There are lots of good economic arguments for opposing the policies permeating through Occupy Wall Street. The dominant narrative in libertarian and non-smug conservative circles is that they identify the problem well, but their solutions (more government, bailouts of student loans, etc.) do not make economic sense. I would agree with this analysis, as far as it goes. But there is a larger problem with the Occupy movement that I have not heard anyone touch on.
What I find especially pernicious about the Occupy movement is that it lumps together the poor with the middle and upper-middle class. The terminology of the "99%" necessarily aligns the needs of those who have means to help themselves with those who do not. It is not the 99% versus the 1%. 99% of people should not be getting government assistance. While I agree that welfare to the 1% is odious, so is welfare to the middle class. I am sickened when I hear politicians pander to the middle class with promises of greater assistance for buying a home or paying for college. And it is assistance to the middle and upper classes (the 41-98%-ers, approximately) that is majority of our welfare expenditures.
To anyone interested in seeing exactly where your federal tax dollars go, I highly suggest Tyler Cowen's article on the welfare state. In it, he cites statistics showing that approximately 1/5 of all welfare spending is aimed at the poor--accounting for 14% of federal outlays and 4% of GDP. The VAST majority of welfare spending is directed at the middle and upper classes. The largest federal outlays, medicare and social security are, at this point, transfers from the relatively young and poor to the relatively old and rich. And while the generational warfare is bad enough, the overall gestalt of the welfare state is the continued improvement of the middle class--usually at the expense of the poor. Because money that is spent in one place cannot be spent in another. Every dollar I receive in benefits from the government is a dollar that is taken away from someone in need (potentially).
There are great classical liberal (libertarian) arguments for and against the welfare state, and we need not engage those entirely, only to say that for example Hayek's Road to Serfdom actually advocates for a sizable welfare state. We can start from a point of agreement. There should be a welfare state based on largely conditional aid to the poor in the form of direct monetary assistance and possibly forms of housing, education, and employment help as well. Let's put all of that as a given. To lump in arguments for assistance to the poor with arguments to help the middle 50% of society is perverse. And to argue for the continuation of a welfare state that prioritizes the middle class over the poor is morally wrong.
An Occupy message that would resonate with me would include reforming the entitlements system, ending welfare to the middle and upper classes, and returning our collective attention to the valid recipients of state aid. While I appreciate the Occupy movement for its gutsiness and culture, the message of the 99% versus the 1% makes me feel like a smug conservative prick--looking down on all of those hippies whose parents helped them buy their macbook airs and don't know how good they have it.
A statist consensus has been arrived at by those with political power: the government should redistribute the wealth of its citizens, but only to whoever currently holds political sway. And NEVER to the disempowered, the poor, and the ones who truly need. Fuck the 99%.
**I picked "the bottom 40%" for no clear reason other than any lower number seemed too small.
No comments:
Post a Comment