It’s not Welfare, It’s Production Demand Subsidy

Like Dave Johnson and others have said, rich people don’t create jobs because they have surplus money; they create jobs because they see added demand for their goods or services. If they get more money, but demand is stagnant, why create more jobs? They’re not running a charity. They will be doing fine with the jobs already on the books!

Actually, government entitlement payments, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, help to create added demand for their goods and services. So do government insurance and annuity payments, like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits.

But Republicans hate the idea of entitlement payments and government insurance and annuities, because that means the government is giving money to people who are not producing. Even if the non-producers need it to survive, the thought galls them. At the same time, Republicans love the idea of the government giving money to subsidize producers. Even if the producers are don’t need it to survive, it is justified in the minds of Republicans. The subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness farms come to mind.

So here is a thought: maybe Republicans will accept Progressive programs if they are presented from the point of view of the producers of goods and services. We could say, for example:

Medicare and Medicaid = “Patient Provider Subsidies”
and
Food Stamps, Unemployment and Social Security = “Production Demand Subsidies”

Do you see the difference? The new phrase shows that the real concern is for the welfare of the providers, not the unproductive elderly, disabled, jobless and poor.

Ronald Reagan used this principle back in 1982. He was persuaded by advisors that the country’s roads and bridges needed government investment, and the best way to do that was by increasing the Federal gasoline tax. But he couldn’t simply say that he was imposing a “gas tax increase”. Politically [and perhaps psychologically], he had to call it a “user fee” increase.

So, let’s take that a step further. We could call taxes “Homeland Security insurance fees.” It’s certainly true that the government needs tax revenue to insure the security of country, in its broadest sense -- militarily, economically, socially, etc. And what happens in any system of insurance when you have more assets to insure? You pay more than those who have fewer assets to insure. Thus, your “HSI” fees will by rights increase as the value of your assets increase. And when the costs of insuring the security of the country go up, your “HSI” fees will also have to go up.

Republicans understand the power of wording. They use it all the time, in the service of producers. Maybe if we speak their language from their point of view, we can get some action out of this Congress.