Believe it or Not, People Eat More Than Once Per Year

Charles Lane proposes abolishing "the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps", and transferring the funds to other programs,

If the working poor’s current share of food stamps went instead to increase the earned-income tax credit and expand eligibility for it, Republicans and Democrats would have less to argue about. The tax credit is a wage supplement, delivered through the income tax system, widely considered one of the most successful federal programs at encouraging work and eliminating poverty. It has also enjoyed consistent bipartisan backing.

The problem with this, and I'm a bit surprised that it even needs to be said, is that an additional amount added to your tax refund (if you qualify), many months into the future, doesn't fill the refrigerator.

Lane asserts that he would effectively prevent people hit by an economic downturn from receiving food assistance, but fancies that by compelling "Congress [] to distribute the SNAP budget among other programs for the poor, for which many SNAP recipients also qualify", part of that money "would go to an expanded and more generous unemployment insurance program". Except that nothing in his proposed distribution to "other programs for the poor" compels that result, and unemployment insurance programs are state-based. Frankly, if the law abolishing food stamps gets down to the level of specifying how the money is to be "redistributed", mandating a certain level of federal funding for state unemployment insurance programs, mandating that states actually apply that money to increased befits sufficient to make up for the loss of food assistance, his cure sounds like a regulatory nightmare. And that's before we get to the fact that while SNAP is means tested, programs like unemployment insurance and Social Security retirement are not. When Lane asserts, "For example, a third of the seniors living on food stamps also get Supplemental Security Income (SSI)", which is a means tested program, the question arises, what about the other two thirds?

The fundamental objection to SNAP is not that it doesn't help the categories of people, "low-income people who are either working, jobless through no fault of their own, elderly or disabled", whom Lane sees as the "deserving poor" - although of itself, that assertion makes it appear that part of Lane's goal in this proposal is to reduce benefits to people he sees as "jobless through [some] fault of their own" - it's the notion that "they" are taking from "us". That can be a nebulous population of "undeserving poor", the apparent actual target's of Lane's proposal, but let's not understate the degree to which the opposition is driven by demagoguery involving confabulated "Cadillac-driving welfare queens" and "Young bucks buying T-bone steaks". You can easily find opponents of any number of means-tested government programs who object that other people don't deserve the same benefits, with no thought given to the fact that most critics of the same programs would place them squarely in the "undeserving" category.

If Lane wants to propose that aid to the poor be simplified, and transitioned into more of a cash-based system, I can get on board with that. We certainly have the technology to distribute cash aid efficiently, and could consolidate what are presently monthly payments of cash through a variety of social welfare programs into weekly or even daily transfers - no more waiting until the next month rolls around to buy the groceries, you'll have money in the morning. We could add to that a "tough lesssons" provision - that the government can vendor rent and utility payments on behalf of somebody who receives public assistance but if they choose instead to take the cash and then fail to pay their bills they're "on their own". Of course, as a society we're generally too paternalistic to do the former, which is why we have programs like SNAP in the first place - so people can't spend money on the "wrong things" - and are generally not willing to do the latter because we don't like the specter of people on public assistance, and even less households full of children, living without heat or water, or evicted for nonpayment of rent. Frankly, most recipients of public assistance can handle the responsibility, and while we do have to be cautious about the fallout on families when, say, dad spends the household budget on crack, we don't do much to inculcate responsibility in the rest of the recipients when we insulate the adults in a household from the consequences of their bad financial choices.

Lane seems to be proposing an odd, circuitous path to take money from a population he sees as the undeserving poor, and transferring that money to the more deserving poor. The biggest problem with his proposal is that both groups need to eat, and starving one group to give the other a larger annual tax credit won't help either of them.

The Working Poor Have Bigger Problems Than Single Parenthood

I was tempted to dissent David Brooks' recent piece on how boys are faring in school, his comparison of an unruly boy, chained down by "culturally homogenous schools", to Henry V as depicted by Shakespeare - first as a wild child in Henry IV, later as an accomplished leader in Henry V. According to Brooks, it seems schools would prefer to be teaching "a reflective Hamlet".

By about the third week of nursery school, Henry’s teacher would be sending notes home saying that Henry “had another hard day today.” He was disruptive during circle time. By midyear, there’d be sly little hints dropped that maybe Henry’s parents should think about medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Many of the other boys are on it, and they find school much easier.

What say you, Charles Pierce?

At which point, Henry IV, in all of his parts, and being pissed off with that whole Percy family squabble, would have the nursery school teacher drawn and quartered, her head hung on Traitor's Gate for a month, and I probably shouldn't give our country's school "reformers" any ideas.

But as tempting as it was to respond to Brooks' editorial with full-bore sarcasm, what I found problematic was less his dubious resort to Shakespeare and more the fact that he has difficulty maintaining a consistent thesis. Instead, by the end he becomes somewhat incoherent:

Schools have to engage people as they are. That requires leaders who insist on more cultural diversity in school: not just teachers who celebrate cooperation, but other teachers who celebrate competition; not just teachers who honor environmental virtues, but teachers who honor military virtues; not just curriculums that teach how to share, but curriculums that teach how to win and how to lose; not just programs that work like friendship circles, but programs that work like boot camp.

Seriously - the way we're going to engage a young Henry V in school, keep him out of trouble, keep him from rebelling, is by sending him to a school that embraces "military virtues" and resembles a "boot camp"? Is this a half-hearted defense of KIPP-type schools with their extensive behavior codes? Brooks seriously believes his young Henry V's will go unmedicated and be educationally successful in such schools?

But the incoherence runs deeper. This is the same David Brooks who has lectured us that a small child's ability to resist marshmallows is a harbinger of his future. In the past he proposed that schools focus on teaching children "to master the sort of self-control that leads to success". That's consistent with the military model he appears to be half-endorsing, but again that's not going to work with a Henry V.

The rich, privileged, self-indulgent Henry V can grab as many marshmallows as he wants, as his future is assured - he doesn't have to care about the rules. The less intellectually gifted, less economically fortunate Henry V is not going to take well to "marshmallow resistance training." Either way, while doing an admirable job of criticizing the current educational system for not catering to a Henry V (while nonetheless doing very well by way of boys like David Brooks and Hamlet), Brooks doesn't actually explain how we could create schools that can simultaneously inspire Henry V to resist marshmallows while also inspiring a young David Brooks to strive for the day he can take an AP literature class focused on the works of Shakespeare.

Brooks has also told us what he, himself, thinks of kids like Henry V:

Similarly, in every high school there are jocks, cheerleaders and regular kids who vaguely sense that their natural enemies are the brooding poets who go off to become English majors. These prom kings and queens may leave their adolescent godhood and go off to work as underpaid sales reps despite their coldly gracious spouses and effortlessly slender kids, but they will still remember their adolescent opposites and become conservatives. They will experience surges of orgiastic triumphalism when Sean Hannity eviscerates the scuffed-shoed intellectuals who have as much personal courage as a French chipmunk in retreat.

French chipmunks in retreat... Funny, right?

Brooks' subsequent column inspired me to revisit the subject. You won't believe this but, according to Brooks, over the past thirty years rich people have come to have a lot of discretionary income, and poor people have not. Seriously!

Affluent parents also invest more money in their children. Over the last 40 years upper-income parents have increased the amount they spend on their kids’ enrichment activities, like tutoring and extra curriculars, by $5,300 a year. The financially stressed lower classes have only been able to increase their investment by $480, adjusted for inflation.

The explanation for this is, once again, Brooks' theory that poor people have bad morals.

A long series of cultural, economic and social trends have merged to create this sad state of affairs. Traditional social norms were abandoned, meaning more children are born out of wedlock.

Wait a minute - aren't we supposed to support Henry V's sowing of his wild oats? Or is the "traditional value" at issue the notion that Henry will do so at the whorehouse while "good girls" remain chaste? "Guard your marshmallows, girls, Henry V is on the prowl."

Their single parents simply have less time and resources to prepare them for a more competitive world.

So the only children struggling are those from single parent homes? There are no "poorer kids" from two family homes? Fascinating stuff.

Working-class jobs were decimated, meaning that many parents are too stressed to have the energy, time or money to devote to their children.

What Brooks apparently means is that working class jobs that support a middle class lifestyle have been decimated, even if that's not quite what he says. How did that happen? Who knows? Perhaps it has something to do with single parenthood?

Affluent, intelligent people are now more likely to marry other energetic, intelligent people.

Unlike past eras during which intelligent, affluent people sought out unintelligent, indigent spouses?

They raise energetic, intelligent kids in self-segregated, cultural ghettoes where they know little about and have less influence upon people who do not share their blessings.

The rich now live in ghettoes? Oh, life is so cruel. Remember, back in the day, when the rich and poor lived near each other, sharing land and crops, or on different floors of the same opulent building? Ah... memories.

The political system directs more money to health care for the elderly while spending on child welfare slides.

So... the solution here is to spend less money on sick old people? To increase spending on programs for poor children - and if so, what programs?

Brooks insists that to change the unfortunate status quo, people will "have to make some pretty uncomfortable decisions":

Liberals are going to have to be willing to champion norms that say marriage should come before childrearing and be morally tough about it.

Yes, because once liberals get serious about teen pregnancy, like red state conservatives, we'll see... huge increases in teen pregnancy? But wait, David, I thought that was a big part of the problem. (I know, I know - when you get you facts wrong it's a joke. You're kidding the liberals.)

Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class.

If we're talking Republicans, let's see... what will they choose. Oh yeah, benefit cuts.¹ That bit about "spending more on the poor" is apt to get lost in the wash.

Political candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy them — less time calling their opponents out of touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively address the problem.

You mean, by identifying a social problem and deciding it can be cured by throwing money at it? Yeah, there's no chance that Brooks' proposal for spending more "on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class" will be demagogued....

Political candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy them....

So at the end of a dissertation on the poor morals of the poor, and how we nonetheless need to spend more money trying to help poor children, Brooks believes that we can propose taxing wealthier people or cutting their benefits to pay for those new programs without anybody raising the specter of class warfare? No concerns about giving money to undeserving bleah people?

...less time calling their opponents out of touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively address the problem.

Why not both? Seriously, Brooks wants to clean up some of the over-the-top rhetoric in modern politics. Fair enough. But it's not like that's either new or the real problem. The problem is that one party is doing a middling job at creating the policies necessary to help our nation avoid significant future problems, and the other party is actively obstructing the little that might otherwise be accomplished.

There is absolutely no reason why Brooks cannot call on politicians from both parties to start addressing the issues, and take them to task if they offer rhetoric or demagoguery instead of actual policy proposals. It wouldn't hurt if Brooks offered some policy proposals of his own as a starting point but, I guess, that would be above his pay grade?
----------------
1. I'm reminded of the old Far Side cartoon... "Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept blah blah blah benefit cuts blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

What Republicans Think?

David Brooks attempts to explain what Republicans think and... it's not that I think he does a bad job. It's more that he lays out the case that, in his view, Republicans rely on dogma over fact. When Brooks observes,

Between Ike and George W. Bush, Republican leaders basically accepted that model. Sure, they wanted to cut taxes and devolve power, but, in practice, they sustained the system, often funding it more lavishly than the Democrats.

he highlights the product of the tension between what Republicans supposedly believe, and what they in fact want. Brooks states,

To Republican eyes, the first phase of that collapse [of the welfare state] is playing out right now in Greece, Spain and Italy — cosseted economies, unmanageable debt, rising unemployment, falling living standards.

But Republicans used to like Ireland, a model for the world, and they remain enamored with Germany. Our "welfare state" is a fraction of Germany's, and need I even comment on their labor laws as compared to ours? Sure, if you go around pointing at industrialized nations in trouble and saying, "That nation has a stronger social safety net than us," you're going to find correlation between that stronger safety net and their financial woes, because the U.S. safety net is about the weakest in the developed world.

The unstated part of the Republican mindset, upon which Brooks makes no comment, is that the tendency to think of welfare as something other people get. That's why it appears consistent to Republican voters for a President to pass a massive unfunded expansion of Medicare while decrying "welfare". That's why, at the height of the Tea Party frenzy, Republicans engaged in demagoguery about how Democrats wanted to cut Medicare funding. The idea of finding cost-savings in Medicare and using that money to fund a program to get insurance for people who can't afford it? That, not the funding of Medicare itself or a failure to cut waste, is welfare.

Brooks argues that the welfare state model has "become a giant machine for redistributing money from the future to the elderly", but I'm not seeing that significant numbers of Republican voters have a problem with that. Certainly not enough of them to embolden their party to approach the reform of Social Security and Medicare in either an honest or effective manner.

If Republicans were serious about reforming the welfare state, they would look around the industrialized world for solutions, identify the most sustainable solutions and those with the strongest market components, and propose implementing reforms in this country based upon models that are likely to work, to save money, and to preserve as much of the free market as possible, in some cases potentially increasing market involvement in the delivery of public assistance. In reality, you see none of that. You have an ideological leadership invested in ending the "welfare state", that cannot be honest about its actual goals with voters - and you end up with the seemingly contradictory outcome of Republican presidents expanding the welfare state that their party would prefer to destroy.

Brooks also, complains, "Successive presidents have layered on regulations and loopholes, creating a form of state capitalism in which big businesses thrive because they have political connections and small businesses struggle", and in fairness does not single out the presidents of any particular party. But in complaining about middle class wage stagnation, the growth of the service sector and decline of the "innovative sectors" (whatever that means), Brooks omits any mention of labor organization and globalization. Again, back to Germany, a nation that took a very different position on labor organization and maintained a different manufacturing policy through the rise of globalization, and preserved some of what we have lost. Also, what nation does Brooks imagine has a more robust "innovative sector" than this one? It may be that tech often doesn't require huge factories and tens of thousands of workers, but I'm seeing a lot of innovation coming from U.S. companies.

Brooks pretty much admits that the Republican leadership won't be honest, even with its most fervent followers, about its agenda:

This is the source of Republican extremism: the conviction that the governing model is obsolete. It needs replacing.

Mitt Romney hasn’t put it this way. He wants to keep the focus on President Obama. But this worldview is implied in his (extremely vague) proposals. He would structurally reform the health care system, moving toward a more market-based system. He would simplify the tax code. He would reverse 30 years of education policy, decentralizing power and increasing parental choice. The intention is the same, to create a model that will spark an efficiency explosion, laying the groundwork for an economic revival.

Sorry, no, more or less promising to be the second coming of Reagan is not even close to the same thing as arguing that the governing model is obsolete and should be replaced. Its pretty much the opposite. Promising massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and more deregulation of big (but not small) business, as a solution to the nation's woes is no solution - it's better described as how we got into the present crisis.

Brooks argues,

In his speech, Obama didn’t vow to reform the current governing model but to rebalance it. The rich would pay a little more and everyone else would get a little more. He’d “double down” on clean energy, revive the Grand Bargain from last summer’s budget talks, invest in infrastructure, job training and basic research.

Obama championed targeted subsidies and tax credits. Republicans, meanwhile, envision comprehensive systemic change. The G.O.P. vision is of an entirely different magnitude: replace the tax code, replace the health care system and transform entitlements.

In other words, Obama is describing how we might move forward within our constitutional framework, and Romeny is telling us that he, and only he, has a secret formula to make the pie higher. He's also telling us that the Republican Party is dreaming up ideological "solutions" to the nation's problems, with no concern for whether those solutions would work, and no effort to explain those solutions to the public - to the contrary, when you push for details you get evasions and smokescreens. That makes sense, because if the Republican Party were honest about their supposedly best idea, the so-called Ryan plan, they would have to admit that they plan to cut taxes for the wealthy, slash Medicaid and Social Security, and that over time their plan would still increase the deficit.

If I were to ask Brooks to realistically explain how the Republican Party will implement any of the reforms they supposedly favor, and why we should believe that any of it would work, I suspect his answer would be along the lines of, "Um, er, well, if you look at the, um -- OMG! LOOK AT GREECE!"

Why Support an Argument With Facts

Michael Gerson, reverting to his role as a "compassionate conservative" claims to feel for the growing population of impoverished Americans. His critique of conservatives is a bit nebulous,

Conservatives naturally focus on equal opportunity rather than on equal outcomes. But equality of opportunity is a more radical concept than we generally concede. It is not a natural state; it is a social and political achievement. It depends on healthy families and cohesive communities. But opportunity also depends on effective government — on public safety, public education and public health. Governmental overreach can undermine other important social institutions. Yet the retreat of government does not automatically restore them to health.

The first question is whether it's fair to say that "Conservatives naturally focus on equal opportunity" because they believe in equal opportunity, or because it's a means of avoiding the discussion of entrenched inequality. Implicitly, it was in comparison to the proponents of "All we need is equal opportunity" and their implicit, "So all we need to do is nothing", that Matthew Yglesias found conservative proponents of "absolute mobility" to be the "smartest conservatives". At least they're looking at economic reality. "If you're poor, on the whole you have the opportunity to earn a little bit more than your parents earned."

Gerson acknowledges that if you truly want equal opportunity you need to have - and pay for - government programs that support opportunity, including safety, education and health. He complains, with no attempt at specificity, that "government overreach" undermines "social institutions", but without any attempt to explain which ones, how they're undermined more by government action than by other factors, and a cost-benefit analysis, that observation is worthless. Without examining the context and alternatives, you can easily end up presenting imbecilic arguments about how government intervention ruined the "good old days" when racial covenants and discrimination left wealthier and more successful African Americans living in or near poor neighborhoods where they ostensibly served as role models.

For a more direct example, since Gerson mentions "healthy families", it's possible to argue that social welfare programs have contributed to the breakdown of the nuclear family in poor communities, but it's also possible to observe that many other families are helped by the very same supports, that many other factors contribute to the breakdown of the "traditional" family unit, that some family units are not healthy (Gerson later acknowledges "permissive cultural norms" as well as "downward pressure on wages and... stagnant labor markets" as part of the bigger picture), and that you risk confusing cause and effect - is it the availability of government supports that break down families, or are you seeing instead how dubious choices (leaving aside questions of the degree to which they're forced by circumstance) lead people to seek and remain dependent upon government benefits? Public assistance programs were not created in a vacuum - they were created to serve an already-existing population of poor people, many of whom were already part of a measurable cycle of poverty.

Gerson next takes a page out of George Will's style guide, resorting to a "hollow man" argument:

Liberals often fail to recognize that income redistribution, while preventing penury, is not identical to social equality.

Is there a single "liberal" in the world who believes that income redistribution is identical to social equality? Gerson's suggestion that his fabrication is a mistake "often" made by "liberals" should be acknowledged for what it is - nonsense. But that's the entire point of the hollow man - you can easily critique nonsense that you stick into a fictionalized opponent's mouth, but it's a lot harder to deal with arguments in an honest, substantive manner. When columnists habitually resort to the hollow man, you have to wonder if they're implicitly acknowledging that they're simply not up to the task of addressing the actual issues.

The main challenge of poverty is not a lack of consumption but a lack of social capital — measured in skills and values — and of opportunity. Addressing these problems is more complex than increasing marginal tax rates, particularly when revenue is used to cover the increasing costs of non-means-tested entitlement programs.

Addressing a problem that has nothing to do with "marginal tax rates" is more complicated than "increasing marginal tax rates", he tells us? No kidding - it's a non-sequitur. One has very little to do with the other. Who is arguing otherwise? Perhaps Gerson means to allude to the research documenting that societies with less income equality have more economic mobility, particularly at the bottom, but even that's not necessarily either related to or correlated with "marginal tax rates". Who does Gerson imagine is making this argument - or is he deliberately hollow manning in order to cover the weakness of his argument?

The structure of the modern welfare state is not focused on empowering the poor. Instead, it has increased the percentage of government transfer payments that go to middle- and upper-income seniors.

Egad. So his hollow man liberal has constructed a "welfare state" that redistributes wealth from the middle and upper classes to... the middle and upper classes? And that would be wealth redistribution in the sense of... what?

Gerson is, of course, attempting a clumsy sleight of hand. A change of topic from public assistance programs, a/k/a welfare, to Social Security and Medicare. One might look at those programs, and the before-and-after picture of senior citizens' wealth, and say, "Wow, they were effective." One might look at the present picture and say, "Yes, some benefits are received by seniors who don't need them, but those seniors paid for these insurance benefits over the course of their careers, and other seniors are most certainly kept or lifted out of poverty through their receipt of Social Security and health insurance. If one were concerned about the longer-term picture, one might argue that due to some flaws in the funding model too much of the present cost of those programs is falling upon working adults, and that we need to take steps to make those programs sustainable. But within this context, to attempt a silent change of subject from programs like WIC and SNAP (food stamps) to Medicare and Social Security is dishonest.

When speaking of true public assistance, Gerson seems to be positive:

Welfare reform decreased caseloads and child poverty while increasing employment and income for low-income families. Community policing and zero-tolerance policies reduced crime. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which used to be called food stamps — has been reformed to better fight hunger. The earned-income tax credit has encouraged work and reduced poverty.

I'm wondering, unless the societal breakdown he complains about is occurring among "middle- and upper-income seniors", what social welfare programs does he perceive as actually "undermin[ing] other important social institutions"?

At the end, Gerson suggests that what we need is for "reform-oriented" politicians from the "center-right and the center-left" to impose market-driven reforms. I'm not sure how any of the reforms Gerson praises reflect market forces in action, but I guess that's a discussion for another day. Gerson places himself among those who pretend that a magical bipartisanship at the center can solve all of the nation's problems - as if it's always the moderates and compromisers who have the answers, and that partisans are always wrong - but predictably resorts to false-equivalence, "Our politics has a surplus of ideology and a shortage of wonkery". If I look, for example, at the Republican primaries or, for that matter, at Gerson's past columns, am I apt to see more of the solution or more of the problem?

Is the WSJ Trying to Make Walter Williams Look Bad?

I recognize that the 'weekend interview' of Walter Williams is intended to be hagiographic, but instead of presenting a credible portrait of Williams the author reduces him to a caricature, spewing platitudinous statements, preaching to the choir, and pointing to their applause as proof of his authority.

Let me start by stating that there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the modern welfare state. You cannot look at the consequences of well-meaning welfare policies implemented in the early 20th century, and their explosion as part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty", without recognizing that those policies have contributed to a "culture of poverty" in parts of the country. But it should also be remembered that other conservative bugbears, such as "the explosion of divorces" and "the sexual revolution," have been held out by others on the political right as the root cause of the problems of the inner cities. The "war on drugs" has long been argued to be a root cause by the political left, although that argument is increasingly bipartisan. My point being, it is simplistic to point to one factor and say, "Because this correlates with another problem I have identified, that's the cause". Even if you can only identify one cause, correlation does not automatically translate into causation. When multiple, significant factors are at play, it's quite possible that your "leading factor" identified solely by correlation is, even if not a non-factor, a lot less important than you believe.

It's also important to recall that, while good intentions do not justify bad results, each of the changes in society that can be argued to contribute to a culture of poverty have both good and bad elements. You can cry, "It's horrible that welfare creates a culture of dependency," but most welfare recipients are in it for the short-term. They're dealing with a crisis, such as a divorce, and their benefits help them get through that rough patch. Before you cry that the bathwater is so bad that we must throw out the baby, you need to acknowledge the presence of the baby and, if your argument is based upon economics, demonstrate how it would be economically better to let families in crisis flounder as opposed to providing the short-term assistance that appears very helpful in getting them back on their feet.

And then, when you turn to the inner cities, you have to examine the costs and benefits of your action. If you're for cutting off all welfare, or setting a firm caps on public assistance - a limit on benefits, whether in terms of dollar value or how long you qualify to receive benefits - you need to consider whether you're going to make the problem better or worse. Will we end up with our inner cities turning into libertarian paradises, or will we see roaming gangs of street kids robbing tourists, women with babies pandhandling, increased rates of theft and robbery - the type of thing we associate with dysfunctional cities in the developing world? (Let's also remember, the libertarian paradise is a purely utopian construct. None has ever existed, and there's no reason to believe that one will ever exist.)

If you're arguing from an economic standpoint, you must decide if you're going to argue in the short-term or the long-term. In the short-term will the costs resulting from cutting off public assistance in the inner cities increase or decrease cost to society? Even if you're content to have regions with concentrated poverty (and they're not just inner cities) become the equivalent of the Bangalore slums, or believe it's better to have kids spend their days roaming landfills and picking through the garbage for anything of value, you will have expenses associated with law enforcement, prisons, disease, and the fact that you're writing off additional generations of children to abject poverty.

If you take a long-term view you need to propose a solution that will address the long-term: It's no longer a matter of simply cutting off public assistance, but fashioning a program that will help transition those in the cycle of poverty into a population of working Americans. So are you going to create programs to break the cycle of poverty, and in comparative terms what will those programs cost? Because as much as people like Williams like to sneer, "Liberal programs caused all of this," when it comes to implementing a meaningful reform that will cost money, his side of the aisle that is consistently obstructionist. There's also going to be an element of experimentation and wishful thinking in whatever you propose as a solution - there's little that can't be improved with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight.

On the most recent Real Time, Rachel Maddow and Steve Moore had an exchange in which Rachel Maddow (with some support from David Stockman, Director of the OMB from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan) was arguing in favor of replacing various subsidies for the poor, many of which favor various lobbies, with straight cash aid. Moore blurted out that, instead of cash aid, we should "give them jobs". It seems from his politics that Moore would oppose a stimulus program for the inner cities, and would oppose any form of "make work" program, and he did not propose any job skills programs or other initiatives that might prepare a population of barely employable people for a modern workplace. If his retort was not intended as a disingenuous platitude - an effort to shut down the debate as opposed to providing an alternative approach - surely he has some ideas as to where those jobs will come from. Given the state of the economy he has the nation's ear - it's difficult to imagine that any politically conservative idea for job creation would not be welcomed. So, why are we waiting?

It would be interesting to hear the response of Walter Williams to such a simple reform as replacing all present public assistance with cash aid. The aid could still be delivered via the equivalent of a debit card, recipients could be given online management tools (and, to the extent necessary, access to public terminals and technical assistance for the use of those tools) to budget, directly pay rent, create a reserve for emergencies, and otherwise manage their finances. It actually sounds like a great exercise in personal responsibility and accountability. I expect Williams would state that such an experiment would only work if there were consequences - blow the rent money on a big screen TV, clothes, drugs, or anything else and, if you can't work something out with your landlord or find a non-governmental source for a bail-out, you get evicted. It seems like a pretty simple way to diminish the overhead in managing numerous welfare programs while creating immediate and obvious lessons for the community as to what happens if you don't learn how to manage your money.

And now, let's turn to the WSJ column on Williams. I searched for reaction to the article and, although I found countless examples of bloggers uncritically applauding its wisdom, the phenomenon appeared to be almost exclusively one of white right-wingers making statements to the effect of, "This guy just affirmed all of my prejudices - he's brilliant!". (Scroll down that page for Obama in "Joker" facepaint, labeled "socialist", or for commentary with a level of insight comparable to that photograph.) This seems to be alright with Williams, who is quoted,

"When I fill in for Rush [Limbaugh], I get emails from blacks who say they agree with what I'm saying. And there are a lot of white people questioning ideas on race, too. There's less white guilt out there. It's progress."

How, from a logical standpoint, is it significant that black members his audience agree with what he says? When you preach to the chorus, you should expect that they'll sing your praises. As for his implication that any white person who disagrees with him is motivated by guilt, there's not even a whit of logic involved. If you interpret it as a dog whistle it makes sense - and that interpretation would be consistent with how the aforementioned right-wing bloggers seem to be reacting to the 'interview'.

It's worth also taking a look at Williams' claims in terms of his own background. From looking at a review of his biography, his parents were divorced, he pretty much ran wild until he was drafted into the military, and more or less personified the culture he claims did not exist during his childhood but emerged in later years:

During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."

Given the realities of Williams' own childhood family, how is that even possible? Or could it be that some of the factors that contributed to the breakdown of families, and irresponsible, criminal behavior by a subset of inner city youth, were already in place before the start of the War on Poverty? If we are to acknowledge the reality that divorce, single parenthood, youth crime, youthful disinterest in school, and the like already existed, it seems more appropriate to argue that policies implemented in the War on Poverty contributed to or accelerated the problems previously exemplified by Williams' own family, but it can't be said to have created them.

Williams also glosses right over something no libertarian should be able to miss, the rise of the black middle class and the availability of housing options outside of the inner cities. I'm reminded of arguments I've heard from others that, back in the "good old days", celebrities and professionals lived shoulder-to-shoulder with the inner city poor. Would Williams argue that the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that eliminated housing discrimination were an unjust infringement on the rights of landlords and sellers, and thus helped contribute to the decline of the inner cities? Or would he argue that restrictive covenants and discrimination by landlords were infringements on the liberties of African Americans and were properly struck down to advance equality in the marketplace? The former argument is consistent with his broader idea that evil liberals ruined the inner city - but why do I doubt that Williams' own home is in an inner city neighborhood?

On the other hand, if he accepts the end of housing discrimination as a "good thing", he needs to consider how the emigration of successful people and working families from the inner city created the present culture. When he points to the inner cities, is he seeing how those families were destroyed or is he seeing how, when those families move out, a disproportionate number of families like his own were left behind. (Not his current family unit, of course, but the broken home of his childhood.)

You have to love statements like this:

But Walter Williams was a libertarian before it was cool.

Sorry, but being a libertarian still isn't "cool". Or this:

"I think it's important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won't be ripped off by politicians," he says. "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy."

That statement presupposes that politicians are economically literate. Starting with the last guy the Republicans ran for President, where can I find evidence of that? Heck, looking at the position most economists took going into (and in no small part coming out of) the housing bubble, a strong case can be made that most economists don't understand economics.

The economic argument presented in the 'interview' as how Williams would balance the budget doesn't exactly distinguish Williams from his lesser-known peers:

"We need a constitutional amendment that limits the amount of money the government can spend," he says. "Let's say 18% of GDP to start. The benefit of a spending limitation amendment is that you're going to force Congress to trade off against the various spending constituencies. Somebody says, 'I want you to spend $10 billion on this,' and the congressman can respond, 'My hands are tied, so you have to show me where I can cut $10 billion first.'"

First, why should we "say 18% of GDP"? Why not 12%, 20%, 50%? Is there more to the foundation of William's economic proposal than "pick a card, any card?" And if the number is to be selected more scientifically than Williams' statement suggests, what method does he propose for its selection? What economic model is he asserting?

Second, doesn't this model make the mistake of confusing a nation's debt with household debt? Doesn't it ignore the economic consensus that deficit spending can be good during periods of recession? How about borrowing to invest in infrastructure development - never appropriate? And truly, what about a major recession like the one we just experienced. What is the mechanism by which we would slash government budgets, departments and jobs so as to stay within a fixed 18%? And wouldn't that cure be worse than the disease? Wouldn't we end up deepening the recession and perhaps creating a downward spiral?

Third, if we're not going to apply a firm 18% in the event of an economic crisis or other emergency, what measure do we employ to ensure that we're not always claimed by Congress to be in the midst of an economic crisis or national emergency. "I was going to stay within 18% this year but, darn it, I thought that there were Cuban soldiers in Grenada so I had to invade" - national emergency? "We're in a Global War on Terror, with no end in sight" - war without end? How long and cumbersome will Williams' "18% solution" Amendment be, such that it neither forces economic crisis after economic crisis nor allows for the easy circumvention of the cap it imposes?

Fourth, even if we have a working "cap", how do we avoid other circumventions. This Congress cannot borrow the $100 billion it wants to spend on something, so it budgets $20 billion per year over the next five years. In subsequent years, Congress must either reduce the budget to accommodate the spending decisions of a prior Congress, default, or spend beyond the cap. Or, rather than giving direct subsidies, Congress offers loan guarantees or loans to be forgiven in the future, not only effectively subsidizing the loan cost and interest rate but creating a risk of default to be absorbed by the taxpayer, or an obligation upon which future Congresses must again either pay or default.

Fifth, when there have been other "cap" proposals the concern has been raised, with some validity, that the "cap" will become a "minimum". An example that comes to mind is the idea of limiting CEO salary - every CEO's salary would be raised, opponents argued, to the level of the cap. In hindsight you could point out that in the absence of a cap those salaries have skyrocketed well past the proposed limits, but I do suspect that the critics would have been proved correct. And also that companies would find other ways to compensate CEO's beyond their capped incomes, just as many CEO's presently enjoy incredible perquisites that aren't technically part of their compensation packages.

Williams is an economist - he has to be able to conceive of dozens, if not hundreds, of ways Congress could circumvent his cap. The original Constitution is about 4400 words. By way of comparison, to be effective, Williams' Amendment would likely make the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations seem concise.

Let's remember, the column at issue was not written by Williams. It was written by WSJ editor Jason L. Riley. I don't dismiss the possibility that there is a lot of thought and nuance in Williams' ideas that was lost in Riley's translation. But it amazes me how little thought the author of the 'interview' and his audience at large seems to give to the various claims, assertions and platitudes served up in the column.

The Difficulty of Aiding the Poor

Although he's writing about the U.K., Paul Vallely's comments on the difficulty of providing aid to the poor seem pretty universal for the developed world:

Here are two propositions most people would find it hard to contradict. First, people who are capable of work should work. Second, a decent society helps those in need and enables those people who are unable to work to nonetheless live with dignity.

So far, so good. The problem comes, as so often with dogmatic moral assertions, in acting on both of them at the same time....

The welfare dilemma is this: by helping those most in need we invariably help people who are perfectly capable of helping themselves. That costs.

Vallely observes that the return to a person on public assistance who gains work at or near the minimum wage is quite modest - they keep as little as 5% of their earnings above what they would receive on assistance. But even when the economy is good you can't overcome that problem by driving up the minimum wage to unrealistic levels, and if you significantly increase the amount of money that a low wage earner can keep while still qualifying for public benefits you'll expand the pool of people eligible for aid to even more of the people who are perfectly capable of helping themselves (and presently are doing exactly that).

Vallely analogizes the deduction of up to 95% of wages from public benefits to a 95% tax on bankers. Even if we ignore the fact that the money we're talking about here is not earned, and while acknowledging the argument (probably more applicable with the poor than with seven figure incomes) that a 95% deduction removes most of the financial incentive to work, the analogy doesn't work for me. In the longer-term, somebody who enters the workforce, gains experience and builds skill should be able to earn more money - it's terribly short-sighted to decline to get a job just because it doesn't provide a significant immediate monetary benefit. I also believe there are social and psychological benefits to carrying your own weight. (Vallely share's my opinion, writing "Work is more than just a right, or even a responsibility, it is a part of human fulfilment.") While I grant that some people who collect public assistance may not be disposed to look beyond the short-term, and some are unlikely to ever earn significantly above minimum wage, over time the majority should do much better for themselves and their families by taking even entry level jobs.

On the other side, you could increase the incentive to work by reducing benefits. Even if most people can be said to favor allowing the poor to live with some degree of dignity, there is room for disagreement as to what constitutes dignity. The problem, particularly with families, is that the financial pressure you place on adults ripples down to the children. Welfare reform in the United States did a lot to limit lifetime benefits, but not so much when minor children are part of the family unit. Limits can also have other negative effects:

[Secretary Ian Duncan Smith] also wants to restore an honesty to the system by addressing the nation's sick note culture which has transferred large numbers of people from unemployment to disability benefit – primarily because they get £25 a week more on the sick than on the dole. We currently have more people classed as invalids (2.65m) than we do as unemployed (2.5m). Almost 7 per cent of the working population is now said to be physically incapable of working.

When you signficantly reduce or eliminate benefits for marginal individuals, you can expect that a number of them will seek disability benefits, and many will get those benefits. Rather than being in a position where they can be pressed to enter the workforce, they're instead pushed in the other direction - they can be expected to take great care not to appear capable of work for fear of losing what can potentially be a lifetime benefit. As Vallely puts it, "If fundamental benefit reform was straightforward, it would have been done by now."

The Limited Virtues of Teen Parenting

A couple of months ago, I read an argument in favor of teen parenting - not just the parenting part, but with the notion that society should unblinkingly subsidize teen mothers. The author starts out with a description of her own pregnancy, and how much she looked forward to being a mother - because, as you know, assuming that everybody else's experience is exactly the same as yours is the next-best thing to following the scientific method. She next conflates the disinterest of teen mothers she has encountered with learning how to parent with there being "something enviably instinctive about the mothering skills of those I met":

Their kids meant everything to them: at six months they were having their ears pierced, by one they had their own TV. There was no angst about, "Am I doing this right?". No textbook consulted, and on the whole, apart from what their mums advised them, no authority revered. A new pregnancy, however many children already lived in the house and whether there was a man around or not, was almost always a cause for celebration. And in the end, these mothers ended up teaching me. Like how to share your bedroom with five kids and not get wound up. Like how to rely on no one but yourself. No bloke was ever worth trusting, I was told; they were just useful for one thing, sex. These young women had an important job to do. They were bringing up the next generation. They were mums.

It gets better - why do a difficult job to make money and support yourself, maybe even getting an education, when you can simply have a baby and get a government check? As if having a family and supporting your family are incompatible concepts.

I couldn't agree more. Motherhood engendered responsibility. When we talk about teenage mothers not having aspirations, what are we talking about? Working in a chip shop? A cleaning job? Are we saying those are more noble, more "aspirational" pursuits than motherhood

As you can see, it's the people who disagree with the author who are the ones being judgmental, by thinking that it's not beneath somebody to work in fast food or housecleaning during their teen years while they lay a foundation, even get the education necessary, for a better life. It's not at all judgmental to sneer at entry level jobs as being beneath people who have not yet developed the skills or gained the education that will lead to better jobs.

But it gets even better....

When I was pregnant I decided to give a dinner for all the pregnant girls of Corby who were under 16. It was fun. We compared our bumps, ridiculed our partners, told each other anecdotes about bad sex. All had got pregnant "accidentally on purpose", and not because they had no aspirations but because they had: being a mother, living in their own flat, and being paid pocket money by the state to do so. None felt that real life was passing them by: they had each other for company. It would be a laugh. They'd have pushchair races. They'd take sandwiches and eat them in the park together. They all loved kids. Kids were the best company of all, they said. I was impressed.

Teenagers getting pregnant "accidentally on purpose", with a life plan of going on the dole, and with no deeper thoughts about parenting than "I love kids" or "It will be a laugh"? This impressed the author?

The author then describes how having three children in relatively rapid succession wore her down - how parenting was hard work. How she was competitive with other parents, particularly with her first child. How whatever control she had over her life after she had her first child was gone by the time she had her third. How resentful she became (and still appears to be) over friends who, without children, traveled, "were being artists or training for the professions", "were in restaurants with potential lovers", and didn't have any interest in her parenting stories. How her husband had to travel a lot, leaving her alone, without a similar "cool" peer group to the group of teen mothers she met on council estates (public housing). So in her twenties she was completely ill-equipped to be a parent, and yet she wants us to believe that impoverished teenagers can naturally parent in a way that she, with money and education, and resources she chooses to elide from her self-pitying summary, could not.

She closes with an example of the "natural" parenting she is talking about:

A few years later, I became, for a brief while, a truant officer. I was persuaded by every single family I interviewed that school was a waste of time. The mum would argue, 'My lad's just not happy at school. He's bullied. He finds lessons boring. He doesn't concentrate and then the teacher shouts at him. I just don't see the point of school, when you can be at home."

And I would say: "But don't you have aspirations for your child? Don't you want him to grow up and be a brain surgeon?"

And the mum would say: "What I want is for my child to be happy. And being happy with a little is better than being unhappy, isn't it?..."

And a few years after that (or maybe not) the little truant would knock up one of the "cool" teenage girls, "accidentally on purpose", who would simultaneously describe him as unreliable, untrustworthy, and useful only for sex. And those who had sons would persuade her that all that matters is being happy... with no education, no prospects, and a scattering of children being raised by mothers who want nothing more than their children to be "happy" even as their daughters come to view their sons as human detritus? Meanwhile, their fourteen year old daughters are so gratful for being raised by such a "cool" mother that they can't wait to get pregnant "accidentally on purpose" so they can get out of the home? Boy, this does sound enviable.

She never takes a step back to ask herself if the principal goal in getting pregnant "accidentally on purposes" is "living in their own flat, and being paid pocket money by the state to do so", perhaps it might be better for everybody involved to set aside her own fantasies of how "cool" these teenagers are, their fantasies of how fun and easy parenting would be, and simply directly subsidize their move to independence. Heaven forbid we present a choice that's more stark, such as, "Get pregnant, and your choices are to continue to live at home until the age of 18, or if that's not possible to live in a group home setting where you will continue your education, learn how to parent, and be supervised in your activities until you're 18." (The problem with that last idea, of course, is that in the short-term it's more expensive than saying, "Okay, here's an apartment of your own and a government check.")

I know that there are teen parents who step up to the plate, who effectively give up their childhood to do right for their own children. But sorry, a young teen who gets pregnant on purpose with the idea that she'll cast off the father and raise her child on welfare is unlikely to fall into that category - and a father who's passive about being cast aside doesn't even come close.

A much more conservative, albeit at times misguided, take on things from another author:

I visit many schools and Sure Start centres. I meet women of my age (47) who are now great-grandmothers. These women have never had jobs; have multiple children by multiple men – none of whom have ever contributed to their children's upkeep, welfare or moral guidance. They have lived on benefits because grandma did and mother did. These young girls see nothing wrong in this lifestyle and that it is their right to live like this. No one else is telling them that they shouldn't.

I visited a Sure Start centre¹ a couple of weeks ago where there were six 16-year-old girls with one-year-old babies. Three were pregnant again, none by the same boy, and they saw nothing wrong in this "lifestyle choice". They did not see anything wrong in claiming benefits and were adamant that they did not want the boys who impregnated them having anything to do with their first-born as they were now with the latest partner. It is so sad to see this and their attitudes are astounding.

I largely concur. The previous editorial's perspectives having been duly considered, there's nothing "cool" about any of that. I think, though, that it's a misperception that these teen pregnancies are principally based upon the past choices of parents and grandparents - the modeling plays a role, but I think the previous editorial made a valid point that these are in many ways economic decisions. The author also shares an implausible statistic:

I then went to a Catholic primary school that, five years ago, said around 90% of its children were living with two parents; that had now changed to 60% who were living with single parents.

Sorry, even if I thought the anecdote were relevant to the topic, I simply don't believe that such a transformation occurred over the past five years.

Now we enter the realm of hard choices:

We have to tell these girls that it is unacceptable to get pregnant outside of a stable relationship unless they can support themselves, that the taxpayer cannot afford to keep them and that they have to train to work when they leave school.

Okay, let's assume we tell them all of that, and they get pregnant anyway? I've previously described a tougher response than "give them their own apartment", but I am skeptical that the government is going to invest in supervised, structured communal housing for teen mothers. Those who stay home will see more money come into the home, and those who are kicked out have to live somewhere.

Wait, did I say "Those who stay home will see more money come into the home"? Why is that? Why not simply maintain support at the prior level, as if no new child came into the home? After all, if these families had jobs, they wouldn't get an increase in their wages merely for having another baby. Alas, there's no easy answer to this one. If you don't give additional benefits when another child enters the household of a welfare recipient, you "punish the children". And if you do, you subsidize the expansion of a family that cannot support itself, and arguably create a context where the mothers at issue benefit from either choosing to again become pregnant, or being indifferent to that outcome.

Sorry, telling these mothers, "We can't afford to keep doing this," or "You need to get a job so you can support yourself before you have children" will only work if it's true. You can say whatever you want, but nothing will change as long as the government checks keep coming. Further, in those countries where there are no government subsidies, where each new child literally does take food off of the table for everybody else in the family, it's hardly the case that impoverished people defer or opt against having children - in fact, their birth rates may be substantially higher. I wish there were easy answers to this, but there are not.

They have to be given more sex education (it is not compulsory, despite the myth, and this should start at puberty, not five years old) and offered more contraception.

That argument qualifies as silly. Sex education at age five is "good touch, bad touch" - anybody who gets upset at children being taught such concepts really should defer discussion of sex education to people who are either more informed or more comfortable with sex. Sex education preceding puberty often includes valuable information about puberty that a lot of children do not otherwise get from their parents. It may be better that a young girl learn about menarche from her mother, but I think most will agree that it shouldn't be a surprise - in retrospect, even Carrie's mom probably agrees. Also, what... we're going to assume that all kids mature at exactly the same rate? Or is it that we're going to single out kids who mature faster or slower, so that nobody learns about sex before puberty. That won't stigmatize anybody....

It is only by talking openly about marriage, sex, relationships and responsibility that we can change this. It will take a generation, but we have no choice.

By all means, let's start the dialog... but please, not with the illusion that it will transform society, let alone do so inside of a generation.

The second editorial was inspired by an essay by J.K. Rowling in which she describes how, thrust into single parenthood, she was able to make ends meet with the help of some not particularly generous government benefits, while she struggled to better herself, qualified as a teacher, and wrote 1-1/2 novels. Quite reasonably, she describes how the benefits helped her get past a difficult post-divorce period, how she resented being demonized by politicians for being a "single mother" during that time of struggle, and the silliness of the British Conservative Party's notion of a tiny tax credit that is supposed to encourage marriage.

Rowling explains how Britain's social safety net has factored in, as she's become wealthy beyond her wildest dreams:

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens,² with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.

Save for becoming a billionaire author, my mother had a post-divorce period not too different from Rowling's. That's actually the historic story of most "welfare recipients" - about three years of benefits following a divorce or crisis, then they're back on their feet, having theme parks built based upon... again reaching a point where they can support themselves and their families. I'm with Rowling - that's a good thing. The hard part is to translate welfare as a short-term solution into communities where it is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

--------

1. Quoting Rowling, Sure Start centres are "service centres where families with children under 5 can receive integrated service and information." She adds, "Unless you have previously grappled with the separate agencies involved in housing, education and childcare, you might not be able to appreciate what a great innovation these centres are."

2. Subjects, actually. But there's little practical difference, I suppose.

George Will is Turning Into Grandpa Simspon

Read his opening two paragraphs. The biggest distinction between George and Abe¹ is that he wraps his rambling digression into his larger point - but one suspect's it's just a matter of time before we're reading "there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three".... For that matter, Will's comments on scientific issues are already often as nonsensical as Grandpa Abe's various rambles.

It's a terrific way to bury a decent point (the questionable $250 Social Security bonus checks being sent to seniors) in colorful historical anecdotes and angry fist-waving. Really, Will could have just written, "This type of giveaway will turn Social Security, a program I've always regarded as a welfare program, into a welfare program" - the rest is padding.
----------
1. While we're sort of on the subject, is it just me or does Dr. Nick bear a striking resemblance to Ross Douthat?

"I Didn't Earn It... I Don't Need It...."

"But why aren't I getting my share?"

It was inevitable, and I doubt this is the first example. The Washington Post has run an editorial by an author who complains that her car was "not clunky enough" to merit "cash for clunkers". The gist seems to be, "Other people are getting this money, so I should as well, even if I don't qualify for the program." No mention is made of need.

Personally, I wouldn't have created a "cash for clunkers" program. I might have considered creating a need-based "cash for reliable, fuel-efficient transportation" program, helping low-wage earners trade in their decrepit cars or acquire their first car. But I have little sympathy for the notion that we should subsidize people trading in their old SUV's so that they can buy new ones.

It's sort of an American tradition, I guess, to complain that other people are "getting something" that you're not getting. But if you can't explain to me how you've earned that benefit or why you need it, my well of sympathy doesn't have much room for you.

Dems and the Center

I've been reading lots of commentary lately on how when you poll people at the political center - so-called swing voters - they tend to align themselves with the Democrats on social issues, but that doesn't stop them from voting Republican. Much of the commentary concludes that security is the most singificant factor in causing swing voters to choose a "strong on defense" Republican, even though they don't agree with that candidate's social agenda. I do think that the stereotype of Republicans as being better on defense and "law and order" issues helped Bush win reelection, but what about the first time when the nation was pretty evenly split between the candidates?

I think Bush's self-portrait as a "compassionate conservative" who believed in "a hand up, not a handout" was a significant factor in his first victory. His campaign recognized that voters did not support a hard-right social agenda, so they depicted Bush as advancing policies of individual responsibility and opportunity. I think that resonates with voters. I believe that many swing voters and low-income wage earners view the Democrats as a party which gives handouts to people they see as the undeserving poor, and will perpetuate and even expand upon "welfare" programs they see as a wealth transfer from them to the poor. Recall Reagan, who is credited with "shifting the middle" and his tales of the welfare queen who drives a Cadillac? That perception still resonates, particularly with people who live from paycheck-to-paycheck.

It even resonates with some who are the beneficiaries of welfare programs, such as food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies or Medicaid. Some don't see the benefits they receive as welfare, and some may believe that they pay for those benefits through their taxes. But some probably feel that that it's okay to take a subsidy if you're working (the proverbial "hand up"), but not to get a hand-out if you're not. Some fear a tax increase.

Bill Clinton's popularity was not driven by the notion that he was a hard-as-nails Republican who would increase our military might. He was frequently depicted as having avoided the draft, of being weak on military, and even of weakening our defense capabilities. But his welfare reform was pretty conservative and in the eyes of many was not-so-compassionate. Yet the reforms resonated with voters to the extent that the Republican party frequently accused Clinton of stealing their ideas. When was the last time one party accused the other of "stealing" an idea that was a loser with the voters?