Cui Bono -- Public Policy vs Privatization
Cui Bono -- Who benefits?
Part political maxim, part contrarian canard.
The ACA... Who benefits?
People paying $5000 deductibles with hundreds of dollars per month for insurance? Perhaps.
Obama? I guess... I really don't see it, but OK. So what?
The Medical Industrial Complex? You betcha.
Social Security... Who Benefits?
The disabled, the orphaned, the widowed, the aged, anyone I've missed?
How about society as a whole? You know, kids get educated, adults don't have to care for geriatric parents, widowers can keep a roof over their heads and their kids in school.
What about the big pool of money? It goes to treasury bonds. No sexy, bleeding edge investment schemes, treasury bonds offered by America.
If we do the Cui Bono test on public policy, I think we'll find that there is a huge difference between the beneficiaries of public policy and those who benefit from privatization and public private partnerships.
I just found it interesting, how asking the "who benefits" question, and attempting to answer it honestly can lead to a completely different understanding of the issue at hand.
I think there are some Wingers out there who would be hard pressed to find a bogeyman or a bagman when it comes to sensible public policy.
Comments
Define
I just can't seem to find it.
What is it?
Where does it come from?
Is it possible?
Pardon me while I head to a remote place to try and comprehend.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
defined:
Defined: policy which makes common sense to, and benefits, the public. (Like our Essayist implied.)
Our Essayist provided some examples; for more, look to policies described in the USA as liberal between 1928 and 1980. Between them, these should give you a good idea of what to look for. Again, you're looking for policies which make sense to the general public as a whole, which almost always means policies which make sense to ordinary working people as individuals as well.
It comes from public officials who take their roles as public servants seriously.
Yes. Once upon a time in America, it was the norm, but no more. It's nearly impossible for a politician to survive doing his work this way, but there was a time when it was expected.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Putting People Before Profits
Because the well being of the citizenry is more vital to the commonweal than wildly excessive profits for a tiny few.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonweal
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Perfect. Fits on a t-shirt(I know I have one) and is easily
understood.
There needs to be something about honoring the earth & not using it for a free capitalist dump and a source of profits.
But: People Before Profits is the best three word explanation.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Clever Dig, But Quite Unhelpful, Even in Jest.
I thought Social Security was a good illustration of "sensible public policy".
I guess the definition would be public policy that, when examined with "Cui Bono" in mind, shows benefits to human beings instead of rentiers, select business entities, or political institutions.
And I don't mean to be hyper critical or flip in the headline to this comment.
It's just that Public Policy has been maligned for so long that having some of it be "sensible" is almost like some kind of CT. The institution of government has been defamed, quite completely, over the last 40 years or so.
This is a critical problem with social and political solutions that come from Left of center. They are dead on arrival because they are predicated upon public policy being "sensible", and that's just a bit too far for many to go.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Not a dig.
It was nothing against your premise.
Who are we, you and I, to decide what is or was sensible?
Social Security (1935) was a sensible policy. Just one of many that will never be repeated.
I'm sorry if you were offended by my belief that sensible , political, scientific, and above all else, my left of center ideas, are "dead on arrival".
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Walk Through the ACA and then Walk Through Social Security.
Who would say they are similar?
Who would say that the ACA is public policy, like Social Security, that inordinately -- no, exclusively benefits -- human beings?
With Social Security, your employer pays half. Could you imagine such a thing today?
Who are we, indeed.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The thing about employer paying
half of soc sec...your wages are lessened by that amount. You pay for all of soc sec.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
The other thing about employer paying half
The other thing about the employer paying half of Social Security taxes is: those of us who are self-employed (and there are a lot of us) are our own employers. The government requires that someone pay the employer's share of Social Security taxes, and as our own employer, that someone is us, the self-employed person.
In other words, we self-employed folks pay double the amount of Soc Sec tax that a W-2 employee does. My Soc Sec tax burden is usually much higher than what I pay in federal income tax.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I don't think it should be that way. One % payment and
defined benefits for all.
I think we all know where we can make up the difference: the Pentagon and Wall Street flash trading; plus lifting the artificial cap and, let's include all income from whatever sources.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Social Security is about as good and any communal effort
can be. It runs its basic program on a 1% overhead and is easy for the average citizen to deal with. The waste of the capitalists, advertising, excessive exec pay, planned obsolescence, etc, is avoided.
Uncle Whiskers basically asked "Who benefits?" and it was a good question to ask in the 19th century & is a good question to ask now.
Thanks for the timely diary.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Yes, but SS is subject to the same pressures.
My wife is filling for SS this fall. It used to be that the SSA mailed out an annual accounting of what you'd paid in and what your benefits would be under various scenarios. They quit doing that and now everything is down through Experian. They ask tons of questions online better suited to building their database than demonstrating you are the person with SS # XXX-YY-ZZZZ. If you don't fit the middle class paradigm, e.g. no land line, you'll find it impossible to complete, and therefore you can't get your data.
She had to go the SSA office to work it out, and they've cut the number of offices as part of this partial privatization.
This pattern is repeated across many government programs to the benefit of private profits while making qualifying for benefits more burdensome.
I'll reverse my comments back to the time when SSA mailed
out Your Statement of Benefits and had more offices - before Bush and Obama started treating citizens as "customers" and SSA as some sort of business.
Thanks for catching my errors.
(A person filing for supplemental benefits and disability has always had a difficult time with SSA and the Social Security administrative law judges. A lot deserved a tough time because they were trying to game the system, many did not.)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Well, I got one of those statements
but it did not account for the windfall provision which significantly diminishes the benefits for those of us who worked under a local government pension plan even though we had paid into social security enough quarters to qualify for social security benefits. It took a visit to the local social security office to get an exact amount that I would be entitled to receive. In my case, the experience with the person I talked to was extremely positive and I was grateful for his clear explanation despite the fact my social security benefit had been greatly diminished.
Social security is a life saver for those who have no other retirement options. It is still the best program out there for most people, especially since pensions are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I took the poster's word that the annual statement of benefits
was no longer mailed to each registrant in the Social Security System.
I have always had positive experiences with Social Security personnel and I like the fact that it's first come, first served with no reservations or appointments.
There is the rather odious "pension offset" provision which I don't like. If you get your 40 quarters, then you should get whatever everyone else gets. I am not sure about this: Perhaps people with only 40 quarters, or slightly more, get a larger pension than that number would entitle you to. I am trying to say, Maybe the first 40 quarters are stacked in favor of the registrant and the extra money is to help keep body and soul together. In that case, a federal employee with a federal pension, or a person who falls under the "windfall provision"(which I am not familiar with) should receive a little less.
I thought I knew what was going on with the SSA benefits, but it looks like I don't.
Any more information will be appreciated.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"