Obama Adviser Valerie Jarrett: 'We are working hard to lift people out of poverty...that's what government is supposed to do'

There's video at The Blaze, "OBAMA’S SENIOR ADVISOR VALERIE JARRETT: THE POINT OF GOVERNMENT IS TO GIVE PEOPLE A LIVELIHOOD SO THEY CAN PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES."

Commentary at Maggie's Notebook, "Valerie Jarrett: Purpose of Government to Give You a Job – It’s a World Vision for the Obama Administration," and Townhall, "Obama Adviser: Lifting People Out of Poverty is 'What Government Is Supposed to Do'."

Actually, Jarrett's comment isn't so explicitly "socialist" as it might appear. I don't think, for example, that one can reasonably argue --- after decades of efforts to regulate the economy --- that government has no role in helping to "lift people out of poverty." Economic issues are always important, and when the economy tanks, stimulating employment will certainly be the foremost issue for voters. The problem is that progressives have raped the idea of "lifting people" up. I recall a student arguing last semester that the Constitution's preamble was a manifesto on expanding welfare problems, since it states that this government is established to "secure the general welfare." This student mentioned she listened to NPR, so there you go. No doubt, then, that the left's world vision sees government's role as creating public programs to redistribute wealth so that no one will be poor, but that's not the same thing as stating that government's job is to lift people out of poverty. Social contract theories and institutional economics both conceive of government as providing the basis for firm property rights so that individuals and firms can create and accumulate wealth according to the rule of law. In turn, government increases confidence in markets. Credible commitments by actors in the market ensure that buyers, sellers, investors will seek market transactions. Specialization follows and increasing complexity and sophistication increases not just wealth but social capital. As more of society participate in the market the scope of wealth will expand. This is where conservatives split from progressives, since conservatives see the need to limit the role of the state, as it's long been understood to crowd out the natural constraints and incentives of markets and to introduce all kinds of perversions and corruptions into the economic realm. Frankly, we need to find a way to encourage markets to work more effectively, for labor to flow more freely and for businesses to create and expand absent the heavy-handed government redistribution of wealth. And we won't get there as long as progressives are in power, since they view wealth as inherently evil, or at least as means to an end --- which is the consolidation of the massive European-style socialist welfare state.

I think that needs to be laid out like that before we automatically attack Jarrett's comments. Government has a role in stabilizing and encouraging markets and economic growth. To argue that the opposite is simply ridiculous, and thus it'd be nice if we had some more elevated discussion about these things, especially on the left.