Contrast this to the health care debate. There, the main point of any discussion on health care is how much the plan will cost and "how in the world will you pay for it?!?!" For one thing, it will be hard to pay for it if the government no longer has any revenue sources due to Bush's Folly. But why is universal health care seen as a cost,a dead-weight loss, rather than an investment in the American people. One of the reasons the American economy is so dynamic and powerful (even given the current slump) is the high productivity of our labor force. Growth in productivity is what allows high levels of growth without rampant inflation. WHen workers produce more in a given period of labor, management can pay higher wages without passing the higher labor costs on to the consumer in the form of higer prices. Workers are not going to be as productive as they could be if they don't have proper health care. Thus, we shuold view spending on health care as an investment, and not a dead-weight loss. Government exists to provide public goods that the market is unable to produce in needed quantity. At earlier stages of development, this meant building infrastructure like canals, railroads, and highways. These investments helped an agrarian nation become the leading industrial nation on the planet. In todays post-industrial economy, however, the role of government in providing public goods has changed. To stregthen and protect our comparative advantage on the world market, the government should be taking steps to improve education, increase productivity, and spur technological innovation. Providing health care to everyone would be investing in that project.
All policies have costs and benefits. I just think it's time that we focus on both sides for all things.
___________________________________________________________________________
Current Music: