Perhaps no one cares about this. But I'll give it the good try anyhow.
I've been reading the various responses to the diaries that write about the foreclosure remedies being discussed by the White House. The key proposal is that the government will buy up mortgages in distress from banks at a discounted price and renegotiate the mortgages with the homeowners -- allowing them to refinance at the discounted value paid by the government. One oft repeated reader response takes the form of "what about me?" The writers say that they can afford their mortgages and aren't in danger of foreclosure but would dearly love to pay on reduced principle themselves. They express feelings that those who might gain by the foreclosure payoff plan will gain at their personal loss. They express dissatisfaction with the concept of the program and a desire that it not come to be.
This attitude, of disliking benefits because one is on the other side of the cut off point of those who will receive said benefits could be called the Progressives Dilemma. It is also the reason why a lot of former liberals are now conservatives
I've heard similar complaints about financial aid for college, for Food Stamps, for Medicaid, for Welfare, and just about every other social program that ever supported those in need. There are always the not quite as poor who feel they would like help too but don't qualify because they work a little harder, manage their money better, decide to limit the size of their families, not spend more than they earn, and otherwise put in the difficult effort to behave in a responsible manner. In order to live within their means, they give up so much that would make their lives easier and more comfortable. They believe, in so many cases rightly, that those people who will be receiving help have enjoyed the fruits of wild spending and now are getting aid while those who lived less comfortably are getting nothing. They feel they have been penalized for their good behavior while people acting irresponsibly get government aid, leaving the better managing people to struggle on their own.
I don't think there is an easy answer to this. It would be good if everyone who paid too much for their homes bought during the time of the housing bubble got a reduction on the money they had to pay back. Maybe everyone should get scholarships for college, no matter how well they can or can't afford it. I think the chance at present of coming up with the money to do this is about zilch. The one thing I fear is that if giving help to those who need it is contingent upon giving help to all who want it and deserve it, no one is going to get help. If you believe in stopping all the social safety net programs to support those in need, due to the problems inherent in aid programs, you have to give up your credentials as a liberal.
I do think that this resentment against those who receive help by those who could use help but don't qualify is part of the Republican strategy of divide and conquer. They have always exploited the feelings of resentment of those on the wrong side of the cusp of qualifying for government aid. And while people are busy being angry at "welfare queens" the GOP reduces jobs, fights unions, does everything imaginable to lower salaries for the working class including a minimum wage that even with recent raises falls far short of being a living wage. The ruling class each take home annual income that would support hundreds if not thousands of working class people in comfort. They put the burden of supporting the government -- our military, our roads and bridges, our schools, etc. -- disproportionately on the middle class. The middle class has been becoming an endangered species due to the vast transfer of wealth to the richest among us that has taken place since Reagan. We've certainly seen ever so many good paying jobs shipped abroad and the jobs that replace them not paying a decent wage or benefits. We need better wages not better welfare but until we manage those better wages, something has to stop the economy from descending into a whirlpool and keep so many people from losing everything they've worked all their lives to gain.
I also believe, that for all the faults of an imperfect safety net, that these programs do a tremendous amount to help stabilize our economy.
A wee bit of history: Many of the New Deal programs were instituted to do just that and they have worked very well over the years. Certainly our Social Security System and the GI Bill to increase the educational level of a large portion of the population were designed to do just that. Regulations that came into being following the Great Depression to limit leverage on stock transactions, require banks to loan a certain amount of their funds for home loans, and meet certain requirements of fiscal responsibility helped stabilize the economy and also stopped the many bank failures common prior to FDR's time.
Reagan came in with a desire to undo the New Deal, and started with the bank regulations. Under his administration anti-trust regulations and limits on margin securities deals were badly eroded. Government since has whittled away at these regulations and programs so successfully that they have us in the first real depression since the days of FDR. Yeah, I know they are calling it a recession but we all know better. It isn't the Great Depression, as there were still some limits on leverage and there is still FDIC bank insurance, and there is still Social Security and other safety net programs. These are keeping large parts of society from homelessness and starvation as seen during the Great Depression but the job loss spiral, the bank failures, the foreclosures, which apparently are effecting as much as 10% of the homeowners, is well beyond a recession.
Depressions happened pretty regularly prior to FDR -- about every 30 years more or less. The economic stability he initiated worked incredibly well but it totally infuriated many of the GOP. To them, FDR was the great Satan. I remember a few years ago, in a very good restaurant, meeting an older well dressed man who was practically spitting in his anger, still -- after all these years -- at FDR. That 30% who think Bush did an excellent job, largely think so because of his successful efforts at dismantling as much of the New Deal as he could. I think his efforts were akin to taking apart the engine in the space shuttle while it is flying in space but part of our society thought it was a great idea. Judging by the GOP comments and votes on the stimulus package, they still do.
In any case, Obama is picking up the mantle of restoring and updating the New Deal. Some of his programs are going to leave deserving people out. On the other hand, if the economy truly picks up and wages increase their buying power, all of us working folks will benefit. Some of us non-working folks may even find good jobs. The benefits of improved lives for the middle class will go far beyond the sum of financial aid not initially given to the deserving but not quite so needy.