Well, considering that welfare reform was one the items on the Gingrich's "Contract with America", and the fact that Clinton vetoed welfare reform TWICE (until Dick Morris, his advisor at that time told him he would lose the 1996 election if he didn't pass it), I think it's a pretty strong case it required a republican congress to get such common-sensical policy implemented.
Where I think you are distorting the reality a bit (unintentially, I'm sure), is by actually believing that who the president is actually matters so much.
What matters is who controls congress and the Senate because they are the bodies that possess the power of the purse, as well to tax and spend.
The president can submit a budget, but Congress must approve it for the president's final signature or veto. But by the time the budget actually makes to the White House, the time is so short that any president is under extreme pressure not to veto it, lest he compel the government to close down.
And Johnson's "great society" was implemented under a democratically controlled congress and white house. The democrats have essentially dominated both house of congress for over 40 years, with a few years in between where the Republicans have had control. It wasn't until 1995, that we really saw any clamor for welfare reform that actually had the hope of seeing the light of day.
And yes.. I do fault Liberals for being too exhuberant in trying to prove that government is the ultimate solution to society's every pain. These people think you can take a pen and immediately legislate better behavior, social compassion, safer cities, and economic growth.
Pardoning my dogmatism here, the liberal seems to think it's alright to make people feel "entitled" to the government's resources since they are taxpayers (as almost all of us our). After all, the next step from liberal is to socialism, and ultimately centralized control of the entire economy and the extinction of the private market.
On the other hand, we have a private market that realizes that if you promise comfort and security to everyone, then no will enjoy it because there won't be enough to go around. Conservatives realize that government policy must be guided with human nature in mind. That policy must limit its parameters to ensuring maximum opportunity, while ensuring minimum extended liability for supporting people's livelihoods. More simply put, governments role is to return self-worth and pride to those who have fallen out of the economic mainstream. Help those who are seeking to help themselves and penalize those who are unwilling to contribute.
Personally, I'm in favor of compelling every homeless individual out there, crazy or sane, into a government works program. If they wish to be a ward of the state, then give them something to do, even if it's only filling pot holes in our city streets. But also integrate such programs with other private and public programs that continue to provide educational and training support.
People would really consider me quite a tyrant, but that's what I would do. Futhermore, I would seek out the families of all of these nameless homeless folks and find a way to encourage them to restore their ties with these "lost" people.
That's why a liberal centralized government will never provide the same form of support network that a conservative system will. Because the family unit is the center of this society and any systems that attempts to degrade the power and influence of such a system will lead to more social instability.
When government tells people "don't worry about your family member, the government will take care of him/her", then that is just what most of us will do because it makes our lives easier and relieves us of our financial burdens.
But what if government provided assistance at a local level, through faith-based programs (or non-faith based with strong accountability standards to members) to help relieve those burdens?
A more decentralized system, with strong accountability, makes the social welfare system more flexible, more personal, and maximizes opportunity for economic rehabilitation in the overall community.
Anyway.... that's how I see the optimal economic welfare system and the difference between top down and bottoms up economic policy formation.
And it's only peripherally off topic since the battle between the public and private economy plays a constant roll in shaping the strength of currencies and capital markets... :0)
Anyone here betting dollar is prepping itself to take off again to the upside?
Regards,
Ron |
