Topic: Political Philosophy

Spending Limits Are Not the Answer

David Primo and Jeff Milyo have just published an op-ed in Roll Call. Advocates have long argued that restrictions on campaign spending, which can be direct spending or contributions, enhance electoral competition. In Vermont they convinced the state legislature to pass spending limits, the constitutionality of which are now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Primo and Milyo correctly note “the most current and best scientific evidence flies in the face of the promises” made by these advocates. Indeed, “the court jurisprudence upholding campaign finance laws is built on a shaky empirical foundation.” They continue: “In fact, we are aware of no scholarly studies that yield consistent evidence of large and statistically significant effects of campaign finance regulations on electoral competitiveness.”

I go into the shaky philosophical and empirical foundations of campaign finance law in my upcoming book, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.

Since When Does the Right Have Any Health Care Prescriptions?

Ezra Klein responds to my post on the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, where I lament that its tax-and-spend approach to health care shows that it was hijacked by the left—despite having a business-community chairman and Bush’s HHS Secretary on the panel. Klein provides an alternative interpretation: “the right’s prescriptions on health care didn’t even convince the panel’s Republican ringers.”

I’m new to the blogosphere, so I’m not clear what the rules are regarding subtlety. My point was that the right doesn’t have any prescriptions or even premises when it comes to health care—at least, not of their own. To compensate, they adopt the left’s premises (“we need to expand health coverage”) and prescriptions (“we need a Medicare Rx benefit”). For examples, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Even when the right comes across a good idea (e.g., health savings accounts), they often gravitate toward it not because they understand why it’s a good idea, but because they think it serves leftist premises (“HSAs will … reduce the number of uninsured!”). The exception that proves the rule would have to be the GOP’s Rep. John Shadegg and Sen. Jim DeMint, who have a smashing health care proposal and who know why it’s a good proposal.

In general, Republicans and conservatives do not understand health policy, and do not have a health policy agenda that distinguishes them from the Left. Then, lo and behold, we get the GOP’s top health care guy sitting on a panel that (tentatively) recommends universal coverage financed by tax increases.

Go figure.

‘Twas a Famous Victory

Apropos of DeLay’s departure and the K Street Project (“Please, Hammer, don’t hurt me!”), I’m reminded of a dinner for another think tank I attended a couple of years ago.  DeLay was the featured speaker, and when he approached the podium, he got a roaring standing O. Except from my table, which was made up of Cato folks.  DeLay gestured toward us and growled into the mike, “Those must be the libertarians!”

Not too long thereafter, the Hammer declared an “ongoing victory” in the war on spending, noting that “After 11 years of Republican majority, we’ve pared it down pretty good.”  Sigh. Good riddance.

Politics Is Not Religion

Will Wilkinson offers some telling criticisms of Charles Morris’ recent New York Times op-ed.

Morris writes that the economy has a “spiritual dimension” that is lacking in contemporary America. He implies that an active and expansive government should supply a “conviction of fairness, a feeling of not being totally on one’s own, a sense of reasonable stability and predictability.”

The state, then, should be in the business of providing spiritual goods.

Morris’ essay reminded me of what one of the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, once wrote: “A nation whose politics turn on the cost of false teeth is a nation whose politics are squalid.”

So politics is apparently about more than mere material matters; it has a higher dimension. In our time, that higher dimension has become the politics of national greatness that in turn became a crusade to bring democracy to others.

Both Kristol and Morris are confusing politics for religion. They expect more from politics than it can or should give. Or at least, they expect more than a politics consistent with liberty can give.

Advice for Conservatives Wrestling with Medicaid

John Hood of North Carolina’s John Locke Foundation today pens important advice to conservatives who are trying to improve Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program (ostensibly) for the poor:

Too many conservative advocates of Medicaid reform couch their advocacy in terms such as “enrolling in private health plans will remove the stigma from patients on Medicaid” and “choice is better than cutting Medicaid reimbursements to providers, which limit recipients’ access to the best doctors.” These may be effects of a reform, but they shouldn’t be thought of as goals or even as necessarily positive.

Repeat after me: Medicaid is welfare. Medicaid is welfare. Medicaid is welfare. It is a forced redistribution of resources from those who earned them to those who did not. There may be good reasons to defend Medicaid as a concept, or to imagine some kind of more-limited program to replace it, but they must recognize that Medicaid is an arm of the welfare state. As such, no one should consider it a “right” for Medicaid recipients to have access to the very same doctors, devices, and treatments as those who pay their own way.

Full disclosure: He then goes on to quote me favorably, which may be clouding my judgment.

The End of “Reform” at the New York Times?

The reporters and editorial writers at the New York Times are powerful advocates of imposing new restrictions on campaign spending. They typically refer to the leaders of interest groups like Common Cause as “advocates of campaign finance reform.” That helps the cause of restricting campaign finance. After all, who could be against “reform”?

So it is noticeable when the New York Times calls the partisans of restrictions something other than “reformers.” In today’s edition, a Times reporter twice called them “advocates of changing campaign financing.”

It is both a revealing and misleading choice. It is misleading because these people seek more restrictions on campaign finance. To be sure, they expect new restrictions will lead to changes in campaign finance, but what they actually hope to do is impose new rules that restrict campaign spending.

Here’s the revealing part: The Times has never before called the Shays-Meehan-Common Cause crowd “advocates of changing campaign finance.” They are usually called “reformers.” (I checked on Lexis-Nexis). Why the new name?

The “advocates of changing campaign financing” along with congressional Republicans are trying to eliminate 527 groups; today’s article concerns one skirmish in that war. That effort against 527s is expected to harm the Democrats who used the groups extensively in 2004.

So if a person pushes restrictions on speech like McCain-Feingold that were expected to help the Democrats, the New York Times called them “advocates of campaign finance reform.” If the same person demands restrictions expected to hurt the Democrats, the Times dubs them “advocates of changing campaign finance.”

I know the New York Times would never have a partisan purpose in advocating restrictions on political speech. Still, this new term for their former friends does create a disturbing appearance of partisanship.

Conservatives Say: Politics Above All

The Washington Times brings news this morning that conservatives are “expressing concern and outrage” about House Speaker Denny Hastert’s strong objections to the FBI’s raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s House office.

Perhaps such “conservatives” ought to recall what the real conservative libertarian who designed the U.S. Constitution once wrote:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Hastert is acting in the spirit of Federalist 51. To be sure, there are other considerations in this case, but Hastert is doing what Madison expected congressional leaders to do: stand up for his branch of the government against an encroachment from an ambitious executive. Those who are criticizing Hastert are trying to make corruption a bipartisan stain or to raise public approval of Congress by a point or two. They are ignoring the constitutional dimension of all this.

I’ll take the timeless logic of Federalist 51, thanks.