Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!ora!daemon
From: kay@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Kay Wienhold)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: (Sharing the costs of) Child making and rearing
Message-ID: <1990Aug16.163231.3503@ora.com>
Date: 16 Aug 90 16:32:31 GMT
References: <KFLETCHE.90Aug1204607@sun222.nas.nasa.gov> <10848@cs.utexas.edu> <3047@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <11145@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Lines: 52
Approved: ambar@ora.com

Russell Turpin writes:
>There is a more important point here.  One cannot justify a program
>by appealing to benefits that are secondary to both its goal and the
>effort put forth.  For example, social security cannot be justified
>as welfare for the aged poor, because social security benefits are
>not means tested and in point of fact, most people over sixty-five
>are not poor.  If one's only objection to ending social security is
>that a part of its effect is to help the aged poor, then one does NOT
>have an argument for continuing social security.  Instead, one has an
>argument for *replacing* social security with a welfare program aimed
>at the aged poor.

>It is possible to structure programs that benefit poor children
>without subsidizing parenting in general.  Government programs that
>subsidize parenting in *general* create a political opposition of
>interests between parents and non-parents.  It is these programs that
>are at issue.

There was quite an interesting article in "The American Prospect"
(Summer 1990 edition), which addressed the idea that the best social
"welfare" programs are precisely those that are *not* targeted at the
poor underclass, but rather those in which everyone participates.  It
brought up a number of points.

First, it pointed out that such broad-based programs as social
security are successful because there is no stigma attached to them
(because everyone participates), and because so large a segment of the
population benefits, there is virtually no opposition to it.  This is
in contrast with such targeted programs as welfare, which serve a much
smaller proportion of the population, which do stigmatize, and which
do have a substantial political opposition.

It also discussed the idea that social security is not seen as
"welfare" per se, but rather as something which is *earned*.  This
also deflects stigma from being attached to the program.

Lastly, it discussed the potential benefits that may accrue with
having programs in which people of different classes participate.
This section was a bit weak, but I think the vision of a society in
which class is *less* of a factor in deciding opportunities and
benefits is worthwhile.

(Actually, the article discussed quite a bit more, including an
argument for a national medical program, anchored in these ideas.  In
any case, I think I hit most of the high points.)

Note that I'm not saying that this is what society *should* be, but
rather that it seems to be the reality of political human nature.  If
we hope to get anything done, we'd best reckon with reality.

				~Kay
				(kay@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu)