Topic: Government and Politics

America’s “Public Squalor” Versus Europe’s “Social Justice”

A British member of the European Parliament urges approval of the new European Union constitution (now being called a reform treaty in an effort to preclude a referendum), arguing in the Guardian that it will promote European-style solidarity rather than the American-style squalor. Yet according to both the IMF and the World Bank, per capita GDP is $8,500 higher in the United States (nearly $13,000 higher according to the CIA and $9,800 higher according to the OECD) than it is in the United Kingdom. As for the less fortunate, a left-wing think tank published a report last year showing that poor people in America have more income than poor people in the U.K. (see Figure 8D). The international data suggests that the European social model does a good job preserving the self-interest of the political class and a crummy job helping people improve their lives:

The reform treaty will explicitly commit European governments to defend and strengthen the European social model. It will enshrine the values of social justice, full employment and solidarity in the EU’s “mission statement” and commit the EU to “a social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress”. Similarly, the treaty emphasizes that the EU must work to “combat social exclusion and discrimination”, and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It is values such as these that clearly differentiate the EU from the American model of capitalism that allows private wealth and public squalor. …The overwhelming majority of our socialist colleagues across Europe support the reform treaty, despite some reservations, precisely because it will enshrine the European social model.

The Blue Dog Fraud

Many of the newly-elected Democrats in the House of Representatives campaigned as fiscally conservative independents, but the Wall Street Journal reveals that these so-called blue-dog Democrats generally have been supporters of higher taxes and bigger government. Too bad these fiscal frauds aren’t more like the “Boll Weevil” Democrats, members of Congress who provided the margin of victory for many reforms to limit the burden of government during the Reagan years:

So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. …28 of the 48 blue dogs voted “no” on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. …Voting records from recent years confirm that the blue dogs are less than consistent spending hawks. The National Taxpayers Union did some checking and found that the blue dogs had an average fiscal score of 24 out of 100, earning them a grade of D as a group. It also found that last year the blue dogs sponsored $145 of new spending for every dollar of budget reductions, for a net spending increase per member of more than $140 billion. The blue dogs are consistent on one fiscal issue: stopping tax cuts. As a group they opposed the Bush tax cuts and the extension of those tax cuts, and a super-majority vote requirement to raise taxes–all in the name of easing the debt burden on future generations. But those concerns evaporated when all but nine in the blue dog coalition voted to expand the Schip health-care program to include many middle-class families, at a cost of $132.6 billion over the 2008-2017 period.

Politics Today

The Washington Post reports today that John Edwards’s new strategy is to reposition himself as a “straight talker,” emulating the model that worked for John McCain in 2000. As someone said, “Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

Meanwhile, the Post also tells us about the lifelong congressional insider who’s helping Barack Obama craft his image as a Washington outsider.

What a country. It reminds me of the presidential campaign manager who once told me, “We’ve made a tentative decision to run a bold campaign.”

No Veterans of Foreign Wars Need Apply

“As some of the leading presidential candidates trooped before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City this week, there was one thing largely missing at the lectern — veterans of foreign wars,” writes Peter Baker in the Washington Post, contrasting this year’s campaign with past election years.

Baker grades both former presidents and current candidates on a steep curve. He writes, “Every president from Harry S. Truman to George H.W. Bush served.” But LBJ, already a congressman, went on investigative missions for FDR, admittedly flying around the South Pacific combat zone. And the nearsighted Ronald Reagan made propaganda films in Los Angeles. He even counts George W. Bush as a veteran on the basis of his Texas Air National Guard service.

As for the current candidates, 

“The torch is being passed to a new generation that’s never worn a uniform,” said Kenneth T. Jackson, a military historian at Columbia University. “It’s a significant change. It means people are now coming of age who are really the post-Vietnam generation.”

But is that really true? The leading Democratic candidates are a woman and a man born in 1961. But John Edwards, born in 1953, Bill Richardson (1947), and Joe Biden (1941) are not “the post-Vietnam generation.” They’re the non-Vietnam generation. A blogger has some more details about the Vietnam records of 2008 candidates here.

As for the Republicans, John McCain famously served, as Baker notes. But Mitt Romney (1947), Rudy Giuliani (1944), Fred Thompson (1942), and Newt Gingrich (1947) are, like their Democratic counterparts, within the age cohorts who went to Vietnam. They weren’t post-Vietnam, just nowhere-near-Vietnam. Mike Huckabee (1955) and Sam Brownback (1956), along with Barack Obama, would seem to the only candidates who are actually from the post-Vietnam generation.

Does this matter? It used to matter to voters. When I asked my parents in the 1960s, about 20 years after the end of World War II, why all the local candidates listed themselves as veterans on all their campaign literature, my mother told me that you’d wonder what was wrong with a man who hadn’t served in “the war.” Today, some worry that military veterans might be more eager to go to war. Historian Jackson sees it differently: “When you have leaders who haven’t gone [to war], I do think it changes the equation a little bit,” he told the Post. “It’s a little bit worrisome. People who have actually been to war … are actually a little less inclined to go to war. Generals know what war’s about, and they’re less enthusiastic to go rocketing off than civilians.”

That reminds me of Robert Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers, often denounced as militaristic or even fascist, especially by people who have only seen the movie. In the novel, only military veterans were citizens with voting rights. But the basis for that was classical republicanism: that only those who were willing to defend the society, and who by facing combat had come to understand the real meaning of power and war and violence, could be trusted to lead the society.

At the very least, candidates who have never served in a war should have some special humility in urging that other Americans be sent to war.

Romney Abandons RomneyCare

Mitt Romney unveils a new health care proposal today that completely abandons the plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts and has defended on the campaign trail. His new proposal is a vast improvement, focused on changing federal tax law in order to empower individuals to buy health insurance outside their employer, and incentives for states to deregulate their insurance industry. He is also expected to block grant both Medicaid and federal uncompensated care funds to encourage greater state innovation. There will be no provision for either an individual mandate or a managed-competition style “connector,” both central features of his Massachusetts plan.

Of course Romney runs the risk of this being seen as another flip-flop, but on health care it is much better to be John Kerry than Hillary Clinton.

Finally, Some Not-So-Bad News on the Budget

The big surprise in the Congressional Budget Office mid-year budget estimates released today isn’t that the year-to-year deficit shrank again.  Or that the long-term liabilities in Medicare and Social Security continue to impend. 

The surprise is that federal spending will only grow about 3% in the current fiscal year that ends this October.  That’s a big improvement over the annual average 7% growth we’ve seen since the first day of the George W. Bush presidency.

How did that happen?  Those familiar with my previous research will probably not be surprised to hear that the new political reality – divided government – has something to do with it.

True, agriculture subsidies are lower this year as a result of higher crop prices.  And the run-up in spending on a variety of programs in 2006 – like the payouts on flood insurance policies after Hurricane Katrina – was temporary.  The most remarkable factor in the trends, however, is that non-defense discretionary spending has been frozen for the first time since the maiden budget of the “Republican Revolution” Congress.  (If the trends CBO estimates hold for the remainder of the year, such spending might actually decline by $1 billion.) 

Sure, part of this is also the result of a decline in spending on federal Katrina relief.  But there’s something else going on, too.  Earlier this year, the new Democratic Congress decided to put the federal budget on auto-pilot until October.  Instead of passing new appropriations bills to fund the government for the entire year, they passed what is called a “continuing resolution” to keep the government operating. 

This didn’t happen because the Democrats were all that interested in spending less money.  They just wanted to get the old budget work left to them by the outgoing Republican Congress off the table so they could get on with more ideological-base-friendly legislation, like the minimum wage increase.  And the Democrats knew that the president might finally start vetoing legislation, too.  A protracted battle over the budget wasn’t something they wanted to spend their energy on in the first half of the year.  Thus, the auto-pilot continuing resolution: a piece of legislation that keeps the government running at basically the inflation-adjusted level of the previous year. 

With the White House veto strategy finally a credible threat*, it looks like we might have a similar sort of outcome on spending this year, too.  Isn’t divided government wonderful? 


* As I told David Jackson of USA Today a few weeks ago, George W. Bush “dislikes Democrats more than he likes big government.”