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)
The Decline of the Public Good
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.
|
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. |











Comments
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.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
our livelihood is at stake
Don't you mean: "Wall Street also needs to BE MADE TO stop.."?
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.
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.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN
our livelihood is at stake
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2012/01/president-appoints-richard-cordray-as.html
This phrase caught my eye.
From the tone of your post, I bet you don't mean he should slash the Pentagon budget!
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.
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.
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.
Corporatist Robert Reich need to relearn basic Economics 101
The funniest part is the one about "the monopolist" going to jail.
I also notice no mention of who owns the government.
"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/
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.
"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?
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.
Do you belong to a church basement league, pummeling cork-board targets?
That was an expertly hurled dart!
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)
Peter
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
RSS feed for comments to this post.