Customer Reviews

Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I begin this review with the opening line of an article from this week's USA Today: "Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds. At the same time, government-provided benefits -- from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs -- rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010." Given this "trend" as USA Today calls it, Bill Voegeli's book couldn't be more timely, if not crucial. Voegeli is a conservative, to be sure. But he understands that just as liberals can no longer try to solve every societal and individual problem with a government program, conservatives cannot ignore some basic societal and individual problems by saying, simply, "we have a philosophy of limited government." Voegeli lays out in clear, accessible prose (backed-up by cogent use of data that the reader will not find mind numbing) how liberals have driven the government-spending juggernaut that now imperils the nation. Readers will come to understand both the underlying liberal theories and slights-of-hand and the financial data that demonstrate how we face a state that can no longer be financially sustained. He also guides conservatives to understand that with the New Deal and Great Society the American social contract between the individual and the state was inalterably changed: middle-class Americans, in particular, really do want programs like Social Security, Medicare, and government-backed student loans (and with the recent oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico, maybe even a more watchful Interior Dept. and EPA).

So given these seemingly irreconcilable differences -- a welfare state that cannot be financially sustained, but welfare state benefits Middle America won't give up -- where do we go from here? First, obviously, is to face the reality of the situation; become, as it were, a nation of Chris Christies. Then engage in a careful re-writing of the social contract. Voegeli makes some suggestions that are key to this endeavor: treating Social Security and Medicare as insurance plans for which beneficiaries would be means tested, for example. For liberals this will mean coming to grips with the astonishing ways in which they have so obligated this nation financially that we are, ironically, becoming a true "welfare state": turning to the world for more and more money we do not have to spend on ourselves. For conservatives, "it means," as Voegeli writes, "affirming that a decent society is obligated to prevent the small minority of citizens who are chronically unable to fend for themselves, and the larger minority occasionally and transitionally unable to do so, from leading miserable lives."

In the end, Voegeli is at his best when he challenges both sides to answer civilly two key questions. For liberals it is, precisely, what would be enough -- at what point has the government exhausted its ability to solve all the problems society and individuals face. And for conservatives it is what parts of the social contract that include the welfare state should be conserved because they are, now, like it or not, part of the success of the experiment in self-governance. We know now that the behemoth of government at all levels cannot be sustained. The question is what are we willing to give-up or re-negotiate to bring us back from the abyss?

Never Enough is both a keen, searching critique of the American welfare state and a fair, thoughtful assessment of modern liberalism. The title refers to what the author sees as liberalism's lack of a limiting principle: there is no ideal size to our ever-expanding welfare state, no goal trying to be achieved; just an ineffective, expensive, corrupt mess. Armed with clear prose and tables of data, William Voegeli makes a compelling case that the welfare state is not underfunded but that its funds are misallocated. Aiming for real political solutions and not ideological talking points, he urges conservatives to come to terms with the continued existence of a welfare state, and liberals to begin working toward one that is fundamentally smarter and more efficient, not only to avoid bankrupting the country but to best help those who need the help. A brilliant first book from an author from whom I hope to read more!

I love reading Bill Voegeli's writing. In fact, I do it for a living, as an editor for the Claremont Review of Books, where he has published wise and beautiful essays every quarter for the last couple of years. Some of these essays contained the seeds of thought and data and analysis that grew into this book--it was exciting to see it growing!

If you care about what Americans ask government, at every level, to do for us; what we should ask and what we have historically asked government to do for us; how much we pay for what we ask for; how much we ought to be willing to pay for it; who pays what and who gets what--if you care about how the next generation is going to afford to repay the debts of this generation--you will want to read this book.

And you will be reminded that it is possible to write about such complicated and grave matters not just with wisdom, but with grace.

Because the prior enthusiastic reviewers have gone into plenty of detail, I'll just make a suggestion on how to read this splendid book: Start with the brief concluding chapter, "What Do Progressives Want to Progress **To**, and What Do Conservatives Want to Conserve?", for orientation, then go back to the introduction and read straight through.

I didn't read it that way myself, but I make this suggestion to others because Chapters One and Two **are** pretty dry, being a LARGE assembly of data and commentary on the data. And I fear readers might bog down here, get discouraged, and not read into the "payoff" chapters, i.e. the rest of the book. (Those first two chapters absolutely belong in the book, but reading them was somewhat of a slog, at least for me.)

I do have one more-substantive remark to make: Voegeli is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, as is Charles Kesler, who also edits the Claremont Review. Kesler recently had a fairly long article, "The Stakes of Obamacare," in the Review ([...]). There is some good overlap in thinking between the two authors, so you might first read Kesler's article, freely available online, to see if it interests you, then buy Voegeli's book if the answer is "yes." In particular, Kesler's penultimate paragraph has a similar flavor to Voegeli's closing chapter:

"Obamacare inclines America in the long run to some combination of the following: the sullen acceptance of government-distributed scarcity, envy of people who have more than their fair share of health care, and growing alienation from a system that tries to play God but does so without wisdom, justice, or mercy. These toxic sentiments will be familiar to anyone who has lived under socialism, for they are its concomitants. When added to the caustic effects of dependency on government, they amount to a prescription for an American character increasingly unfit for self-government."

Length:: 7:12 Mins

Dr. Voegeli is far more fair with his subject than I could ever be. He analyzes persuasively the history and dysfunction that is the welfare state while also providing sound suggestions for conservatives on how to deal with it in the future.

No review is going to do this book justice, just buy it and read it. While it is a very serious work on the very serious issue of the ever more unaffordable and expanding US welfare state, it is ALSO highly readable and witty. It successfully covers the difficulties of the competing liberal and conservative world views, philosophical strengths an weaknesses in each, and what Voegeli sees as the political realities that affect the debate. The conclusion is that the best hope for heading off the impending (or already occurring) collapse brought on by the lack of limit in the liberal view, conservatives must cease trying to turn the clock back and focus on a discussion about "how much" rather than "we have already gone to far". It may well be true that we have already gone too far, but a discussion of what is an appropriate limit will engage the liberals in a discussion that rests on the weakest part of there position rather than the strongest, and be the best hope for finally getting to some level we have at least a prayer to afford and sustain.

This is a great book for further in forming yourself of what has transpired politically and economically in the recent past and to understand what is actually going on now,
particularly in contrast to the generally biased information offered by the collective media of today. Wm. Voegeli is master of his subject, writes with great clarity,depth
and where appropriate, a most engaging deft and delicate wry wit.

Voegeli is a conservative but not a strident one. He describes the balance, a see-saw, of ever-increasing demands for more benefits which must be balanced against revenue. He shows that benefit levels always rise, even under conservative administrations, which may only serve to restrain the rate of growth. Increasing benefits is hindered if taxes must be raised substantially, but there have been prosperous eras when taxes were not much increased. The book is especially valuable for its many tables. National Defense spending peaked at 37.5% of GDP in 1944-5, reflecting WWII, and reached 13.1% in 1954 (Korea) but was only 9.5% in 1968 at the height of the Vietnam war, and 4% in 2007 (Iraq, Afghanistan), thus, the author does not believe that recent wars have been a major impediment to improved benefits. Total federal spending as a percent of GDP increased from a wartime peak of almost 44% in 1944, settled into a fairly constant level afterwards, from 14% to 22%,and was 20% in 2007. Spending for human resources (other than veterans' programs) has risen steadily from 1-2% of GDP in the late '40's and early '50s to 12.3% in 2007.(Human resources = social security, federal employee retirement and disability, MediCare, health, education and training.) Persons proposing improved benefits often think that increased taxes on the rich can reasonably provide the needed resources. In constant dollars, all taxpayers have an improved income (both pre-tax and post-tax) when 2005 is compared to 1979, but the greatest gains are seen in the wealthiest. Raising taxes on the wealthy would provide some additional revenue but only the top 5% have pre-tax incomes exceeding the level ($200,000) now touted as middle-class by leading politicians, and only 1% have post-tax incomes exceeding that amount. Thus, the pool in which increased revenue might be sought isn't very broad. When looking at spending options, we need also to look at revenue options.

I became interested in this book after it was referenced in a local newspaper editorial. It takes a balanced look at the US welfare state, how it came to be and where it may be heading. It also examines the conservative and liberal points of view regarding the welfare state, and it makes some very interesting points about why this country can't seem to have a balanced rational political discussion about it. It definitely offers some thoughtful points, but it's a pretty dry "read."

Great book, everyone needs to read this. I consider myself middle of the road when it comes to polotics but this did open my eyes to a few tricks people use.