However, if you would not have been a democrat from 1830-1963 or 1965-today, then I think you might be looking at the wrong party.
Seems to me that if you want to reform entitlement programs then you are closer to a mainstream 1980's-2015 Republican (you said Reagan was right, and Paul Ryan and others were very close to him) or a moderate Republican today. While Trump does not want entitlement reform, many Republicans do, so if a moderate Republican wins the 2028 primary the party could shift back and agree with you on most of the concerns you outlined here.
Thanks for the recruitment attempt, but I am very happy to be an Independent, thanks. I would rather make choices election-by-election based on the individual candidate.
What Republicans mean by "entitlement reform" is typically cutting costs, and they typically focus on Social Security and Medicare.
My concern is mainly with overhauling means-tested programs so they offer Upward Mobility for young people and help to create a prosperous working class. So far, neither major party is trying to do that.
Hopefully, my writing on Upward Mobility will find some traction within one of the major parties (but I am not holding my breath). In fairness, I think that you are correct that Republicans are more likely to be willing to change their minds on this issue than Democrats, but both parties are focused on other issues.
As a moderate Republican who is very much on board the progress train, I had to try, lol.
Thank you for the nice comment and for this wonderful site. I'm Working on reading less of the mainstream press and more of the "Progress" substacks. Yours is my favorite so far. Thank you for feeding my rational optimism. Looking forward to the new book.
The net present value of payments must roughly match payments. People will tolerate modest cross subsidy to solve the underwriting problem, but not too much cross subsidy.
But in a society with wildly different genetic potential, large cross subsidy is inevitable.
Relatively homogenous societies could pull off social insurance. But the gap between white and black is so large it’s impossible (and the USA is diverse in other ways). It can’t be social insurance, only welfare.
The other issue is that upward mobility can solve material needs. But it doesn’t solve social needs. It doesn’t solve the fact that there is only one man and one woman. That status is a zero sum game. Etc.
if we all get richer, people will still value dominance and hierarchy. Solutions to that urge are assisted by not fulfilled by material progress.
Finally, one notes that you end in 1965. Even MLK history ends in 1965. It gets darker after, nobody wants to talk about the late 60s. Because equality under the law can’t bring equality of outcome, but equality of outcome is presumed by the assumption of equality of genetics. When this can’t be satisfied, totalitarian solutions are proposed.
I agree that "means testing" is indeed the mother of all perverse incentives, as well as a classic case of paving the road to hell with good intentions. So why not support a true UBI instead?
Because UBI has exactly the same perverse incentives as means-testing: they both enable non-work. UBI also rewards non-work, but at a larger scale than our current system.
And a quick scan of your article reveals that you give zero details on what type of UBI you are proposing. You are merely making a moral argument without any policy details.
The devil of UBI comes out in the details, so I suspect that your vagueness is intentional. This is common amongst UBI supporters.
The act of work is a key to human flourishing. Work is about being willing to contribute to others and contribute to your own survival.
Money without work just increases selfish behaviors and attitudes. With each generation, the desire to contribute to society will decline until it ceases to exist in most families, neighborhoods and nations.
UBI will create huge gaps between those who contribute society and those who do not. Over time, the latter will grow until youths will have no idea how to contribute to society or why they should.
If you believe that a UBI “need not cost taxpayers one cent,” then I honestly cannot take your opinion seriously. That is a ridiculous statement.
The problem with the social insurance programs is that financially they are set up like pyramid schemes, and now they're reaching the point of collapsing.
Brilliant piece. Thanks!
Enjoyed the read!
However, if you would not have been a democrat from 1830-1963 or 1965-today, then I think you might be looking at the wrong party.
Seems to me that if you want to reform entitlement programs then you are closer to a mainstream 1980's-2015 Republican (you said Reagan was right, and Paul Ryan and others were very close to him) or a moderate Republican today. While Trump does not want entitlement reform, many Republicans do, so if a moderate Republican wins the 2028 primary the party could shift back and agree with you on most of the concerns you outlined here.
LOL
Thanks for the recruitment attempt, but I am very happy to be an Independent, thanks. I would rather make choices election-by-election based on the individual candidate.
What Republicans mean by "entitlement reform" is typically cutting costs, and they typically focus on Social Security and Medicare.
My concern is mainly with overhauling means-tested programs so they offer Upward Mobility for young people and help to create a prosperous working class. So far, neither major party is trying to do that.
Hopefully, my writing on Upward Mobility will find some traction within one of the major parties (but I am not holding my breath). In fairness, I think that you are correct that Republicans are more likely to be willing to change their minds on this issue than Democrats, but both parties are focused on other issues.
As a moderate Republican who is very much on board the progress train, I had to try, lol.
Thank you for the nice comment and for this wonderful site. I'm Working on reading less of the mainstream press and more of the "Progress" substacks. Yours is my favorite so far. Thank you for feeding my rational optimism. Looking forward to the new book.
Social Insurance is insurance.
The net present value of payments must roughly match payments. People will tolerate modest cross subsidy to solve the underwriting problem, but not too much cross subsidy.
But in a society with wildly different genetic potential, large cross subsidy is inevitable.
Relatively homogenous societies could pull off social insurance. But the gap between white and black is so large it’s impossible (and the USA is diverse in other ways). It can’t be social insurance, only welfare.
The other issue is that upward mobility can solve material needs. But it doesn’t solve social needs. It doesn’t solve the fact that there is only one man and one woman. That status is a zero sum game. Etc.
if we all get richer, people will still value dominance and hierarchy. Solutions to that urge are assisted by not fulfilled by material progress.
Finally, one notes that you end in 1965. Even MLK history ends in 1965. It gets darker after, nobody wants to talk about the late 60s. Because equality under the law can’t bring equality of outcome, but equality of outcome is presumed by the assumption of equality of genetics. When this can’t be satisfied, totalitarian solutions are proposed.
I agree that "means testing" is indeed the mother of all perverse incentives, as well as a classic case of paving the road to hell with good intentions. So why not support a true UBI instead?
https://truespiritofamericaparty.blogspot.com/p/why-ubi.html
No means testing, no discrimination, and no perverse incentives.
And thanks to Monetary Sovereignty per Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, it need not cost taxpayers one cent either.
Because UBI has exactly the same perverse incentives as means-testing: they both enable non-work. UBI also rewards non-work, but at a larger scale than our current system.
And a quick scan of your article reveals that you give zero details on what type of UBI you are proposing. You are merely making a moral argument without any policy details.
The devil of UBI comes out in the details, so I suspect that your vagueness is intentional. This is common amongst UBI supporters.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-universal-basic-income-ubi-is
The act of work is a key to human flourishing. Work is about being willing to contribute to others and contribute to your own survival.
Money without work just increases selfish behaviors and attitudes. With each generation, the desire to contribute to society will decline until it ceases to exist in most families, neighborhoods and nations.
UBI will create huge gaps between those who contribute society and those who do not. Over time, the latter will grow until youths will have no idea how to contribute to society or why they should.
If you believe that a UBI “need not cost taxpayers one cent,” then I honestly cannot take your opinion seriously. That is a ridiculous statement.
> Social insurance programs
The problem with the social insurance programs is that financially they are set up like pyramid schemes, and now they're reaching the point of collapsing.