The Wynnewood Institute has a great article on government run health care by Thomas Patrick Burke. It argues that since civilizations value freedom over coercion universal health care is "an offense against human dignity".
Reading Eagle writer Mary Young opines that, in the state budget debate, both sides should simply get along. She advocates basically splitting the difference between the Senate's $27.3 billion budget and Rendell's $29 billion (soon to be $28.5 billion) spending plan.
What is wrong with this position? Well, for starters, it would suggest that Gov. Rendell should propose a budget that is far higher than he actually expects to spend, and Senate Republicans should offer a counter proposal than spends far less than what they really want - a tactic Rendell has, in fact, mastered, and Republicans are just catching up to.
It also implies we shouldn't bother to evaluate all the over-the-top rhetoric being thrown around. For instance, I find it absurd to suggest that the Senate budget would "cripple agriculture production" in Pennsylvania. I would even go so far as to suggest Pennsylvania would be better off without farm subsidies.
Finally, Young's "get along" position deliberately ignores what is good policy. She cites the Commonwealth Foundation as one "extreme" in the budget debate, for arguing among other things, that higher taxes undermines economic growth, that government spending fails to bolster the economy, and that Pennsylvania should reduce taxes and allow the private sector to respond to economic pressures. On the other side, she cites a group calling for higher taxes and more state spending, believing those policies will allow government planners to stimulate economic growth.
Only one of these two viewpoints can be correct. Which is it? In the opinion of Young, an unfortunately too many in Harrisburg, it doesn't really matter what makes good fiscal policy.
Sharon Ward of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) writes to the Tribune Review complaining about being a labeled "liberal" or "far left". To be fair to Ward, the Commonwealth Foundation also dislikes being labeled "conservative" or "far right", which we frequently are by most media (if not the Tribune Review); we prefer "free-market". Dropping labels entirely and allow discussion of the merits of the arguments are just fine with us, because our principles would prevail every time.
But Ward errs in trying to convince Trib readers that her organization's view on tax and spending policy are "centrist". The PBPC argues that Pennsylvania taxes are too low. Yet only 1% of PA voters agree with that. Ward would also find herself among the mere 5% of Pennsylvanians who think state spending isn't high enough. And Ward's organization vigorously fights against state spending limits, a proposition 2/3rds of voters support.
Or consider Rasmussen's new polling definition - defining the "mainstream" view, held by a majority of Americans, as one which mistrusts the judgment of elected officials, views government as a special interest, and believes big business loves big government. The "political class" holds the opposite views. Which sounds more like and organization which lobbies for increased government spending to grow the economy?
And let's not forget Ward's comments that a $823 million increase in state spending should be viewed as a "cut". The PBPC may not like how they are categorized, but to suggest their views are "centrist" is laughable.
The discussion between Jerry Taylor, Dan Mitchell, and Brink Lindsey on the Cato Institute blog (and NRO’s Corner) on Rush Limbaugh, tea parties, and conservative thought have been fascinating, and I think a discussion worth continuing.
I agree with Jerry Taylor that Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make a lot of stupid, wrong-headed, intellectually dishonest, and offensive statements, and that conservatives would do well to distance themselves from these statements, calling out Limbaugh and Hannity wrong when they are wrong. But I also think Dan Mitchell is spot on, when he notes Limbaugh and Hannity are on 3 hours a day, several hundred days a year, are working to draw an audience, and are thus more likely to make such mistakes (contrast that to folks like myself, who edit everything I write several times before publishing).
Brink Lindsey’s comments that conservative/libertarian thinkers “need to convince smart people that we are right. We need to win the battle of ideas in the intellectual realm by making better arguments than our opponents” is indisputable. But Lindsey’s dumps against populism and Tea Parties were as poorly thought out as a Limbaugh or Hannity tirade. Lindsey rants against “pro-torture-and-wiretapping, anti-gay-and-Mexican [conservatives].” What happened to the need to convince? Instead of a meritorious debate about immigration laws, the definition of marriage, or wiretapping, Lindsey resorts to cheap name calling. Unfortunately, I see this too often from libertarian intellectuals, including those of the Cato Institute, who go above and beyond intellectual disagreement with social conservatives to stick a finger in their eye.
Returning to Mitchell’s post, he poses a couple interesting questions (I will ignore the question about “conservative think tanks”):
How come there were no tea parties when Bush was expanding the burden of government? … Where were the supposedly conservative members of the House and Senate when Bush was pushing through pork-filled transportation bills, corrupt farm bills, a no-bureaucrat-left-behind education bill, and a massive entitlement expansion?I’ll answer the last question first—a large number of truly conservative members did oppose pork-barrel spending, the farm bill, No Child Left Behind, and especially Medicare expansion, in which a lot of intra-party arm twisting occurred. Certainly the later bailouts faced strong opposition from many conservatives in Congress. The problem with GOP governance under Bush was not so much “conservatives” (or even “neo-conservatives” or any other category of ideology) voting for bigger government, but largely Republicans who followed the Bush-Rove doctrine of putting the goal of electoral success above any principle of government.
Cato has a post on eminent domain abuse in rural Pennsylvania and the flight 93 9/11 memorial. The contention centers on 7 owners and their 500 acres of the 2,200-acre memorial.
"Instead of letting an otherwise legitimate contract negotiation—the very foundation of our private property system—run its course, the government is resorting to robbing people because they had the misfortune to own the land near the place a historic tragedy occurred."
The Wall Street Journal takes Sen. Arlen Specter to task for claiming Jack Kemp would still be alive if only taxpayers spent more on cancer research. Not only for the obvious insensitivity of the comment, but for getting the facts wrong.
Between 1994 and 2006, when Republicans controlled Congress or the White House or both, NIH biomedical R&D spending more than doubled in real terms, jumping to $25 billion in 2003 from about $10 billion in the early 1990s. During the Bush years, it fell slightly after that, though holding relatively constant as a share of discretionary spending.This was the same theme of my commentary from 2007 - directed at Governor Rendell - that Higher Taxes Won't Cure Cancer. The basic idea was that taking money out of the private sector, that could be used for cancer research or other causes, and giving it to government to dole out is unwise.
Criticizing the modest budget reduction to $23 billion in 2007 (in constant dollars) is thus a little like condemning K2 for not being Mount Everest. Still, Mr. Specter is right to note his consonance with the "Democrats' approach," which equates federal funding alone with medical innovation. NIH projects are valuable, but they are far from the only or even main reason that the U.S. is the world leader in new and better treatments for killers like cancer.
Most of the advances in biotechnology and pharmacogenomics that are revolutionizing the diagnosis and treatment of disease are occurring in America. One reason is a research environment that is less centralized, more competitive, tolerant of risk and richer in cash -- public, yes, but especially private. Between the 1990s and mid-2000s, more than four times as much medical venture capital was invested in the U.S. than in the European Union.
Jim Demint gives some great remarks on why government cannot, and should not, force individuals to be more charitable and volunteer more.
More Reading on Charity and Government
The Mercatus Center has a final analysis of spending under the Bush presidency - including the growth in spending, comparisons to Clinton and previous spender, pork projects, and growth in spending by category - the bottom line: Bush was a big spender. If this sounds familiar, it is because we have said it repeatedly, noting spending under Republican control and noting that free markets can't be blamed for our present economy - as we have move away from free markets.
Yet we need to keep repeating this, as the message hasn't gotten through to everyone. The Rendell administration, for instance, blames the Commonwealth Foundation for our economic conditions because we offer free-market solutions. We admit we have given many policy recommendations - but the Rendell administration and the Bush administration, and now Obama, have done the opposite.
As President Bush announces a revised bailout for automakers, David Boaz examines the policies of Bush and proposals of Obama and concludes neither is a "socialist", but neither does either believe in free markets; they are "Corporatists":
In fact, right now they both seem to be pursuing policies that are neither socialist nor laissez-faire but rather corporatist. ...Meanwhile, while several folks have commented on Bush's remarks that he "abandoned free market principles to save the free-market system" (which is often a rationalization for big government - whether it be socialism, corporatism, or fascism), I am equally troubled by the next sentence, which represent the typical media analysis of what happened over the past eight years: "Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market"
In a few short months, the Bush administration has turned the focus of our economy to corporatism. Every day brings another story about businessmen seeking their profits in Washington, not the marketplace:
Meanwhile, Obama advisers are saying that if the federal government invests billions of dollars in businesses, it should get some influence on company policies regarding foreclosures, lending, executive compensation, environmental effects and product lines. ...
- Life insurance companies are seeking to buy savings and loan institutions in order to qualify for a piece of the $700 billion bailout fund.
- Realtors and homebuilders are asking for mortgage subsidies, tax credits and interest-rate "buydowns" to stimulate demand for their product.
- Recently "the health insurance industry said" — a pretty corporatist phrase right there — that it would support regulations requiring insurers to accept all customers, regardless of illness or disability, as long as Congress would require every American to buy insurance.
- After Congress turned down a bailout for the car companies, the firms are asking the Bush administration to fund them on its own authority.
That's corporatism for you: Big, established corporations get taxpayers' money as long as any dissenting scientific or political opinions are suppressed.
Socialism is dead even in Moscow and Beijing.
The real choice Americans face is whether we want a free market or a corporate state.
John Stossel has a good article on Townhall today on Blagoevich, the bailout, and public choice theory
The Public Choice economists remind us that contrary to what the civics textbooks imply, public "servants" have the same ambitions as the rest of us --wealth, career, influence, prestige. But there's a big difference between us and them. Politicians, bureaucrats and the people they "rescue" get money through force -- taxation. Don't think taxation is force? Try not paying, and see what happens. ...
Even someone devoted to achieving the public good is ignorant of what is truly in the interest of a group of individuals as large and diverse as the population of a state or country. Lacking that knowledge -- and with his political cronies and the most politically connected lobbies constantly whispering in his ear -- he will presume that what is good for the best -- organized interest groups -- must be good for everyone. Then he will take from all of us to bail out those special interests. This will tend to be good for the politician's career.
Blagojevich allegedly assumed someone would be willing to pay dearly to be a U.S. senator. I'm sure he was right. But if government were less important in our lives, politicians would have fewer goodies to trade. In return, we'd have more money and more freedom.
That's one more reason to limit government power.
Jay P. Greene explains why anyone who believes in limited government and free markets should support the Commonwealth Foundation.
Not directly, of course, but his conclusion is that support for the Commonwealth Foundation (not to mention the Manhattan Institute, where he is a senior fellow, and the Cato Institute, which quickly picked up on his comments) would be more advised than sending your money certain other places.
Greene argues that the financial bailout represents the attempted murder of limited government and free markets. He then notes some free market think tanks were accomplices to the attempted murder, and supported a massive expansion of government. These groups are also well-funded by limited government conservatives (I will add that John McCain and George W. Bush also supported the bailout, and contributions to their campaigns dwarf donations to any of the think tanks mentioned - which is why I call for a focus on ideas, not politics). Notes Greene, "If those donors really do wish to support huge expansions in government involvement in the economy, then I guess they are giving to the right organizations."
Here are our posts the week of Sept. 21, I think you can see how we feel about the bailout and free market alternatives to it.
In a speech to the Manhattan Institute, President Bush defends the free market. Let me parse what I consider to be the key paragraph:
History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market. (Applause.)Great advice - though it would have been more useful if he gave this speech to George W. Bush circa 2001.
We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the United States Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. And when the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system.Bingo - the financial collapse was a failure of government.
And there is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government."Smarter" government?!? Sorry, but the correct answer is smaller government
Ted Nugent declares "RINOs" fair game in a poignant piece on Human Events
There are really only four things I have a strong aversion to: unloaded guns, dull knives, banjos, and Republicans in Name Only (RINOs).Mr. Nugent will be joining the Commonwealth Foundation for our inaugural Live Free PA event on April 25, 2009 in Mainheim, PA.
The Nugent family simply doesn't allow any of those things in our lives.
RINOs are Fedzilla punks who feign support for conservative principles only when it serves their political interest. RINOs are also known for their moderate positions such as supporting tax increases, federal “bailouts”, “comprehensive immigration reform”, advocating more counterproductive gun control that guarantee more innocent victims, opposing the death penalty, and growing and sustaining Fedzilla and all its toxic mongrels by going along with the liberals. RINOs have forgotten President Ronald Maximus Regan's admonition that government is the problem, not the solution. ...
Consensus building is for wimps and soulless people who stand for nothing. Compromise is not about being tolerant: these days, it’s about giving up conservative principles.
A poll from the Club For Growth surveyed voters in 12 competitive Congressional districts; eleven of the 12 switched hands from Republican to Democrat following Tuesday's elections. The results might surprise some:
Following John McCain's loss, conservatives and pundits will start looking to offer an explanation. To keep it simple, let me say this: The financial bailout killed whatever chance McCain's had. McCain's lead in the polls evaporated when the bailout became the lead story.
McCain flubbed on the bailout. As a candidate he insisted that he represented real leadership, opposed wasteful spending, and would shake up Washington. In the bailout debate, he offered no solutions, supported a bill that includes billions in wasteful spending, and took a half-hearted stance in support simply to go along with the flow.
If McCain had stood with Sen. DeMint for free-market reforms, put the blame on government intervention, and challenged the Bush administration, we might be calling him Mr. President. (Note: I wrote this sentence before I read this from Sen. DeMint: "If McCain loses the election, he will have lost it because of the bailout.”)
McCain's calling Obama a socialist for his views on spreading the wealth would have been far more effective had he not supported socialist plans himself - and his mortgage plan was every bit as socialist as Obama's tax proposals.
McCain's loss can largely be blamed on Bush's failure. McCain should have quickly listing how he is different than Bush - not a pawn of Wall Street, voted against pork repeatedly, no on Medicare part D, no on transportation bill, no on farm bill, no on torture, fire Rumsfeld, et. al. - and blasting Bush but he didn't (not wanting to upset the GOP consulting industry and the CPAC conservatives) until it was far too late. Consider this:
"We both disagree with President Bush on economic policies," McCain said. "My approach is to get spending under control. The difference between us is he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high."That sounds great, but it would have sounded better if it had come before McCain voted for a $700 billion bailout.
But it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism.So what now for conservatives? I will start with Tom Delay's piece, arguing that conservatives need to worker harder to build "infrastructure", he also argues that America remains a center-right nation. I agree on both counts. However, I disagree that we need to work harder to win elections. The problem with the Conservative movement is that too much focus is on winning elections, not on championing ideas. We spent too much time and money on politics, and even if McCain (and some Congressional Republicans won, or even in the state house in PA), it wouldn't translate into conservative policies being enacted.
In part, the GOP's problems stem from being seen as having become less conservative and less principled (think "Bridge to Nowhere"). ...
A Fox News poll taken at the start of October found that 76 percent of respondents believe lower taxes and smaller government are preferable to higher taxes and larger government.
And an Obama victory would not signal an ideological pivot.
In honor of Guy Fawkes day, here are some clips for V for Vendetta because ideas, not politicians offer real hope and change
"We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught. He can be killed and forgotten. But four hundred years later an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed firsthand the power of ideas. I've seen people kill in the name of them; and die defending them."
Ben Lieberman of Heritage explains why the free market system is responsible for the recent decline in gasoline prices.
"As summer turned to fall, sky-high pump prices in the face of a weakening economy led to lower demand and a drop in those prices. In other words, market forces do work, and they tend to counter big price moves in one direction or the other. The financial meltdown may have weakened faith in markets over the last few weeks, but the precipitous decline in oil and gasoline prices should help strengthen that faith."
He also explains why additonal federal regulations will make energy more expensive. On the state level additional regulations passed in HB 2200, such as mandated reductions in energy useage, will raise the cost of electricity.
I had the chance to hear Karl Rove speak at a conference hosted by Hillsdale College on "Economics and the 2008 Election." Rove had some interesting things to say:
1) The public is increasingly skeptical of government intervention in the economy (at least compared with 40 years ago). Government is largely to blame for the current financial crisis - Rove blasted the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played (and their immense lobbying expenditures), the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates "too low for too long". Rove believes the public recognizes the failure of government, even if the media doesn't, and will be skeptical of any government solution.
2) Not surprisingly, Rove was critical of the tax and spend policies of Obama - noting that his tax schemes are aimed primarily at redistribution. His was also critical of McCain, not so much for his economic policy proposals, but for his failure to talk about them (especially health care), saying "his instincts are right" but not based on an economic philosophy.
3) Rove did not say anything bad about his old boss, but blasted former Republicans in Congress, including those who allegedly choked their mistress, and said that the culture of earmarks - the idea that re-election depends on getting earmarks for you district/state - was the creation of Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay.
4) Responding to a question, Rove said he is no longer a strong supporter of term limits, but does think that the part-time, citizen legislator model (e.g. of Texas) in which legislators have real world experience, is the best way to insure a limited government. He also thinks we need to end the process of gerrymandering.
While some pundits and media, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, point to the proposed bailout as demonstration of the failure of the free market, in fact it is a failure of government.
Part of the failure lies with the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by attempting to increase home ownership by encouraging subprime loans, as discussed in the Wall Street Journal today. In fact, even the New York Times - hardly the defenders of the free market - cautioned against Fannie and Freddie's actions, given their taxpayer backing, back in 1999 (HT to Carpe Diem), writing:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.Government regulation and urban planning is largely to blame for the "housing bubble", which many attribute as the start of the current "crisis." The Community Reinvestment Act (and its strengthening in the mid-90s), which essentially required lenders to loosen their standards to increase home ownership also fueled the rise in mortgage defaults.
The May edition of The Freeman has a creat commentary on Compromise, Principles, and Politics.
Essentially the piece makes the point that "compromise" (or "bipartisanship") in politics is akin to two pickpockets agreeing on how much money to rob you of. On the other hand, the free-market involves only compromise, and true compromise at that - two parties agreeing to make a voluntary exchange without any coercion.
