, well, that'd be a real victory in the war on
poverty.
No comments:
Post a Comment