 |
| Daddy Brooks |
Oh boy. It's bad enough religion-driven Ross Douthat trumpets social decay as the cause of God's wrath on the poor, but now colleague David Brooks insists on getting into the game. Not that this is Brooks' first foray into "Father Knows Best," but so close on Paul Ryan and Tyler Cowen's paternalistic pap, Brooks comes off in full me-too-ism mode with his latest excuse for NYTimes-level punditry. I know it's hard out there for a conservative pimp, but please, spare me the moralism. No? Okay I must condemn you, Brooks. Here's the lede for
your latest (seriously, he wrote this):
Nearly every parent on earth operates on the assumption that character
matters a lot to the life outcomes of their children. Nearly every
government antipoverty program operates on the assumption that it
doesn’t.
Good grief. Parents good, antipoverty programs bad! Why? Read on:
It’s
easy to understand why policy makers would skirt the issue of
character. Nobody wants to be seen blaming the victim — spreading the
calumny that the poor are that way because they don’t love their
children enough, or don’t have good values. Furthermore, most sensible
people wonder if government can do anything to alter character anyway.
The
problem is that policies that ignore character and behavior have
produced disappointing results. Social research over the last decade or
so has reinforced the point that would have been self-evident in any
other era — that if you can’t help people become more resilient,
conscientious or prudent, then all the cash transfers in the world will
not produce permanent benefits.
 |
| Daddy Ryan |
The gist of Brooks' column mirrors Paul Ryan's new bullshit poverty morality play he's trotted out to show he's compassionate. Is not. Am too! Is not. Am too! Read
of his plan and weep:
Last week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released a detailed anti-poverty proposal
in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. One of Ryan's top
prescriptions seems to have been influenced by his previous career as a
personal trainer. He has proposed that recipients of federal benefits
get the services of a personal case manager who
would help them craft long-term plans, find "opportunities for growth,"
and nudge them to make better choices that would lift them out of
poverty and off the government dole.
I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation about how much this
might cost. Just for people on food stamps, the federal government would
need about 700,000 social workers, to the tune of around $30 billion.
On Wednesday, Ryan appeared at a press briefing sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor and fielded questions about his plan, including several about the potential cost of his caseworker proposal.
 |
| Daddy Salam |
Of course, Rep. Ryan demurred. Costing things out is hecka hard for this policy wonk. But he loves the paternalism part. Paternalism is easy! In fact, Reihan Salam of Slate thinks
it's a feature, not a bug:
The cheapest and easiest thing that governments can do to improve the
lot of poor people is to give them more money. Government can get a lot
of things wrong, but it’s generally pretty good at mailing people checks
or zapping money to their EBT cards. Giving people money really does
make them better-off: It’s better to have more money to buy groceries
and other basic necessities than less. But getting more money from the
government doesn’t really make you less poor.
....The most controversial idea in Ryan’s anti-poverty plan, at least as it
stands right now, is that poor families should work with government
agencies or approved nonprofit or for-profit service providers to
develop a plan for achieving economic independence.
... People with low or no earnings, in contrast, face diverse obstacles.
Some need short-term help to, say, fix their car, which will allow them
to commute to work, or to make a deposit on a rental apartment. Others
don’t have the skills they need to earn enough to support themselves
and, for whatever reason, will have a very hard time acquiring them.
Sure, you could give both kinds of people food stamps and call it a day.
Or you could recognize that one-size-fits-all programs don’t do justice
to the ways in which individual circumstances vary.
So there you have it. Conservatives who hate the nanny state now want one if Daddy gets to tell the poor what they've got to do to keep getting help. Please don't ask me how they'll pay for it. Paying for it is not important to them. Why?
Because they don't intend to do any of this. It's just campaign bullshit. See, we love the poor, and we're going help them if they stop taking drugs and drinking gallons of soda all day while watching their big-screen TVs while talking to their friends on the cell phones. Losers!
 |
| Daddy Cowen |
I must again point to conservative libertarian Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. He is
thinking right up Brooks', Ryan's, and Salam's alley with his "the poor should just find a hard-ass religion to follow so they won't drink, smoke, or gamble so they live a life worthy of our helping them."
What a jerk. Says Cowen:
Note that the observed stagnation in earnings has plagued male
earners, not women. Women continue to do better in the work force and
also in education, or if they choose not to advance this is often a
voluntary decision, linked to childbearing.
Men are perhaps better suited for old-style manufacturing jobs, and
women are often better suited for service sector jobs. A lot of men seem
to have problems with discipline and conscientiousness.
If we are looking for a remedy, a greater interest in strict
religions would help many of the poor a lot — how about Mormonism for a
start? Just look at the data. Many other religions prohibit or severely
limit alcohol, drugs and gambling. That said, this has to happen
privately rather than as a matter of state policy.
I guess poppa's got a brand new bag, and that would be getting all in the face of the poor. For their own good, mind you. Conservatives are weird. I was going to say make them stop, but we can't. It's what they do when they're pretending to care about the poor, when what they really want to do is cut taxes and give the money to the rich -- who, of course, is who they think they are or, at any rate, should become. Because it's their destiny!
