tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post713103419637613443..comments2024-03-23T14:59:06.647-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: The Government Does Not Own 100% of EverythingThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-28797632756047291742011-10-27T17:24:33.421-04:002011-10-27T17:24:33.421-04:00Thanks for the comment, Richard.
I don't nec...Thanks for the comment, Richard. <br /><br />I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote. But I think a big problem that Mettler does not address is the one of perceptions. Mettler is arguing, from Pierson, that these "indirect" government programs are not properly understood as government programs because of a lack of transparency. In other words, people are ill-informed. She says this has "all sorts of implications for democratic citizenship", and is crafting an argument that this "submerged state" has been captured. <br /><br />In many areas I'm very sympathetic to this argument. And sometimes there is true ignorance, eg the famous Tea Party sign "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"*. But in the case of the GI Bill or the mortgage interest deduction, people may say that they aren't government programs because they do not have a redistributive component.<br /><br />This really does hinge on views of the world. Both major political parties (and many of the minor ones too) talk about government programs as redistributive policies. Practically no one except for a handful of American political scientists takes the view of distribution and government that Mettler is advancing. <br /><br />There's a reason for this: it goes against the liberal democratic tradition where government interventions are the things that need to be justified, not the absence of government intervention. That view is embedded in the founding documents of this country, and every other constitutional democracy that I'm aware of.<br /><br />As I said at the top, Mettler's view implies that any tax rate below 100% is a government-run social program. That conclusion does not capture the actual dynamics of politics, nor the way people think about politics. The default position in any issue area is "no government", and we bargain politically over how far we're going to stray from that.<br /><br />*Even this view is more coherent than most imagine. What the person was saying was "don't redistribute my health insurance benefits to others". Obviously Medicare is a government program, but petitioning the government not to interfere with it as currently constructed is not an absurd view.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-17201729866084947952011-10-27T10:46:08.329-04:002011-10-27T10:46:08.329-04:00I’m with Mettler, I think.
1. The government do...I’m with Mettler, I think. <br /><br />1. The government doesn’t own everything. But it does have a legal right and ability to tax 100% of everything if democratically elected representatives choose to do so. <br /><br />2. In the real world, government revenue is formed of two things: 1) where they get it from, 2) where they put it. It is not just 2) which is a social provision. 1) is also a social provision, because if people aren’t paying a tax then the money has to come from somewhere. <br /><br />So the potential social provision of government is not just about the benefit given by government, it’s also about the burden placed by it. That doesn’t imply the government owns everything – just that there are two sides to the governmental coin, and the choice of what makes up each side are politically motivated decisions about how the government should aim to benefit people, whether by adding to the benefits or lowering the burdens.<br /><br />I’m pretty sure that’s why richer people generally vote for lower taxes. They don’t (just?) want to stop money going to the poor – they want to stop it coming from them!Richard Bridgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00414084789682805981noreply@blogger.com