Ross Douthat - Working Class Hero

I'm on the train heading up to NYC for a couple of days, relying here on the dubious mercies of AmTrak's wifi system, which combines slowness and caprice into a kind of perfect technological hell.  (For instance, the systems cannot handle video of any kind.)  I am reasonably convinced that anything I write that is longer than two sentences will be subject to a "lost connection" notice at the moment that I hit publish.

I wanted to comment on a couple of things that I got around to reading late last night in the Times.  First, Ross Douthat revisits Charles Murray and notes once again that "Coming Apart" describes a problem with the state of the white working class in America and literally poses no solution to those perceived problems.  Douthat protests, but then pretty much joins in the chorus of hopelessness, boldly striking a claim for improving things around the margins, basically by making the child tax credit more generous and cracking down on illegal immigration.  One can imagine the revolutions inspired by this kind of inspiration.  To describe it as weak tea is to insult weak tea.  (Actually, in fairness, Douthat also advocate reducing rates of incarceration and reducing the payroll tax burden on poorer workers -- he does not bother saying how he would finance Social Security and Medicare if this were to happen.)

Douthat admits that globalization and the weakening of unions are to blame for much of the decline in the economic status of the working class, but he insists that blaming Republicans for this is unfair.  Okay, let's blame Republicans and those Democrats who believe that a completely unfettered global marketplace will somehow magically result in a win-win situation for everyone.  (Douthat ignores, of course, the undeniable truth that whenever Republicans gain sufficient power, crushing unions quickly leaps to the top of their agenda -- see e.g. the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, PATCO, and, in recent days, the goings-on in Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Arizona, among other.)  

Improving the plight of working Americans would not be all that difficult from a policy perspective: 1) decouple health insurance from employment altogether by adopting a single payer system; 2) labor reform that makes unionizing easier for employees; 3) mandating mandatory paid sick, vacation, and maternity/paternity leave for all workers; 4) creating a nationally subsidized network of daycare centers; 5) providing comprehensive, evidence-based sex education for all children; and 6) provide free access to contraceptives as part of national health insurance.

We know that these kinds of changes would work to transform the condition of a huge swath of the working class and the working poor.  They would eliminate most of the things that create enormous insecurities in working class life and would give people a far more hospitable environment in which to start and raise families.  Yes, such a society would require higher tax rates on almost eveybody and much higher rates than are presently imposed on investment-derived income.  But the payoff would be so tangible to people that once in place I am pretty sure these benefits would become unassailable. 

Yes, the social-democratic dream is, for the moment, unobtainable.  But we must persist in trying to accomplish it, even if in a piecemeal and not thoroughly satisfying way, because it is the only real path to making people's lives better.  The cut taxes and pray approach advocated by Douthat is simply inadequate to the challenge of protecting people from the ravages of global capitalism unleashed. 

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

Every time I read Ross Douthat, I wonder anew just how he rates an op-ed column in something more prestigious than the West Bumfuck Community Weekly.

Take this:

In the liberal view, there’s nothing wrong with America’s working class that can’t be solved by taxing the wealthy and using the revenue to weave a stronger safety net.

I dare him to cite three liberals who've said anything remotely like this.

And it's not just him. Conservative columnists from George F. Will on down pull this shit all the time, telling us what liberals think by basically telling us what they've internalized about liberal attitudes over the years from listening to what other conservatives have to say about liberals. No actual reading of what actual liberals are saying is ever required, except when they locate some unimportant lefty whose views match their caricature - in which case extensive quotes are de rigeur.

Or take this:

It was globalization, not Republicans, that killed the private-sector union and reduced the returns to blue-collar work.

Maybe he isn't following the news? If unions were dying all by themselves, why would Republicans feel such a need to smother the patient at every opportunity? You'd think the GOP could join with the Dems in passing card check, if they really believed that unions were dying on their own.

Even if liberals get the higher tax rates on the rich they so ardently desire, the money won’t be adequate to finance our existing entitlements, let alone a New Deal 2.0.

Would be nice if he'd link to the arithmetic in question, both on the expected revenues from higher tax rates (based on what set of proposed rates?) and on the alleged shortfall in the financing of our existing entitlements.

With respect to the latter, Social Security would be put on a solid footing for the next eon just by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes. Hell, a decent economic recovery might do the job even without that.

And passing Obamacare has already extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by nearly a decade.

So that really leaves Medicaid, currently clocking in at $300 billion a year. Since it's paid for out of general revenues, let's assume it's in deficit by about one-third, just like the government as a whole. So it's got a $100 billion deficit.

Frankly, it would be a cinch to raise taxes on the rich to pay for that, and then a good deal.

Or this:

First, if we want the poor to be industrious, we should do everything possible to make their industry pay off. The current tax-and-transfer system imposes a tax on work — the payroll tax — that falls heavily on low-wage labor, and poor Americans face steep marginal tax rates because of how their benefits phase out as their wages increase. Both burdens can and should be lightened.

Haven't we been around this mulberry bush a few times already? Sure, you can reduce the marginal cost of getting off benefits and going to work. In fact, because it's a good idea, it's been done in the past. But to do that, you've got to taper benefits off gradually, which means that people who are well above the poverty line would be getting some modest benefits.

And that, of course, becomes the subject of outraged diatribes from right-wing opinionators, so benefits for those above the poverty line get cut, and the marginal cost of going to work gets pretty steep.

And the day Ross Douthat calls out Rush Limbaugh over an issue like this, is the day before Douthat makes a groveling apology to Rush for having crossed him.

And so forth. His suggestions for family policy and reducing incarceration, like the marginal cost of getting off government aid, are opposed overwhelmingly by the right, not the left. (Can't even increase that child tax credit without offending conservatives - it would increase the number of 'lucky duckies' who don't have 'skin in the game'.) But he's never gonna call out the GOP for being on the wrong side of an issue, even when they are by his own standards.

Worthless schmuck.

[low-tech cyclist]

SC - while the reforms you propose are all worthwhile, IMHO the most important thing that can be done for the working class is to simply make sure they have the opportunity to work. Nothing guts the lives of the working class like joblessness.

So here's what I'd do if they made me dictator for a year: I'd institute a law that would require the development and periodic updating of a bank of unmet infrastructure needs. When unemployment hit 7%, the government would borrow as needed to fund work on those projects, and would keep on spending until the unemployment rate dropped below 6%, with spending phased out entirely by the time the unemployment rate hit 5%.

A similar standard would apply to aid to states for funding teachers, police, social workers, and the like.

It wouldn't exactly be Humphrey-Hawkins, but it would more or less put the government in the business of countercyclical infrastructure investments and state aid to limit how bad unemployment could get.

[Eric Wilde]

"cut taxes and pray"

That neatly sums up all prescriptive advice from conservatives and libertarians. Too bad neither of them work well.

[Paula B]

L-tc---re:infrastructure/employment plan. I love it. May you be king someday.
Just looked up H-H. The JOBS program (1970?) and CETA must have been forerunners. Of course, we didn't have disasters on as many fronts in the 1970s as we do now---employment, housing, recession, infrastructure, political gridlock. All we had then were a lousy war and poverty/unemployment/housing crisis among minorities, to whom the government threw crumbs to prevent rioting.
And, we trained people for fairly low-level jobs, at least in the JOBS program. As I recall, that was an outgrowth of the Job Corps, taking the training that worked but dropping the residential component. I think a very small Job Corps program exists today, but would be surprised if we were still funding residences. Anyone know? The wingers could have a field day with that one.
I briefly taught reading and language skills at a Job Corps center in 1968, and probably half of my students were there because they chose Job Corps over a jail sentence. Can you imagine doing that today?

[kathy a.]

job corps still exists, and still helps about 100,000 young people (16-24) from low income families.

when i was a public defender in the 1980's, a number of clients were granted probation with the condition they attend job corps (or other programs). i assume that is still true when probation is an option.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, this is OT material, but my own native state passed SSM today. The Gov says he'll veto it, but there's a chance of an override -- and a parallel court case, apparently.

[Paula B]

Two early Valentine's Day tweets from pourmecoffee:

Tomorrow may be last Valentine's Day before President Santorum limits sex to procreation. Now or never. Make your move.

Be sure to look at the fine print if you get a valentine from Newt Gingrich. There is an expiration date and a lot of conditions.

Enjoy!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And Romney's read: "This was going to be crved in mahogany, with th carving filled in with gold, but then
I realized I shouldn't impress you with my money."

[KN]

Sir C, I am a bit pressed for time as I have to get out early tomorrow but with regard to the question you posed regarding how to finance SS and at the same time give tax relief to the 79% the answer is simple. Abolish the cap.

Why is there a cap? Simple answer is abject greed. Since it is probably a good guess that over half of all the income in the US goes to people who make more than $109k per year and are not taxed for SSI, the only relevent question is why not? If the cap is abolished the overall rate can then be recalculated to enhance the robustness of the system but at the same time reduce the overall rate slightly thus benefiting everyone who is compelled to pay the tax.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Yeah, leaving out job creation was kind of a huge omission. I was thinking in terms of longer run policies, but obviously our first priority should be some kind of full employment efforts.

Jim,

Social Security is easily fixed -- and its problems only temporary anyway. I think eliminating the cap would be one decent approach.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: That was KN. I agree about raising or eliminating the cap -- maybe prefer just raising it because I presume it serves, as well, as a benefit cap. (Would you really like to contemplate a Mitt Romney getting a million dollar monthly SS check?)

If the cap were raised or eliminated, I'd like to see something along the lines of 'the first $K of SS income a month shall not be considered taxable income for the purposes of either income tax or Medicaid calculations.' True, in most places the Medicaid limit is so low that this is less of a factor -- nice to see that changed too unless we get a Medicaid/Medicare for all system -- but I still personally face the question, now that we are getting COLAs again, whether the scales differ enough that a COLA would be just enough to kick me off Medicaid -- legitimately instead of the annual 'oops' they have made 6 of 7 renewals where we were kicked off because of their -- later admitted -- error.