Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system is progressive, those who better off (and who, presumably, have benefited from many of these same public institutions) help pay for everyone else."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



The Decline of the Public Good

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

05 January 12

 

eryl Streep's eery reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" brings to mind Thatcher's most famous quip, "there is no such thing as 'society.'" None of the dwindling herd of Republican candidates has quoted her yet but they might as well considering their unremitting bashing of everything public.

What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions - public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on.

Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system is progressive, those who better off (and who, presumably, have benefitted from many of these same public institutions) help pay for everyone else.

"Privatiize" means pay-for-it-yourself. The practical consequence of this in an economy whose wealth and income are now more concentrated than any time in 90 years is to make high-quality public goods available to fewer and fewer.

Much of what's called "public" is increasingly a private good paid for by users - ever-higher tolls on public highways and public bridges, higher tuitions at so-called public universities, higher admission fees at public parks and public museums.

Much of the rest of what's considered "public" has become so shoddy that those who can afford to find private alternatives. As public schools deteriorate, the upper-middle class and wealthy send their kids to private ones. As public pools and playgrounds decay, they buy memberships in private tennis and swimming clubs. As public hospitals decline, they pay premium rates for private care.

Gated communities and office parks now come with their own manicured lawns and walkways, security guards, and backup power systems.

Why the decline of public institutions? The financial squeeze on government at all levels since 2008 explains only part of it. The slide really started more than three decades ago with so-called "tax revolts" by a middle class whose earnings had stopped advancing even though the economy continued to grow. Most families still wanted good public services and institutions but could no longer afford the tab.

From that time onward, almost all the gains from growth have gone to the top. But as the upper middle class and the rich began shifting to private institutions, they withdrew political support for public ones. In consequence, their marginal tax rates dropped - setting off a vicious cycle of diminishing revenues and deteriorating quality, spurring more flight from public institutions. Tax revenues from corporations also dropped as big companies went global - keeping their profits overseas and their tax bills to a minimum.

But that's not the whole story. America no longer values public goods as we did before.

The great expansion of public institutions in America began in the early years of 20th century when progressive reformers championed the idea that we all benefit from public goods. Excellent schools, roads, parks, playgrounds, and transit systems would knit the new industrial society together, create better citizens, and generate widespread prosperity. Education, for example, was less a personal investment than a public good - improving the entire community and ultimately the nation.

In subsequent decades - through the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War - this logic was expanded upon. Strong public institutions were seen as bulwarks against, in turn, mass poverty, fascism, and then communism. The public good was palpable: We were very much a society bound together by mutual needs and common threats. (It was no coincidence that the greatest extensions of higher education after World War II were the GI Bill and the National Defense Education Act, and the largest public works project in history called the National Defense Interstate Highway Act.)

But in a post-Cold War America distended by global capital, distorted by concentrated income and wealth, undermined by unlimited campaign donations, and rocked by a wave of new immigrants easily cast by demagogues as "them," the notion of the public good has faded. Not even Democrats any longer use the phrase "the public good." Public goods are now, at best, "public investments." Public institutions have morphed into "public-private partnerships;" or, for Republicans, simply "vouchers."

Mitt Romney's speaks derisively of what he terms the Democrats' "entitlement" society in contrast to his "opportunity" society. At least he still envisions a society. But he hasn't explained how ordinary Americans will be able to take advantage of good opportunities without good public schools, affordable higher education, good roads, and adequate health care.

His "entitlements" are mostly a mirage anyway. Medicare is the only entitlement growing faster than the GDP but that's because the costs of health care are growing faster than the economy, and any attempt to turn Medicare into a voucher - without either raising the voucher in tandem with those costs or somehow taming them - will just reduce the elderly's access to health care. Social Security, for its part, hasn't contributed to the budget deficit; it's had surpluses for years.

Other safety nets are in tatters. Unemployment insurance reaches just 40 percent of the jobless these days (largely because eligibility requires having had a steady full-time job for a number of years rather than, as with most people, a string of jobs or part-time work).

What could Mitt be talking about? Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011.

Only in one respect is Romney right. America has created a whopping entitlement for the biggest Wall Street banks and their top executives - who, unlike most of the rest of us, are no longer allowed to fail. They can also borrow from the Fed at almost no cost, then lend the money out at 3 to 6 percent.

All told, Wall Street's entitlement is the biggest offered by the federal government, even though it doesn't show up in the budget. And it's not even a public good. It's just private gain.

We're losing public goods available to all, supported by the tax payments of all and especially the better off. In its place we have private goods available to the very rich, supported by the rest of us.

Even Lady Thatcher would have been appalled.

 

Comments  

 
+91 # artful 2012-01-05 11:58
Apparently, the deterioration of public education, in this grand game called "The Great Dumbing Down of America", has finally taken hold, giving us the non-society you observe. The old notions of enlightenment societies, is being replaced, not so slowly, by the kind of 13th century warlord, anarchistic country seen in Afghanistan and other middle eastern "nations". It would seem that the rich have observed and decided that the enlightenment isn't for them. The other (99%) have only begun to understand what republicans are about. When they really understand the full implications of our current non-society, perhaps anarchy will finally ring out. Watch out then one-percenters!
 
 
+6 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 16:42
artful,

you say that the 99% have only begun to understand what republicans are about.

You forgot to include democrats in that sentence or haven't you been paying attention to what dems and Obama are doing? Not what they say - what they do.

None of them are friends of the 99%. They ALL work for Wall St.

So whether Obama or Romney or one of the other R's wins in 2012, it will still be the 1% against the 99%. The only difference between the two parties is how they frame their same agenda.
 
 
+10 # pgobrien 2012-01-07 16:48
Barack Obama is not the Democratic Party, nor is he all Democrats. We need to avoid another Republican administration, and we need to make our Democratic (and Progressive, if we can get some more in addition to Bernie Sanders) legislators to enact decent laws and overturn indecent ones. And our "Democratic" president will then sign the new bills! We need NOT to think we'll be rescued by our president. We need to put legislators in there -- and not have a Republican president who can veto everything they try to do! So who you vote for counts, big time, even when thinking Republican or Democrat, unless you just don't think at all ...
 
 
+88 # Barbara K 2012-01-05 12:04
It is time for the wealthy to pay their fair share and stop living off the rest of us. They got wealthy with our help, they did not get wealthy on their own. Wall Street also needs to stop living off us. They are there to provide a service, not to screw the consumer.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our livelihood is at stake
 
 
+36 # Doubter 2012-01-05 15:07
"Wall Street also needs to stop.."
Don't you mean: "Wall Street also needs to BE MADE TO stop.."?
 
 
+15 # mwd870 2012-01-06 05:22
How about "Wall Street needs to be made to stop breaking the law and go back to providing the original services for which it was founded, hopefully without complete disregard for ethics and morality.
 
 
-2 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 16:46
barbara K,

Give it up already with your "never vote republican". It's nauseating.

Never vote for Democrats either. Are you asleep or did you drink too much of the Kool Aid?

If you vote democrat, our livelihoods and all else is also at stake.

What part of a Democrat writing the detention of Americans law and Obama signing it did you miss?

And that is just one ugly item on a long list.
 
 
+3 # CTPatriot 2012-01-09 02:11
Apparently Barbara K and all her little OFA friends can't handle your inconvenient truth. I'm surprised only -2, but I guess there must have been a lot of folks like myself to balance off their onslaught.

The sad thing is that our electoral system has reduced us to one party rule with a right branch and a not so right branch, and no other parties can afford the cost to play.

That's why the only party I support is OccupyWallStree t.
 
 
+33 # fredboy 2012-01-05 12:08
The most pressing question is whether the concept of good -- goodness -- will continue to be cherished and celebrated. It is the foundation of a sharing, progressive society.
 
 
-49 # MidwestTom 2012-01-05 12:32
What is not addressed by Robert is the destruction of Society as it existed just 40 years ago. Three major changes in America have destroyed the feeling of society for much of the country. In no particular order they are: 1. The changes in the tax code which exempted many poor from paying anything,while decreasing the tax rate on the wealthiest. 2. The second event was the drastic increase in single parent households, resulting in a large increase in working poor and children raised without a stable controlling environment. 3. The third is the influx of immigrants who do not assimilate into our local societies. Although relatively small, record numbers of American citizens are giving up their citizenship, and these are generally the smartest and most aggressive, leaving for places with better opportunities. Now we are sending troops to Israel in apparently guarantee that we are involved if Israel bombs Iran. This will further divide us.
 
 
+12 # Anarchist 23 2012-01-05 14:27
You took the Blue Pill, didn't you? You are right about the troops in Israel thing however and if we go to war with Iran, it's all she wrote, so to speak. At least I have a wonderful view from which to watch the end of the world as we know it
 
 
+51 # pbbrodie 2012-01-05 14:54
You have obviously bought into that Republican non-sense that the poor do not pay taxes. They may not pay federal income taxes but they sure do share all of the other tax burdens that are also regressive tax burdens and hit them much more than they do the wealthy. You surely do not believe that the poor do not pay payroll taxes and state sales taxes? Since the poor use their entire income to pay for necessities, it means they pay sales taxes on their entire incomes. I don't really see what point you were trying to make.
 
 
+43 # PGreen 2012-01-05 18:58
The changes in society over the last 40 years reflect growing inequality, reportedly now greater than ancient Rome and approaching the levels of the US "Gilded Age" of the last century. The Great Society (1960s) created programs to support the poor, but this was not the downfall of our economy. Rather, it is the accumulation of money at the top which is destroying us. The split in society is caused by money being pulled from resources utilized by the poor and middle class-- mass transit, infrastructure, public education, etc.-- and given (in the form of tax breaks, business subsidies, support for capital intensive businesses, etc.) to an increasingly smaller minority, making them very wealthy. The result of this is described by Chris Hedges as a kind of "neo-feudalism," a society that labors mostly for the benefit of an opulent aristocracy and supports the majority with the diminishing crumbs of what remains. The problem in US society is distribution, not scarcity; thus it is political as much as economic.
 
 
+11 # Todd Williams 2012-01-06 05:18
PGreen, that was an excellent comment. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
 
 
+2 # mwd870 2012-01-06 05:23
Midwest Tom, for the most part you have gotten it completely backwards.
 
 
+10 # opinionaire 2012-01-07 16:27
Midwest Tom, I am a profoundly single parent since the sudden death of my partner when our son was seven. At nineteen, he is now a sophomore in college and a fine young man of whom either of us can be proud. There are single parents who are not so by any choice, but do the best with what they have been given. Do not disparage all of us with overt prejudice.
 
 
+1 # jimyoung 2012-01-07 21:18
Hate it when I hit the wrong button
 
 
+51 # grouchy 2012-01-05 12:43
However, Mitt has a pretty good scam going for him simply because so many who will vote for him won't bother to check out his spin! Republicans live on lies. Those middle American folk will believe whatever the Right will tell them is the truth. So he is taking little risk here. It's so sad!
 
 
+30 # Barbara K 2012-01-05 13:29
I hope that the millions that he put out of work with his habit of buying up companies, firing the workers, and sending the companies overseas. What on Earth is American about him? Not what we would want for President, he's liable to sell off the Monuments in Washington. lol

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN

our livelihood is at stake
 
 
+65 # LeeBlack 2012-01-05 12:57
The concept and words 'common good' are missing from our current dialog.
 
 
+88 # Todd Williams 2012-01-05 12:59
I know a house painter who lives in a carriage house on a large estate in a very wealthy, old money niehgborhood. He's rabidly Rethuglican. He always says to me "I never was hired by a poor person to paint his house." But his hourly rates are below union scale. He leases a truck, pays high rent to his rich landlord and owns nothing, yet works his ass off. I say he's an indentured servant at best, and a slave at worst. But, by God, he's votes Rethuglican every election and calls me crazy for being a liberal. Go figure.
 
 
+24 # Cambridgemac 2012-01-05 13:39
In Hollywood westerns of the 40s and 50s, the big, bad, wealthy Ranchers had hired hands who wore black hats and sneered while they stomped on poor farmers ("sodbusters") - the 99%.

That meme is no longer used by the media, but the reality hasn't changed. The 1% will always have sneering thugs working for them.
 
 
+46 # Susan W 2012-01-05 14:20
This sounds similar to what I encounter at the local working-mens' tavern. They sit along the bar crying in their beer about how the illegals and the dirty hippies are all living on the public dole while they, themselves, work all day for stagnant wages and pay taxes to support the aforementioned slackers. When I mention the corporations and their private employers living off the fat of the land and paying virtually no taxes I get nothing but a derisive stare and get called a dirty liberal.

I am convinced that this country is on a terminal path to ruin for almost everyone but the filthy rich due mostly to the unreal, organic stupidity of the average Amerikan. They believe the right-wing propaganda and do not look into the facts behind the sound bites. I have to say they are getting what they deserve but the tragedy is we will all go down together.
 
 
+33 # jon 2012-01-05 16:55
and until the fairness in broadcasting act - that Reagan destroyed - is restored, the propagandizatio n into feudalism will only continue.
 
 
+14 # mwd870 2012-01-06 05:26
You mention an important point - the mindset of blue collar workers that the "public dole" is what is bankrupting our country. As you say, they have no concept of the reality.
 
 
+8 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 17:12
Right you are Susan W. The stupidos get what they deserves for their stupidity but we go down with them.

But, one must realize that the dumbing down of Americans has long been part of the plan. People are distracted and/or mesmerized by all the crap they are told they need due to TV ads, and most of the programming is mindless reality shows or repeat episodes of all the various series.

I bless the day I gave up my contract with Time Warner TV and now have no access to this worthless nonesense which, btw, came with a high monthly price tag.

Yup, more money in my pocket instead of the wallet of Time Warner's CEO. And I get great movies and documentaries from the library when I want some home entertainment.

Along from moving your money out of the big banks, give up your TV subscriptions which will be a bummer for the TV corporations such as Verizon (fios), Time Warner and all the others plus those who advertise.
 
 
+15 # bugbuster 2012-01-05 14:21
He knows which side his bread is buttered on and cares about nothing else. I would consider him morally deficient for that.
 
 
+19 # DLT888 2012-01-05 14:43
Makes you wonder what will wake people like him up, huh, Todd? Just makes me shake my head in disbelief. They shackle their own wrists and ankles and ask the master if there's anything they can do for him. Sickening.
 
 
+21 # pbbrodie 2012-01-05 14:56
He is what's wrong with America, filled with propaganda and voting against his own self interests.
 
 
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-01-06 05:23
Yes, I forgot to mention thst as he paints houses he listens to Rush Limpballs on the radio and at night, it's FOX News till bedtime. Man, what a miserable life!
 
 
+16 # wfalco 2012-01-05 18:18
Quoting
I know a house painter who lives in a carriage house on a large estate in a very wealthy, old money niehgborhood. He's rabidly Rethuglican. He always says to me "I never was hired by a poor person to paint his house." I say he's an indentured servant at best, and a slave at worst. But, by God, he's votes Rethuglican every election and calls me crazy for being a liberal. Go figure.


Bingo! I know guys like that. This, I believe, is a relatively recent phenomena.(Meaning within the last 30 years.)
A few decades ago the U.S. still had a sense of Blue Collar pride. There was some semblance of class identity and awareness of who fights the battle for the working and middle classes.
Then came the 80's and it was no longer in vogue to be a working stiff. The working guy (like your painter friend) feels he owes his livelihood to the wealthy. Several factors come into play to explain this loss of class identity-the corporatization of media and the cult of wealth and celebrity likely rank high as the biggest culprits.
 
 
+42 # noitall 2012-01-05 13:10
Its interesting how those born with a silver spoon expect everyone else to pull themselves up by the bootstraps seemingly ignorant of the possibility that some don't even have boots.
 
 
-22 # Martintfre 2012-01-05 13:11
//What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits //
and mutual benefit is defined by the individual parties involved mutually deciding their benefit.

When government gets involved then the individuals parties wants and benefits are replaced by the politicians wants and benefits always in the name of public benefit but the individuals get sacrificed and the politicians and their friends get the gain and the people lose.

We see it with the government schools and the government protected unions - all claiming the public good - but the public is getting a massively raw deal - the most expensive schools in the world and a sub par product in the schools.

When actual mutual benefit it replaced by political pull - then the benefit goes to those with the pull and the cost are stuck on those with out the political pull.
 
 
+24 # Bope2 2012-01-05 18:25
I think you are right when you say that those with the least political power get the short end of the stick. The difference between us is that I think the ones with the greatest influence are the corporate elites who use their political pull to avoid contributing their fair share for the benefits they receive, then starve the rest of us, and somehow convince you to blame the poor, and the government, instead of them.
 
 
+2 # Medicalquack 2012-01-05 13:51
It's now about the "Attack of the Killer Algorithms"...find out what this means to consumers with formulas and spun math. The middle class is still being discriminated against and using technological war fare. Sadly, this is how they feed on us.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2012/01/president-appoints-richard-cordray-as.html
 
 
-54 # Robt Eagle 2012-01-05 14:19
Todd Williams, sounds like your friend doesn't feel like you feel. He works hard and is piad for his service. Sounds like he is happy to have people willing to pay him for his hard work. Would it be better if he had no work, but was in a union that would guarantee him a higher salary (no work times a lot is still no income!)? Reich is correct in that MANY enjoy public facilities, like parks, however entitlements going to those who have made bad decisions have now taken funds away from Parks and that infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly. I have been employed on the weekends at a NYS State Park saving lives in the ocean for over 35 years and have watched the Parks close facilities and watch roadways and building rot. Why isn't there money for fixing those things? Certainly not from the wealthy who already pay taxes which go to those who have made bad decisions and do not have enough. If public things are for everyone then everyone should pay tax, including those who have made bad decisions and receive entitlements, don't you think that would be fair? Go ahead and tax those making more than $1M per year...it won't save America from Obama's wanton frivilous spending, but will make lots of struggling folks feel warm and fuzzy beacause they got their pound of flesh from the wealthiest among us. Makes no sense, get rid of the entitlements and you will see how fast people become self sufficient!
 
 
+17 # Doubter 2012-01-05 17:43
"Obama's wanton frivilous spending"
This phrase caught my eye.
From the tone of your post, I bet you don't mean he should slash the Pentagon budget!
 
 
+11 # PGreen 2012-01-05 19:25
Given that US economic problems are due to unequal distribution (as OWS has reminded us), and not caused by spending or scarcity, what then is your solution? Remember that corporations are essentially totalitarian organizations, with no internal accountability... one of those unpleasant truths.
 
 
+11 # Todd Williams 2012-01-06 05:31
He sure is happy to get his meager wages for working his ass off! Again, his wages are LESS than union scale which is why is is basically broke. But, by God those rich folks make him happy. Too bad they won't pay him a decent wage. And, by the way, many of them hire illegal workers to mow their big lawns, clean their mansions and do other manual labor at slave wages. Is this the society you want Robt Eagle?
 
 
+3 # jimyoung 2012-01-07 21:41
Why do the wealthiest keep the "temporary" tax breaks? Why do they pay a lower percentage just because of investment income, something we didn't do even before the depression when Coolidge had reduced the percentage of Americans paying income taxes to just 2% (at least it was the highest earning 2%)? Why do those whose investments have not produced jobs expected or helped real, sustainable, growth, indeed dropping our national net worth $17 trillion during the last year and a half of the Bush administration as they hoarded? Their hoarding, enabled by $29 trillion in loans, bailouts, and guarantees, lets them buy up ever more control of an economy they seem to have enslaved to their interests. Even honest, ethical, investor should realize that they are destroying the velocity of money by reducing the availability of reasonable loans to the real productive middle class whose reduction further reduces revenues (only 58% of working age adults employed). The draw on unemployment insurance can't help, especially with so many of us only finding part time work. Three or four part time jobs may bring home the bacon, but contributes nothing to unemployment insurance coffers, and less than ever to health insurance barely worth the effort if you can lose the ability to afford it from one job to the next. Breaks in insurance mean you may never get it again or have to wait a year to "qualify" for needed treatment. Just make the real rates fair for starters.
 
 
+33 # stonecutter 2012-01-05 14:37
What a depressing essay. Mostly because it's true. Bobby Kennedy could be resurrected, run for president and win by a landslide, but not even he could resurrect the values of shared sacrifice and equality under the law that were prevalent across this country just before he was murdered. Too much is broken. Those values have to be instilled in kids as they grow up; today you've got the 1% going to school in an echo chamber of privilege and planned, controlled separation from the rest of us, and as for the 99%, it's the luck of the wheel, like casino roulette. Some are fortunate to have committed parents and/or teachers; many are lucky if they get a nutritious meal each day, clean, decent clothing, let alone exposure to team sports, art, literature, history, "quality time" with their stressed-out parents, a clergyman or coach who won't abuse them, protection from the poison of drugs, race and ethnic hatred: the things a young American kid needs to feel loved and secure, to become "civilized", with all the personal qualities and character that term of art implies. Hope is on life support for a lot of kids.

I grew up working-class, in a city project; it was beautiful, with big trees and playgrounds and rolling green lawns, cared for by a small army of maintenance men with decent salaries and benefits earned working in a city union. The buildings inside were spotless and safe. All gone. That same project is now a slum.

This country is not far behind.
 
 
+27 # VoxClamantis 2012-01-05 14:38
Todd, your story is a perfect example of how freaking good the conservatives have been these past 30+ years in marketing their odious lies. The very people most damaged by contemporary neocon policies are the most vocal in support of them. Your house painter is a case in point. He truly believes the the swill being promoted and sugarcoated by Republicans these past decades, that taxes are bad and that providing for the public good is socialism and the road to ruin. The liberals and progressives really need to up their game and start rejecting this Ayn Randian dystopia. We need to start vocally promoting the vision of America that we had in the early 20th century: a nation that looks out for its least successful and guarantees a baseline of services and education that everyone can benefit from and still provide opportunities to excel and innovate. It's what made us a great nation once. We need to recapture that communal sense once again. C'mon Dems...let's hear some of OUR coordinated talking points! Please!
 
 
+24 # Kayjay 2012-01-05 14:40
On one hand the GOP's "entitled one", Mitt Romney, criticizes our entitlement society, while spouting his plan for endless opportunity. Well....I am just wondering just when these opportunities will appear and for WHOM. Just as they as putting the squeeze on who is eligible for unemployment, the dream of higher education is fading away for most as expenses skyrocket. Just think of the lost potential for our society as fewer and fewer kids get a higher education. Hmmmm, maybe Romney is soley thinking of the opportunities for the spawn of the rich, who can go to college, and then work for corporate efforts to outsource even more jobs. I just worry about when this perpetual cycle of low/no taxes, endless wars and privatization of everything will land all of the 99 percent upon the rocks. Do we really want to relive the "Grapes of Wrath" days when no one had two nickels to rub together?
 
 
+13 # Bope2 2012-01-05 17:40
Extremely good points, Kayjay, about Romney's entitlement hypocrisy, and about the nature and distribution of opportunities. It doesn't matter if everyone theoretically has the same opportunities, if only a few have access to capital, knowledge, networks of people with resources, and so forth. As educational opportunities disappear and banking becomes ever more rarified, the distribution of opportunity becomes more uneven. Personally, nobody has ever offered to cut me in on an IPO, for example.
 
 
+6 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 17:29
"Maybe Romney is soley thinking of the opportunities for the spawn of the rich . . . "

Nope. The only thing Romney is thinking about is getting elected and richer than he already is.

Ever notice that his reponses to questions that speak truth are long and drawn out run-on sentences defending his stance as he tries to make the person who asked the question look like a stupid idot?

Anyone paying attention should be laughing as he tries to baffle people with his bullshit. (Hard not to vomit but laughing is better for your health Actually, not listening to him is even better.)

On the hother hand, if you listen to Obama, his speeches are nothing but meaningless feel good phrases about how we all have to share in solving the financial problems or the Republicans made him do it. (Yeah, and the dog ate my homework.) Meanwhile the we who all have to share the burden are the 99% but he doesn't go that far. (For health reasons, I try to avoid listening to him as well.)

Never ceases to amaze me that the audiences actually clap and cheer.
 
 
+18 # Bope2 2012-01-05 15:49
The notion of the public good has been under systematic attack for many years, and the attackers have been remarkably successful in shaping the terms of the debate. One of the most useful strawpersons they have is the "undeserving" poor person--the assertion that most people on "welfare" are capable of getting along without help but choose to take the easy handout. Even though nobody was ever able to actually find one, Reagan's welfare recipient who drove a Cadillac was an extremely powerful and persistent image.

Many middle-class conservatives have been convinced that these "undeserving poor" are sucking their incomes away, and their resentment is palpable and easy for demagogues to exploit. Progressives shake their heads and wonder why lower- and middle-class conservatives seem to vote against their personal interests. But I think that many conservatives see this as a moral problem rather than economic or social one. As Romney cast it, public goods create laziness and dependency, which are degenerate moral conditions.

Progressives typically fail to counter these notions with stronger moral arguments, and so they fail to convince lower- and middle-class conservatives to pay for public goods they may see as going to everyone but them.
 
 
-33 # anarchteacher 2012-01-05 15:56
http://www.youtube.com/embed/MQyh6fzGUvI?rel=0

Corporatist Robert Reich need to relearn basic Economics 101
 
 
+5 # Doubter 2012-01-05 18:08
Good propaganda.
The funniest part is the one about "the monopolist" going to jail.
I also notice no mention of who owns the government.
 
 
-38 # anarchteacher 2012-01-05 16:13
Robert Reich, by adhering to the fallacious holistic notion of "society," falls for the same collectivist nonsense every authoritarian statist (Morelly, Mably, Babeuf, Fourier, Hegel, Saint Simon, Comte, Owen, Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc.) has put forth for 200 years. The great American libertarian writer Frank Chodorov opposed this view of society when he wrote that “Society Are People.”

"Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. So, too, is family or crowd or gang, or any other name we give to an agglomeration of persons. Society . . . is not an extra “person”; if the census totals a hundred million, that’s all there are, not one more, for there cannot be any accretion to Society except by procreation. The concept of Society as a metaphysical person falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse; as in the case of a “ghost town” or of a civilization we learn about by the artifacts they left behind. When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. Using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us into a trap of the imagination; we are prone to personalize the collectivity and to think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own."

http://f4fs.org/murray-rothbard-on-society-and-the-individual/
 
 
+18 # Bope2 2012-01-05 17:10
(So, I wonder what Chodorov would think of the notion of the corporation as legal person?)

I need to think about this some more, but Chodorov's idea, as you quote it, strikes me as sophistry rather than philosophical substance. The fact that some may anthropomorphiz e the idea of "society" does not negate society as a phenomenon. "Society" does not designate merely a number of people, but indicates an awareness of a complex web of interactions, interdependenci es, and mutual benefits. Libertarians seem to think that all that is an illusion; that all that exists in the human realm is individuals.

When children are in their first year or so, they engage in what development experts call "parallel play," where they may be together in groups, but they hardly interact except in very limited ways. Later, they begin to learn to work together for common purposes through interaction. Through games and other mechanisms, they learn to negotiate, to work together, etc, and generally to develop the sophisticated skills they will need as adults. Libertarian philosophy suggests the one-year-old's worldview, in which too little about human interaction (mutual benefit, power, the pleasure of interaction, the pleasure of contributing to a larger purpose, etc.) is registered on the radar screen. The result seems sterile and pointless to me.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2012-01-05 17:14
[quote name="anarchteacher"]Robert Reich, by adhering to the fallacious holistic notion of "society," falls for the same collectivist nonsense every authoritarian statist (Morelly, Mably, Babeuf, Fourier, Hegel, Saint Simon, Comte, Owen, Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc.) has put forth for 200 years. The great American libertarian writer Frank Chodorov opposed this view of society when he wrote that “Society Are People.”

"Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. So, too, is family or crowd or gang, or any other name we give to an agglomeration of persons. Society . . . is not an extra “person”; if the census totals a hundred million, that’s all there are, not one more, for there cannot be any accretion to Society except by procreation. The concept of Society as a metaphysical person falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse; as in the case of a “ghost town” or of a civilization we learn about by the artifacts they left behind. When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. Using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us into a trap of the imagination; we are prone to personalize the collectivity and to think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own."

Maybe that's where the concept of "Corporations are people" came from? You can't have it both ways! Which side are YOU on?
 
 
+12 # Susan W 2012-01-05 17:21
Perhaps you ought to put this much effort into debunking the notion that corporations are people and take it to the Supreme Court.
 
 
+25 # karenvista 2012-01-05 17:25
[quote name="anarchteacher"]"Society is a collective concept and nothing else;

Using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us into a trap of the imagination; we are prone to personalize the collectivity and to think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own."

Since you don't believe in "society" and don't want to "personalize the collectivity" why do you address us?

We are not interested in your views since you refuse to acknowledge our existence, either as a "collective" (group of common interest) or as a "society" so go your merry, isolated way.

You and Murray Rothbard are your own "collective."

Oh, I forgot. You don't believe in any collective or society so I guess you are on your own. Besides, he's dead.
 
 
+7 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-01-05 18:56
Karenvista @ 2012-01-05 17:25

Do you belong to a church basement league, pummeling cork-board targets?

That was an expertly hurled dart!
 
 
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-01-06 05:41
Right on! Great comeback!
 
 
+2 # ABen 2012-01-06 20:02
Well said! Point to Karenvista!
 
 
-4 # Doubter 2012-01-05 18:31
QUOTE by "Anarchteacher": “society” is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. also: "Society is a collective concept and nothing else"

I guess this means you think a human is not a living entity but simply a label for a "collective of cells."

Actually, every "level of integration" is built upon and made up from the lower levels and is a semi autonomous entity on its own as well as a part of a higher level.

Condensing and skipping some steps: it begins with sub-atomic particles combining to form atoms, then molecules then cells, organs, humans and animals, etc., societies, nations, planets, galaxies, etc.

In this view "society" is a semi-autonomous "level of integration" composed of human holons and their accoutrements.
See: Koestler & Ken Wilber)
 
 
-4 # Todd Williams 2012-01-06 05:38
What a load of crap! Phony intellectuaslis m always sucks in the stupids!
 
 
+8 # Rick Levy 2012-01-05 18:14
or those of you who supported California's Proposition 13 in the 1970's, I hope that you're proud of yourselves. That was the beginning of the end for fairness in taxation in America.
 
 
+6 # croc1 2012-01-05 20:39
Wonderful article but you missed the point of the end-game, Richard. The rich will be able to afford health care and quality of life while the sick, old, and masses of the "lower rungs" of society eventually die off from inadequate care, food, lodging. Fewer people to maintain means less social costs and more space and resources for the rich. Fewer products can be produced as only the rich will need them or be able to afford them. Those people that will survive are those that the 1% of the population rich will need to serve them and produce their needs. Fewer people means less Co2, the answer to global warming. The planet is saved - for the rich. Think about it. At first I thought my wife, a biologist, was nuts. Now I am a believer!
Peter
 
 
+5 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 17:51
croc1,

Bingo!

This is why there is no job creation.

Going back a tad further, it's the reason for the 2008 financial "collapse" a/k/a a shock [doctrine] that allows them to put forth "austerity measures" a/k/a slow euthanasia and also leaves people with no homes, all of which ultimately has the outcomes you describe.

Obamacare should also be included b/c it will force people to purchase non-affordable insurance with skimpy coverage they can't afford to use OR if they remain uninsured b/c they can't afford the premium the health insurance exchange benefits commmissioner tells them they can afford to pay based on income, said people will pay a tax penalty enforced by the IRS.

This scheme is a win-win for the ruling class - insurers and Big Pharma or the taxman gets your money that you need to heat and eat while you get zip.

All of it is called depopulation. Get rid of the poor and elderly (the bottomfeeders in the eyes of the wealthy elite/ruling class), and the middle class becomes the working poor b/c the ruling class needs slaves to survive.
 
 
+4 # Riley1 2012-01-06 02:26
Reich should always remember before he pontificates here that he was a paid up member of the Clinton cabinet.Under the law of collective responsibility he has blood on his hands . Clinton bombed Afghansistan with cruise misiles killing many innocent women and children and setting off that whole dammed war. Under American consistent foriegn policy as a neo colonialist superpower supported by both political parties Many countries have suffered in the past and will in the future in which many Americans and innocent civilians have lost thier lives and will continue to do so. Reich has forfieted his right to make any comments on this site . In my view i hold him in contempt and to take it further I would have him Clinton the entire Clinton cabinet with the incusion both Bush sr and junior and all the neo cons of Bush regime and the Obama regime tried for war crimes at the world court .
These useless and shameless politicains sold out to the corporates a long time ago and do the bidding of the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned the American people this would happen .. Now we are seeing his words ringing in our ears .Watch , listen and learn folks. And take the power you trusted to these demonic politicians back Before it is too late . Listen to the one honest politician you have Bernie Sanders. A sad lone voice cyying in the wilderness .As for the regimes of Nixon, Reagan, The Bushes, The American people truly misled and betrayed by them all.
 
 
+8 # mwd870 2012-01-06 05:16
"Mitt Romney's speaks derisively of what he terms the Democrats' "entitlement" society in contrast to his "opportunity" society."

What does Mitt Romney think "opportunity" will be for Americans if he is elected? Would that be the opportunity to work at minimum wage in an unfulfilling service job? While there are talented, imaginative, and productive people in our country right now, there are also many in desperate circumstances or hurt by the blatant excesses of the financial industry. Helping them makes the country stronger. Public institutions make our country greater.

Buddy Romer is on television right now, speaking like a convert to Occupy ideals. He's a Republican who found out what happens when you try to play by the rules. Newt experienced the negative consequences of the brave new superpacs supposedly not coordinated by the candidates, but he is not a man of principle like Romer seems to be.

The words of the Republican candidates are empty. "The Decline of the Public Good" is a good title for this article.
 
 
+8 # mwd870 2012-01-06 06:23
I wanted to follow up with the comment above by fredboy:

"The most pressing question is whether the concept of good -- goodness -- will continue to be cherished and celebrated. It is the foundation of a sharing, progressive society."

The concept of "good" is subjective to a point (just ask Mitt Romney), but this country should be a sharing, progressive society; with the "public good" the defining principle of our government. No coincidence this sounds like the goals of the Occupy Movement.
 
 
+1 # Jacquestea 2012-01-08 09:35
I am reminded of again of the idea of having to live together as "brothers" i.e. family or dying as "fools". I always wonder how desparate we must be to become willing to embrace the warmth and hope of community. It does seem easier for the swan to become a dog than for a dog to become a swan. Is religion a "dull habit"?
 
 
-13 # Dr Binky 2012-01-06 12:19
Speaking of public good, social benefit budgets of state and local governments are being devoured by public employee union benefits. Union pensions are left untouched while Medi-caid budgets are slashed. Why do we have public employee unions? Unions were conceived to level the playing field between greed corporate owners looking to squeeze profit out of workers. Who are the greedy owners of public services? Isn't it we the people? And where is the profit motive of government services?
 
 
+4 # jimyoung 2012-01-07 21:50
Its a mutual benefit motive, but some would never understand that. Ben Franklin became one of the richest men in America but he did a lot of it while starting useful mutual benefit associations that didn't direct profits to those in it just for the money. The pooling of resources made it beneficial to many more than just the original "investors", it grew the real productivity of all who could expand with the help of the infrastructure, most often making even the original investors far wealthier in an expanding network of opportunity for a higher percentage of those willing to work. The middle class I know are not the freeloaders you imply, the carelessly self-interested who want a disproportionat e portion of the rewards or gamblers that also want us to continue bailing them out are the real freeloaders.
 
 
+3 # CTPatriot 2012-01-09 02:20
So rather than lifting up the wages and benefits of all American workers to something that equals what we once considered middle class, your solution is to drag everyone else down into the gutter with you.

Most of those union workers fought hard for the middle class wages and pensions that they earn every day through their hard work.

The 1% hates unions because unions cause them to pay more in salary and taxes to others that they could instead be taking for themselves in bonuses and for their shareholders in profits.

And Republicans have done a masterful job of turning folks like you into tools of the 1%, helping to destroy what is left of the middle class while their paymasters laugh their butts off all the way to the bank.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.