The expression bleeding heart liberal, was meant to deride and belittle folks with a progressive viewpoint by reducing it from rational thought to weak kneed reactionism. I especially hate it because, I dont see myself as particularly compassionate. What I refer to myself as is a balance sheet liberal. I imagine that everyone falls into three major categories, those who are net contributors to society, those who are net debtors and those who are right on the edge. A net contributor pays their taxes, donates time and money to the public good and only takes the standard benefits, roads, police, fire and other services of a civil society. A net debtor may pay taxes but has or will have when their life is done, taken more in money and services than they paid in. Then there are the folks who are just above or below the break even line. To me, they are the most important folks and the ones that we most need to target with our domestic programs. If you can give someone some help and move them from being a net debtor to a net contributor, we all benefit. If you can help their kids move to the other side of the balance sheet, thats worth it too. To me this is why welfare programs should be like a ladder, helping folks become net contributors. I think that that helping folks right on the edge has the biggest multiplier effect. That is you can get the biggest positive return on dollars invested. This is where most public policy should be focused. Then through bad luck, the accident of birth, laziness or some other reason there are people, that despite our best efforts, will never be net contributors to society. Now my heart doesnt bleed for them but neither do I see a reason to belittle or vilify them. None of that matters as it doesnt change anything positively. What I think we have to realize is that, one way or another, there are a lot of people that we are going to have to pay for. Now with this expenditure, we can pay up front with things like food stamps, Medicare or we can pay on the back end with things like unpaid ER visits that increase all of our medical costs, prisons which are much more expensive than schools and other last resort types of expenses. In brief, some folks will always cost you money, would rather help up front when the cost is lower or pay more in the back end when it will be less visibly a cost to you but much higher anyway? I firmly believe there is a dispassionate, rational path to liberalism. The conservative idea of tough love and personal responsibility assumes that turning off the tap of public assistance will instill self respect and push folks into becoming self reliant and ultimately net contributors. It also assumes that folks who cant muster that, wont end up costing us more in the long run. I think that approach will end up costing more in the end. Its costs are less direct. If you give poor folks free healthcare, you know youre paying for that. If you let them fend for themselves, they wait until its an emergency, go to ER, default on payment and then we pick up the tab with $15 bandaids and $40 asprin. We pay either way. Keep in mind too, not all net debtors are poor and not all net contributors are rich. Not all societal contributions are money. Some folks improve our society with service, art, music and other less quantifiable services. Anyway, I could write a long and boring book about this subject. Try a Balance Sheet Liberal on for size and see what you think.
Posted on: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 15:20:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015