Friday, June 20, 2003
CATASTROPHE: A GOVERNMENT HAD TO MAKE CUTS!
One of Wednesday’s editorials encapsulates just about every liberal nostrum held by the Des Moines Register editorialists. The City of Des Moines—horror of horrors!—has had to make budget cuts:
City officials had no choice. Some planned spending had to be eliminated, and it appears Des Moines made the best of a bad situation.
The city will leave positions unfilled, will lay off some librarians and city planners, will turn off some street lights, will close City Hall on Fridays, but more drastic cuts that were initially contemplated were avoided.
You see, when bad times roll around, many establishments in the private sector have no choice but to leave positions unfulfilled, lay off some workers, and find other ways to cut costs. But in the Register’s view, government gets to live by a different standard.
Iowa's 950 cities lost money they had been counting on when the Legislature decided to slash state aid to cities. The Legislature acted after cities had already certified their 2003-04 budgets. Hence, they couldn't raise property taxes to make up for the loss in state aid. Budget cuts are the only option.
And we know what the different standard is: raising taxes! It’s axiomatic for the Register: When government doesn’t have enough revenue to meet costs, you don’t cut costs; you shaft the taxpayer.
In anticipation of possible cuts, the city of Des Moines in April posted a plan on its Web site to cut more than $4 million. That early plan included troubling ideas such as closing the Botanical Center, eliminating funding for police in Des Moines high schools, closing a library and four community centers and eliminating a fire-department ladder company.
And the Register took it seriously, of course. Here’s a little education, not that it would take hold with the editorialists. When faced with budget cuts, officials always threaten to cut some of the most essential services first. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. That way, the public is more amenable to tax increases. Unfortunately—no wait, fortunately—this time the City of Des Moines didn’t have the tax increase option. Also, note how the first thing to follow the phrase “troubling ideas” is “closing the Botanical Center.” Is keeping it open an essential service? Will people be dying in the street if it was closed? Of course not. Just further proof that in the Register editorialists’ minds every government service is essential.
The final reductions approved by the city council Monday still hurt, but they aren't as drastic as the initial proposals.
For example, rather than closing the Botanical Center and community centers, about $160,000 will be saved by privatizing them. The public will still have access to the facilities, but the city will subsidize them at a lower level. Several layoffs will be the result, and visitors will no longer be able to bring their own food and drink into the Botanical Center.
That's better than closing it.
It’s also a hell of a lot better that leaving it in the hands of the government! You see, in the private sector there is a word for maintaining services while reducing costs: good. Apparently in the Register editorial room there is a word for all privatization: bad.
When asked what Des Moines residents will notice most about the cuts, Anderson replied, "I think they will notice it in the street lights. Users of the library will notice it. Closing City Hall on Friday will be noticed. The loss of the planning staff is going to be noticed because they provided services to neighborhoods." Though some services will remain, they will be "less robust" and "It will take more time to do the same things," Anderson said.
Services provided by local communities are noticed by people going about their daily lives. Some cuts will hurt more than others. Many city workers will lose their jobs. Cutting back street lighting makes areas less welcoming, not to mention less safe. Residents will be inconvenienced.
But city leaders worked to find ways to make cuts that preserved public safety and maintained services the best they could. If citizens want the lost services restored, they'll have to let elected city leaders know they're willing to pay higher taxes next year to get them back.
Ah yes, a liberal ideologue’s wet dream: cuts in government services result in the near end of humanity as we know it, but just in the nick of time the voters come to their senses and elect courageous politicians who enact tax increases. We are saved!
. . .
BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS FROM AN ECONOMIST
Paul Krugman returns to the typical left-wing argument about how to get to economy moving again:
Don't tax cuts and low interest rates create the conditions for an economic rebound? Well, interest rates have been low for a while. And everything that has happened since 2001 suggests that Bush-style tax cuts — which, because they are targeted on the very affluent, basically give people with plenty of cash to spare even more cash to spare — provide very little employment bang per deficit buck. Meanwhile, desperate state and local governments are continuing to slash services and, in a growing number of cases, raising taxes, undoing much or all of the stimulus from the federal government.
There are two assumptions here that aren’t born out by the evidence. The first is that consumer spending is the prime mover of the recession and our long-overdue recovery—hence Krugman’s complaint that the tax cuts “give people with plenty of cash to spare even more cash to spare.” But take a look at the GDP numbers. This table tracks the percent change in various portions of GDP. To see what I’m talking about change the first year to 2000. You’ll notice that personal consumption has continued to rise, even during the 2001 recession. What has taken a sizeable hit is gross private domestic investment. Tax cuts that return money to investors, it seems, would be just the ticket to get the economy moving again.
The second assumption is the one underlying Krugman’s lament that state and local governments are “continuing to slash services.” The assumption is that government transfer payments are conducive to economic growth. A bit of simple common sense should be enough to dispel this idea. Think about it: if government transfer payments worked so well, then places like South-Central Los Angeles would be the economic dynamos of this nation. But usually we see exactly the opposite: the more government transfer payments in a given area, the more likely it is to be economically depressed.
Unfortunately Krugman is not the only one who continues to peddle this notion. It’s endemic to liberal editorial pages across the country. Oh well, no one should be surprised: A bad economic idea survives when there is an ideological agenda to pursue.
. . .
Thursday, June 19, 2003
ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE
For a moment there I thought I was reading Paul Krugman:
For years, Republicans have sought to reduce or eliminate funding for popular social initiatives, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the American people repeatedly have rejected their efforts. Now, led by President Bush, the radical wing of the Republican Party has found a new way to reach its goal of fundamentally altering the role of the federal government and forcing privatization of our most basic services.
But, no, it was Democratic contender Howard Dean. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that two lefties are working from the same template. I wonder, though, how much of Krugman’s columns are borrowed from Democratic National Committee press releases.
Anyway, Dean continues:
We must be honest with the American people. The economic plans put forth by President Bush and the Republican Party are an attack on the values that Americans overwhelmingly support, such as the importance of strong public education, affordable health care, a healthy environment and a financially sound Social Security. If allowed to stand, the result of the president’s tax cuts will be the gutting of these values through a process of financial starvation.
Democrats being honest with the American people? That would be a first! It’s thanks to Democrats like Governor Dean and all their insistence on government-run schemes that things like public education, Social Security, and health care are in the mess that they are. So what’s Governor Dean’s answer? (That’s a rhetorical question, just in case you were wondering.):
Make no mistake: We are in the fight for the ideals that make our country strong. On the one side is a Democratic vision of a country in which we commit as a community to providing affordable health care to every American, public education to every child, a healthy environment to our families and Social Security and Medicare to our seniors.
In other words, more government. Uh, Governor Dean, Walter Mondale tried this tack back in 1984. Perhaps you should try to remember what happened to him. (Here’s a hint: he lost pretty big.)
You know, I suspect saying such things would have zero effect anyway:
The sooner the Democrats recognize this isn't a fight over tax cuts, but a battle for our country's heart, soul and future, the sooner the American people will join our cause. What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for the future of our country and against President Bush’s reckless economic policies. It is time for the Democratic Party to speak up and be clear in telling the American people this one incontrovertible fact: We will never achieve social justice in this country without fiscal responsibility.
“Social justice”? Now there’s one I haven’t heard a Democrat use in a while. Probably because it reminds most people of the left-wing college professor that annoyed them to no end. Keep at it, Governor Dean.
Governor Dean also can’t help himself when looking at the current state and local fiscal crisis:
At the state and local level, we have seen what happens when tax revenues drop suddenly and drastically. Cities across Iowa are faced with one of two painful alternatives: Lay off dozens of employees including firefighters and police officers when citizens need them most, or raise property taxes when citizens can pay them least.
Actually, the primary cause of the problem is a monster-load of overspending during the good years (a 24% increase, after controlling for inflation, from 1992-2000). But when there’s loads of social justice to distribute government can always spend more.
Then there’s this paragraph which surely must have every political operative in the Bush White House licking his or her chops in unison:
My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts and to put our fiscal house in order. We must meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents and defend our nation. We will not meet these obligations if we bankrupt our country.
If I recall correctly, Walter Mondale only said he wouldn’t rule out tax increases. Dean’s actually saying, in effect, that he’ll raise them. How do you spell four more years? H-O-W-A-R-D-D-E-A-N.
. . .
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
SPENDING ISN'T THE PROBLEM?
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
STUDIES THAT MISLEAD
Eugene Volokh had an excellent column in NRO yesterday about studies that purport to show that people with a gun in their home are more likely to die from gun-related violence. He notes that the studies didn’t control for the criminal records of those killed—i.e., owning a gun may not be dangerous, but being a criminal may be.
Most enlightening was what he said about the media effect such studies have. Money quote:
Unfortunately, this is how conventional wisdom is molded. A badly flawed study leads to an even more flawed New York Times article. Readers read it and say "Wow, it's dangerous for me to own a gun" — or "Since guns endanger even their owners, there's really no reason to keep them legal." Precisely because the study seems so authoritative, so scientific, it's likely to be influential, even when it's misdesigned and misreported. And this is especially so when these flaws are repeated in study after study, as they have routinely been in the gun debate. Bad social science leads to bad legal policy.
. . .
THE STORY THAT REALLY ISN’T
The Des Moines Register editorial board has its collective undies in a bunch because:
Researchers at the University of Maryland tested 1,265 respondents about their level of information on Iraq and the tragedy of Sept. 11. The results troubled even the pollsters: Americans just don't know the truth about the basics.
One-third of respondents believes the U.S. military has already found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
In truth, none has been found.
Twenty-two percent thought Iraq had used chemical and biological weapons.
Wrong again.
Half the people polled thought Iraqis were among the Sept. 11 hijackers. Only 17 percent knew that not one single hijacker was from Iraq.
It's troubling. No, it's downright scary.
No, actually, it’s pretty unremarkable. 59% knew that WMDs have not been found and 69% knew that WMDs were not used in the Iraq War. At any given time at least 10% of the American people can’t tell you who the Vice President is. So there’s no point in getting too upset about poll results on a recent event like the Iraq war.
(Also, I can’t find where the poll asks that question about Iraqis being involved in September 11. If anyone out there can, please let me know.)
What’s really driving the concern with this non-story?
This information also sheds some light on why the Bush administration may not be so concerned about finding the still-elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: It doesn't matter. The people think they were found. The people think Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the Sept. 11 hijackings. The people think it's OK to attack a country. Because they don't know the facts.
Here’s the developing narrative on the left: Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War. Of course, when those of us on the right point out that it was too risky for Bush to lie, they can now reply, “No it’s not. The American people are too stupid to know they’ve been lied to! See, a whole whopping 33% think WMDs have been found!”
. . .
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
AMERICA IS UNSAFE BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT BUSH
I know this because Paul Krugman said so.
Today’s column is one of those pieces that has so much wrong with it that I’m faced with the decision of what to critique and what to leave out. Krugman’s main beef is that the Bush Administration is pursuing photo-ops at the expense of doing the real work of fighting terrorism. He finds this, among other places, in an instance where the department of Homeland Security did not receive some additional funding:
Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.
The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.
It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.
One general problem is that Krugman lacks perspective. Keep in mind that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t even exist less than two short years ago. Now we’re spending about $36 billion on it. Furthermore, it is now less than three months from the second anniversary of 9/11. (The first anniversary seemed like only yesterday, didn’t it?) How many terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil since then? The answer: zero. That’s some neglect!
What interest me most about Krugman’s column was this paragraph:
Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.
After reading this, and before running down the Post article, I suspected something about Mr. Beers, and not the fact that he’s registered Democrat. I think that’s irrelevant; from what I can gather from the article, Beers’ concerns seem genuine, and not motivated by partisan politics.
Here is what was confirmed by the Post article:
Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now.
Long-term bureaucrats tend to view government as never doing enough and never having enough money. The reason is that they are usually promoted by expanding the programs they run, by getting the appropriations to hire more people and expand services.
This is not to suggest that all of Mr. Beers’ complaints are unfounded, or that there aren’t any problems with homeland security—surely there are. What I am suggesting is that it isn’t all that remarkable—as Krugman and the author of the Post article seem to think—for a bureaucrat to complain that the government isn’t doing enough.
It’s also worth noting that Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado), a long-time critic of homeland security, was on Your World with Neal Cavuto yesterday. Tancredo complained that enough is still not being done about the borders. But he also noted the situation with ports is improving considerably. He pointed to California which he claimed was leading the way on how to improve port security.
Perhaps the Bush Administration is interested in more than just photo-ops after all.
. . .
Monday, June 16, 2003
VILSACK’ S FABLES
It's storytime boys and girls.
There once was a man named Tom Vilsack. He wanted to get reelected governor. So he went to his very special friend, Mr. Image, about what to do. Mr. Image said, “Here is what you should do. Be Mr. Cuddly Bear.” “Mr. Cuddly Bear?” asked Tom. “Oh yes, like Pooh. People will think you warm, snuggly, and nice.” “Okay,” said Mr. Vilsack. So he was Mr. Cuddly-Bear:
And he got reelected.
When he got reelected he wanted to save Iowa by establishing an Iowa Values Fund. But some of those darn mean Republicans weren’t doing what the nice Mr. Cuddly-Bear Vilsack wanted. So Mr. Vilsack went to his good friend Mr. Image again. Mr. Image said, “Being Mr. Cuddly Bear won’t work this time.” “Then what will?” asked Mr. Vilsack. “Oh you must bear Mr. Sheriff.” “Mr. Sherrif?” asked Vilsack. “Yes, dress up like a cowboy, act like you’re in charge, and kick those mean Republicans around. Show ‘em who is boss!”
“Yes, that might work,” said Vilsack. “And don’t foget your posse” said Mr. Image. “My posse?” said Vilsack. “Yes, you know, the Des Moines Register editorial page!” said Mr. Image. “Oh yeah,” said Mr. Vilsack.
A few months later Mr. Vilsack came back for another visit with his special friend Mr. Image. “Well,” he said, “being Mr. Cowboy helped, but I wasn’t able to corral those mean, nasty, Republicans like I wanted. I had to accept a deal that had the Iowa Values Fund, but some other things I don’t like. Now, I want to break my deal with the Republicans, and only sign the Iowa Values Fund, and line item veto the rest.” “Then you need to be something that represents what you are about to do,” said Mr. Image. “I suggest you become Gator Vilsack.”
“Gator Vilsack?!” exclaimed Mr. Vilsack. “How will that help?” “Oh it’s the perfect image to have,” said Mr. Image, “when you are ready to turn back around and bite the Republicans in their collective ass.”
The end.
. . .
ME? DES MOINES REGISTER?
Yes, it is true sports fans. A piece I wrote on welfare reform was in last Friday's Des Moines Register.
So, am I about to become nicer? Am I about to sell out?
Heh, heh, heh.
. . .
|
. . .
|
