George Will vs. John Edwards

[Linette]

If you're a bleeding heart liberal, you'll love this article by James Kroeger on George Will's criticism of Senator John Edwards.

George Will vs. John Edwards

Recognizing that John Edwards has a decent chance of becoming the Democrats' nominee in 2008, conservative pundit George Will decided to use his March 5th Washington Post column to take an early swipe at Edward's campaign to help the nation's poor. His answer to Edwards? Poor people are poor because they bring it on themselves. In his column, he claimed that poverty results from "...individuals' nonmaterial deficits...from a scarcity of certain habits and mores -- punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification..." Yes, it's the old Personal Responsibility argument, one that Senator Edwards will need to respond to effectively if he is ever going to prevail against his Republican opposition.

One of the first things Edwards would acknowledge right up front to any of his critics is that Personal Responsibility is a factor that contributes to the poverty that some individuals experience. The key question is how much of a factor? The Republicans would have us believe that it is 98% of the problem. They encourage this belief because they really don't want to be bothered to do anything about poverty. Not if it might mean that they'd have to give up a few bucks to help someone else out. Supporters of John Edwards obviously feel differently about this.

It's impossible to go out and measure how much of a factor Personal Responsibility is in the current calculus of poverty, but there is something that Congress could do to eliminate competing possibilities. If Congress were to create and maintain a jobs environment where there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them, then you would see even people like me adding my voice to George Will's in chiding those who are (A) unemployed, (B) in need of income, and (C) able to perform productive work.

Poverty exists in America for one very fundamental reason: there are insufficient jobs available to eliminate it. You see, it takes more than just having `enough' jobs for everyone. In order to put upward market pressure on wages and benefits for poor people and improve their lives in significant ways, we need to create and maintain a true labor shortage. For the first time, the working poor would experience real economic security. (Maybe not job security, but at least income security. Jobs would still be lost, but new jobs would always be easy to find.)

When people are working for the income they are spending, they are actually doing something that benefits everyone else. This is because those who are not working do not stop consuming; they just aren't producing any of the stuff they consume. Somebody else is. As a society, we all become richer---in real terms---when all those who are idle become productive. If part of your productive output is no longer needed to provide for the basic consumption needs of the unemployed (because they are now producing for themselves), then that means more of your output becomes available for your own consumption. When/if we employ all those who are able-bodied and able-minded in real wealth producing activities, everyone else automatically gets a pay raise IN REAL TERMS.

It's a happy outcome that Congress could bring about by simply spending more on investments in our nation's infrastructure. You see, there is one economic truth above all others that we must never forget: all incomes (and therefore all jobs) in the economy are dependent on the SPENDING of others. When there is a recession, it is because aggregate spending (GDP) has dropped. Whenever an economy has recovered from a recession, it is because aggregate spending has increased. If Congress were to increase spending sufficiently, at some point all unemployment would be eliminated and an actual Labor Shortage would exist. That's when the poor would begin to receive all of the benefits that John Edwards would like to provide for them. (Worried about inflation? Read this.)

Create a sustained labor shortage in this country, George Will, and I will be more than happy to take a seat right next to you on the Personal Responsibility Bandwagon. Let's end the debate forever by embracing a grand social experiment. Instead of simply claiming that Personal Responsibility failures are the key to poverty, let's go ahead and give the poor an ideal labor market to work with and see what they do with it. If you're right, then you will be able to crow about how wise and prescient you were and all thoughtful bleeding heart Democrats will have no choice but to admit that you were right. You're not going to live forever, George. Why not be clever and let the bleeding hearts out there have all the rope they need to hang themselves? You do believe you're right, don't you?

Anyone ready for a grand social experiment? I certainly am!