Bang for your buck

digby has a must-read post discussing the conservative consensus. Even though progressives won the day last Tuesday, we still operate in an environment that has been shaped for the last 40+ years by conservatives:

The Republicans may have finally jumped the shark, after failing so dramatically at governance, but they have inculcated their thinking so thoroughly into people's minds that many people don't even know it. The way most people think about government, and the vocabulary they all use, comes from the Republican playbook. It's going to take a huge effort to get people thinking about it in new ways. (There are a lot of smart people working on that, thank goodness.)

But right now, we are stuck in the same old groove:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said reviving several popular business and middle-class tax breaks that expired at the end of 2005 will be at the top of his party's agenda when Congress returns next week for a postelection session.

It's not that I don't want to see middle class families and small businesses have some more money in their pockets. I do. I haven't looked at the economic implication of these tax reductions and maybe they even make sense. But I'm pretty sure this is simple politics (and undoubtedly good politics) in which the Democrats prove their tax-cutting bonafides to the constituency both parties need --- the middle class. In today's political climate, you aren't delivering, if you aren't delivering "tax relief."

That's as true blue Republican as you can get. And at some point Democrats are going to have to start rolling this back and making the case that delivering for the middle class means providing the safety net and provision for the less fortunate that allows average Americans the freedom to take risks and fuel our dynamic economy --- like taking new jobs or starting a new business. Tax cuts are like candy --- they taste good, but the individual middle class worker and her family doesn't get nearly the nutritious bang for the buck that the safety net and government programs do. Liberals and progressives need to start changing the political dialog in ways that talk about risk management and security and fair trade and wage growth --- things we really believe in and which can make an affirmative, lasting difference in people's lives.

>snip<

My first suggestion for this new vocabulary isn't really mine, but a reader's from some time back who pointed out my use of the term "tax burden" was an example of unthinking adoption of conservative rhetoric. He was right. He suggested that we start talking about it as "paying the bills" something that everyone understands. I think that makes sense. You can't blow smoke in people's faces by trying to tell them that taxes are "good." That's dreaming. But everyone knows that we have to pay the bills and our bill for the services we get --- national defense, social security for the disabled and elderly, medical research, roads and bridges,air traffic control, clean air and water, veterans benefits and on and on and on aren't free. It's a bill that has to be paid for both the individual and common good.

I've always thought that the current anti-tax mood of the American public was more a misguided desire for efficiency. The current ideological consensus posits that the free market is always more efficient than the government spending, therefore tax dollars are wasted on programs which might be more effectively handled by the private sector. This is the Republican mantra that has been repeated so many times that it's taken on the sheen of actual truth.

Now, it's true that the free market does allocate some goods better than others. I'm personally grateful that I have a choice of products to choose from when it comes to bicycles, computers, automobiles, etc. In these instances, the free market seems to work fairly efficiently (though not perfectly) in delivering the right goods for the right price.

For social goods like health care or education, on the other hand, the free market is a horribly inefficient mechanism for distribution. Health costs, for example, are constantly pushed upwards by a hopelessly bloated administrative apparatus (much bigger in our privatized health care scheme than in the "socialized" medical plans of Europe and Canada) and policies which stress acute rather than preventative care.

If we are to expand health care coverage for people in the United States, the fact of the matter is is that taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. The case needs to be made: you're going to pay for health care one way or another. Do you want to pay $2000 a year in premiums that will only provide coverage after a $3000 deductible is met, making it costly to seek preventative (mainly low-cost) health care which could prevent more costly (for both you and your insurer) treatments down the road? Or would you rather pay $2000 a year more in taxes but have the ability to see a doctor when you needed it, allowing you to take advantage of basic preventative services in order to avoid more acute treatments later? Which plan is going to give you more bang for your buck?

If there's one thing Americans seem to love, it's a good deal. Part of the progressive task in governing will be to demonstrate that the government, in many instances, can deliver the best value for one's dollar, and that these instances are worth the cost.