POLITICIANS AGAINST WELFARE
PAUL KRUGMAN | NYT NEWS SERVICE
MODERN Republicans are very, very conservative; you might even (if you were Mitt Romney) say, severely conservative.
Political scientists who use Congressional votes to measure such things find that the current GOP majority is the most conservative since 1879, which is as far back as their estimates go.
And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programmes. Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on “the narcotic of dependency.” Romney warns that government programmes “foster passivity and sloth.” Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires that staffers read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in which heroic capitalists struggle against the “moochers” trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.
Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article, that the regions of America most hooked on Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programmes account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives.
Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts? The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison.
Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.
Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programmes. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programmes and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programmes such as Medicaid.
By the way, the same logic explains why there has been a jump in dependency since 2008.
Contrary to what Santorum and Romney suggest, Obama has not radically expanded the safety net.
Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits.
Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.
But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.
First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: workingclass Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the GOP’s exploitation of social issues.
And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.
Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: Highincome residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; highincome residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer neighbours.
Like Frank, Gelman invokes social issues, but in the opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like the GOP’s war on contraception.
Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programmes seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government programme.” Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage.
For example, when Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.
The truth, of course, is that the vast bulk of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, the disabled, and working families, so any significant cuts would have to fall largely on people who believe that they don’t use any government programme.
The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda.