The NYT Op-Ed pages today offer two very conflicting visions of America's future if Joe Biden's expansive social welfare plans are enacted by Congress. As usual, the conservative, anti spending screed by Bret Stephens is a bad faith effort, filled with straw men. Paul Krugman's pro spending opinion makes apple to apple comparisons. One man's socialist hellhole is another's budding utopia.
Stephen's assumption is "socialism" by definition is bad and will lead us down a path of decline as we slip into a system ripe with corruption. He mentions a story of a Greek national who told him the only way to get prompt medical attention under that country's system is to bribe the underpaid doctors. Likewise, he disparages France's "unhappiness" and conflates additional social spending and early retirement as driving the dissatisfaction. He concludes the high number of people living in poverty in the US is the price we must pay for "freedom".
Krugman's perspective is to compare us with that notable "socialist hellhole", Denmark. There, the government offers free, high quality child care to all. Labor force participation is higher in both France and Denmark than in the US and by most indexes they are happier than we are. Krugman logically concludes government spending on human capital is a fine thing for the 99%.
The main disagreement between Stephens and Krugman is the role of government in our lives. Stephen's preference is the present system where the wealthy are subsidized by the government on the backs of the middle and lower classes. Krugman advocates the government as the great equalizer, redistributing a minor portion of upper class wealth in the service of a more equal and inclusive society. Which vision would you prefer for our future?
No comments:
Post a Comment