Thoughts on the Election and Socialism

I am apprehensive about the United States' socialist experiment. I do not think in any way that President-elect Obama is incapable of leading our great nation. In fact, I think that he will do a great job at what he was elected to do. I am just worried about what he has been elected to do. A lot of Obama's policies and promised changes sound a lot like something called Socialism. I am not necessarily opposed to raising taxes, we all know that we need to manage our national debt. The social programs and government growth are what worry me. And it really shouldn't, considering I am pursuing a degree in public administration (government administration). The logic in that would be, the bigger the better! So, why do I have a problem with this? I have put together some quick, perhaps flawed thoughts on the matter.

1) "The American Dream is made possible by the freedom of our markets, and the freedom of our people."- Ben Wattenburg. When the government takes more out of your paycheck, they decide how it is spent, not you. Of course tax dollars will go towards services, but did you want those services in the first place? Will they be the quality of services that you would choose for yourself? Does the government have your best interests at heart? I believe they do. However, the more that you have to cater to, the lower the quality.

Example: On a set income (representing tax dollars allocated to different programs), you can provide food and commodities for your family. If you are making $200,000 a year in Utah, and have one or two kids, you can provide a lot more for them more often. Most likely they will have their own room, take piano lessons, and not wear hand-me-downs. But, if you are making $200,000 a year in Utah, and have 20 kids, the story changes. Your food budget goes from around $300-400 a month to $5,000. You no longer can eat out frequently, if at all. You may be reduced often to a Mac and Cheese or Raman Noodle diet. (I learned from a TLC show called "17 and Counting", which follows a family with 17 kids and one on the way how much food can cost to feed that many mouths. They are VERY conservative in their spending.) I think that this may be an extreme example, but you only have to look to our neighbor Canada for opinions on socialized health care. It takes months to get an appointment. In France, the government chooses a doctor for you. If you don't like them, tough luck? Wow.

I use an example from Chile, that has a somewhat socialized health care system, especially for the elderly and children. A friend who was in need for an operation was put on a waiting list that was around 6 months out. This surgery was serious, and needed. Luckily, there was an opening, and because of the severity of her ailment, she received the surgery sooner. I wonder how the opening occured, and if someone did not make it to their surgery. Another point of this argument is that the hospitals that offer the government subsidised health care are where students go to complete their medical school residency. And, there is not much research going on there as there is in university hospitals in the U.S.

When you stretch your dollar, you may get more, but the quality most likely will suffer. If we want greater quality, we will have to make and invest more money.

2) I had the opportunity to research socialist movements in Chile that occurred during the late 1960s. While the elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, had great ambitions and ideals, he failed to recognize that we as people are largely motivated by self-interest. That is why a free-market system works. You have the freedom to pursue what interests you, what makes you and your family comfortable. How did this become a problem in Chile? Well, self-interest came into play. Since it could not be expressed in terms of greater production to create wealth due to wages that were not necessarily contingent on productivity, it expressed itself through corruption in the government. This was great if you had connections. If not, you were out of luck.

Bigger government increases the probability for greater corruption in the government. There was an interesting economic study that is mentioned in the book, Freakonomics, that can be applied to this argument. To make a long story short, there was a guy who decided to sell bagels on an honor system. He would drop off bagels, along with a box for payment, to different offices. Those who took usually paid for their bagels. But, the interesting part of this study is that there was a significant difference between bagel theft in large and small offices. In small offices, bagel theft was virtually non-existent. But, in larger offices, large populated corporate offices, bagel-napping occurred often, even to the extreme of taking money from the payment boxes. Why? More people = less accountability because people are less likely to be caught. It's harder to find a bagel-napper in a group of 1,000 than it is in a group of 50, or even 100.

We have seen this in large governments. I list a few governments that have had too much power that are fairly notable: Cuba (Castro), Spain (Franco), Chile (Allende and Pinochet), Venezuela (Chavez), Bolivia (Morales), Germany (Hitler), and countless other Latin American caudillos in Mexico, Argentina, Nicaragua, and on and on...

3) I don't like the idea of free handouts. I believe in hard work. I believe that our country is based on this principle. I believe that good men and women fought and died for this value, the value of the American Dream.

In conclusion, I am concerned that we as Americans do not fully understand socialism, or socialist principles. We do not see how incongruous those principles are with those of the American system or identity. There is a reason we stand out as a nation from the rest of the world. We are not Europe, we are not Russia, we are not Latin America, nor are we the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. I believe American values are good, and have been successful. I am confident that with or despite change, the American people will continue to be productive. And, although apprehensive, I will continue to be confident in the American system.