Could America become socialist?
That’s where some conservatives
believe the country would be headed under the Democrats. Sen. Bernie
Sanders has been leading a progressive movement that has gained
widespread support.
Conservatives, like columnist George F.
Will, warn of government displacing free market corporate
decision-makers in setting industrial policy.
Will’s concern does not match what
Sanders would want. Nobody proposes historic socialism with
government ownership or control of all production.
Americans believe in the free
enterprise system. Most would worry if the government made decisions
that should be freely made by individuals. So, what might socialism
mean in the U.S. with its long and firm tradition of individual
liberty?
Inevitably, it would involve a larger
role for government, paid for by taxes. But, instead of government
taking over businesses in line with historic socialism, the American
version would more likely enhance the public role in meeting the
basic needs of Americans. Here are some examples.
Social Security is becoming a national
retirement program, though that was not the original intention.
People do not save enough for their retirement, and many have no
access to an employer retirement plan. Many retirees must find ways
to live on Social Security and not much else.
If Social Security were converted into
a real national retirement plan, seniors would be helped and private
retirement plans could become an employer option, not a necessity.
Of course, tax support would have to increase, but employers would
save by not having to offer their own plans.
The private sector could be involved.
Today’s retirement plan operators might provide, through
competitive bid, investment services to the government.
Much the same would be the case for
health care. Right now, health insurance is costly, does not cover
tens of millions and the level of care is questionable as many people
are rushed through doctors’ appointments to keep up cash flow.
Government now pays many medical bills
though Medicare, Medicaid or the Veterans Administration. Because
the health care system largely involves the government paying
somebody else’s bills, there’s room for cheating.
To get around the weaknesses of the
current system, some advocate a single payer system where government
pays all the bills and is able to control costs and availability
through its market power. Doctors would not need to be government
employees, and people could still choose their doctors.
The Affordable Care Act was meant to be
a step toward government coverage for an increased number of people.
Though it has produced some benefits, socialists would say it is
half-hearted and thus bound to disappoint.
Recently, proposals have appeared for a
“universal basic income.” The government would ensure that
everybody received a modest income, providing protection as
technology eliminates jobs. Recipients would be expected to carry out
public service tasks and seek work, if physically able.
Similarly, Sanders and others advocate
a free college education for all to help workers keep up with
technological change.
Government would have a major economic
role in promoting growth during a recession by increasing its
purchases from private suppliers. Spending on public works can be
boosted, just as the Obama Administration did.
Stimulating the economy costs money and
that may mean an increase in the public debt. But that could be more
effective than boosting the debt by cutting taxes, in the hope that
tax savings will be converted into private sector investment and not
just more profits.
Everybody is affected by the
environment. Claiming it smacks of socialism, private sector
leaders, like the famous Koch brothers, fight any regulation, because
it reduces profits. Almost certainly, it does. But limiting
industrial activity, like burning coal and off-shore oil drilling,
can produce longer-term benefit.
Conservatives argue that bureaucrats
have too much power and can impose their own environmental views.
But that’s not their fault. Congress passes general mandates and
leaves too many details to the administrators. Congress needs to
legislate more clearly about its intent, leaving less discretion to
regulators.
All these aspects of a possible
American version of socialism clearly do involve an enlarged role for
government. Opponents argue that people ought to hold onto their
money and make their own decisions rather than funding government to
play a greater role in their lives.
Individual liberty is at the essence of
the American system. But that does not prevent people from agreeing
voluntarily to deal through government with common challenges.
Even watered down “socialism”
probably won’t prevail any time soon, but proposals for a greater
government role are now on the table. That should make for
interesting elections.