We'll hear this a lot over the coming months. For many, socialist is a bad word and they will point to socialist regimes that turned into dictatorships. I share that distain for dictatorships!
Fact is that we already had a president who was accused of being both a socialist and a communist.
When he introduced the New Deal in the middle of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt was harshly criticized.
"Roosevelt is a socialist, not a Democrat," declared Republican Rep. Robert Rich of Pennsylvania during a debate on the House floor on July 23, 1935. That remark came after Republicans hinted they were considering a move to impeach Roosevelt, according to the New York Times .
• "The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism, declared Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio) today as he pictured President Roosevelt as the New Deal's leading socialist," reported the Chicago Daily Tribune on Aug. 7, 1934. "The president's recent statements," Fess said, "remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates increased activities of the government in either ownership or operation of industry, or both."
FDR's New Deal was radical. He promised a "chicken in every pot." He created the WPA, a government paid worker program that created a wide array of jobs, including those for artists, photographers and writers. We have Social Security, medicare and unemployment compensation today because of that "socialist" president.
Very few citizens today would eliminate Social Security, medicare or unemployment compensation. When congressmen refer to these as "entitlement" programs, most of us respond; "Yes we are entitled to them. We paid into them." Very few of us call them "socialist" programs as they were when they were first introduced.
It's prudent to look at any government spending and determine how it's going to be funded. Our enormous deficit should not be ignored. (If you look closely at government spending, it's not social programs that have caused it but that's another topic.) Social programs fall into two categories: Investment and Insurance. The WPA was an investment. Social Security, medicare and unemployment compensation are insurance programs. As we consider social programs, and arguably any government spending, we should determine which category it falls under and what the return will be for society.
If we look at the WPA as an investment, what was the return? At the time, unemployment was about 23%. No one was untouched by the effects of such massive unemployment. As people returned to the workforce through the WPA, more jobs were created elsewhere. As more people had money to buy goods and services, the economy improved and more people were paying taxes. If you visit a national park or state park, you're likely to discover infrastructure that was built by WPA workers. This investment paid off in huge returns.
As insurance programs, Social Security, medicare and unemployment compensation are dependent upon enough people paying in to cover what's coming out. As long as the balance is right, these are not problematic social programs. As with other types of insurance, some will pay and never use the insurance while others will use more than they paid in. These programs need to be managed well and protected from fraud, waste and abuse. AND stop calling them entitlement programs! When we pay for insurance, we are entitled to use them when we need them!!
Well managed social programs build a stronger society. Don't get caught up in the buzzwords and miss the importance of considering how the ideas being presented may actually benefit our country. As FDR once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". This country was built on new and bold ideas. Let's not stop at fear.
x
No comments:
Post a Comment