Tuesday, May 19, 2015

A More Positive Take on Givers and Takers

Candidate Romney and Republicans were rightfully castigated for inelegantly dividing us into givers (who pay most of the taxes) and takers (who receive entitlements).  Thus this terminology is tainted much like PBR is no longer considered a luxury good. Even if there might have been a valid point made with these unfortunate words, the truth is that both sides of the political spectrum have used them to recruit and to divide us.

So let’s start over. I want to give a fresh interpretation to givers and takers and I want to prove to you that these words need not divide us. In truth, I think if  you read on you might see that these same words can bring us together in important ways. Okay I am pretty optimistic and am making a huge claim. But given our present state of discord, what can we lose? Despite all we give and have given, we still have shameless ghettos, too many homeless people, growing addictions and too many children growing up with single parents amid violence. As a young man in the 1960s I never would have believed that we could give so much money in the next half-century and still not make better headway against social and economic problems.  

I want to start this discussion with the givers. Since I make a lot of typos, let’s simplify and called them Gs. Americans are Gs. So are people from other countries but the tradition of giving is prevalent in American culture. Think of all the things we give every day. We give money and we give our time. We serve on boards and committees of local not-for-profits and we attend Habitat for Humanity building parties. We give to the the local Boys and Girls Club and Stonebelt. We give time and money to local food banks and often contribute to national charities like United Way and the Wounded Warriors Project. We support NPR and many local radio stations like KEXP in Seattle. Of course we also pay taxes to local, state, and federal governments to support many programs. Clearly we give and we usually give generously. People of most ideologies and parties give. Giving unites us. We might have our favorite or least favorite charities and programs but the point is that we are a people that gives. 

The Giving USA Foundation estimated that Americans gave $335 billion to charities in 2013. About two-thirds of that was given by individuals. Another $5 trillion is paid into local, state, and federal government taxes each year. 

Why do we give so much? There are many reasons we give. We give to the government to stay out of jail. Some give to gain tax advantages. We give to impress our neighbors and colleagues. We give because we believe it is the right thing to do. Most religions teach that we feel better and are better persons when we are charitable. Christians teach that God gave up his only son to save us. This makes me wonder why God only had one son and no daughters, but let’s save that for another post.  The Golden Rule says to treat others as we would have them treat us. Maybe there are other reasons we give but I have gone to few spiritual meetings where the main idea is that personal salvation and enlightenment come from selfishness at the expense of others.

Okay so we give and we give a lot. To satisfy this strong need to give is to need someone to take. If we want to be a G then there had better be some takers or Ts. So we can’t divide on this score. In advanced mathematics we would say G=T. This says that having Ts is a good! It is not a bad.  If a G is good then a T is good.

Some of you are biting your finger nails all the way down to your toes. But I am getting there so gulp down a little more JD and be patient. Order some Nachos La Torre if you think that will help.

So G is good and T is good. Here is the next thing that unifies us. We don’t want our hard-earned money wasted. Okay – Charles is rich enough that he wastes a lot of money, but Charles is special. If most of us give we want to see it have impact. We want it to help. If we give $100 to a charity and we find out that $99 of it went to pay an administrator and only $1 went to a poor person,  we probably would quit giving money to that charity. Or if that charity was not careful in using our money so that it didn’t really help anyone, we wouldn’t be happy with that one either. Republicans and Democrats do not disagree about this point either. We want our giving to go to Ts and to have full impact on them.

Amazing. Nothing to disagree about so far. To have Gs we have to have Ts. We want our money to be effective and not  wasted.

So what is the problem? I think the problem starts with the Gs. The problem is that we not only like to give but we are busy people. We are also trusting people. When I give money to one or to many government or non-governmental organizations I don’t have the information or the time to make sure my money and your money is used well. I simply trust that if someone works for one of these organizations, they are going to be capable, and competent and caring and honest. I don’t  have time to check it all out. Sometimes it takes years or more before we find out that some part of government or some local charity is not getting the job done. 

The problem or the challenge is that making sure our money is well spent is haphazard.  Sure there are plenty of people discovering inefficiencies and corruption in the system of giving and taking – but these audits are not an objective, consistent, and effective enterprise. Companies evaluate employees. S&P evaluates the financial strength of companies. Agencies watch over pharmaceutical companies to make sure drugs are safe. Teachers are evaluated by students and principals. We have a society wherein many activities are continuously and consistently monitored and evaluated. But we have few trusted institutions for private and public giving and taking.

So what happens in the absence of this monitoring of giving and taking? What happens is that we either do it randomly or we let politicians do it for us. And those politicians sometimes use a lack of transparency as a way to empower themselves. Party X tells you that the programs of Party Y are bad. Party Y tells you that the programs of Party X are bad. And then the media have a ball with all that. The Republicans are mean people who hate the poor and want to kill poverty programs. Democrats are silly people who think rich people and corporations are evil and need to pay much more in taxes. Come on. Really?

So what’s the point? What can we do? First, quit talking about Gs and Ts. Second, let’s get more serious about evaluating how all this G is used. Is it not possible to have a bipartisan or an otherwise objective approach to evaluate government programs? In  today’s political arena, we get the opposite of this sensible approach. What we get is defensive, debilitating allegations and behaviors. Why can't Democrats be the ones who lead honest evaluations of the effectiveness of poverty and other entitlement programs? Or should they continue to yell and scream when Republicans dare to limit growth in spending on a specific entitlement? Why can't Republicans lead the way in pointing out corruption or waste in their favorite programs? Or do they mostly relish a fight to the finish to always get more money for their programs regardless of their impacts?

So there we are. We need takers. Regardless of party or ideology, we also need our money to be well spent. But we have a system that either avoids the right data or purposely distorts it. We let politicians hide the truth and exploit our ignorance for ideological or party ends.   The solution to the problem is simple. If everyone else has to expose their activities to oversight and objective evaluation, then why can’t government programs be subject to real and frequent business audits? Gs would be happier because they would believe their money is being better spent. And Ts would benefit from the reduction in waste and corruption. 

This is a task that unifies us and puts politicians on notice that we won’t be conned. It isn’t really about Gs versus Ts or Rs versus Ds. This is all about the public having proper oversight over representatives who have infinite capability to raise tax giving through our tax system. 


9 comments:

  1. The only argument I have is that technically we don't "give" to the government. It takes. If we somehow circumvent the monumental tax code and find a way out, the chances are that the government will take even more and then give us free stuff while we rot in some cushy federal pen. We have a lovely one here in Atlanta. As far as the Ts go, read Dr. Sowell's piece today. He says it so well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sowell says it well to conservatives. My post today is to worry that the Sowell approach is taken by many as an accusatory tone. Centrists may be put off by that approach. It seems to me that no one wants to see their money wasted. It seems to me that there are more people, for example, ready to conclude that poverty programs have not worked and that someone ought to figure out why. A non-accusatory approach could be more appealing to those sitting on the fence.And conservatives would be happy because finally someone is taking a hard look a waste or misdirection in government.

      Delete
  2. Yes there should be oversight on goal attainment regardless if it is public or private funds. But there is not. What to do?

    In my community there is a strong movement to create a working village for the homeless. It would include houses,, job training, counseling, and support. All homeless would be screened to remove the mentally ill and criminals. These would be sent to other institutions. The objective is turn back into society people who can work and manage their lives. Lots of giving and the whole community is behind it. Reports will be published on annual objectives and results from the previous years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your community has it right. Somehow local programs seem to have more success than federal programs. I'd like to see our next leaders in 2017 say that they are postponing elections for two years. No one will be able to campaign or they would face jail time. In those two years Washington would evaluate programs with an eye toward reestablishing goals, eliminating waste, and evaluating progress. All legislators would be required to be in Washington working in committees for a total of 102 weeks in those two years. Would that be cool or what?

      Delete
  3. Lar, if you have more of that stuff you're on, please pass some to me. Sorry, but I've worked in the big government. Nobody there is going to do anything to jeopardize his/her position no matter what they say publiclly. Perhaps we should regret that Flight 77 didn't hit the Capitol Building. It may take that extreme approach to restructure Washington DC inside the Beltway. If you're listening, NSA, that was just an observation and not a threat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuzz, Always JD. You are invited to share. I usually think of myself as a pragmatist. I remember when Carter was President, we couldn't imagine a Reagan. It seems to me there can come a time when people force the change through voting. It seems impossible now. But now I think there are plenty of centrists who hate what is happening with poverty and trains and other stuff... and they don't all blame whites or rich people for the problems. People see now that the issues are complex and may need much better solutions. Not just throwing more money! I hope we live long enough...

      Delete
    2. There is a move afoot requiring 35 states, I believe, to call a constitutional convention to address such problems. At least 15 states have signed on, again, I believe. The problem is that human beings will be involved, and I don't trust any of them.

      Delete
  4. Dear LSD. A more efficient (the ratio of inputs to outputs) and effective (attainment of goals/objectives) govomit is desirable and many tout that sentiment. But its attainment is as impossible as finding the fountain of youth or developing the perpetual motion machine. Senator Tom Coburn (retiring OK) is known for his exposure of govomit waste/programs totaling in the tens of billions. Any progress on taking action to reduce/eliminate that? Nada, nope, nada. Why?

    Because it’s not in the interest of imbedded pols to shed bright sunlight on their fav programs by which they exact power, prestige, and incumbency. It IS a D and R matter in the sense that Ds favor big and growing govomit while Rs espouse smaller more efficient/effective govomit. But, wink/wink we know both Ds/Rs are guilty of exacting power, prestige, and incumbency; but I think we also know/believe Ds are more guilty.

    While voters are the determinant of deciding the proportion of Ds and Rs going to DC and therefore the longevity and amount of programs, I think govomit largess, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness will continue in perpetuity. Why, you ask? Because I think most voters are under-informed and politically apathetic to the extent they benefit from govomit largess, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. They enjoy the candyman’s goodies and won’t vote out the pols that replenish their candy pipelines. Further, to the extent about half of earners (voters?) don’t pay any federal income tax they really don’t have an incentive to reduce govomit largess, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. So, what we have in effect is the perpetual inefficient/ineffective govomit machine. Long live the Gs (incumbent pols) and Ts (the non-tax-paying candy eaters). It is the quintessential mutual admiration relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good stuff Tuna. But you miss one point. You don't have to be a genius to experience failing government programs. Just like none of us could have imagined a Reagan in 1977 or the Berlin Wall falling when it did, there is the ever so small chance that failures in programs will become a political force. I think both liberals and conservatives hate failed social policies. I think the recent Amtrak wreck is bringing out that government failed. It ain't about the money -- it is how you use the money! What about Veterans? The List goes on and on. Traditional ideologies will try to keep the political status quo. But maybe another "Reagan" will come along who strikes the voters fancy? I don't know but at least it keeps me off the streets writing these replies....

      Delete