The election is over, but some people seem to have really taken the whole "redistribution of wealth" line to heart, namely, Nick Kristof:
The most effective anti-poverty program we could devise for the long run would have less to do with income redistribution than with ensuring that poor kids get a first-rate education, from preschool on. One recent study found that if American students did as well as those in several Asian countries in math and science, our economy would grow 20 percent faster.
Well, public education is a form of income redistribution. Our taxes pay for public schools. So improving them as a method of dealing with poverty has everything to do with income redistribution. I'm not really sure why the concept of redistribution has become so vulgar that people have to pretend they're not advocating for it when they are, especially since many of our most popular government programs -- social security, medicare -- are also forms of income redistribution, and everyone knows it. Is Kristof afraid of being called a Marxist for advocating for a better public education system? What is going on here?
--A. Serwer
