Topic: Government and Politics

The Left Understands RomneyCare

In defending his health care plan, former Massachusetts governor turned presidential candidate Mitt Romney never fails to call it a “free market” plan or to denounce “HillaryCare,” the presumed alternative. In the most recent Iowa debate, he proclaimed: “This is a country that can get all of our people insured with not a government takeover, without HillaryCare, without socialized medicine…. We [in Massachusetts] didn’t expand government programs.”

In reality, as my collegue Michael Cannon has pointed out, RomneyCare is virtually indistinguishable from HillaryCare. But don’t take our word for it.

Joe Conason of the New York Observer is the latest liberal advocate of national health care to note the similarities. As Conason says, “Actually, his fabulous Bay State plan is based entirely on governmental action, from mandating insurance coverage and minimum coverage requirements to subsidizing insurance and imposing fines on those who fail to comply.”

Romney has been trying to position himself as the “conservative” alternative to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. But being a conservative Republican should be about more than abortion policy and the War on Terror. At the very least, supporting a government take over of one-seventh of the U.S. economy should disqualify one from being anything but the biggest of big-government conservatives.

Recessed Enlightenment

With Congress adjourned for its August recess, Americans can enjoy a brief respite from the steady stream of bad legislation that typically emanates from the Capitol.

But wouldn’t it be nice if Congress stayed out of Washington for a bit longer?

Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) recalled a conversation with former Senator Jim Eastland (D-Miss.) about the way Congress used to deal with the summer heat:

“‘Before we had air conditioning,’ he said, ‘that sun would beat down on that dome, heat up that place,’ he said. ‘It would get too hot and we’d leave Washington, and we’d leave for the year,’” Biden quoted Eastland as saying.

“‘Then we got air conditioning, stayed year-round and ruined America.’”

Pandering to the Protectionists

Given the audience, one could have expected a goodly amount of protectionist rhetoric from the Democratic presidential candidates in their debate last night at an AFL-CIO forum. But at times it seemed as though they were battling to see who among them could pander the most.

Dennis Kucinich has never been a promoter of open trade and markets, so it is hardly surprising that he said withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO would be a “first week in office” priority. Thank goodness he’s not a serious candidate. What is worrisome is the cheers his pledge elicited. Do the members of the AFL-CIO truly believe that if two of our largest trade partners (Canada and Mexico) increased their tariffs on American goods, that would somehow benefit them? Is the WTO seen as such a negative force overall that withdrawing from its forums and its legal protections is perceived as wise?

The other candidates, to their credit, did not match Mr Kucinich’s pledge. But that is to damn them with faint praise, however, as most of them did undertake to “revise” trade agreements, including NAFTA, (presumably by putting in more stringent rules on labor and environmental provisions) and to put more emphasis on enforcement of trade agreements. None of them, not even Senator Clinton, whose husband showed a commendable commitment to trade during his time in office, stood up and defended the benefits of trade.

Senator Obama, given the chance to acknowledge the positive effect of trade on working families – i.e., cheap goods – demurred, making an emotive, if economically illiterate, point about how a cheap T-shirt is useless if one doesn’t have a job. As though the U.S. economy was not demonstrating that consumers can have access to cheaper goods as well as record employment.

Perhaps the next Democratic presidential candidates debate should be held at a consumer- or taxpayer-group forum.

Time for a (Most of) Government Shutdown

President Bush and congressional Democrats are fighting over many of the annual spending bills, leading some to predict a government shutdown when the new fiscal year starts October 1. This prospect horrifies the political class, but Investor’s Business Daily explains why it would be a good idea to close many government departments:

Here’s a suggestion: Many government departments, agencies and offices should be closed for good. …In 1800, the government needed a mere 3,000 employees and $1 million a year to do its job. In those days, lawmakers knew well the meaning of “limited.” Today, federal civilian employees number nearly 2 million. Another 10 million or more are federal contractors or grant recipients. The yearly budget of this runaway train is soaring toward $3 trillion. …Start with the Education Department, created in 1979 by the Carter administration despite the fact there is no constitutional authorization for its existence. In addition to its meddling, the department is spending nearly $70 billion a year in taxpayers’ dollars. By all accounts, public education in this country is worse off than it was when the Education Department opened. It’s hard to make an argument that those 5,000 employees are contributing anything. Next on the block should be the Energy Department, another monster wrought by Jimmy Carter, this one in 1977. There’s no real job this department… Like food, shelter and clothing, energy is a commodity that can and should be traded on an open market. There is no need to make a federal case out of it, particularly one that employees 17,000 people. All Cabinet-level departments — even Defense, which could cut waste — should at least have their budgets drained of excess. On a smaller scale, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities should go. Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be zeroed out.

Does America Need a Training School for Bureaucrats?

Investor’s Business Daily comments on Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a national school to train “public servants.” But does America need a West Point for bureaucrats? The IBD editorial touches on some of the obvious shortcomings of the scheme, but it also is worth noting that such a school sounds frighteningly similar to France’s infamous l’Ecole d’Administration, the elitist institution that produced a long string of statist politicians such as Jacques Chirac:

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she wants to establish a national academy that will train public servants. Why do re-education camps come to mind? … Somehow we doubt there will be many lectures in making government smaller, deregulating business, cutting taxes or increasing individual freedom. Is there a chance that this “new generation” attending the academy will hear a single voice that isn’t hailing the glories of the nanny state? Will students being groomed for public service ever hear the names Hayek, von Mises or Friedman during their studies? … Government at all levels is already overflowing with bureaucrats who suck up taxpayers’ money and produce little, if anything, of economic value. More often, the bureaucracy actually gets in the way of economic progress.

If You’re Not a Farmer, Then Shut Up

I blogged about the arrogance of some members of Congress during last week’s farm debate in the House.

From the Congressional Record, check out this bluster from farm committee member Tim Walz (D-MN) during the floor debate. (Note that he is objecting to reforms proposed by Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ):

I rise in opposition to my good friend from Wisconsin’s piece of legislation. It’s well meaning, but I believe it does not address the needs of my district. The people of the First District of Minnesota, I think, can probably lay claim to one of the richest agricultural pieces of land in the entire world … I had 14 hearings throughout my district with universal acceptance of making sure the safety net is maintained … When I need advice on the farm bill, I go to a couple of good farmers in my district, Kevin Papp, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, and Doug Peterson, president of Minnesota’s Farmers Union. I don’t need to go to the ideologues at the Cato Institute or Club for Growth to know what’s good for rural America.

Have you got it? If you are a taxpayer footing the bill for $30 billion or so of farm subsidies each year, then tough beans–just sit down and let Mr. Walz spend your money on his special interest friends.

A few questions to ponder:

Do you think that there was “universal acceptance” of big farm subsidies at his meetings because they were meetings of farmers?

If Mr. Walz’s district is “one of the richest agricultural pieces of land in the entire world” then why the heck does it need subsidies?

State and Local Workers Retain Advantage

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on employee compensation by industry. (See tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6).

The new data for 2006 show that the nation’s 16 million state and local government workers earned an average $61,727 in total compensation (wages plus benefits). That is 11 percent more than the $55,470 average earned by U.S. private sector workers.

Looking just at wages, state and local workers earned an average $46,937, which is similar to the $45,995 average earned by private sector workers. Thus the primary state and local advantage is the generous fringe benefits.

The figure below shows that the state and local worker advantage has remained fairly constant since at least 1990. Private pay boomed in the late-1990s, but state and local pay has grown faster this decade.

Source: Chris Edwards, Cato Institute, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data

For those interested in the welfare of teachers, the BEA data shows that teacher compensation has closely tracked the overall state and local average since 1990. The average compensation in state and local education in 2006 was $62,371

State and local workers are not paid as well as federal workers, on average, but they usually receive similar generous fringe benefits including high job security, and lucrative pension and health care plans.