The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Conservatives for More Welfare
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_163473512

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As economic inequality and the plight of the working-poor have suddenly erupted as leading topics in the national debate, the proposed solution of a big minimum wage hike has evoked many varied reactions.

On the Democratic side, the responses have been pretty much what one might expect. In recent decades, liberals had shied away from focusing on the minimum wage as a central economic tool, fearful that there might be widespread job loss among the very workers who were the intended beneficiaries. Just a couple of years ago, prominent liberal pundits denounced proposals to hike the minimum wage hike as evidence of economic ignorance, and even such leading luminaries as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz had been reluctant to embrace the idea.

But with new research indicating that job losses would be far less severe than previously believed, such positions have naturally evolved, and earlier this year both Krugman and Stiglitz endorsed a much higher minimum wage. Reassured by backers of such intellectual heft, rank-and-file liberals have eagerly signed on to the idea of helping low-wage workers simply by raising their wages.

The huge popularity of the issue certainly hasn’t hurt in this regard. In November a Gallup poll put popular support for a minimum wage hike at 76%, up five points from March and in December, a Reason Foundation poll reported very similar numbers. The Reason Foundation is a libertarian thinktank strongly opposed to minimum wage laws and most other government regulations and if they say that public support for a higher minimum wage is absolutely overwhelming, then it probably is.

Persuading Democrats to back a policy that benefits the underprivileged while also being popular enough to get them victories at the polls isn’t a difficult sell, and the entire Democratic Party apparatus has begun buying into a minimum wage hike as a winning issue for the 2014 elections, especially since it serves as an effective means of deflecting public attention away from the Obamacare debacle. More money for the poor and more votes for Democrats sounds awfully nice to political operatives on the left and the candidates they control, and the fact that the proposal might even make sense as public policy is an added bonus.

 

But the reaction to this unfolding political issue among conservatives and libertarians has been far more surprising and curious.

The most doctrinaire libertarians, notably Prof. Bryan Caplan of George Mason University, have held fast to their principles and denounced the very notion of a minimum wage as a violation of basic human liberty. If a desperately impoverished Congolese is willing to come to America and work for a dollar a day, then that is his fundamental moral right, at least if he is willing to forego any access to medical care or other normal social benefits as part of the deal.

Such a belief system seems as logical and internally self-consistent as it is unpopular with almost the entire American public.

ORDER IT NOW

Among less ideologically rigid conservatives and free market advocates, the general reaction has been far more ironic, especially given the public perception of conservative core-principles. One of their leading figures, Harvard economist and former Reagan Advisor Martin Feldstein recently took to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to explicitly call for the creation of a new economic framework that would fully integrate welfare payments and work into a seamless system of government support aimed at ensuring a basic standard of living for everyone in the country.

In effect, he was calling for a huge expansion of the existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), under which the federal government renders impoverished workers slightly less impoverished by sending them annual checks, with the amounts determined by applying their individual household situation to a hideously complex income formula. The EITC is already America’s largest cash welfare program in slight disguise, though whether the actual beneficiaries are the low-wage workers who receive the government checks or the low-wage businesses who employ them may be subject to dispute. Support for an expanded EITC system has become the rallying cry for conservatives threatened by talk of hiking the minimum wage.

Indeed, Feldstein argued that once the eligibility of various welfare programs were widened, the minimum wage could reasonably be cut, allowing American workers to take jobs paying just four, five or six dollars per hour, with the ordinary taxpayer making up the difference. The logical endpoint to such proposals would be for businesses to pay their workers absolutely nothing at all, with all employee living expenses and spending money coming from governmental anti-poverty programs. I suspect this arrangement would prove quite congenial to the corporate interests that fund most conservative thinktanks. And unemployment would certainly decline if businesses don’t have to actually pay anything to the workers they chose to hire.

Where would they find the money for these hugely expanded government welfare programs? Well, unless Feldstein and his conservative allies are quietly planning to cut many tens of billions of additional dollars from the defense budget, the only plausible funding mechanism would be higher taxes, presumably on individuals rather than on corporations. Conservatives spent decades accusing liberals of plotting to raise taxes in order to expand welfare, and won many political victories as a result. But it appears that today’s Washington conservatives have decided that their erstwhile opponents had actually been right all along.

One of the more ironic aspects of this situation is that a large hike in the federal minimum wage would be guaranteed to instantly transform many millions of current tax-recipients into net tax-payers, surely reducing Mitt Romney’s notorious “47 percent” by at least ten or fifteen points. But altering the national political landscape into one far less hostile to future Republican candidates is clearly the last thing desired by today’s GOP.

Hence the political rallying cry of America’s conservative Republican leadership: “Higher Welfare Payments for American Workers.” Sounds like a sure-fire winner to me.

 
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Minimum Wage, Republicans 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    national security…..can also be related thus. if the welfare system is reduced too far, it will cause the poor, needy and hungry to search for other resources. such as, attacking people who have jobs and incomes…. not because its just. but because, when your belly is empty, and you have no home, survival by whatever means is the only option. for the price of one or two stealth bombers, we could feed, clothe , and house a lot of people, who otherwise could be a threat. the situation of millions of same people is a fact we must deal with. so lets buy some real security for our citizens by maintaining some status quo. im not talking about who is …or isnt lazy…or can work or can’t … there is just a huge amount of humanity, that isn’t capable of functioning. as for higher wages…. its way over due. unfortunately there is a small group of people, who believe they are the only ones who deserve to survive…. the upper 1%….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /runz/conservatives-for-more-welfare/#comment-56303
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Why not just raise the level that income tax starts ? Possibly leads to less people on welfare and more people spending or saving.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. mark green says: • Website

    Thanx Ron. Insightful. Clever. Persuasive!

    You are a libertarian that really thinks outside the box.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Obi Allen says:

    A libertarian who wants even more of a man’s life blood taken from him? Bah!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject