Stockholm. Knoxville. We have a problem.

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	The repeal of welfare state protection of
	people now poorer for its effect has been
	voted on and done by the majority who rule.
	The claim that the poor don't vote in
	America does not hold in Sweden.

	So something lousy in the way the unions work,
	(hinted at by Per's account of how Vickrey's
	ideas have been published), and something even
	lousier in the way taxes hit the middle class, must
	be behind the death of the welfare state.

	If PKTr's don't see the need to make welfare
	state rules, institutions and results, extremely
	appealing to the middle class, they are the blind
	who will not see.

	Naturally, the "way" to make things appealing is
	not written for all to read -- not in the writings
	of professional economists or essays on the net.
	But, until this part of the problem is admitted,
	all of PKT is condemned to wait for the next
	depression.

	I have preached:  Fight for union dues to be
	free to workers and charged to government. The
	way we handle the cost of defense, education, etc.
	This implies government unions -- something the
	liberal union movement doesn't 	want.  Yet the
	liberal union movement is doing well only among
	government workers -- where, in effect,
	government foots the bill.

	I have preached -- fight for zero tax on the middle
	class.  Where necessary, let required saving replace
	taxes to control inflation.  This implies a break for
	some in the upper middle class -- (although they
	would be required to save while the poor were
	allowed to spend).  The left dies of envy at the
	thought of killing the income tax for some of these
	upper middle class types.  Henwood and others
	do not even conceal their desire to stick it to their
	opponents -- even when what they would stick is
	useless to our side and only makes their side happy
	to keep on top.

	So what is left of the welfare state?  It is a shadow
	of its former self.  While guns are silent, power
	flows from the ballot box.  People uninterested in
	academic theory vote their pocketbook.  Why not
	appeal to the people in these direct ways?  Why
	fight their reluctance to pay dues and taxes that,
	in the end, keeps them voting against functional
	finance reforms, full employment, and the rest of
	a decent agenda.

	Why?  What is OUR problem?

	John Gelles