Thursday, January 13, 2005
GOVERNMENT AID IS AN INAPPPROPRIATE MEASURE OF GENEROSITY
Today I sauntered over to the Peter G. Peterson Conference Center to see a discussion between Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute and Steve Radelet of the Center for Global Development. Although their discussion would be interesting to a lot of people—and both gave good presentations—I left early out of boredom. I’m not sure why I attended in the first place, given the title of the discussion, “U.S. Aid: Generous or Stingy?”
Frankly, this whole discussion has seemed pointless to me, not the least because it was some U.N. bureaucrat who set it off. Why we take seriously anything that comes out of any mouth of any U.N. official is beyond me.
I also find this debate pointless because I consider government aid to be a terrible measure of the generosity of any society. To be generous, one has to be willing to give freely. But government aid is not given freely; it is first taken in the form of taxes. Even in a democracy, people are forced to give government aid, at least those people who disagree with it. As long as 50% plus one of the people approve of government aid, then the 50% minus one will be forced to fund it via their taxes whether they like the idea or not.
In fact, if we get down to brass tacks, foreign aid is probably far less democratic than that. Opinion polls often show that most Americans don’t like foreign aid. The reason we have it is (1)that there are organized interests in and outside of the government that fight for it, and (2) because of majority inertia—that is, the majority doesn’t like it but isn’t animated enough to stop it. So, it is probably fair to say that the majority is forced to pay for aid they don’t like.
Over 150 years ago the French philosopher Frederic Bastiat dubbed this “false philanthropy.” If giving isn’t done freely, then it is not philanthropy. And it is not generous.
Now, I’m not suggesting that we necessarily do away with foreign aid. Obviously, I have to support it if I supported the War in Iraq (I did and still do). We can’t invade a country on the premise of taking out despotism and then not spend sufficient resources in that country to ensure that despotic government doesn’t return.
What I am suggesting is that we need to dump this notion that how much foreign aid (or any type of government aid) is a measure of generosity. Generosity only occurs when the giving is done without compulsion. Since all government aid involves taxes, all aid, to some extent, is not given freely.
Unfortunately, with a mainstream media that thinks most good things flow from government, that notion will be around for some time to come.
. . .
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
SOME CONSERVATIVES KNOW BETTER THAN THE WINNERS ON HOW TO WIN
I thought the fact that George W. Bush won reelection, and expanded his majorities in both house of Congress meant that the GOP had a pretty good game plan. Apparently not, according to Reihan Salam.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, he warns the GOP that it must appeal to the “Sam’s Club Republicans”:
Back in 2002, two die-hard social conservatives fought for Minnesota's Republican gubernatorial nomination. Brian Sullivan was a successful entrepreneur backed by the Freedom Club, a group of "pro-growth" millionaires lifted straight from Central Casting. With his zeal for tax cuts and his privileged background, Sullivan was a Bush Republican down to his wingtips.
His opponent was Tim Pawlenty, a state representative born on the wrong side of the tracks. Pawlenty embraced the state's populist tradition, insisting that Republicans "need to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club." And it was Pawlenty who ended up winning the GOP nod and the statehouse by wide margins.
I’m immediately suspicious given that Salam has used a typical liberal tactic: the good guys are populist, ordinary folk from the wrong side of the tracks, while the bad guys are the wing-tip wearing wealthy. Surely Salam doesn’t mean to suggest that all of the gents who support the “pro-growth” position are all trust-fund babies, does he? Perhaps he should speak with Pat Toomey or Herman Cain about their backgrounds.
Anyway, Salam continues:
What Pawlenty realized — and what President Bush apparently fails to grasp — is that the Republican Party has changed. The rich still vote for Republicans in large numbers, but they're not the party's heart and soul. To win elections, the GOP increasingly relies on socially conservative voters of modest means.
Yep, Bush failed to realize that. That’s why he didn’t win reelection. Oh wait, yes he did.
So,
Which is why Bush's second-term agenda is so spectacularly wrongheaded. Social Security privatization (a good idea whose time hasn't come) and tax cuts for the rich (cast as "tax reform," of course) are on the front burner, and an amnesty for illegal immigrants (which would put even more pressure on native-born workers without college degrees) isn't far behind. The Freedom Club GOP is riding high — and the Sam's Club crowd is left in the dust.
I’m not sure I agree with the argument about immigration, but I’ll give a nod to it . As for the other two, let’s read Salam’s next paragraph first:
Consider this from the perspective of a not atypical GOP voter — say, a young married woman with three small children living in Ohio. She voted for Bush because he promised to vigorously defend her family against terrorists and because he shares her values. But she has material interests too. She would like to raise her kids full time, but the money isn't there. Her husband is working long hours, but it's not nearly enough, and the tax cuts barely made a dent in their debts. At some point, she has to wonder, what has President Bush done for me lately?
Precious little is the right answer, and GOP politicians would do well to take note.
First off, why isn’t giving personal accounts to such people via Social Security reform “populist”? Don’t these same struggling folks have to worry about retirement too? Also, I imagine the tax cuts, especially the credits for children and the diminution of the marriage penalty, helped these folks more than Salam gives them credit for. If tax cuts are such a bad issue, why do Republicans keep winning on it?
Liberals like Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter With Kansas," have long argued that populist conservatism is nothing more than a con. Conservatives sell values to the working class, but they deliver economic ruin. It's a view that is overheated, under-informed and more than a little condescending. Unfortunately, it contains a grain of truth.
Oh, he is taking counsel from hyper-lefty Thomas Frank! I’m currently wading through Frank’s book, and from what I’ve read so far it never seems to occur to him that maybe such people of “modest means” know what is in their best interest and what is not—that maybe if economic concerns really mattered to them, they’d vote that way. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to Salam either:
When he got into office, Bush's real first priority turned out to be deep, across-the-board tax reductions. The second priority was … more deep tax cuts. As for healthcare, the cost of child-rearing and wage stagnation — issues that hit close to home for the lower-middle-class strivers — Bush has offered proposals that were either laughably timid or hugely counterproductive.
If those were such huge concerns, why didn’t Bush lose the election—and why didn’t Kerry gain more traction with his health-care plan? Given the next paragraph, it stands to reason that he would:
Take healthcare. In the face of a massive and growing number of uninsured Americans — and no, they're not all healthy people lackadaisically choosing to live dangerously — Bush called for "association health plans," which would, at best, lead to coverage for 330,000 of the roughly 42 million uninsured. "Let them eat cake" is the phrase that comes to mind.
There are so many holes in that you can drain your pasta with it. First, there are not 42 million uninsured—that number is greatly inflated. Second, that “330,000” number—assuming it is accurate—needs to be taken as part of a whole: Health Savings Accounts, allowing people to purchase insurance out of state, and tax credits. All of those, taken together, would do a lot to reduce the number of uninsured.
Also, Salam mischaracterizes the argument of the uninsured as “healthy people lackadaisically choosing to live dangerously.” In fact, it’s not that at all: the fastest growing segment of the uninsured are the relatively well-to-do. Data from the Medical Expendiuture Panel Survey show that in 1996, 59% of the individuals without health insurance for a year were in a household classified by MEPS as either poor, near poor, or low income. Individuals in middle-income and high-income households constituted 27.3% and 13.6% of the uninsured, respectively. By 2001 individuals in poor, near poor and low-income households were 54.2% of the uninsured, while those in the middle-income households had increased to 28.5% and those in high-income households increased to 17.3%!. Why? Well, I have an article about this that should be in the March issue of the Spectator, so I can’t give the game away fully right now. But here’s a hint: government regulations that make it economically rational to do so. Somehow, though, I doubt that repealing such regulations is the solution Salam has in mind.
But not to worry,
Chances are that Democrats will miss this opportunity to win over GOP voters with economic populism that sells.
Oh wait, do worry:
But if Republicans don't shift gears, the Democrats' window of opportunity will widen, and left-wing populism could take off. When that happens, you won't see Clintonian micro-initiatives to help the middle class. Not by a long shot. Job-killing protectionism and overregulation will come roaring back, and so will stagflation.
In general, the hallmark of a weak argument is that it tries to convince us that we are all headed for hell in a handbasket unless we adopt the author’s ideas. You know that when Salam has to resort to “it’s the late 1970s all over again” that his argument probably isn’t built on very solid ground.
And it’s not, as he reveals in paragraphs like this:
Politicians are often vilified for pandering to their base, but on matters economic, the GOP needs to do more of it. By focusing on the interests of Sam's Club voters, farsighted conservatives can build a lasting majority. But if the party's agenda continues to be set on K Street, we'll soon be talking about "the emerging Republican minority."
Salam should attend a few Wednesday morning meeting where the conservative agenda is usually set. He’ll hear all sorts of concern for how various ideas will play out with those he dubs “Sam’s Club Voters.” Also witness the many K-Street conservatives warning against any severe benefit cuts as part of a Social Security reform: Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Peter Ferrara, etc. They are not giving such warnings because they think such cuts would play badly with the wealthy.
I’m sure that someday the Potomac fever will fully infect the GOP. But until that day, perhaps the GOP should stick with the game plan that just recently led to its consolidation of power.
. . .
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
WUSSY LIBERAL BUMPER STICKER
“When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Accidentally Shoot Their Children.”
. . .
AARP HYPOCRISY ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Investing in the stock market: Good for members of AARP, good for AARP’s bottom line, but not for people who pay into Social Security. My latest at the Spectator.
. . .
Sunday, January 09, 2005
OSAMA CHIC
You know, it is probably good that this photo has not made the mainstream media rounds. It would dampen donations to the victims of the tsunami, including the ones that do not hate us.
. . .
STEVE ALFOR
No, that is not a type-o. From now on, I’m referring to the coach of the Iowa Hawkeyes as Steve Alfor. Why? Because the Hawkeyes got no D!
The fact that the Hawkeye Men’s Basketball team had a poor defense mattered little early in the season when they could average in the neighborhood of 80+ points per game. Yet now that the offense is stumbling (they haven’t cracked 70 in the last three games), their defense—surprise!—is losing them games.
This shouldn’t be a huge surprise to anyone who has followed the Hawkeyes under the tenure of Steve Alfor. Alfor’s teams have usually had a glaring weakness. In recent years it was ball handling—the Hawkeyes always seemed to turn over the ball more than their opponents. While that problem has abated a great deal this season, now it is the defense (or lack thereof) that has, apparently, been neglected.
How bad is it? First off, the Hawkeyes have been out-rebounded in nine of their first fifteen games, including by NCAA powerhouses Western Illinois, Drake, and Northern Iowa. The Hawks leading rebounder is Greg Brunner, and he has been in double digits in rebounds only six times. In fact, the only other Hawkeye to have at least 10 rebounds in a game is Doug Thomas and that was against another NCAA powerhouse, UNC Greensboro.
Then there is the matter of steals. In almost half of their games—seven—the Hawkeye’s opponents have come up with more steals. This included more NCAA powerhouses like Air Force and Western Carolina.
So it should come as no surprise that last year Iowa lost one its premier rebounders in Jared Reiner and one of its premier thieves in Brody Boyd. I wonder, did Steve Alfor not know that these two gents were seniors last year? Did he not realize that he should have recruited to fill the holes they would leave?
More likely, he thought that his brilliant coaching would help develop Greg Brunner into a rebounder able to fill the shoes of Reiner and some other player (Jeff Horner, Pierre Pierce?) to fill the sticky fingers of Boyd. And why shouldn’t he? After all, his coaching prowess enabled Boyd and Glenn Worley to fulfill their offensive potential while they were Hawkeyes.
So, now that the Hawkeyes are coming up against teams like Michigan and Ohio State that can shut them down, the weakness that is their defense is becoming glaringly apparent.
But if you watched Steve Alfor over the years, that should come as no surprise.
. . .
24
My review of season three.
. . .
|
. . .
|
