I’ve done multiple debates with social democrats and avowed socialists. Both groups unfavorably contrast the United States with Western Europe. Social democrats tend to see Scandinavia as the pinnacle of human civilization. Socialists usually hope for something more radical; “getting to Denmark” isn’t good enough for them. But social democrats and socialists alike condemn the hard-hearted, Scrooge-like, laissez-faire United States.
I have a standard reply. Namely: Although I wish their description of U.S. economic policy were true, calling the U.S. “laissez-faire” is absurd – and they know it. Even pre-Covid, the United States had Social Security, SNAP, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, free K-12, heavily subsidized college, and many other redistributive programs.
My opponents, too, have a standard reply to me. Namely: If you actually look at the numbers, the United States government does next to nothing. While it pretends to have a welfare state like other civilized countries, this is basically an illusion. No matter how many programs I mention, the totality is just a rounding error designed to obscure the cruelty of American policy.
My knee-jerk reaction is to go to the numbers. The U.S. spends trillions on these programs every year; can they seriously deny it?
On reflection, however, if someone is crazy enough to claim that all U.S. social spending is a rounding error, showing them numbers is probably a waste of time. What I really ought to say is this: “If the U.S. welfare state is just a rounding error anyway, it wouldn’t make much difference if we simply got rid of it entirely, would it? In fact, this might even be an improvement from your point of view, because the ruse of the status quo would be exposed.”
Would this persuade my opponents? Don’t make me laugh. But however they respond, reasonable but undecided members of the audience will see them as hyperbolic if not dishonest. And if you claim the U.S. “barely has a welfare state,” hyperbolic if not dishonest is precisely what you are.
READER COMMENTS
Kevin
Feb 14 2022 at 1:32pm
Don’t forget section 8 housing, Obamacare, SSI, TANF, and probably more! We can’t let the socialists think that these programs don’t exist either…it’s better to name all of them and declare, “What, exactly, aren’t we doing?” And, “How effective is any of this spending?” Or even, “Might a negative income tax, as a replacement, make more sense?”
Roger Sparks
Feb 14 2022 at 2:07pm
A great recommendation!
At some point we need to ask how a government can help anyone when government must borrow to pay for help. Isn’t the private sector working for two forms of compensation: money and some sort of deferred payment?
Jon Murphy
Feb 14 2022 at 3:22pm
I’m not sure that’s a particularly good response. Even if the US welfare state is a rounding error, that doesn’t mean it is $0; statistically insignificant does not mean economically insignificant. My response to your response would be: “Yes, the welfare state is very small. But we cannot remove it because, for those people who rely on it, it is everything.”
Kimble
Feb 14 2022 at 4:47pm
His point was that in the longer-term there would be greater value for more needy people from drawing attention to the deficit in spending, by removing the fig-leaf of existing programs.
If you hold to your argument, you are then saying that the needs of the current tiny minority (which is what “rounding error” would mean) are more important than the needs of the huge majority (the masses of people the welfare expansionists say need saving).
Jon Murphy
Feb 14 2022 at 5:47pm
I get his point (and I would deny your interpretation of it is correct). My point is that the framing is not particular good nor convincing to the supporter of a larger welfare state.
Mark Z
Feb 14 2022 at 5:10pm
I suspect the mistake socialists/social democrats make is using outcome as a measurement of the extent of the welfare state. I’ve heard SF Area progressives especially complain about how inhuman it is of our capitalists society that we don’t do anything about widespread homelessness amidst so much ultra-wealth. Of course, SF spends more than the median US income per homeless person per year on assorted programs. It just doesn’t help. When someone operates from the assumption that lots of social spending alleviates destitution, they see destitution itself as evidence of insufficient social spending.
Occasionally there’s a kernel of truth to the complaints, of course, as in the case of healthcare. Some poor people slip through the cracks because they aren’t poor enough to get medicaid, don’t get it through their employer, and aren’t eligible for insurance subsidies, so they get stuck with the prices inflated by the rest of the system. But many people – especially Europeans who don’t know much about healthcare here – mistakenly think that this is because we have a ruthlessly capitalist healthcare system with little to no healthcare spending for the poor.
Jim Matthews
Feb 21 2022 at 3:46pm
San Francisco’s homeless population has been displaced from affordable housing. In environs that have little housing stock, let alone inexpensive choices – all social services strain to meet their rent before providing meals, etc.
While it is among the most visible failures in America’s porous “Safety net” San Francisco their are less than 9000 homeless there on any given day.
The true waste in America’s approach is in the onerous bureaucracy which has been *designed to be* byzantine and stingy.
The entire point of UBI is to offer a soft place to land, for those who hit bottom. The alternative to free housing, essential health care (including mental health intervention and addiction management) is the expensive incarceration complex which is also supported by taxation.
Bengt S
Feb 14 2022 at 6:43pm
Some numbers and references would really, really help here. Who is saying it’s a rounding error, as opposed to much smaller than in Denmark or Sweden? What are the numbers as percent of GDP? The points about not “laissez-faire”, US welfare state inefficient and incoherent quilt-like construction seem right. I personally believe Scandinavian taxpayers get way more bang for the buck in terms of stated objectives for the use of that money – even though it’s quite a bit more. Don’t have the data or references to back that up – just my impression from having lived in both places for quite some time.
And as for the ideological point – a large efficient welfare state can indeed have a great deal of suffocation.
Matthias
Feb 19 2022 at 6:47am
Singapore is even better in terms of bangs for bucks.
stubydoo
Feb 14 2022 at 7:38pm
A tale of two welfare states: the big one that includes items that most of the people who complain about the oversized welfare state would themselves not consider to be welfare (especially when they are recipients): the *theoretically* self-funding ones for the elderly; the largely locally funded public education. Unemployment insurance was also built on self-funding bones before it got corrupted.
And there is the much smaller welfare state of handouts to poor people – the thing most people think of when they hear the word “welfare”. Of the ones mentioned in the article, only SNAP truly fits this (Medicaid sort of does, but you mostly need to be not just poor but poor and sick to avail it, which changes the character).
And when you actually look at the numbers (i.e. dollars), you find that, holy mother of God, the big welfare state is BIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGG, and the small one is SMALL.
If we’re going to keep switching between the two, everyone is just going to be talking past each other.
Infovores
Feb 14 2022 at 9:09pm
The United States is actually second in Net Social Spending as a percentage of GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
Jose Pablo
Feb 16 2022 at 5:27pm
I don’t get why Net Social Spending as a percentage of GDP should be the relevant indicator. I would argue that US$PPP per capita spent in Net Social Spending is a more relevant figure.
Since GDP per capita in France is $49,432 (PPP) and in USA $68,309 the 31.7% and 30% result in $15,670 per capita of Net Social Spending in France and $20,493 in USA. 30% more in USA and the biggest in the world.
On top of that, a significant part of the USA social spending is “private” (as opposed to “public”) which, very likely, make it way more efficient.
$20,493 US$PPP per year does not look like a “rounding error”
Grand Rapids Mike
Feb 15 2022 at 1:01pm
How about proposing that US stop funding NATO and other defense funds to defend the world, which all of Europe benefits, and shift the funds to more US welfare programs. The US is tacitly supporting Europe welfare spending by supporting there defense. We should stop it now!
Jose Pablo
Feb 16 2022 at 5:40pm
What if the US stop funding NATO and other defense funds to defend the world and also stop all the spending in US based welfare programs and shift the funds to worldwide based welfare programs, targeting the poorest people in Africa and Asia (or whenever the poorest ones live).
It is very difficult to defend, on moral or utilitarian grounds, the very existence of a “welfare program” without concluding that the right thing to do is shifting these funds to much poorer populations in the world.
If money has to be allocated in anything resembling a need-based manner or a utility maximization manner, not a single dollar would be allocated to a US welfare program.
Matthias
Feb 19 2022 at 6:54am
The Internet tells me that the US spends about 3.7% of her GDP on the military.
If the US stopped ‘funding NATO’ they could perhaps get that down to 2% of GDP?
The difference of 1.7% of GDP us quite a lot smaller than the American welfare state, though details depend on how wide you want to cast the net.
Comments are closed.