This fella, over at Random Jottings, thinks I’ve never heard of the Ownership Society. Well, I have. But I just don’t find the argument that “We’re giving away the $1.2 trillion store on the Medicare prescription drug benefit to get tiny health savings accounts” terribly persuasive.
Social Security reform would obviously be a little more substantial. But even then I’m not sure that giving people “ownership” of forced savings accounts is all that big a win for small government.
I admit this is miles away from a full engagement of the Ownership Society argument. I’ll return to it.
But it seems to me that the burden of proof here is on those who are advocating huge increases in the size of government as a trade for potential poison pills that will supposedly someday infect the body politic with an uncontrollable lust for “ownership.”
(The metaphors in that last sentence are terrible, but I’m far to preoccupied with other work this afternoon to go fussing with them.)
I will be interested if you return to the subject. My point (probably not expressed well) is not that the Ownership Society is a sure thing, but that people like you need to address it if you are going to criticize the Administration for over-spending.
Burden of proof? I can’t prove anything; the proof will only be whether it works. But it might be useful criticism if we were to establish some metrics. I would suggest for instance, that you could call HSA’s a failure if they remain a mere niche in the health care world. And a success, or trending that way, if they continue to grow in popularity, start to be offered to employees instead of insurance, and start changing people’s perceptions of how they pay for care.
It might be fair to say that Private Accounts will be a failure unless they grow due to popular demand, and unless they trend over time to something like the status of 401-K’s, which are de facto things you own, although de jure they are gifts of the government, and could be regulated out of existence.
Also, I’m not advocating huge spending increases as a usual trade–I think (hope) that that was what happened in the first few years of the administration, when it was almost impossible to get anything out of Congress without big concessions. Remember, when Bush was first elected, a lot of people thought he would be unable to accomplish ANYTHING, due to the disputed election and a closely divided Congress….
http://alex998.dynup.net/public-peeing/zub/canadian.html catchesthroughoutvelcro