Compassionate Conservatism
I used to proudly embrace the term "compassionate conservatism" despite the fact that I believe that former President George W Bush made a joke of it. I believed, generally, that we should have free-market economics, sure, but that we should be striving to conquer poverty at the same time. I favored short-term solutions to the problem of poverty while believing that, in the long-run, creating a robust economy with plenty of jobs and providing incentives for big businesses to pay decent wages for their employers was the most compassionate way to go. I remember reading about the ideas of a negative income tax and a universal basic income. I was strongly in favor of these ideas. I was opposed to the idea of the government forcing businesses to pay their employees a high wage but I believed that the government could simply make up the difference. I liked the idea of a negative income tax and I was surprised and delighted to discover that the late economist Milton Friedman argued for it in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. To me, if we didn't have a progressive income tax or if we didn't somehow compel businesses to pay higher taxes, all wasn't lost-the government could let businesses pay a mediocre wage or even a low wage while the government could pay citizens more money. This was dependent on income; people who had low-paying jobs would get more money while people with higher income would get less money and those who had excellent wages or salaries would not get any money.
I was surprised and delighted to read about a similar proposal in a book titled In Our Hands by Charles Murray. Murray, a "right-libetarian" was arguing for a "basic universal income". I read his book and it seemed like a fantastic idea to me. We could eliminate poverty, give people enough money for health insurance, and we could also get rid of the welfare state. This was just the kind of idea that a compassionate conservative could embrace. I did embrace it. The biggest objection was that it would kill the incentive for people to work but my fellow conservatives were missing the point- if we could accomplish the same goals as the "Great Society" program of New Deal liberals and replace the "Great Society" program with something much simpler, something that cost less than the current welfare state, why not do it? I strongly disliked people abusing the system and acting like parasites but that was going to happen anyways. It's better to have a more cost-effective system in place and save taxpayers money despite it being abused by people who had little-to-no incentive to work rather than what I feared was the alternative-what I termed "economic Darwinism".
In my view, one had to be a misanthrope not to get on board with this. A "negative income tax" (hereafter NIT) or a "basic universal income" (hereafter BUI) would best solve what I thought of as the "freedom-fairness" dilemma. This dilemma presented both "freedom" and "fairness" as horns of a dilemma. The "freedom" referred, of course, to "negative freedom". New Deal liberals and New Left progressives seemed, to me, to favor the "fairness" side, but often at the expense of freedom. Conservatives and right-libertarians favored the "freedom" side at the expense of fairness. Conservatives seemed to favor absolute freedom, even if that meant people living in horrific poverty and earning low wages. Liberals, it seemed to me, favored absolute fairness, even if that meant taking away some people's freedoms in the process of trying to create a fairer system. I still favor conquering poverty by some means of supplementary income, whether it's a NIT, a BUI, or something else. If raising taxes on businesses or legislating a "living wage" into existence will hurt the economy, we should at least have supplementary income even if we have to find alternative ways to finance it. However, if having a new "New Deal" is the best way to achieve an excellent economy, then I am in favor of it!
A Neglected Plan
I was surprised to learn of a new plan that was suggested years ago. I read about it in a local newspaper one day and I immediately developed a liking for it. It was a plan dubbed "Remortgage America" and it was a "financial stimulus" idea that advocated giving loans to Americans. The website no longer exists but I was able to find it on an internet archive website. According to this plan, all US citizens would be offered a 30-year mortgage with a 1% fixed rate of interest and people who accepted this mortgage would only have to pay interest for the first two years. As the website described it: "All financially qualified U.S. citizens, not just those in danger of immediate default, would be able to finance a new or existing primary residence, with a $500,000 lifetime limit". The reason is that this plan was created on the conviction that the only answer to the "Great Recession" was a low interest rate on houses. This plan would refinance the existing mortgages on existing houses, cutting the payments in half, and putting money in the pockets of people to spend money. They could save their houses and could go out spending money.
I really liked this plan because I could see that it was clearly a hand-up and not a hand-out. The government wasn't just giving money to people to do whatever they wanted-no questions asked. People could use the mortgage with a much lower interest rate, pay only the interest rate for the first two years, prevent foreclosures and even increase the values of their homes. The money spent would go into the economy as people spent the money on goods and services, so that businesses would expand and as tax revenue came in, the money that was given to citizens would come back in. The government wouldn't have to spend a lot of money in the form of unemployment benefits and welfare checks, saving money both at the state and federal government, which would, combined with tax revenue, would create a windfall of cash that could cure the national debt. In other words, this would truly be a hand-up that would create a tide lifting all boats. I was impressed as I read this and while I wasn't absolutely certain that it would work, the reasoning explained on this website convinced me that it deserved serious discussion and debate. I became very favorable to this idea.
Sadly enough, I don't remember this plan ever being discussed. I wish I had registered as a Democrat in those years because I could have easily have put this plan before my local Representatives. This plan, it seemed, would have benefited everyone and it seemed like a true hand-up rather than the NIT and BUI. Because the revenue being loaned out would ultimate come back in the form of revenue, it was easier to defend. This plan wasn't without questions, though. Suppose that this plan was implemented and the housing market was salvaged and the debt was eliminated in less than 20 years. What about those who didn't qualify for the plan? What about those who either lived in low-income housing projects or who lived in apartments and lived paycheck-to-paycheck? How would this plan assist them? Would we have a NIT for citizens who didn't qualify? What about big businesses and corporations? Would the CEOs qualify as well? I didn't know all of the details and since I wasn't a professionally trained economist or an accountant, I felt that I wasn't in a position to make a very informed judgment on this plan. I don't remember any member of Congress discussing this plan.
Saving the Economy
I have become very sympathetic to a NIT or BUI. As I see it, we really have two options if we are going to retain our capitalist economy. We can go for another "New Deal" as Paul Krugman and others advocate, or we can try a "fair-market" solution such as a NIT or BUI. If we ever have another housing problem, like we had before the "Great Recession", I am going to do my best to get the above plan in front of my local Representatives. Heck, I will even run for Congress myself and introduce the "Remortgage America" plan as a new bill and I will debate it until I see it either passed or go down in flames. Now that we have the Coronavirus to contend with, we are seeing debates on how to salvage the economy. A stimulus package was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Trump into law. Part of this package, the CARES Act, was to give all Americans below a certain income level, a $1,200 dollar check. I have seen another plan proposed, for which all Americans below a certain income level would get $2,000 dollars, per month, guaranteed for six months or when unemployment falls below the level where it was before the Coronavirus started affecting the economy. I don't know if this will work but I am very sympathetic to this plan.
Even after we eliminate this virus and all Americans who don't have some kooky attitude towards vaccination are properly vaccinated against this virus, I believe that we need to do something to help fix the economy. Right now, I am currently reading a book titled The 2% Solution. The book's author, Matthew Miller, argues for a plan that would allow for universal healthcare and a living wage while reducing the government. Plans like this intrigue me. I want to finish reading it and I plan to blog about it when I am done. I am a proponent of universal healthcare and I am very sympathetic to the idea of a living wage. In a future post, I will discuss my thoughts about the living wage. In an earlier post, I described myself as a "fair-market capitalist". As I see it, we have two options: we can either have a living wage or we can let businesses pay whatever wage that they want and we can offer supplementary income to make up for whatever employers lack in terms of the income that they get from work. It seems that the only alternative is "free-market capitalism" which will take us down the road, in my view, to sweat shops, low wages, widespread poverty, and a wealthy elite who live like kings compared to the rest of us.
Conclusion
Whether we're "compassionate conservatives", "fair-market capitalists", or "New Deal liberals", we can still come together and do something to help our fellow human beings. I believe that there is a way out of our current mess. I am hopeful for the future. However, I am not hopeful for a bright future if we allow Republicans, especially the "free-market" conservatives a voice in our policy. People like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump give me no hope whatsoever. As long as we have right-wing outlets like talk radio and pro-Trump outlets like Fox News, I question just how long America will survive. So, why am I hopeful? Because I am a man of compassion. I love my fellow human beings despite how disappointed I can be at times. It's people like me, who love their fellow human beings, want to save the economy, and improve human lives who are the true "patriots". I am a proud American and I want to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of life for all of us. Whether it's a BUI, a government-loan program for all Americans, temporary stimulus checks, or a living wage, we can help our fellow human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment