If ever a person expressed pithily how I feel about the economic tradeoff between income equality and overall efficiency and profit in recent history, it would be the Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher. In response to an opposing MP’s attempt to shame her for supposedly causing a wider income gap than existed in the administration before her own, she said, “All levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But, what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.” To see her whole response, see below.
The fact is, free market economics have been empirically proven to increase overall efficiency and economic prosperity over and over again. Overall efficiency is what we most need, especially in a tough economy. Evidence for Keynesian economic policy success is hoary at best. Big spending "stimulus" packages may jumpstart the economy in the short term, but they incur more costs to the economy in the long run than in the short run. Liberals often propose major spending to create jobs. And, I think it works in the short term. But, then it ends in inflation, citizens that are addicted to new entitlements, and costs that we can't afford, especially if the economy hits a rocky moment. Giving entitlements may score political points, but it is like drinking too much coffee or a sugar high: the short burst and then the crash. Spending on new government projects and programs, like caffeine, only gives an illusion of heightened vigor followed by an addiction and a sapping of the economic vitality of our nation.
Most thoughtful conservatives accept and lament the fact that some people are greatly disadvantaged. Studies show that conservatives actually give more money to charity (as a percentage of their income and in total amount), volunteer more of their time, and give more blood than do their liberal counterparts (Arthur C. Brooks: "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" and others). To characterize liberals as compassionate and conservatives as stingy is a fraudulent claim. Conservatives and assenting moderates want to end poverty too. We just think that liberal use of the national treasury to give, give, give (money we don't have) is not the way to do it.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day (liberal approach). Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime (conservative approach).
Government spending on welfare should be all about self-sufficiency. When it comes to providing for the poor, liberals have good intentions; but, the test of time has shown that the intent of their policies fails to represent the reality of those policies' affects. For example, income redistribution often goes to those with power at the voting booths rather than those who need it most. Also, those locations and groups that get the most by way of income redistribution tend to get out of poverty the slowest.
Ben Franklin noticed this same phenomenon two centuries ago. He said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Government should only give to those who are mentally or physically disabled. All its other spending should be longterm oriented investments. Such investments would provide incentives designed to foster self-reliance and a longterm return on the investment.
In a previous role, I went house to house and visited with many people on unemployment and other government benefits. The truth of the matter is that most of these people enjoy much higher quality of living than the public believes. This majority makes token attempts to find an "acceptable" job, but refuse to be "underemployed." Unemployment should be given for no more than 1 month for individuals and 3 months for those supporting a family.
Rather than making poverty easier, make it easier to start and maintain small businesses (lower taxes and simplify regulations). Attack relativistic and lazy complacency by condemning pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and other poverty propagating behavior. Make unemployment conditionality stricter. Offer entry-level positions to anyone who applies for unemployment. Offer additional tax incentives to companies that add more jobs to the economy. Don't update subsidized housing except to maintain acceptable safety and keep them small. People only need between 35 and 150 square feet of living space to be abundantly healthy and happy (Subsidized housing provides more square feet than the median income household in London, Paris, Vienna, Tokyo, Beijing, and many other places). Perhaps, require a minimum of 20 hours/week of work or job hunting at an on-site career center to live in subsidized housing. Don't allow food stamps for filet mignon and lobster tails. Make work-for-welfare-to-work programs mandatory. These are just ideas off the top of my head; but, we need driving and leading policies, not policies that increase complacency and feelings of entitlement and dessert.
