In 1980 authors Milton and Rose Friedman wrote Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, addressing many problems contributing to the economic instability of the United States. Looking at the current economic state there is no doubt our economy is still very much in trouble. Not only do the same factors mentioned in the book exist today, such as welfare, failing public education, and governmental controls in the workforce. These have become larger problems by being compounded with 30 years of governmental “quick fixes', increased joblessness, and selfish entitled mentalities. While the Friedman's remedies may have been what the doctor ordered in the 80's, they should only be considered a starting point to breathe life back into our dying economy.
The Friedman's greatly discouraged governmental interventions throughout their book. I do not share this idea. At a minimum, governmental action is needed to reverse many of the changes which furthered the economic distress. I fully support the federal governments presence in many aspects of our lives – school, work, retirement. However, I greatly disagree with the way they have chosen to place themselves in it. The programs the federal government has implemented may have started with a purpose, but have become bureaucratic monsters with too many people in administrative positions and not nearly enough in the efficiency and oversight departments.
The most immediate concern should be directed at properly educating our society. Our public schools need to be overhauled. Our students are failing to keep up with other countries at an alarming rate. Our literacy rates are laughable, as is shown by almost any magazine you pick up – the writing aimed at adults is done on a third grade level to ensure the broadest audiences understanding. National and state tests show mathematics scores as a whole to be declining. All of this happens as teachers in saturated markets are forced into furloughs and markets with teacher shortages are allowing adults with any Associates Degree to be teachers.
In addition, a blind attempt to create consistency is being forged. Some 30+ states have accepted a 'Common Core' to allow students to move from one place to another to transition seamlessly. This common core is supposedly more rigorous, yet there are no steps (across these 30+ states) to track and force under-performing students to be held back. The idea of being held back should be considered different than the idea of being left behind; a concern that had the federal government stepping in and without addressing the lack of support, staff, funding, and materials, gave the education system the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Friedman's response to our education system in the 80's was a collaborative solution involving vouchers, additional charter schools, and the ability to move within the public schools. This is just the beginning, we need to fix the public school system itself rather than simply move student out of them. Fundamental issues should be addressed. Funding to schools should not be based on who pays taxes within that boundary line. When the federal government grants everyone the right to a free and public education, it should take on the responsibility to see every student receive the same free and public education. Funding, curriculum, teaching qualifications, services, equipment, materials, and teaching/performance standards should be made equal all around.
The federal government spends money, no one can argue this. Where they spend it is very important. Rather than increasing funding to education (which the federal government largely leaves to the states), it has opted to increase and subsequently decrease funding to welfare programs. While President Clinton effectively renamed welfare to become some kind of work force services organization, the only thing he accomplished was giving it a new name. You can put a pig in a dress, but it is still a pig.
Rather than limiting access and uses to welfare, the Clinton administration approved the Welfare Reform Act and gave welfare systems over to the states. We have seen how well the states handle education, society may have been better off under continued federal control of these programs. In effect this transition actually put a greater burden on states with high welfare participation, high unemployment, lower wages and larger families. Conflicting reports are available saying less money is being spent on Temporary Aid to Needy Families than previous funding, but that more money is being spent on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the NON-temporary program).
Recently, many states have accepted additional federal funding to continue unemployment benefits to hold a worsening economy. The writers answer to welfare was intertwined with a solution to Social Security – their immediate response to welfare was to promote self reliance and transition from the current state of welfare to a comprehensive program of cash supplements. As I was not alive in 1980, I can say nothing about the system they were working with. I can say that given the entitled attitudes of people today – I would not hand anyone a cash supplement to save my life. Instead, I believe the solution is twofold. First, welfare programs should be time limited and non-renewable. By making welfare non-renewable (read single use program) people would be forced to become self reliant. While this may seem overly harsh, I believe the only people who are truly at risk by doing this are the children of welfare recipients. In response to this concern, I say we should call it what is really is - Unfit. If you cannot provide for your children, you are an unfit parent (and again, the state should step in and protect that child). The other half of the solution would be to ensure available jobs. While there are help wanted postings, welfare need not exist.
The government should play a minor role in assuring jobs. It is not the governments job (as current welfare offices seem to believe) to find possible jobs, provide training to be qualified for the positions, or even assist in filling out applications. Instead the government should focus on keeping American companies hiring American people and discouraging companies from outsourcing. The government has the chance to increase revenue at the expense of companies who choose to outsource by attaching a higher tax for foreign employees. This can be done in conjunction with helping small businesses in America by offering incentives and tax breaks for fully American employee companies. By bringing offshore jobs back to America, the economic outlook for individuals (who would be filling these jobs) and society as a whole should begin to turn.
Beyond jobs, the government should still serve to protect the workers conditions. Guaranteeing a liveable minimum wage, safe working conditions and ensuring a minimum working age is the extent of direct control the government should exercise. As the book states, when minimum wage increases, more adults find jobs but there is a high unemployment of teenagers. The Friedman's saw this as a great social injustice, however this unemployment (coupled with a better education system) could be seen as an opportunity to better themselves through higher education. Better trained and more educated employees within American companies will result in more competition within the world marketplace.
The Friedman's urging against government interventions may have been appropriate thirty years ago. Today, America needs the federal government to act, if only to undo much of what it has done. The problems which plagued our society have not gone away, they have become more complex and entrenched in our daily lives. Rather than relying solely on the Friedman's solutions, multifaceted and comprehensive solutions based on their ideas and applied to our current situation should be explored.