Morning Must-Read: Mike Konczal: Neoliberal vs. Social-Democratic Safety Nets

Mike Konczal (2011): Examining the Limitations of a Neoliberal Safety Net: “What are the differences between our current [social democratic] approach and the Romney [neoliberal] approach?…

…The first difference is that the unemployment insurance savings accounts don’t actually involve what the liberal government does best: social insurance. There’s no risk pooling…. Whether or not you view the ideology of insurance as sound actuarial reasoning or as a form of solidarity doesn’t matter because the actual mechanisms of insurance don’t exist…. The second is that redistribution in the Romney suggestion is quietly upwards, towards the richest, instead of obviously towards those in need…. The third is that it weakens the power of the unemployed…. A fourth is that it is hard to scale outwards in cases of emergency…. And the fifth and last point is that it removes the idea of the government from the equation of people dealing with economic risks. Like much of the ‘submerged’ state, people will look at private savings accounts and think that the government isn’t doing anything…. There’s no social to this program and thus no politics and thus no real political constituency for it…. This is my quick read, and I’d really enjoy your thoughts.  What do you think about the difference of the two approaches?