Coyote Blog

Today, Kevin Drum quotes Obsidian Wings as saying:

The men in my family of my father's generation returned home after serving
their country and got jobs in the local steel mills, as had their fathers and
their grandfathers. In exchange for their brawn, sweat, and expertise, the steel
mills promised these men certain benefits. In exchange for Social Security taxes
withheld from their already modest paychecks, the government promised these men
certain benefits as well.

....These were church-attending, flag-waving, football-loving, honest family
men. They are rightfully proud of providing homes and educations for their
children and instilling the sorts of values and manners that serve them well as
adults. And if I have to move heaven and earth, now that they've retired, the
Republican party is NOT going to redefine them as welfare
recipients.

First, I agree, whether I like the program or not, that people who contributed for years and were promised certain benefits should receive them.  The benefits the average retiree gets today were certainly paid for - in fact, over-paid-for given the implied rate of return they got for their forced "savings".  So I won't argue that these retirees are getting financial welfare.

BUT, I would argue that they are getting intellectual welfare.  Advocates for keeping forced savings programs like Social Security in place as-is by necesity argue that the average American is too stupid, too short-sighted, and/or too lazy to save for retirement without the government forcing them.  Basically the argument is that we are smarter than you, and we are going to take control of aspects of your life that we think we can manage better than you can.  You are too stupid to save for retirement, too stupid to stop eating fatty foods, too stupid to wear a seat belt, and/or too stupid to accept employment on the right terms -- so we will take control of these decisions for you, whether you like it or not.  For lack of a better word, I call this intellectual welfare. 

By the way, this is as good an answer as any to Mr. Drum's earlier question why liberals don't push the privacy issue harder.  He opines:

Whenever I talk about the underlying principles that should guide liberals, as
I did a couple of days ago, one of the ideas that always pops up is privacy
rights. In fact, it comes up so often that it strikes me that we're missing a
bet by not making a bigger deal out of it.

I am all for a general and strong privacy right.  I would love to see it Constitutionally enshrined.  But liberals (like conservatives, but I am answering Drum's question) don't want it.  They want to allow women to choose abortions, but not choose breast implants.  They want the government to allow marijuana use but squelch fatty foods.  They don't want police checking for terrorists but do want them checking for people not wearing their seat belts.  They want freedom of speech, until it criticizes groups to whom they are sympathetic.  They want to allow topless dancers but regulate the hell out of how much they make.  Liberals, in sum, are at least as bad about wanting to control private, non-coerced individual decision-making as conservatives -- they just want to control other aspects of our lives than do conservatives. 

A true privacy right would allow us complete freedom over who we sleep with, what we do with our bodies, where we work, and what we pay for goods.  And, not incidentally, how we choose to invest for our retirement.  Both parties want the government to control parts of our lives, so don't expect either conservatices or liberals to be pushing the privacy issue very hard.

Update:  William Mellor of the Institute of Justice has some thoughts related to this topic in The American Lawyer:

Without realizing it, liberals and conservatives are
working from opposite ends of the political spectrum, under opposing
rationales, to reach the same end: expanded government power...

The Framers envisioned a system in which individuals enjoyed
rights equally, and the rights they enjoyed were treated with equal
respect under the Constitution. But in 1938 the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (upholding a
Congressional ban on interstate shipment of milk that contained added
fat or oil) created an artificial dichotomy under the Constitution.
Some rights, notably free speech, were elevated to a preferred tier and
now rightly receive vigorous constitutional protection. Rights demoted
to the second tier, specifically economic liberty and property rights,
wrongly receive far less protection....

Liberals, however, tend to reject the notion that the courts
have any role in seriously protecting economic liberty or property
rights. This is remarkable in light of the fact that many liberals
strongly advocate court protection for various rights-such as welfare
or abortion-whose constitutional pedigree is far more questionable than
rights to private property and economic liberties.

We were watching the old Gene Wilder version of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory on DVD the other day.  This movie choice was made by the kids in anticipation of the new Johnny Depp version coming soon (since Pirates of the Caribbean, my kids are huge Johnny Depp fans).

I guess I really never paid much attention,  but Charlie's Grandpa Joe (played by Jack Albertson) is a real schmuck.  This little boy and his mother slave away for pitiful wages all day to support their four grandparents who are infirm and stuck in bed.  Grandpa Joe has laid in that bed for years, maybe decades, and never once tried to get out and help his family.  But, given the chance to go on a special trip to the Chocolate Factory with Charlie, Joe soon bounces out of bed and dances around the room.  Where was this energy when the family needed a wage-earner?

I don't know if this was intentional or not.  My guess is that this might not have been intentional - the early 1970's were the height of welfare sensibilities, and it would probably have been unlikely that Hollywood would try to include any messages about a slacker dad who failed to support his family.

Update:  By the way, in response to one of the comments, I am mostly just having fun with this.  I love Willie Wonka and am not so much of a Scrooge to turn on the movie because of an issue like this - heck, if I only enjoyed movies I was in complete ideological agreement with, I would have a very small movie collection. 

But, I do beg to differ with the commenter who said that Grandpa Joe provided the best adult supervision of all the parents.   This is actually not true, at least in the factory itself.  When each child pursued their fatal screw-up, in most cases their parents were trying to stop them, however lamely:  Augustus's mom says to stop drinking from the river, etc.  Charlie's Grandpa Joe actually was the one parent (or I guess guardian) who took an active role in encouraging their child into breaking their host's rules (i.e. drinking the fizzy lifting drink). 

I sit here thinking - jeez, am I really arguing about this?  I feel silly, but it does beat arguing about 30-year-old events in the military service of presidential candidates.

In my post "Fisking the NEA's Improvement Ideas", I said that all of the NEA's calls for teacher certification were less about teacher quality and more about increasing the union's power and increasing salaries.  This strategy is as old as guilds from the 15th century.

Here is a study about the American Bar Association and the bar exam and its effects on quality and salaries.

A newly constructed data set on lawyers' licensing exam difficulty, candidate quality and exam results allows to distinguish the alternative theories. Public interest theory is rejected in favor of capture theory. The results imply that professional licensing has a significant effect on entry salaries. On average, licensing increases annual entry salaries by more than $20,000. This implies a total transfer from consumers to lawyers of 36% of lawyers' wages and a total welfare loss of over $6 billion.

Thanks to Volokh for the link.  This same post from Volokh also talks about how lawyers are trying to prevent non-lawyers from performing certain duties, including workers comp hearings and real estate closings.  And don't even get me started on hair braiding.