Saturday, June 9, 2012 by The New Internationalist
Keep Your Government Hands Off My Welfare State
During the Tea Party’s heyday, you could find variations of the
‘Keep Your Government Hands Off My Welfare State’ sign at rallies around
the US. My favorite was a handmade version by
a woman who had written out her slogan in black marker and then added,
in red, a hammer and sickle to symbolize the peril of socialized
medicine. The placard read: ‘Government Keep Your Hands Off
My Medicare.’
Ideology and reality had been set on a collision course, and this absurd mash-up was the result.
Struggle as it might, the reality that Medicare – America’s
government-run health insurance – is one of the nation’s largest (and
most popular) public programs could not overcome the right-wing
imperative to hate the state. Sometimes, it seems, keeping hate alive
means making tough sacrifices in the realm of logic.
The Tea Party’s visibility has diminished significantly since 2009. However, the disconnect between popular perceptions of US government and its actual function endures.
In February, the New York Times published an article
entitled ‘Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It’. Several
accompanying maps showed that some areas which rely heavily on public
programs – for example, Owsley County, Kentucky, where per capita
payments for food stamps are the highest in the country – vote
overwhelmingly for conservative Republicans who vow to slash social
spending. Other studies show that deeply conservative Mississippi,
Arkansas and Tennessee are among the places where residents, on average,
get the highest percentage of their income from government supports.
Of course, there is a fine tradition of allowing one’s behavior and
professed beliefs to go their separate ways: Bible-belt states whose
residents claim to promote chastity and ‘family values’ have higher
rates of divorce – not to mention higher numbers of online porn
subscriptions – than supposed Gomorrahs like New York and California.
But why would healthcare-loving conservatives risk self-injury by embracing anti-government animus?
For one, when people talk about making cuts, they do not picture
themselves in their mental community of deadbeats. In his response to
the safety net report, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
cited Suzanne Mettler of Cornell University, whose research shows that
‘44 per cent of Social Security recipients, 43 per cent of those
receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 per cent of those on Medicare
say that they “have not used a government program”.’
These people are thinking of cutting services for others – like
immigrants, who in fact account for only a small portion of
government spending.
Yet, as The Economist notes, in other countries appeals from
anti-immigrant populists (think Le Pen’s National Front in France)
include a strong defence of state entitlement programs. The commitment
to the ideal – if not the practice – of determined self-sufficiency is
distinctly American. And it’s intensifying at an odd moment.
Contrary to Tea Party belief, most of the growth in government
programs has come not because President Obama has boldly expanded
benefits. Rather, amid a historic economic downturn, more people have
needed these supports. Just when the safety net is doing precisely what
it should, conservative leaders denounce a system run amok.
In doing so, they encourage a misplacement of resentment. Business
has taken the American denial of mutual support straight to the bank. As
economist Dean Baker points out, the failure of working people to gain
from productivity increases is a far greater financial burden than
anything government levies in taxes. Productivity has grown more than 80
per cent since 1979, with nothing close to a commensurate increase
in wages.
Early in the economic recovery, the distribution of benefits has been
even worse. In 2010, America’s top 1 per cent claimed 93 per cent of
all income gains. Income for the great bulk of citizens
actually decreased.
Engrossing people in the tail-chasing fight to keep government out of
government is a brilliant means of distracting from this situation.
Sadly for those who join the battle, winning could mean destroying the
very social programs they depend upon for survival.
© 2012 The New Internationalist