Principled conservatives do care about societal welfare in our own country; we just approach the problems differently and the potential solutions more realistically.
While the reader may concede that conservatives really care about defending the country, what about the common charge that conservatives simply don‟t care about the social welfare of the poorest members of American society? This view must be vigorously rejected. The principled conservative cares about everyone in society, but we simply question whether government can solve some or all of the social problems that cause suffering and poverty. Indeed, we point out that government policies have often made things worse. That being said, let us be clear that the 21st century principled conservative is not suggesting that America eliminate a social safety net and rely completely on private charity for helping those in need. It is in fact a balance. The debate should be not over the need for a safety net, but what it should be composed of and how it should operate.
The principled conservative champions personal responsibility, and abhors government policies that penalize the successful, frugal, and industrious while rewarding the spendthrift or financially irresponsible. This is apparent in the typical liberal versus conservative view of the recent housing bubble burst and its causes. The principled conservative believes that any government plan to encourage excessive borrowing or borrowing beyond one‟s means to own a home is a bad idea. There is no constitutional or human right to own a home versus renting. To say this is not to be cruel or unkind to people, but to promote policies that reward hard work, thrift, and savings, as well as avoiding government involvement in individual consumer purchase decisions.
Yet, spurred on by well-meaning liberals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did just the opposite. It would take an entirely separate book to catalogue their many abuses and bad policies. But at the heart of it is the leftist assumption that for a bank to assess a borrower‟s credit-worthiness is somehow unfair and discriminatory.
Perhaps in a socialist utopia money flows from banks to consumers like water with no questions asked. In the real world, such policies will drive both the bank and (eventually) the government to bankruptcy. Yet, so often liberals wants us to look only at their good intentions, not the disastrous results of following their policy prescriptions.
What the principled conservative must do is reframe the question. How can we best meet the ultimate goal of creating a fair society? How can the government best promote positive social goals and encourage the creation of individual wealth?
First of all, we can acknowledge the safety net programs that do require taxes and a government bureaucracy to support. These are acceptable because experience—i.e. reality—has shown that the nation is too large and too impersonal to totally rely on private charity to meet these needs. Included in this area would be the safety net programs such as unemployment insurance, paid for by private employer and government contributions. This recognizes that we would rather support the individual who is “between jobs” as opposed to propping up or rescuing a failing business. In fact, what better example of the appropriate conservative focus on the individual versus the organization? Conversely, the principled conservative does not believe there is any business in America that is too big to fail; this will be explored in more detail in the next chapter as we consider who is really in love with large corporations.
But some on the Right would question whether conservative principles have been sold out for political expediency, especially in accepting the long-standing programs of retirement income support (Social Security) and health insurance for the elderly (Medicare). If we accept the government subsidization of retirement income and health insurance for seniors, does it also follow that the government literally owes someone a living plus a decent health insurance policy?
Should adults in society be paid a check from the federal government for simply not earning sufficient income in a particular year? Let‟s assume that the government defines sufficient income as the federal poverty level.
Putting aside tax policy issues discussed in Chapter 4, a principled conservative believes there should never be a government guarantee of income. The problem is that the cost is too high, it winds up removing incentives to work and be a productive member of society, and it stifles self-improvement. So as a starting point we must advocate the principle that the government owes no one a living. However, we should recognize charitable exceptions for the sick, infirm, elderly, severely disabled, mentally incapacitated, etc.
It‟s not the nature of entitlement programs that are always the problem—it‟s often the reluctance to ever tinker or fix them when they‟re obviously going astray.
The principled conservative acknowledges that while guaranteed income schemes should be rejected, some entitlement programs are justified as part of the social safety net. But just as private sector markets change over time, entitlement programs should never be “stuck in time” in terms of their operations and criteria. Take health care for example: it is unrealistic for most Americans to self-insure or pay out-of-pocket for medical expenses.
Health insurance is a necessity, and government should help those less fortunate obtain it. The principled conservative should promote policies that provide choices from a range of available plans, with subsidies for the lowest income families. But we must always be innovative and never afraid to fix what isn‟t working. For example, Medicaid is largely a failure in many states because it pays health care providers so far below market rates that many decline to participate. It therefore has a stigma attached that it is not as good as a private health insurance plan. Medicaid is a perfect example of a legislative plan that looks great on paper but is bad in practice. The principled conservative is not afraid to go back to the drawing board. We would support elimination of all the current low-income health insurance programs, and offer subsidies for whatever type of private health insurance plan a low-income individual, couple or family wishes to purchase. The recently passed health care reform law unfortunately makes a greater mess of an already messed up system. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Social Security and Medicare are of course two huge social welfare entitlement programs that are considered both politically untouchable and simultaneously long-term guarantors of tremendous federal budget deficits.
But for the principled conservative to accept their need is not to embrace socialism. For the governed to consent to be taxed or assessed a fee to pay for a program for the general welfare is a far cry from supporting the government taking over private enterprise or micro-managing business. Conceptually, supporting programs like Social Security and Medicare is no different than pooling resources (via taxes) to support police and fire services. Further, Social Security and Medicare pose less of a problem than other entitlement programs because they are open to all; everyone benefits in some manner, as everyone benefits in some manner from having police and fire services in a community.
But simply suggest reforming or modernizing Social Security and Medicare and some liberal blowhard will call conservatives to the mat for not caring. Apparently some things are unmentionable, such as citing an actuarial analysis demonstrating that the programs are going bankrupt. So do we just accept these programs as unchangeable political realities and move on? Of course not. What sort of crazy notion is it that an entitlement program once established can never be modified or reformed? We must practice, not just preach, that the principled conservative is a good government innovator versus being stuck in the past. We want to conserve what works, and reform what does not. That is all very well and good the reader might say, but witness the crash and burn of President George W. Bush‟s social security privatization proposal. Let‟s not let one political failure lose sight of the big picture, or the fact that good policy ideas are rarely ever approved the first or even second go-around. Every American should have a robust pension plan that they personally own and are completely vested. How do we get there? By focusing on choice, we can let Americans decide their range of social security investment options, in stark contrast to those who continue to assert that Americans are too stupid make these decisions. There are many possible political compromises. Perhaps the first portion of a plan can be guaranteed income, with variable income choices above that threshold. Since we understand that low-income individuals and families have the hardest time building a retirement nest-egg, we are naturally more concerned with protecting their more limited assets than a higher-income family willing to take more risk in the stock market on their retirement savings. This brief analysis obviously does not cover every potential policy option, but simply points to the principle that a mixed public/private pension policy should be the long-term goal. And yes, we must be willing to raise the retirement age because the average lifespan in America continues to increase. To continue to insist on 65 as the age of retirement is truly to be stuck in the past. Why not 70? Do all these proposed reforms mean the principled conservative has surrendered to the social welfare state? No, we seek to reform it for the better and make it more like the wealth-building state.
Medicare is politically popular because all seniors are eligible, from the richest to poorest. This prevents it from being a poor second cousin like Medicaid, which as noted above is a poor person‟s program with chronic under-funding in key aspects and shrouded in social stigma.17 By under-funding Medicaid, lawmakers expect health care providers to work for far less than the going rate for providing the professional care. In recent years, Medicare has undergone a similar fate as physicians‟ associations flock to Capitol Hill to lobby or genuflect to prevent the Medicare funding formula from causing a further decline in their pay. The result is usually a temporary fix that just kicks the ball forward a few yards without a fundamental solution. The principled conservative believes this is a problem because—unlike some on the Left—we don‟t think doctors are overpaid and we understand that if the government controls doctors‟ pay and how they practice medicine, guess what happens? Few bright people will want to go into medicine, leaving a huge supply problem and the opportunity to have a non-physician guess at your diagnosis. Naturally, this was not addressed in the Democrats‟
monstrosity of a health care reform law. Instead, the government is throwing 16-20 million more Americans into Medicaid. Real genius policymaking! An initial conservative reaction might be good riddance to big government and the physicians suckling at the teat—you‟ve made your bed, now lie in it. But one of the fundamental mistakes for a principled conservative to make is to walk away from a complex public policy problem because we cannot fathom how the government ever got so involved in the first place. The principled conservative must take the common sense/realistic/let‟s roll up our sleeves and deal with it approach. Few adults have their grandparents or elderly parents living with them anymore, nor can they afford to pay the associated medical bills. So, we take things as they are but favor reform approaches to bring competition, common sense, and innovation to Medicare. It is interesting that the same people who argue for a progressive income tax will whine and moan about any Medicare reform plan that involves the richest seniors paying more.
But in principle, this is the right way to go. We‟ve already moved in this direction as people with higher income levels already pay higher Medicare Part B premiums.16 We have no problem further moving in this direction so long as it is tied to appropriate reforms in the tax code discussed in Chapter 4. The principled conservative would put it as follows: we have no problem with charging Donald Trump or Warren Buffet more for his Medicare, provided that we did not tax him at a high marginal rate plus two or three more times on his initial income earned. And as noted above with Social Security, raising the Medicare eligibility age above 65 must also be a top priority. Realistically, these two Medicare reforms—having higher income beneficiaries pay more and raising the age of eligibility—are going to have the largest impact on making the system financially solvent and able to meet future coverage demands.
There is a lot of blather from the Left about how Obamacare has extended the fiscal life of Medicare. One of the savings is from the supposed “overpayments” to Medicare Advantage plans. Of course, this will lead these very popular plans to either reduce coverage or raise premiums. And the savings are at best modest, compared to the significant potential savings noted above. But it is typical that liberal politicians don‟t want to cut entitlements to the beneficiaries, even those who can afford it, but have no problem cutting funding to those providing the actual services under the entitlement. As noted, historically in Medicaid the underpayment for providers is the main reason for low provider participation in the program. It simply shows that, unlike principled conservatives, doctrinaire Leftists don‟t understand or don‟t care how markets work. You will also hear a lot in the coming years about the ethical obligations of doctors to provide care at whatever the government decides to pay them.
This indeed is the road to serfdom.
How do we really ensure affordable housing, and help the homeless?
Turning from old age pensions and health care to the basic necessity of housing, what is the appropriate role of the government? Perhaps there is no more vivid symbol of want in an affluent society than the homeless. While it might seem a problem that mushrooms when a Republican is in the White House and then falls off the front pages when a Democrat is in the White House (hmmm?), the media blowing hot and cold on the matter for political reasons does not diminish our human and humane concern. The principled conservative wants to help solve the problem, but not via subsidies for street living or continuing past misguided housing policies.
Let‟s start with the visible problem of homeless individuals roaming the streets with garbage bags and shopping carts. Step one is to recognize there should be no right to roam aimlessly and sleep out on the streets on either private property or government property. (Although if someone wants to let a bunch of homeless people sleep on their private property, assuming zoning or nuisance laws are not violated, that‟s another matter). It is clearly an infringement on others‟ rights when you have to step over the homeless man sleeping under a tree while you‟re playing Frisbee with your kids in a local park. So in principle, all homeless individuals who don‟t have a temporary place to stay should be transported to homeless shelters, regardless of whether or not the individual wants to go. Is this an unacceptable restriction on civil liberty? No because the principled conservative, as stated above, does not consider it a civil liberty to sleep and urinate outside on someone else‟s private property, or public property. It is entirely appropriate for the government to remove the homeless to a different location. But before we are accused of heartlessness, consider the reality that most of the chronically homeless suffer from mental illness. Therefore, they should be treated for such and institutionalized if necessary. Because we believe in a fair society, the principled conservative is committed to raise what is needed in public and private funds to provide this treatment. There will be plenty of volunteer opportunities in providing such treatment and ample employment opportunities for mental health professionals. What about the homeless person who is not mentally ill but simply addicted to alcohol, drugs, etc.? Again, we support treatment, but with the caveat that if the individual cannot stay clean and stay off the streets, involuntary institutionalization and treatment must always remain an option.
But what about affordable housing for others who are simply unfortunate individuals or families who fall through the cracks of housing not due to mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse? Here the principled conservative aims to reform our housing policies to let the private market work to provide low-income housing.
The 50-plus years of failed public housing programs are a tragic but teachable history lesson, indicating that private housing will do a lot better job. Section 8 housing vouchers as currently operated are not the way to go.17 Social engineers are obsessed with putting low-income housing in every community, which makes little sense from an economic standpoint. What incentive is there for a housing developer to build or refurbish less expensive housing if they know the federal government is going to subsidize the purchaser to be able to pay a higher price? Further, it is pure patronizing paternalistic hubris for the government to worry about where people decide to live, so long as the only discrimination concerns whether one is able to pay the asking price. It‟s not the end of the world that there will always be more affluent neighborhoods versus more modestly priced neighborhoods and even some poor ones. The principled conservative does not believe there is a right to live any place one wants regardless of the ability to pay the going rate, no more than every American has a right to own a certain type of car or television set or refrigerator. We do support a robust housing market including low-income housing which we believe is easier for the private sector to create if all communities are safe and have good elementary and secondary school options. While it might take years to wean off housing vouchers, the ultimate goal is lower taxes so that people will have more disposable income in order to purchase housing.
Why is the principled conservative so down on American public housing policies? Because rarely has there been such an example of long-term high government expenditures with terrible outcomes to show for it. The bad outcomes were not just the crime-ridden, drug-infested high-rise public housing projects that eventually had to be torn down. There are also the policies that foster dependence on government rather than self-reliance and wealth-building, such as the Community Reinvestment Act:
“Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real-estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.” 20
The bottom line is that there is plenty of mess to clean up in America‟s housing policies, another example of the principled conservative‟s desire to reform safety net programs and let the private markets work in cases where they will do a better job than government intervention.
We don‟t need another academic study indicating the poor are poor because they have less money than others.
Going beyond the homeless and housing problem to lower income individuals and families, the principled conservative would point out that our goal is to create societal conditions that give maximum opportunity for economic and social advancement. It is a leftist creed/myth that America is not a highly economically mobile society. The problem with poverty in America is different than third world countries or those living in totalitarian police states. With rare exception, poverty in America is not caused by any lack of legal protection for property and individual rights, by the government stifling business development, or by the government operating like the mafia (see the Gaza Strip experience under Yasser Arafat as a classic recent example of this phenomenon). Poverty in America is largely the result of social problems. Specifically, study after study has shown that it is single parenthood and dropping out of school that are the biggest indicators for poverty. The point is not to blame the victim, but to work from the premise that public policy should identify the root cause of problems even though such causes might be intractable or difficult to change through any governmental policy. This does not mean we give up, but we must be realistic, creative, and innovative. For the principled conservative, the underlying assumption is that we do the best for promoting social welfare by ensuring a fair society that creates the most opportunity for individual employment, advancement, and wealth. The measure of concern for the less fortunate should not solely be a commitment to social safety net programs, but also a commitment to such a society of freedom and opportunity. This is explored in greater detail in the next two chapters.