[WS:] I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It is the other way around - limiting social benefits to often unpopular minorities by idiotic "means testing" requirements ascertains little general public support for social programs in general. In countries where social programs provide universal benefits - they enjoy huge popularity. The only social program in the US that provides universal benefits - Social Security - enjoys wide public support as well.
The reasons of the shortage of universal social programs in the US is a complex issue that cannot be reduced simplistic soundbites like "capitalism," as most capitalist countries have universal social programs - US seems to be an exception. One of the key reasons why it is the case is the historically peculiar nature of the political party system in the US. The essence of that system is dispensation of political patronage to party supporters and sponsors (aka "political machine.").
The existence of programs that offer universal benefits to both supporters and non-supporters of a particular party undermines the ability of both political parties to dispense patronage. Therefore both political parties make sure that social programs and government spending in general are tied to support for a particular party as much as possible, instead of being provided on a statutory basis (i.e. being provided universally rather than being tied to a particular party gaining power.) That explains why Democrats ruled out the public option in their health care "reform" even when they had the votes to pass it.
I am reasonably sure that the main reason of widely spread public opposition to social programs in the US is that these programs take the form of political patronage to supporters of particular political parties. If these programs were universal, the public opposition would largely disappear. However, the only hope for an expansion of universal social programs in the US is breaking the backbone of the political party system. Voting Democrat (or Republican) in the hope of gaining some benefits for this or that group of constituents will only reinforce the existing patronage system.
Wojtek
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > not that you are saying this but the concern about the tax burden on
> > the middle class - I don't get it. I'm making a decent living now. I
> > don't feel taxed hard at all. I was thinking about this earlier today
> > or yesterday, how these people I work with bitch about taxes. And when
> > I look at my income, how much fucking disposable income I have
> > compared to when I made a fraction of what I now make, I just get
> > pissed off at the fucking sheltered idiocy of these people.
>
> From Paul Krugman´s book "Fuzzy Math: a Guide to George Bush´s Tax Plan"
> (y2000)
>
> ============
> FIGHT THE FUTURE
>
> One of the reasons conservatives want tax cuts is, of course, that
> they believe that lower taxes will lead to economic growth. But the
> conservative case for tax cuts goes deeper; it rests on political
> economy as well as simple economics.
>
> A defining feature of the conservative agenda is the desire for
> "smaller government". Conservatives would like to see Lyndon Johnson's
> Great Society and maybe even Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal rolled
> back, and certainly would not like to see the United States become
> more of a welfare state, to become more like Sweden or Canada.
>
> One way to promote smaller governments is directly: you oppose
> proposals for new social programs and try to cut existing programs.
> But you can also work toward that goal indirectly, by making sure that
> future politicians find it hard to pay for social programs".(...) "So,
> an important reason why conservatives want to cut taxes is that they
> want to keep the federal government hungry; they don't want money
> readily available to finance new programs, or even to maintain old
> ones. And some conservatives are playing an even deeper game: they
> believe that they can create a self-reinforcing cycle of government
> downsizing."
>
> "Maybe the easiest way to understand this idea is to look at the
> contrast between politics in Canada and in the United States. Canada's
> government is much larger compared to the size of its economy compared
> to the United States: in 1997 government at all levels spent 42
> percent of GDP in Canada and 32 percent in the United States. This
> means that taxes in Canada are considerably higher, and social
> programs are considerably more generous. Yet in the United States
> voters and politicians routinely complain about "Big Government" while
> in Canada they don't. In terms of politics, Canada is far more
> "Europe" than the United States.
>
> Why is the political landscape south of the border so different? One
> answer has to be the great American distinction: race. Let's say it
> bluntly: in the United States the beneficiaries of social programs
> tend to be of a different color than the beneficiaries of tax cuts.
>
> ============================================================
>
> FC
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>