Suchergebnisse

Modern America's great 30-year crime wave began in the early 1960s. America's most grave social problem proved to be a calamity for the Democratic Party. In the New York City, the number of annual murders peaked at 2,245 in 1990, the first year the Democrat David Dinkins was mayor. By 2013, however, New Yorkers had only faint memories of walking the streets in constant fear. One might suppose that Democrats would regard the decline of crime, and of their political vulnerability on the issue, as an unqualified blessing. The party's resurgent progressive wing, which has come to detest Clintonian concessions to Reaganism on such issues as financial deregulation and national security is now equally determined to repudiate the tough-on-crime rhetoric and policies that made it hard to differentiate Democrats from Republicans. If Hillary Clinton's purpose in 2016 is to walk back the position that the first responsibility of government is maintaining law and order, voters will have to decide whether it is time to insulate. Adapted from the source document.

The President and Congress debate whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, and particularly whether to continue the Bush tax rates for high-income families. The author argues that there is a discrepancy between interpretations in the media who are obsessed with inequality and the public and legislators who are seemingly more willing to extend tax benefits to the wealthy.

Since the beginning of the New Deal, American liberals have insisted that the government must do more--much more--to help the poor, to increase economic security, to promote social justice and solidarity, to reduce inequality, and to mitigate the harshness of capitalism. Nonetheless, liberals have never answered, or even acknowledged, the corresponding question: What would be the size and nature of a welfare state that was not contemptibly austere, that did not urgently need new programs, bigger budgets, and a broader mandate? Even though the federal government's outlays have doubled every eighteen years since 1940, liberal rhetoric is always addressed to a nation trapped in Groundhog Day, where every year is 1932, and none of the existing welfare state programs that spend tens of billions of dollars matter, or even exist. Never Enough explores the roots and consequences of liberals' aphasia about the welfare state's ultimate size. It assesses what liberalism's lack of a limiting principle says about the long-running argument between liberals and conservatives, and about the policy choices confronting America in a new century. Never Enough argues that the failure to speak clearly and candidly about the welfare state's limits has grave policy consequences. The worst result, however, is the way it has jeopardized the experiment in self-government by encouraging Americans to regard their government as a vehicle for exploiting their fellow-citizens, rather than as a compact for respecting one another's rights and safeguarding the opportunities of future generations.

Das Buch ist eine systematische Untersuchung des amerikanischen Wohlfahrtsstaats von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart und eine Darlegung der Ursachen und Folgen, die mit dem Wachstum des Wohlfahrtsstaats in den USA einhergehen. Der Autor zeigt, wie groß der amerikanische Wohlfahrtsstaat ist und wie er im Vergleich zu Wohlfahrtsstaaten anderer moderner Industriegesellschaften abschneidet. Zu diesem Zweck greift er auf Daten von OECD, OMD (Office of Management and Budget) und BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) zurück. Anhand der generierten Tabellen zeigt er, dass der amerikanische Wohlfahrtsstaat seit dem New Deal kontinuierlich wächst, und dies ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass Demokraten und Republikaner sich mehrfach an der Spitze abgelöst haben. Anschließend erörtert er die mit dem Wachstum verbundenen Probleme und die Rolle, welche Demokraten und Konservative in dieser Entwicklung spielen. / »Never Enough. America's Limitless Welfare State«: »Der amerikanische Wohlfahrtsstaat« is a translation of William Voegeli's analysis of America's endlessly growing welfare state: »Never Enough« explores the roots and consequences of liberals' aphasia about the welfare state's ultimate size and looks at the roles liberals and conservatives play. Using data from OECD, OMD and BLS, Voegeli shows how the welfare state in the US grew and compares to European welfare states.