Yes, Reich has flunked political economy 101. He has been seduced by the
delusion of "choice" when we already have much evidence how the notion of
choice plays out among poor people. Residents of the inner city use welfare
dollars to obtain housing, and get slums; they have medicaid, and uniformly
poorer indices of health; and they have a choice of banks, or at least those
banks who have not left for more profitable climes elsewhere. If the
vouchers is small, it will fail to make a difference; if it is bigger, as
Reich suggests, it will be even more vulnerable to hijacking by private
interests. Either way, a few additional government dollars cannot compensate
for a much broader social inequity.
Joel Blau
Peter Dorman wrote:
> My sense of Reich is that he is genuinely egalitarian and regrets that
> markets generate inequality, but other than that he likes how markets
> operate and, in particular, believes them to be creative and efficient.
> So the position he stakes out in the WSJ is not surprising. I agree
> with Michael and Jim, however, that he is too clever by half, if not a
> lot more: if we can't get the progressive funding for education we need
> in a public system, how are we going to get it when the privatizers take
> over and implement their vouchers? Maybe Reich thinks he can cut some
> kind of deal -- progressive financing for privatization -- but if so he
> has really flunked political economy 101.
>
> Peter
