Let’s end welfare as WE know it: let’s take a break from talking about welfare reform for the poor and get rid of welfare for the rich – Part I

Ryan Streeter

“Here’s an idea: let’s see if through the upcoming debates the GOP can become the party committed to ending welfare as WE know it – the 'we' being any of us who are not poor or lower-middle class. Let’s end welfare for everyone who isn’t poor before we take on the poor.”

The battle over Paul Ryan’s budget will involve quite a bit of class warfare-ish rhetoric from the Democrats. Fixing spending shortfalls by hiking taxes on the rich is their perennial staple. Fixing long-term structural deficits is no exception.

It’s important to rebut Democrats on this point, but not at the expense of ignoring a real problem in America: the affluent in America receive too much government assistance.

We need to be talking about this more, because it’s directly related to getting America’s fiscal house in order.

There are typically three approaches to the rich and government spending in the public debate:

• Tax the rich to raise more revenue (the Democrats’ default position)

• Defend lower taxes for the rich in the name of equity and growth (the Republicans’ default position)

• Eliminate the myriad ways that the rich benefit from the government, which would both reduce spending and raise revenue, depending on which things you focus on (the reformist view, decidedly a minority view)

We can expect President Obama and congressional Democrats to try to stick it to the rich as they all struggle to get off their heels and back in an upright position after the spending showdown.

Raising taxes on the rich won’t do what they want, of course. Regardless of how much fun it may be to hate the rich, taxing them won’t raise enough revenue. Besides, it would have deleterious effects on growth. And finally, as sympathetic as Americans may be with sticking it to the rich, a large share of voters – including large percentages of independents – won’t buy a “tax the rich” program that isn’t serious about spending cuts.

As much as all that may be true, we have to admit that we have a “rich problem” in America: there is too much welfare for affluent people in our country (Ross Douthat’s column yesterday hit nicely on this theme). Subsidizing the affluent is simply not right, and it should grate against any conservative’s sensibilities. Republicans would do themselves well on multiple fronts (substantive policy, good politics, reclaiming the mantel of the “party of ideas”) to move from their default position to the reformist position.

Paul Ryan’s budget includes provisions for continuing work-based welfare reform. These are good reforms, and they should be done. But Republicans should set them aside until they have taken on welfare for the upper middle class.

So here’s an idea: let’s see if through the upcoming debates the GOP can become the party committed to ending welfare as WE know it – the “we” being any of us who are not poor or lower-middle class. Let’s end welfare for everyone who isn’t poor before we take on the poor. Let’s get government back into the safety net business for the neediest citizens, not the broad social welfare business that includes too many affluent citizens. Let’s take a break from talking about the need for self-responsibility and self-sufficiency among low-income households and start expecting it of more affluent households.

We provide welfare for the affluent in three ways:

1. The government pays entitlement benefits such as Medicare and Social Security to wealthy people who have enough means to take care of themselves.
2. The tax code provides numerous deductions and exemptions that especially benefit the upper middle class.
3. The government providers real or implied subsidies to industries that primarily benefit the affluent.

I’ll take these three types of “welfare for the wealthy” one at a time over the next three days.