A Better Way Up From Poverty Ive learned I was wrong to talk about makers and takers. We have to do more to unwind the cycle of dependency on government. By PAUL RYAN CONNECT Aug. 15, 2014 6:19 p.m. ET In July 2012, our local fairground was full of families, farmers and visitors who had traveled to Janesville, Wis., for the Rock County 4-H Fair. I was shaking hands and talking with people when a man made his way over to me. Hey, Paul, he said, I just need a minute. Im from the Democrats tent, and I just wanted to come over here and give you a piece of my mind. He got up close and asked, Who, exactly, are the takers? Excuse me? I replied. The makers and the takers, he said. I know who the makers are, but who are the takers? Is it the person who lost a job and is on unemployment benefits? Is it the veteran who served in Iraq and gets medical care through the VA? When you talk about the takers, who exactly do you mean? Id started using the phrase makers and takers after the Tax Foundation issued a study comparing how much families receive in government spending with how much they pay in taxes. If a familys share of government spending exceeded the amount it paid in taxes, the study deemed them receivers. If it was less, they were described as givers. The Tax Foundations analysis found that 60% of American families were net receivers, and under President Obamas policies, that number would grow to 70%. The phrase givers and receivers was similar to another term making the rounds: makers and takers. Both seemed convenient shorthand for a serious problem. Over the years, weve slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others arent really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford. If we keep on this way, well reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. Thats an untenable problem. The receivers cannot receive more than the givers can give. Enlarge Image © Cargo/ImageZoo/Corbis Even so, that day at the fair was the first time I really heard the way the phrase sounded. Later, I thought about that guy from the Democrats tent, and eventually I realized: Hes right. Who was a taker? My mom, who is on Medicare? Me at 18 years old, using the Social Security survivors benefits we got after my fathers death to go to college? My buddy who had been unemployed and used job-training benefits to get back on his feet? The phrase gave insult where none was intended. People struggling and striving to get ahead—thats what our country is all about. On that journey, theyre not takers; theyre trying to make something of themselves. We shouldnt disparage that. Of course, the phrase wasnt just insensitive; it was also ineffective. The problem I was trying to describe wasnt about our people; its a philosophy of government that erodes the American Idea. Like many of the challenges were facing, the tipping point were approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mindset that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide whats best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money. This government-centered approach is at the core of modern-day liberalism and the Obama administrations policy decisions. Have a high unemployment rate? Pass a $787 billion spending bill. Got an energy crisis? Dump millions of taxpayer dollars into a boondoggle like solar-cell maker Solyndra. Need to lower health-care costs? Hand over decisions to a bloated bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. Now, the problem isnt bad motives; its bad ideas. All of these policies stem from an ideology that favors coercion over collaboration, that puts faith in government instead of in a free people. And the results speak for themselves. Fortunately, there is an alternative: the Founders vision, which puts individuals, their families and their communities—not government—at the center of American life. What does this vision look like in action? For starters, it favors choice and competition over government-run solutions. It would make health care a true market with transparent prices and more choices. It would empower Americans to make their own health decisions. Instead of top-down price controls imposed by bureaucrats, wed have bottom-up competition driven by millions of consumers. That wont just lower health-care costs; it will improve the quality of care. The vision also means promoting a foreign policy that rejects relativism and embraces exceptionalism, ensuring our prosperity and security. It would promote pro-market policies that benefit consumers instead of pro-business policies that favor the wealthy and well connected. It would roll back regulations that serve no purpose except to stifle enterprises, big and small. That will encourage competition and innovation, and get our economy growing so that people can start working again. And instead of managing poverty, wed actually be fighting it. Today, were spending almost $800 billion on 92 federal antipoverty programs—and yet we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. Thats because the solution cant be found in a federal bureaucracy; it lies within individual Americans and the community that surrounds and supports them. As it stands, were not empowering people; were overseeing them. Thats got to change. We need to see an individuals problems and potential. Our goal shouldnt be to simply meet their needs; we should help them tap into their talent and achieve their goals. Thats why Ive proposed a plan that would reform our poverty programs by creating federal opportunity grants. These grants would consolidate up to 11 programs—such as food stamps, housing assistance and cash welfare—into one funding stream, and allow states to experiment with different ways of customizing aid. Families in need would have a choice about where and how they get assistance. And this opportunity would come with greater accountability for recipients and states. Individuals would be rewarded for meeting their goals, and states would be required to measure their results. When you compare liberal progressivisms promises with the future that conservatism can actually deliver, the choice is clear. The way forward Im proposing fosters risk-taking, ingenuity and creativity. Instead of growing government, it grows the economy and offers everyone greater opportunity and prosperity. It can unwind the cycle of dependency and finally defeat poverty. And, perhaps most important, it protects our rights while offering a real safety net for those in need—without overpowering the private economy or our private lives. Mapping this path has been the focus of my work in Congress. I dont have all of the answers, but as an elected leader, I do have a responsibility to help start and sustain a conversation about where we go from here. Thats why I proposed my budgets—first, the Roadmap and, later, the Path to Prosperity—and its why Ive now written a book, The Way Forward. The countrys problems are urgent and real, but they arent insurmountable. When I visit our big cities and small communities, I see the signs of a great American comeback in the making. If we focus on solutions and give voters a meaningful choice, then I know we can get this done. Rep. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsins first congressional district and is chairman of the House Budget Committee. The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea will be published Tuesday by Twelve.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:21:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015