My discipline, social psychology, emphasizes that while behavior is strongly determined by the social situation, people usually view behavior as determined by personal characteristics such as personality, attitudes, beliefs and values. We habitually view people as agents of their own behavior rather than looking at the environmental influences.
As the media begins interpreting the Biden administration it is amusing how they are interpreting him. It is like the old television show in which panelists where asked to determine by questions which of three guests was the real X. The questions ended with the host asking for the real X to please stand up.
I started thinking about this from the following article from The Civilta Cattolica, representing the mind of the Vatican since 1850, because it is read by the of office of the Vatican Secretary of State before being published by the Jesuits. The author is an American Jesuit
The United States from Trump to Biden: From insurrection to inauguration
January 6 should have been a day of quiet confidence for American Catholics. Joe Biden had been elected president and the Congress was about to confirm the popular vote. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as she opened the House session, took note of the Feast of the Epiphany and prayed the Peace Prayer attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, “Make me a channel of your peace. Where there is darkness, may you [sic] bring light. Where there is hatred, let us bring love. Where there is despair, let us bring hope.”
Like Speaker Pelosi, President Biden is open, but not ostentatious, in his piety. In his acceptance speech, he cited the Book of Ecclesiastes, “For everything, there is a season,” emphasizing that this is “a time to heal.”
Well-known for his effusive empathy, Biden reached out in that address to the families of the nearly four hundred thousand Americans whose lives had been taken by the coronavirus with the opening verses of the hymn “On Eagle’s Wings.” Then he concluded, “And now, together — on eagle’s wings — we embark on the work that God and history have called upon us to do.”
God and history have not made it easy going for these two aging leaders. Biden is 78 and Pelosi is 80. No leaders since Franklin Delano Roosevelt have faced as profound a set of challenges as Biden confronts today: the greatest public health crisis since 1918, the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Beyond that, they must face a gaping political divide between America’s democratic civic traditions and the menacing insurgency of organized militias. Underlying much of that civic unrest flows the feverish return of America’s inherited disease: racism.
At the time, then, of its greatest crisis since the Civil War, the U.S. has turned to two Catholics to lead them out of the darkness of xenophobic government and a long-fermenting civil rebellion. Themselves victims of Catholic cultural warriors, they refuse to vilify their adversaries and invite Americans to come together in a common cause. Biden identified healing “the soul of America” as the key mission of his presidency. “Millions of Americans hungry for a faith focused on healing and inclusion will embrace it,” wrote Michelle Boorstein in the Washington Post.
Viewing Biden and Pelosi through the lens of piety is not typical of our press. I give the following articles from the New York Times. Most are probably behind a paywall, but these give a flavor.
With Relief Plan, Biden Takes on a New Role: Crusader for the Poor
President Biden’s new role as a crusader for Americans in poverty is an evolution for a politician who has focused on the working class and his Senate work on the judiciary and foreign relations.
Days before his inauguration, President-elect Biden was eying a $1.3 trillion rescue plan aimed squarely at the middle class he has always championed, but pared down to attract some Republican support.
In a private conversation, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who is now the majority leader, echoed others in the party and urged Mr. Biden to think bigger. True, the coronavirus pandemic had disrupted the lives of those in the middle, but it had also plunged millions of people into poverty. With Democrats in control, the new president should push for something closer to $2 trillion, Mr. Schumer told Mr. Biden.
On Friday, “Scranton Joe” Biden, whose five-decade political identity has been largely shaped by his appeal to union workers and blue-collar tradesmen like those from his Pennsylvania hometown, will sign into law a $1.9 trillion spending plan that includes the biggest antipoverty effort in a generation.
The new role as a crusader for the poor represents an evolution for Mr. Biden, who spent much of his 36 years in Congress concentrating on foreign policy, judicial fights, gun control and criminal justice issues by virtue of his committee chairmanships in the Senate. For the most part, he ceded domestic economic policy to others.
The Times views the role of crusader as an evolution whereas it is plain from the article that things have changed and that events and others have a lot to do with this "evolution". However in the following article the Times reminds us that Biden has also focused on the middle class.
Be it child care or health care, an array of tax changes and subsidies makes the $1.9 trillion relief legislation more than a lifeline for the poor.
My questions are just how much of this relief will be seen by the working class, e.g. blue collar workers and how much of it will be seen by upper middle class? And where are all the perks for the wealthy elites that the Democrats have begun to support? The most interesting article in the series however was the following on child care.
In the Stimulus Bill, a Policy Revolution in Aid for Children
Obscured by other parts of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package, which won Senate approval on Saturday, the child benefit has the makings of a policy revolution. Though framed in technocratic terms as an expansion of an existing tax credit, it is essentially a guaranteed income for families with children, akin to children’s allowances that are common in other rich countries.
The plan establishes the benefit for a single year. But if it becomes permanent, as Democrats intend, it will greatly enlarge the safety net for the poor and the middle class at a time when the volatile modern economy often leaves families moving between those groups. More than 93 percent of children — 69 million — would receive benefits under the plan, at a one-year cost of more than $100 billion.
The bill, which is likely to pass the House and be signed by Mr. Biden this week, raises the maximum benefit most families will receive by up to 80 percent per child and extends it to millions of families whose earnings are too low to fully qualify under existing law. Currently, a quarter of children get a partial benefit, and the poorest 10 percent get nothing.
While the current program distributes the money annually, as a tax reduction to families with income tax liability or a check to those too poor to owe income taxes, the new program would send both groups monthly checks to provide a more stable cash flow.
By the standards of previous aid debates, opposition has been surprisingly muted. While the bill has not won any Republican votes, critics have largely focused on other elements of the rescue package. Some conservatives have called the child benefit “welfare” and warned that it would bust budgets and weaken incentives to work or marry. But Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, has proposed a child benefit that is even larger, though it would be financed through other safety net cuts.
Schumer and a Teachers’ Union Leader Secure Billions for Private Schools
The pandemic relief bill includes $2.75 billion for private schools. How it got there is an unlikely political tale, involving Orthodox Jewish lobbying, the Senate majority leader and a teachers’ union president.
More surprising is who got it there: Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader whose loyalty to his constituents diverged from the wishes of his party, and Randi Weingarten, the leader of one of the nation’s most powerful teachers’ unions, who acknowledged that the federal government had an obligation to help all schools recover from the pandemic, even those who do not accept her group
Cardinal Dolan went out of his way to praise Schumer for the bill. Does he see funding for Catholic Schools in the future?
My analysis
So are we headed for a more family oriented society because we have recognized that families and schools are essential for the ECONOMIC health of our country? Are these not both pro-life and a pro-social justice issues as well?
This may also impact the abortion issue. Once upon a time when I was young we had a booming economy including a baby boom. Government policy about birth rates is a tricky business (look how many problems China created for itself with the one-child policy) however a supportive economy and community appears to be important in the willingness of people to have children. We might not be able to prevent people from getting abortions but we may make it much easier for them to have children.
If we upped the birth rate, would that change the immigration issue. Right now immigrants are necessary to compensate for our declining birth rate. What if that were not true?
Unfortunately, the human population has to stop increasing and probably has to decrease for the planetary ecology to not collapse, followed by a catastrophic collapse in the number of humans. Otherwise, a whole new way of collective human living must be found, if there is one. There are undoubtedly negative economic effects from rapid collapse of the population. For millenia, the human species did well with population growth slightly above steady state. Perhaps something between one child policy and steady state might be tolerable. I've been on eco websites that occasionally publish an article attacking parenthood and portraying children as a curse. I counter in comments that it is unnatural to propagandize people against children. People have a natural desire to have children. I've seen newly married guys who say they never want to have kids. Invariably, after the firstborn, they love being fathers, having previously been full of baloney. It is natural to want children and it is a willed sacrifice NOT to have them. I usually got favorable responses from the eco-minded readers.
ReplyDeletePopulation is a difficult problem central to the ecological problem. A loving human solution needs to be found.
Actually that problem is kind of solving itself. I was reading that Americans are below replacement level now, at 1.8 child per couple. What's driving that is increasing age of marriage, later age at birth of a first child, and more years in school for women, and more women in the workforce. Just some examples in my family; my parents were 20 and 22 when they married. They had five kids. All five of us married in early twenties, and had anywhere from 1 to 4 kids. My husband and I had two. The younger one married at age 27, and the older one at 36. My parents had 12 grandchildren. We have 3, and that's all we're likely to have. So reproduction definitely isn't happening in an exponential way for our kids' generation. It's more following a 1930s pattern, like my paternal grandparents, who married at 29 and 32, and had one child. I doubt if we're going to see anything like the post-war baby boom, but it would be nice if the ones who want to have children would be able to support a family. I think you are right that it is natural to want to have them.
DeleteSome level of prosperity and financial equality would help. People seem to want around two children on average. As for the immigrants, things have to be pretty intolerable to make one leave one's homeland. Working for the economic and political stability of our southern neighbors would probably slow down immigration considerably.
DeleteI have read that the Biden administration is trying to work with the countries where the refugees are coming from to ameliorate conditions. Good luck with that, it's easier said than done, but a worthwhile goal.
DeleteStanley's comment caused me to do a quick look at world population futures:
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/future-world-s-population-4-charts
1. According to the UN’s “medium variant” projection which assumes a decline in fertility rates and an increase in life expectancy, there’s a 95% chance that the world’s population will be between 9.5 and 13.3 Billion in 2100.
According to this model, the world’s population is “virtually certain” to rise in the short term, but later in the century, there is a roughly 23 percent chance that it could stabilize or begin to fall before 2100.
2. Today, about 2/3 of the world’s population lives in Asia, a figure dominated by India and China.
Looking at the regional breakdown of the forecasts, we see that by 2100, Africa and Asia will be home to 4.4 and 4.9 billion individuals respectively, and will together account for 83% of the world’s population.
To look at it from a different perspective, the proportion of the world’s population that’s not African or Asian looks small and relatively constant
3. More than half of the global population growth between now and 2050 will occur in Africa, which will add 1.3 billion people to its ranks over the period. This 109 percent increase is by far the largest proportional change of any region.
In absolute terms, Asia will be the second largest contributor to the increase in the world’s population and notably, Europe is expected to experience a shrinking population, falling 4.3 percent over the next 35 years.
4. Half the population growth will occur in nine countries.
Within seven years (by 2022), the population of India will overtake that of China, and will reach 1.7 billion by 2050. That change alone will account for 17 percent of the world’s total population increase between now and 2050.
Interestingly, the United States is the only high-income country in this list, and by 2050 will be the fourth most populous country after India, China and Nigeria.
In fact (bonus chart!), Nigeria’s population is expected to overtake that of the United States some time between 2045 and 2050 to reach almost 400 million:
Thank you for the numbers,, Jack.. So many of those newly born people will want to live like us. I remember the videos of Chinese streets from the eighties with the streets filled with bicyclists. Now the newly prosperous will use only autos for transport. Our country probably has room for 3 times the population. But, if they all adopt the lifestyle of Americans, environmental catastrophe.
Delete"My questions are just how much of this relief will be seen by the working class, e.g. blue collar workers and how much of it will be seen by upper middle class? "
ReplyDeleteI'd think most blue-collar families (some of whom also qualify as middle class) will receive stimulus checks, and those with young children certainly should qualify for the childcare subsidies, the increased child tax credits and so on. And if I understand the benefit correctly: some of them (those who are relatively high earners among blue collar workers) would benefit from the enriched Obamacare subsidies.
As for the upper-middle-class: I guess my family must land there these days (although we don't feel like the bourgeoisie). My wife and I have wryly been noting that Congress and the Biden Administration are giving away a $1.9 trillion bonanza, and not a single cent of it apparently will find its way to our mailbox or bank account. Every benefit category I've read about apparently will be giving us a miss. So if you're getting your cut of the giveaway - you're welcome. :-)
I sort of have mixed feelings. Like virtually all humans, there is a part of my which loves receiving an unplanned-for infusion of cash. But looking at it objectively: except for feeling housebound, we haven't suffered at all during the pandemic. All of us have remained healthy and employed, and we've actually been able to increase our savings (a little) because we never go to restaurants or do entertainment activities anymore. We realize (at least on our better days) how blessed we've been. So frankly, while I'm not saying we can't *use* the money (most people can find a use for more money), I have a hard time arguing with sincerity that we absolutely *need* it.
But don't expect all my peers to feel this way. When something like 85% of Americans benefit from a massive aid bill, it's just human nature that the other 15% are going to feel at least a little resentment, whether or not it's deserved.
The good news is that we'll get a stimulus check. The bad news is that roof repairs will consume it, and a lot more. It's not a good sign when you get two inches of rain, and hear a steady drip, drip, drip...somewhere in the house.
DeleteAbout the other 15%, that was one factor in FDR being able to sell social security. It was supposed to go to everyone without means testing. I think that's the way it still is.
Any means testing would introduce complication and delay. I probably won't get anything this time but that's ok. The government is giving me enough free money through my CSRS pension and now SS. If I ever complain, shoot me on the spot.
DeleteJack, to continue a discussion we've been having in recent months: the aid bill strikes me as primarily a common-good bill. Specifically, the provisions intended to goose the economy (stimulus checks) put people back to work (child care assistance) and shore up state and local governments and union pension funds, all strike me as common-good measures. The measures to expand vaccinations and testing, and increase Obamacare, also strike me as common-good measures, insofar as they are intended to strengthen public health outcomes.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, an argument can be made that at least some of these also are preferential-option-for-the-poor measures. And some are labor-and-worker measures. These things can fall into multiple categories of Catholic Social Teaching.
Perhaps it's both "common good" AND Preferential Option for the Poor. From what I am reading (skimming headlines and intro paragraphs actually) this legislation is the most preferential option for the poor legislation that has passed in many decades.
ReplyDeleteJim, I suppose Stanley is right - that doing means tests is too difficult and would delay the checks. Like you and Stanley, my husband and I are fortunate enough to not need the extra money. Sure, we could use it for something fun, but we don't "need" it. Yet we got checks last summer, and arrived home to a partial check which has been waiting for us while we were in California. Apparently we may also get a partial check this time. We contributed the summer stimulus money to charitable groups. Will do the same with the recent checks.
Although financially secure now, I didn't grow up that way. I lived in a resort community after age 10. The normal labor laws were relaxed there to allow teenagers to work summers and weekends at the resort businesses. So I was getting a paycheck from age 13 on, with social security payments withdrawn! I remember picking up staples at the local small grocery store and having the owner tell me to remind my mother that her bill was overdue. I remember my mother borrowing from my savings - accumulated accumulated from my $1.00/hour wages. She needed the money to pay the mortgage on our house. Eventually our home was lost (during my parents' divorce - the equity, such as it was, went to pay my father's debts and there was no money left). My father was no longer working, and there was no financial support for my mother. My mother was given a room to live in at a resort conference center where she found work after being a housewife for 30 years. I stayed with friends and other relatives during college vacations and summer. Eventually she moved back to Los Angeles and found a better job, a clerical job, and was able to rent an apartment. She had graduated from UCLA but after marrying had never worked. Typical of her generation. So in her 50s, when she needed to work, the degree was of little use.
Since my husband and I are now in a position to help those who need it, at least a little bit, we will do so, using taxpayer money that we really don't deserve. We contribute to a number of groups regularly, and I have a special penchant for those that help the poorest of the poor in the third world - Catholic Relief Services, Jesuit Refugee Service etc. But these donations are simply being passed on. The money given to us courtesy of the stimulus checks is going to local groups who are helping those who need food, rent assistance etc. WE are not donating, we are simply a pass-through to others who need the money more than we do.
Katherine, fixing the roof IS stimulus! Keeping the local businesses going. Jim, even eating out or ordering restaurant food is also stimulus. Whether or not you get a stimulus check you can still help the local small businesses. Win, win! So if you get even a small check, splurge on dinner. ;}