Dear Editor,
There’s a vocal segment of Vermonters who consistently decry what they see as “the liberal” tendency to spend “other people’s money” on social programs. I ran across this most recently in comments supporting gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott’s public statement that he’s pretty sure that $50 million can be cut from Medicaid.
That’s an interesting concept, that idea of other people’s money. What these people are talking about is, of course, tax revenue. I have paid taxes my entire working life (approaching 50 years). Those taxes contributed to funding any social programs that I advocated. Even the poorest people pay taxes in several forms, especially sales tax. Those taxes also fund any social programs they advocate.
So what exactly does “other people’s money” mean? Social support programs are funded by “everyone’s money,” not “other people’s money.” Calling it other people’s money implies that the people who support social programs aren’t contributing. That’s an effective propaganda tool to stir up opposition, but it isn’t true.
On the other hand, the people who complain about social support programs, the people who want to cut them, aren’t going to be affected by the cuts. They won’t suddenly find themselves unable to pay rent, visit a doctor or access a community service that allows them to live independently. They are, in a very real sense, voting for “other people’s misery.”
Between those of us who advocate for public support programs and who share in their funding, and those of us who advocate for cutting those programs but do not share in the misery that causes, who is really being cavalier about what we inflict on “other people?” If I was interested in being a propagandist, I’d make a habit of talking about “the conservative” tendency to cause “other people’s misery.”
Lee Russ, Bennington, Vt.
