When historians look back on the early years of the 21st century, they may deem them the era of the tin cup. From banks to GM to underwater mortgage holders, a surprising number of us have our eyes on the public purse. We are, to cite the title of Charles Sykes's latest book, "A Nation of Moochers."
Why moochers? This anachronistic word, according to Mr. Sykes, "perfectly captures the new culture of bailouts and irresponsible grasping." We may have reformed welfare 15 years ago, but our mooching tendencies still show up everywhere, from public "servants" juicing their taxpayer-funded pensions to rich celebrities receiving farm subsidies. "Have we reached a tipping point," Mr. Sykes asks, "where more Americans are relying on the efforts of others rather than their own?"
In one form or another, the question seems to come up fairly often in the GOP presidential debates. Indeed, the 2012 election is shaping up to be a battle between those who favor higher taxes on wealthier Americans and more generous subsidies for everyone else and those who think that enough is enough—that less government and more self-reliance is the path to well-being. Mr. Sykes's manifesto is best viewed as a red-meat kind of book for the second camp. It's an entertaining polemic, complete with worksheets to determine one's penchant for crossing over to the dark side of dependency and fair-minded arguments that condemn corporate welfare as much as the conventional variety.
Close
Mary Evans/Romulus Films/Everett Collection Mark Lester in 'Oliver!' (1968).
In the interest of rallying the troops, though, Mr. Sykes has produced a talk-radio segment in book form and missed an opportunity to take a more thoughtful look at what constitutes "mooching" and what to do about it. For starters, "A Nation of Moochers" consists almost entirely of Mr. Sykes riffing off articles in various publications and think-tank reports rather than doing original reporting or research. Why call up a principal and ask why he has instituted free breakfast in his school when you can quote from a USA Today article on that topic? Why interview people receiving public assistance when you can quote from a Salon.com article titled "Hipsters on Food Stamps"?
Second, Mr. Sykes's idea of what constitutes mooching is rather muddled, making it hard to determine who is a worthy recipient of help and who is wrongfully on the dole. Quick quiz: Are Medicaid recipients "moochers"? Mr. Sykes writes that "nearly half of means-tested welfare payments go to low-income elderly in nursing homes or to the disabled. These payments are not controversial and do not fall under the rubric of 'mooching.' " But in the next paragraph he complains (citing the Heritage Foundation) that "some 40 percent of all births in the U.S. are now paid for by the Medicaid program." So the elderly poor are worthies but infants are not? One could just as easily argue that the denizens of nursing homes had their whole lifetimes to purchase long-term-care insurance and neglected to do so. Babies, on the other hand, have no say in the circumstances of their births.
In Mr. Sykes's world, supporting the disabled is a worthy endeavor but a free school breakfast is a sign that "the habit of dependency is inculcated early." So while we require children to attend school, we make them into a generation of moochers by offering them eggs and a bagel while they're there. As for Social Security and Medicare, two programs that the government must eventually subsidize despite payroll levies, Mr. Sykes sends a divided message. He says that "we are too addicted to spending our children's money" but avoids the logical—and unpopular—conclusion that many seniors are blue-ribbon mooches.
Despite these flaws, "A Nation of Moochers" does offer a jumping-off point to ask what we want our society to look like. Mr. Sykes rightly reminds readers of the many not-so-destitute folks who benefit from government largess or loophole-favors: GE paying minimal taxes despite a global profit measuring in the billions; Archer Daniels Midland making sure we keep subsidizing ethanol; Goldman Sachs using its clout to avoid taking a haircut on its AIG positions. And let's not forget the coastal vacation properties in Hilton Head Island or Florida covered by the National Flood Insurance Program—"the taxpayer's gift to improvident beach dwellers," as Mr. Sykes puts it. Heaven forbid that someone wealthy enough to afford a beach house should pay market rates to insure it.
"The explosion of bailouts and handouts creates its own dynamic," Mr. Sykes writes. "How can you say no to would-be moocher A when B and C are getting mountains of federal cash?" Good question. He notes that "politicians will have to learn to say no—even to ideas that might seem attractive" and "so will the rest of us." Exactly how to pull that off is the trillion-dollar question—and one that, no matter how fun "A Nation of Moochers" is to read, Mr. Sykes doesn't really answer.
