When the Tea Party movement was in the upswing,
comedic critics of the movement loved to point to the
wonderfully inconsistent command to “keep
your government hands off my Medicare.” While it
is easy enough to dismiss this remark as being
an aberration, it actually seems to represent a
relatively common ignorance regarding government
assistance.
Paul
Krugman notes that some of the people who are
very vocal in their opposition to government
assistance and who often support politicians who
promise to eliminate such assistance are
themselves recipients of that assistance. This is
based on the research of Suzanne
Mettler:
| Percentage of Program
Beneficiaries Who Report They “Have Not Used a
Government Social Program” |
| Program |
“No, Have Not Used a
Government Social Program” |
| 529 or Coverdell |
64.3 |
| Home Mortgage Interest Deduction |
60.0 |
| Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax
Credit |
59.6 |
| Student Loans |
53.3 |
| Child and Dependent Care Tax
Credit |
51.7 |
| Earned Income Tax Credit |
47.1 |
| Social Security—Retirement &
Survivors |
44.1 |
| Pell Grants |
43.1 |
| Unemployment Insurance |
43.0 |
| Veterans Benefits (other than
G.I. Bill) |
41.7 |
| G.I. Bill |
40.3 |
| Medicare |
39.8 |
| Head Start |
37.2 |
| Social Security Disability |
28.7 |
| Supplemental Security Income |
28.2 |
| Medicaid |
27.8 |
| Welfare/Public Assistance |
27.4 |
| Government Subsidized Housing |
27.4 |
| Food Stamps |
25.4 |
Since all of the above are government social
programs, 100% of the people using them have, in fact,
used government social programs.
In some cases, such as the tax deductions or tax
credits, people might believe that these are
not government social programs. After all, when most
people think of a government social program they think
of the government handing out food stamps, cheese,
health care or money. However, these programs are
government social programs. While people no doubt
think that they have earned the credit or deduction,
they are actually getting a financial benefit from the
government at the expense of the taxpayer. For
example, in the case of mortgage deductions this means
that the taxpayers are subsidizing the home owner’s
mortgage by allowing him or her to pay less taxes
because s/he owns a house. While this is not as
obviously a social program as getting food stamps, it
is essentially the same. Naturally, it can be seen as
a negative program (paying less) rather than a
positive program (getting something) but the results
are the same-either way, the person gains from a
government social program.
As noted above, people who are opposed to government
social programs seem to often be unaware that they
themselves are beneficiaries of such programs and they
are, as in the quote above, often inclined to want to
keep these programs. As Paul
Krugman contends, these folks can hold to
inconsistent views because they simply do not realize
that the programs they wish to keep benefiting from
are the programs that they also think they wish to
eliminate. That is, they are operating under a
delusion of self-reliance when they are, in fact,
benefiting from the very thing they profess to loath.
This creates an interesting epistemic and ethical
problem. That is, they do not know they are doing
wrong by their own principles.
To be fair, there are obviously people who are well
aware of that these programs are government social
programs and they oppose them. Perhaps some of these
people even refuse to avail themselves of such
programs and live in a manner consistent with the
principle that the state should not provide assistance
to people.
Even if there are not such people, the arguments
against such programs can still have merit. After all,
the mere fact that many (or some) people who are
against government social programs in principle also
use such programs does not prove that the arguments
against such programs are flawed. To think otherwise
would be to fall into a classic ad homimen fallacy (ad hominem tu quoque). They might,
in fact, be excellent arguments.
That said, the fact that people avail themselves of
these programs in seeming ignorance of their true
nature is rather interesting. It does suggest that at
least some of the people who are critical of said
programs are critical from ignorance and that perhaps
they would modify their views if they were aware that
they benefited from what they have been attacking. At
the very least informing these people would allow them
to act consistently with their principles by refusing
to avail themselves of such programs. They could
simply refuse to claim the deductions and credits,
mail back any checks they receive from the state, and
refuse to use Medicare. After all, while not
practicing what one preaches does not show that the
preaching is incorrect, one should (morally) follow
one’s own sermons or at least have the decency to
remain silent and thus avoid compounding one’s sin
with hypocrisy.
