Both Charles Murray’s 1997 book “What it Means to be a Libertarian” and Robert Reich’s “Aftershock” are based on the premise that America has fallen short of its potential. For Murray, America has become mired in regulation and social welfare programs, robbing citizens of the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves and society. Reich writes that rising income inequality between the richest one percent and the rest of the country has led to economic stagnation. This essay will explore the authors’ views of the role of government in social policies, including how these views would bear on popular topics such as the Affordable Care Act and school vouchers, and evaluate the potential for their policy proposals to be successfully adopted. …show more content…
They also point out social welfare in America has both residual and institutional elements (p. 12). Reich expresses this mix with the idea of a pendulum; America experiences periods when “we see ourselves as ‘in it together,’ and periods during which we view ourselves as being pretty much on our own” (Reich, 2010, p. 4). America’s pendulum has strayed too far in the latter direction, creating income inequality not seen since just before the Great Depression. The remedy, Reich writes, is a renewed commitment to what he calls the “basic bargain.” By this he means the workers should get enough of an income to sustain demand for the very goods and services they produce, thereby maintaining the overall economy (p. 31). The state’s role is to manage this bargain with social policy. For example, he calls for an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, lower tax rates for full-time workers making up to $160,000 and higher tax rates for those making more (pp. 129-130). Capital gains should be taxed at the same level as earned income, thereby requiring the wealthy to pay much higher taxes (p. 131). College loans payments should be based on earnings and the loans forgiven after 10 years, so that those who pursue lucrative careers support the education of those who train for …show more content…
Reich gives his argument more validity by exploring the conditions before and after the Great Depression, which are known, as the basis for his proposals. Specifically, he uses the analysis and ideas of Marriner Eccles, governor of the Federal Reserve Board during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, to show how social policies enacted after the Great Depression succeed in reducing income inequality (p. 44). Reich also builds his recommendations largely on longstanding programs such as Medicare and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which have been successful in their goals of providing health care coverage to seniors and higher incomes to the poor. Gilbert and Terrell (2010) point out that modern societies have come to expect the government to have a significant role in social welfare (p. 13), making it difficult to imagine the country abandoning social welfare programs as Murray suggests. By drawing on lessons of the past and the structure of current social policies, Reich can reasonably argue that Americans have shown a willingness to relinquish some of Murray’s beloved freedom for a measure of social
Leading up to the year 1981, America had fallen into a period of “stagflation”, a portmanteau for ‘stagnant economy’ and ‘high inflation’. Characterized by high taxes, high unemployment, high interest rates, and low national spirit, America needed to look to something other than Keynesian economics to pull itself out of this low. During the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign focused on a new stream of economic policy. His objective was to turn the economy into “a healthy, vigorous, growing economy [which would provide] equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” Reagan’s policy, later known as ‘Reaganomics’, entailed a four-point plan which cut taxes, reduced government spending, created anti-inflationary policy, and deregulated certain products. Though ‘Reaganomics’ was successful both at controlling “stagflation” and promoting economic growth, it has and always will be an extremely controversial topic regarding the redistribution of wealth.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
In the documentary “inequality for all”, Robert Reich examines the overall state of inequality in America, and explains the intricate processes involved in the economy, which determines the distribution of wealth, and how both the middle and upper classes utilize it. During the introduction of the documentary, Reich states “I like having a Mini Cooper. I sort of identify with it…. We are sort of together, facing the rest of the world”. Although Reich is making a comparison between the size of his car and himself, the overall inference of this quote refers to the immense scale of the American economy. In this sense, Reich acknowledges that he, and many other Americans, are unequal to upper class residents; although, the inequality itself isn’t labeled as a negative consequence. In fact, Reich acknowledges that “some inequality is just inevitable”, meaning that inequality within an economy is an intended consequence of American capitalism which, if done correctly, can create prosperity for any economic class. Instead of seeing inequality as either black or white, Reich examines the different effects of inequality at different magnitudes, and asks whether inequality can be a problem, and if so, when it becomes one. To do
During the 1920’s, America was a prosperous nation going through the “Big Boom” and loving every second of it. However, this fortune didn’t last long, because with the 1930’s came a period of serious economic recession, a period called the Great Depression. By 1933, a quarter of the nation’s workers (about 40 million) were without jobs. The weekly income rate dropped from $24.76 per week in 1929 to $16.65 per week in 1933 (McElvaine, 8). After President Hoover failed to rectify the recession situation, Franklin D. Roosevelt began his term with the hopeful New Deal. In two installments, Roosevelt hoped to relieve short term suffering with the first, and redistribution of money amongst the poor with the second. Throughout these years of the depression, many Americans spoke their minds through pen and paper. Many criticized Hoover’s policies of the early Depression and praised the Roosevelts’ efforts. Each opinion about the causes and solutions of the Great Depression are based upon economic, racial and social standing in America.
By using the points listed previously, it is evident that a small portion of the population control what policies are implement in America and hold most of the nation’s wealth. I believe this two factors, the wealth one possesses and the amount of control an individual has, are interconnected. America has become a nation where money can get you anyway because it significantly increases the amount of opportunities available to the individual. Many people can attest to the presence of this class, including individuals from Kansas City who participated in a cross-section study with detailed interviews. The citizens of Kansas City referred to these people as “big rich” or “blue bloods” (pg
In the movie ground hogs day, the main character Phil Connors, a Pittsburgh TV weatherman wakes up repeatedly to the same day every day, Ground Hogs day. Once he realizes that every day he is waking up to the same day, he begins to direct his day differently. His actions were intended and determined because he knew what was going to happen because he experienced the day before. He had an option to allow what was destined to happen, happen or Instead, chose a different route.
The idea of a welfare state was created from a misguided desire to gain social equality. This created a society dependent on the government, but with encouragement of individualism this dependence will be removed. The ideological perspective of the author is neoconservative, which in the message the author is trying to suggest that individuals in a welfare state will become dependent on the government to provide them with programs and initiatives. The author believes a state should not be involved within the economy and should encourage individualism. This is shown when the author says “a culture dependency on the state has emerged” and “only in a state that promotes individualism will such dependency be eliminated”. This relates to liberalism because of how it promotes self interest and self reliance compared to collective well being, this is shown when the author says “ only in a state that promotes individualism will such dependency be eliminated”. Society should rather embrace and develop the idea of a welfare state, which can improve and become beneficial to the state.
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
The Era of the Great Depression was one of both desperation and hope. Americans were desperate for a change, desperate for anything to come along that may improve their situation, yet hopeful that the light at the end of the tunnel was near. For many of those living in poverty during the 1930s, the “radical” leftist movements seen throughout the country appeared to be alternatives to the sometimes ineffective programs of FDR’s New Deal. Two such programs, Huey Long’s “Share Our Wealth” plan and Upton Sinclair’s End Poverty in California (EPIC) were fairly popular, mainly for their appealing alternatives to the current New Deal programs and ideals. Though the two movements were similar in some sense, both had different visions for the recovery of the American people.
By adding social issues to the conservative agenda, the New Right weakened the establishment’s movement, contradicting and discrediting its fundamental principles. The new social agenda contradicted Old Right’s belief in limited government and individual rights. Today, the New Right continues to grow and the Christian Right continues to gain political power. Republican candidates are considered politically dead unless they secure the support of the Christian Coalition. Before the New Right comes to embody “conservativism” within American political discourse, Old Right conservatives must discard the dissenter’s social initiatives and reclaim the establishment’s conservative agenda: remove the New Right’s social agenda, return to establishment’s conservative ideals, and develop policies based on limited government, free market, and individual liberty.
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
The main ideal that keeps public policy in America extremely limited compared to other democracies is the desire for less government, a more limited government. The strong American beliefs in individualism and equality result in this desire for limited government, and thus limited public policy. American government programs are much less ambitious than those of other industrialized democratic nations. Programs in health, welfare, housing, transportaion, and many other areas are much smaller and less ambitious (Kingdon: 44). This is a direct result of the American desire for limited government. Americans don't want large programs in these areas because they more or less fear big government and believe it is inefficient and wasteful. Americans lean towards a desire for equal oppurtunity as opposed to equal results, and thus believe government should stay clear and let people either succeed or fail on their own. They believe that successful individuals are simply the ones who achieved more with the opportunities they were given, and that it's the job of the government to keep these opportunities equal for all, and not its job to see that everyone ends up successful. By taking the focus away from equality of results, America has become the victim of large income disparities as compared to other countries. In 1990, American households in the top decile of the income distribution had disposable incomes that were nearly six times greater than households in the bottom decile. Most other large industrialized countries showed upper incomes o...
According to PBS, “The Depression was simply an inconvenience especially in New York where the city’s glamorous venues...such as El Morocco and The Stork Club were heaving with celebrities, socialites and aristocrats.” The interwar period saw a considerable wealth gap formed between the upper class and the much larger lower class. As farmers in the midwest struggled to feed their families, the aristocracy in New York feasted like kings and held parties only the elite could afford. As early as 1923, the rich were getting richer whilst the poor stayed poor: “The Mellon Plan of 1923 lowered the income tax rate for the top income bracket from 77% to 24%” Those who were prosperous did all that they could to maintain their prosperity, while those ‘below them’ still struggled. Andrew Mellon was already one of the richest men in America before he was appointed as Secretary of Treasury during the Harding and Coolidge administrations, and his time in office only made him richer. The tax cuts he put into effect saved him and his brother over 1.4 million dollars combined (roughly 20 million dollars today). The interwar period demonstrated how hard it was for lower class people to achieve prosperity, while those who had already become prosperous did little to help the others. However, FDR’s New Deal program offered the lower class a way out, causing people to debate whether government contributions should be attributed as ‘prosperity’ or
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
Economics of Reich “Why the Rich are getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” written by Robert Reich, describes as the title says, why the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. In Reich’s essay, he delves into numerous reasons and gives examples of each. It makes one wonder if the world will continue on the path of complete economic separation between the rich and the poor. One very important factor Reich examines in his essay is that large corporations are always trying to find the edge, whether that is new technology or cheaper wages. One may ask, how does that affect me?