Security vs. Insecurity

I've got this buddy Max who is also the proud owner of a nerdblog. I'm not sure how I'd characterize his politics - inherently skeptical, but more sympathetic to tax cuts than government spending. His whole blog is worth reading. He grapples with things.

Anyway, he characterizes liberalism as follows:
"This dichotomy, which still persists to the present day, is the fundamental advantage possessed by big government liberals.  They are seen as political Robin Hoods, fighting for the poor and disadvantaged against the corporate elites with the small government politicians in their pockets.  No matter what lies beneath this superficial classification, they always seem to harp back on the theory that small-government conservatives want to take from the poor and give to the rich."

I take issue with that. Sure, liberals talk about the poor a lot, but that's not really what liberalism/big government is about. "Big government," in the pejorative sense that politicians love to harp on, is about one thing: security.

Watchoo talkin' bout, Gart? Hm. This is what I mean -- the fundamental planks of a liberal's dream state (spoiler alert - we're pretty close to having one!) is a country in which everyone - be they rich, poor, or, most crucially, middle class - has some measure of security in their life. Specifically, if you make less than the top 50% of the country, that means you'll make about $35,000 a year. Most likely, that isn't going to leave you much savings to fall back on when you retire, or when you face some kind of catastrophic illness (which almost everyone will face at some point), or whatnot. Big government is about providing a safety net so that you have a little less fear when those things happen, and a little more security through your life.

Crucially, this ISN'T about the poor - it's about everyone. Just because you're rich doesn't mean you don't get your Social Security check or Medicare. This is a real thing! What if you invested in one of Madoff's Ponzi schemes completely unwittingly and with no fault of your own. You did your due diligence. You studied up - no one knew he was a crook! Or Enron, or WorldCom, or real estate. You could go from being literally in the top 10% in terms of income, only to have all your savings wiped out. Social Security provides you a safety net so you're not living in poverty in your old age.

This is real. It's time for charts I think. Ok so Medicaid is the program we think of as providing health care to the poor, right? Well, not exactly:

Half the people in it are kids, another 25% are either old folk or disabled. So literally 75% are either kids, elderly, or disabled - and I'm not sure anyone can make a kind of morally compelling argument that kids and the disabled shouldn't get health care. Even if you're a purely free market person, you've gotta realize that penalizing people who can't provide for themselves is just not good business for a country. This is 2011 folks.


I have to work. More later.