Lessons of an Ownership Society
By Lester Kenyatta Spence, AOL BlackVoices columnist
One of Bush's central themes during the past election revolved around the idea of making America an "ownership society." A society of owners, Bush argued, would make citizens less reliant on government, more entrepreneurial, more resilient, and better able to build a legacy of wealth that could be handed down to future generations. Among the policies that Bush touted as part of this drive were his various tax cuts and the most recent effort to radically change Social Security.
However, at the same time as he touts an ownership society, Bush has made it much harder for people to actually become owners. With the bankruptcy laws recently passed by Congress, it is now more difficult for people beset by medical difficulties to get from under the burden of debt. Bush also considered cutting the Pell Grant program, which in its heyday cut the economic costs of college almost in half by providing middle- and working-class kids grants that they did not have to repay after graduation.
The Bush budget not only suggests stark cuts in social services to urban constituencies, but also cuts in unemployment benefits, housing assistance, and cuts to his own working-class supporters. His proposed cuts in farming subsidies will literally bankrupt thousands of small farmers.
One of my readers noted that he agreed with these cuts, starting with Pell Grants. The reader was glad Bush was cutting the grants because he felt that kids should work like he did for their schooling. He had worked four or five jobs for years just to make ends meet. The path he followed is one that he felt best prepared him to handle life's hurdles, and to the degree that it is possible, he believes that others should follow in his footsteps.
There is no doubt in my mind that for this reader, Bush's idea of an ownership society fueled by tax cuts and the reduction of government services for the poor will both drive innovation and give the poor the kick in the butt they need to actually take control of their lives.
For some individuals he is probably right.
But there is a deep hypocrisy in thinking on the one hand that the poor should fend for themselves, that hard work is redemptive, and on the other hand thinking that wealth should be handed down to children who do not have to work for it. There is a deep hypocrisy in thinking that middle-class families dealing with medical issues should have to pay all of their debts, while lauding government bailouts of corporations. There is a deep hypocrisy in calling for soldiers to fight our wars then cut their benefits when they return. There is something deeply hypocritical about saying that we want to build a society of owners, but also saying that we as a society have absolutely no responsibility to aid students whose only way out of poverty is through a college education.
If the poor need a kick in the butt to take control of their lives, shouldn't trust-fund kids need the same kick?
It is time that African Americans -- and those dedicated to the promotion of a humane society -- should indeed promote ownership. But instead of a society where the only people who get a chance to be owners are people who were either born into it or got there through the lottery, we should make a path for those who weren't.
And instead of forcing poor kids to work through college (like the reader…and myself), we should instead be paying their way. This is the kind of ownership society worth fighting for.
About the Author
Lester K. Spence is a 2004 Kellogg Scholar in Health Disparities and will be spending the next two years in residence at Morgan State University while on leave from Washington University in Saint Louis. He blogs at visioncircle.org. The views expressed by this author do not represent beliefs held by AOL BlackVoices or AOL, Inc.