Massachusetts Treasurer Blasts RomneyCare and, Equivalently, ObamaCare
Massachusetts state treasurer and recent Democrat Timothy Cahill has harsh words for the health plan foisted on his state and the identical plan that President Obama is trying to foist on the nation. From The Boston Globe:
“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.
Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”
[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”
Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress.
“The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that we’re being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through” Congress.
Commonwealth Connector, the independent state agency established to help residents find the health insurance, has “totally failed,” to create competition and connect people with affordable insurance, Cahill said, pointing out that 68 percent of the residents it serves receive subsidized care.
“We haven’t done anything about driving down costs,” Cahill said. “We haven’t helped small business. We haven’t changed the way we pay for health care and the way we deliver it.”…
Asked for solutions today, Cahill said he would seek to “level the playing field” between hospitals that charge different rates for similar procedures, seek to increase competition by allowing health insurance companies plans to sell plans across state lines, and would slash benefits mandated under state law.
For more on the Massachusetts health plan, see “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain.”
Filed under: Cato Publications; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Questions for Thoughtful ObamaCare Supporters
What does it say that the American polity has consistently rejected a wholesale government takeover of health care for 100 years?
What does it say that public opinion has been consistently against the Democrats’ health care takeover since July 2009?
What does it say that Democrats are having this much difficulty enacting their health care legislation despite unified Democratic rule? Despite large supermajorities in both chambers of Congress, including a once-filibuster-proof Senate majority (see more below)? Despite an opportunistic change in Massachusetts law that provided that crucial 60th vote at a crucial moment? Despite a popular and charismatic president?
What does it say that 38 House Democrats voted against the president’s health plan?
What does it say that Massachusetts voters elected, to fill the term of Ted Kennedy, a Republican who ran against the health care legislation that Kennedy helped to shape?
What does it say that the only thing bipartisan about that legislation is the opposition to it?
What does it say that 39 senators voted to declare that legislation’s centerpiece unconstitutional?
What does it say that health care researchers — a fairly left-wing lot — think the Senate bill is unconstitutional?
What does it say that the demands of pro-life and pro-choice House Democrats, each of which hold enough votes to determine the fate of this legislation, are irreconcilable?
What does it say that House Democrats are actually contemplating a legislative strategy that would deem the Senate bill to have passed the House — without the House ever actually voting on it?
Given that ours is a system of government where ambition is made to counteract ambition, what does it mean that the only way to pass this legislation is for the House to trust that the Senate will keep the House’s interests at heart?
Obama’s ‘Best’ Idea? Rationing Care via Clinton-esque Price Controls
Hoping to revive his increasingly unpopular health care overhaul, President Obama has invited Republicans to a bipartisan summit this Thursday and plans to introduce a new reform blueprint in advance of the summit. On Sunday, the White House announced that a key feature of that blueprint will be premium caps, a form of government price control that helped kill the Clinton health plan when even New Democrats rejected it.
The New York Times reports on President Obama’s blueprint:
The president’s bill would grant the federal health and human services secretary new authority to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators.
It bears repeating what Obama’s top economic advisor Larry Summers thinks about price controls:
Price and exchange controls inevitably create harmful economic distortions. Both the distortions and the economic damage get worse with time.
For example, as I have written elsewhere, artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers: “Premium caps, which Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is currently threatening to impose, force private insurers to manage care more tightly — i.e., to deny coverage for more services.” No doubt the Obama administration would lay the blame for coverage denials on private insurers and claim that such denials demonstrate the need for a so-called “public option.”
As the Progressive Policy Institute’s David Kendall explained in a 1994 paper, the Clinton health plan contained similar price controls. Kendall explains why they would be a disaster:
In spite of the late hour in the health care debate, Congress has not yet decided how to restrain runaway health care costs. The essential choices are a top- down strategy of government limits on health care spending enforced by price controls or a bottom-up strategy of consumer choice and market competition. History clarifies that choice: Previous government efforts to regulate prices in peacetime have invariably failed. Moreover, government attempts to control prices in the health care sector would undermine concurrent efforts to restructure the marketplace…
The idea of controlling costs by government fiat is seductively simple. But it rests on a conceit as persistent as it is damaging: that government bureaucracies can allocate resources more wisely and efficiently than millions of consumers and providers pursuing their interests in the marketplace. The alternative — one rooted in America’s progressive tradition of individual responsibility and free enterprise — is to improve the market’s ground rules in order to decentralize decision-making, spur innovation, reward efficiency, and respect personal choice.
As centrally planned economies crumble around the world, many in the United States seem bent on erecting a command and control economy in health care. This policy briefing examines the reasons why government price regulation would fail to constrain health care costs and create many adverse side effects…
Ultimately, government price regulation will always fail because it does not change the underlying economic forces driving up prices. If we are serious about slowing the growth of health care costs, we have to change the ways we consume and provide medical care. Price controls evade the hard but essential work of structural reform in health care markets: They are a quintessentially political response to an economic problem. The alternative is to allow well-functioning markets to set prices and allocate resources, while ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable health care coverage. The market-oriented approach leaves decisions to cost-conscious consumers and health care providers rather than bureaucrats.
Any of that sound familiar? It’s worth reading the whole thing.
This is not hope. This is not change. (Much less a game-changer.) It is, to pinch a phrase, a return to “the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis.”
Filed under: Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Regulatory Studies
Obama’s Dilemma
Today Politico Arena asks:
State of the Union: What Should Obama Say?
My response:
Obama’s in a difficult spot: His head tells him to tack right, but his heart’s not in it — and he’s not the first Democrat to be in that spot. That’s brought out today in a CNN Opinion piece, “When liberals revolt,” written by Arena’s (and Princeton’s) Julian E. Zelizer. Tracing similar dilemmas that Johnson, Carter, and Clinton faced, Zelizer shows how they all paid a price for tacking right, which it looks like Obama may do. Johnson faced primary challenges that led him to withdraw from the 1968 race. Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. He prevailed; but weakened, he then lost to Reagan in 1980. And Clinton’s move to the center after the disastrous 1994 midterm elections helped him win reelection, Zelizer argues, but it also left him with a thin legislative record on domestic policy.
In short, moving right has its costs, Zelizer claims. Many liberals are “deeply unhappy with the president, believing that he has already drifted too far away from the promises that animated his supporters in 2008.” He’ll need those liberals in 2010 and 2012. Pointing to the “long tradition of Democratic presidents taking the left for granted at a cost to their administrations,” Zelizer notes that they learned “that the ire of the left — a constituency that is very vocal, highly mobilized and politically engaged — can cause enormous damage.”
That it can. But can the left do more than cause enormous damage? In particular: Can it govern? Zelizer cites Ted Kennedy castigating Carter, saying that ”the Democratic Party needed to ’sail against the wind’ of conservative public sentiment by using the federal government to help alleviate social problems.” Fine speechifying. But will it get you (re)elected — much less enable you to govern? The evidence is not encouraging. In fact, the deeper problem the left is facing is that self-identified conservatives in America outnumber liberals by better than two to one. Cambridge may have voted against Scott Brown by 84 to 14, but that just shows how out of touch Harvard is with the rest of Massachusetts — to say nothing of the rest of the country. Obama won not because the country was enthralled with his vague message, but because his opposition, like Clinton’s in 1996, was so uninspiring. In sum, the left’s problem — and Obama’s — is that the country isn’t buying the message, now that it’s clearer. And that’s the heart of the matter.
Trouble in Massachusetts
Yesterday, Cato released a new study, “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain,” which showed that official estimates overstate the gains in health insurance coverage resulting from a 2006 Massachusetts law by at least 45 percent. The study also finds: supporters understate the law’s cost by nearly 60 percent; government programs are crowding out private insurance; self-reported health improved for some but fell for others; and young adults are responding to the law by avoiding Massachusetts.
Given that the Massachusetts health plan bears a “remarkable resemblance” to the Obama plan, the study should serve as a warning sign to members of Congress, says Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies.
The study has received coverage in Investor’s Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Detroit News, The Washington Times, the Reason Foundation and the Pioneer Institute.
Thursday Links
- The back story behind the Citizens United free speech case. (Or if you don’t have time to read about it, this short video clip explains it all.)
- RomneyCare: Obama’s OTHER Massachusetts problem.
- Tim Geithner’s lifelong love of bailouts.
- How substantial and meaningful change can be brought to Haiti.
- Podcast: “Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment” featuring John Samples.
Lessons from the Brown Victory in Massachusetts
In this new video, Cato’s David Boaz and John Samples evaluate what Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts means for Democrats and Republicans in the near and far term. Samples and Boaz contend that Tuesday’s election sent a message to Democrats that they have clearly overreached, but Republicans need to be careful and realize that they’re still not very popular either.
John Samples is the author of the forthcoming book, The Struggle to Limit Government, available soon at the Cato store.
Wednesday Links
- David Boaz on Obama’s first year: “From this libertarian, Obama’s first year looks grim. …He may well end up like Lyndon Johnson, with an ambitious domestic agenda eventually bogged down by endless war. But I don’t think his wished-for FDR model — a transformative agenda that is both popular and long-lasting — is in the cards.”
- The message from Massachusetts: “There can be no denying that this election was a clear cut rejection of the Democratic health care bills.”
- Attacks from all sides: See what happens when the Right takes on free enterprise.
- A new dictator in Iraq?
- Podcast: Daniel Ikenson discusses Obama’s trade policy.
The Tea Party Comes Home
Today, Politico Arena asks:
The message from Massachusetts
What now for the Democratic agenda?
My response:
Listening to Scott Brown’s long, barely scripted acceptance speech last night, you had the refreshing sense that you were listening to an ordinary American, not to some political cut-out. Here’s a guy who campaigned in a pick-up truck with over 200,000 miles on the odometer, who listened to the voters and understood that they wanted not simply to block tax hikes but to lower taxes (and the last thing they wanted was for their taxes to pay terrorists’ lawyers bills!), who understood that even worse than the health care bill now before Congress were the back-room deals that brought it about, who’s served proudly for 30 years in the National Guard — in short, here’s guy you’d be comfortable having a beer with because, as he said, “I know who I am and I know who I serve.”
Which brings to mind the famous Rose Garden beer the president and vice president shared with Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley — speaking of (dis)comfort. And that brings to mind Cambridge, which stayed true blue, 84-15, Walter Russell Mead informs us this morning in his delightfully tongue-in-cheek Arena post. (“First, some good news for Democrats: the base is secure.”) As goes Harvard, so goes Berkeley.
But to today’s Arena question. The Democratic left is predictably outraged that “the people” they so love in the abstract have so disappointed them in the concrete. Exhibit A is last night’s Arena post by The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel. Railing against “the Tea Party’s inchoate right-wing populism” (if it’s infested Massachusetts, shudder to think of it in Idaho!), Katrina tells Obama to “get tough, get bold, kiss ‘post-partisanship’ goodbye,” and “put yourself squarely back on the side of working people” by “passing the strongest possible healthcare bill as quickly as is feasible.” And there’s the cliff, Katrina.
Lanny Davis has more sober advice for Obama in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. To those who are pointing fingers at Martha Coakley, Lanny says, “This was a defeat not of the messenger but of the message” — the unrelenting leftism that has come from this White House and this Congress. And he points, by way of instruction, to Bill Clinton’s response to the disastrous elections of 1994, though he doesn’t mention Clinton’s ringing, albeit inaccurate, description of his course-change — “The era of big government is over.” Is it in Obama’s DNA to make such a course correction? Does he have a reset button?
On health care, Obama and his party are in an almost impossible situation. If they press ahead, as Nancy Pelosi and others are urging, the cliff awaits them in November. But if they abandon their project, what will they run on in November? It’s a mess of their own making, of course, so completely did they misread the election of 2008. What better evidence of the endurance of principles of sound, limited government that some two centuries later, The Tea Party has come home to Boston.
Tuesday Links
- Gene Healy on today’s election in Massachusetts: “If Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts special election Tuesday, the Bay State will have its first GOP senator since the era when disco was king. And Brown will have the much-derided Tea Party legions to thank.”
- Why opportunistic politicians need to stop using times of crisis for their own ends and let the next one go to waste.
- George W. Obama? “Bush’s successor—who actually taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago—is continuing much of the Bush-Cheney parallel government and, in some cases, is going much further in disregarding our laws and the international treaties we’ve signed.”
- Can Google beat China? Cato’s Timothy B. Lee tackles the question in The New York Times Online.
- Podcast: “Our America Initiative” featuring former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson discusses out of control government spending, immigration, the Bush years, the drug war, defense policy and more.
Obama’s Other Massachusetts Problem
Even if Democrat Martha Coakley wins 50 percent of the vote in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (ahem) term, there are other numbers emanating from Massachusetts that present a problem for President Obama’s health plan.
On Wednesday, the Cato Institute will release “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain,” authored by Cato adjunct scholar Aaron Yelowitz and yours truly. Our study evaluates Massachusetts’ 2006 health law, which bears a “remarkable resemblance” to the president’s plan. We use the same methodology as previous work by the Urban Institute, but ours is the first study to evaluate the effects of the Massachusetts law using Current Population Survey data for 2008 (i.e., from the 2009 March supplement). Since I’m sure that supporters of the Massachusetts law and the Obama plan will dismiss anything from Cato as ideologically motivated hackery: Yelowitz’s empirical work is frequently cited by the Congressional Budget Office, and includes one article co-authored with MIT health economist (and Obama administration consultant) Jonathan Gruber, under whom Yelowitz studied.
Among our findings:
- Official estimates overstate the coverage gains under the Massachusetts law by roughly 50 percent.
- The actual coverage gains may be lower still, because uninsured Massachusetts residents appear to be concealing their lack of insurance rather than admit to breaking the law.
- Public programs crowded out private insurance among low-income children and adults.
- Self-reported health improved for some, but fell for others.
- Young adults appear to be avoiding Massachusetts as a result of the law.
- Leading estimates understate the cost of the Massachusetts law by at least one third.
When Obama campaigns for Martha Coakley, he is really campaigning for his health plan, which means he is really campaigning for the Massachusetts health plan.
He and Coakley should explain why they’re pursuing a health plan that’s not only increasingly unpopular, but also appears to have a rather high cost-benefit ratio.
(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Health Reform: Blame Mitt
If — and it is still a big “if — Democrats pass a health bill, that bill will owe as much to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In fact, with the so-called “public option” out of the Senate health bill, the final product increasingly looks like the failed Massachusetts experiment. Consider that the final bill will likely include:
- An individual mandate
- A weak employer-mandate
- An Exchange (Connector)
- Middle-class subsidies
- Insurance regulation (already in place in Massachusetts before Romney’s reforms)
As to why this will be a disaster for American taxpayers, workers, and patients, I’ve written about it here, and my colleague Michael Cannon has covered it here and here.
Gee, thanks, Mitt.
Baucus Bill Would Cost More than $2 Trillion
Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) health care overhaul would cost more than $2 trillion. It would expand the deficit. But he has carefully and methodically hidden those facts – so well that he has completely hoodwinked nearly all the major media.
The media are reporting that the Baucus bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. Wrong.
The Baucus bill assumes that Congress will allow the “sustainable growth rate” cuts in Medicare’s physician payments to occur beginning in 2012. Yet Congress has routinely and repeatedly blocked those cuts, making Baucus’s assumption preposterous. The CBO handled the issue delicately, but essentially said, “Sure, provided that the sun rises in the west in 2012, then yes, this bill would reduce the deficit.”
That means Baucus will come up at least $200 billion short on the revenue side, making his bill a budget-buster.
The media are reporting that the Baucus bill would cost just $829 billion over 10 years. Wrong.
As Donald Marron observes, that number omits as much as $75 billion in new federal spending. It also omits a $33 billion unfunded mandate on state governments.
But the worst part is that the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimate omits the cost of the private sector mandates in the Baucus bill. In Massachusetts, those costs accounted for 60 percent of the total cost of reform. That suggests the actual cost of the Baucus bill – $829 billion plus $75 billion plus $33 billion, times 2.5 – is well over $2 trillion.
Yet the CBO score pretends those costs aren’t even there. It’s like a mystery novel that’s missing the last 50 pages. And the media aren’t even curious.
In the words of Brad DeLong, why, oh why, can’t we have a better press corps?
Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
“Law” in Massachusetts
Wouldn’t it save time if the Massachusetts legislature would just pass a law saying that if the governor is a Democrat, he fills any Senate vacancy, while if the governor is a Republican, a special election must be held?
Friday Links
- Nearly 30 European countries have agreed to end their government mail monopolies in the next five years. The U.S. Postal Service has estimated losses of $7 billion this year. It’s time to privatize.
- If you are curious about how President Barack Obama’s health plan would affect your health care, look no further than Massachusetts. You might not like what you find.
- How the outcome of the health care debate will affect our greatest liberty — life.
- Keep an eye on the troubling voting procedures in Europe.
- Podcast: The Age of Reagan
When Governments Are Forced to Compete, the Result Is Better Policy and More Liberty
A story in USA Today is a perfect illustration of the liberalizing power of tax competition. In an effort to attract more jobs and investment, states are competing with each – even taking the aggressive step of advertising in high-tax states. This does not guarantee that states will always use the best approach since states sometimes try to lure companies with special handouts, but tax competition generally encourages states to lower tax rates and control fiscal and regulatory burdens. The same process works internationally, which is precisely why international bureaucracies controlled by high-tax nations are seeking to thwart fiscal competition between nations:
Las Vegas is running ads in California warning businesses they can “kiss their assets goodbye” if they stay in the Golden State. In New Hampshire, economic development officials pick up Massachusetts business owners at the border in a limousine and give them VIP treatment and a pitch about why they should relocate there. Indiana officials, using billboards at the borders and direct appeals to businesses in neighboring states, are inviting them to ‘Come on IN for lower taxes, business and housing costs.’ As states struggle to keep jobs in a continuing recession, they are no longer hoping businesses in other states happen to notice their lower taxes, cheaper office space and less-stringent regulations. They are taking the message directly to them and taking shots at their neighbor’s shortcomings. …No one does it more unapologetically than the Nevada Development Authority. The agency has picked on California before, but its $1 million campaign, launched this month, ratchets up the mockery of California’s budget deficits and IOU paychecks. ‘It’s all done tongue-in-cheek. But the underlying deal is, we want this business,’ Nevada Development Authority President and CEO Somer Hollingsworth said. …’They do mask the nastiness of their message with humor, but this time, their ads are over the top,’ said [California Assemblyman] Solorio, a Democrat from Santa Ana.
Filed under: Finance, Banking & Monetary Policy; International Economics and Development; Tax and Budget Policy
More ‘Success’ for the Massachusetts Model
The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts now has the highest insurance premiums in the nation. The average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent. And, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an annual family premium in Massachusetts is expected to hit $26,730 by 2020. Meanwhile CNN hails Romneycare as the model for the nation…
False Accounts of Massachusetts’ Health Reforms
Recent editorials in both the Boston Globe and The New York Times contained some staggering falsehoods about the cost of Massachusetts’ health reforms. Here is a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Globe:
The editorial “Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working” [Aug. 5] states that “the cost to the state taxpayer” of the Massachusetts health reforms is “about $88 million a year.” That claim is unquestionably false. The cost to state taxpayers is 19 times that amount, while the total cost is 24 times that amount.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation explains that the $88-million figure represents not the total cost to the state government, but the average annual increase in the state government’s costs. Worse, the editorial completely ignores new spending by the federal government and the private sector, which account for 80 percent of the law’s cost.
According to Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates, health reform will cost at least $2.1 billion in 2009. The total cost to state taxpayers is at least $1.7 billion and growing. (The fact that other states’ taxpayers bear the balance should not be a source of pride.)
One wonders how such a falsehood comes to appear on a leading editorial page.
And one I sent to the Times:
“The Massachusetts Model” [Aug. 9] understates the cost of the Massachusetts health plan.
The editorial claims, “the federal and state governments each pa[y] half of the added costs, or about $350 million” in 2010. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which generated that estimate, assumes that Massachusetts will eliminate $200 million in subsidies to safety-net hospitals next year. Given that those hospitals are currently suing the Commonwealth and exerting political pressure to increase such payments, those assumed cuts are hypothetical. More certain is the foundation’s estimate that the on-budget cost will reach $817 billion in 2009.
Yet the foundation’s estimates also show that the law (1) pushes 60 percent of its cost off-budget and onto the private sector; (2) costs about three times the $700 million that the editorial suggests, and (3) is covering 432,000 previously uninsured residents at a cost of about $6,700 each, or $27,000 for a family of four. That’s more than twice the average cost of family coverage nationwide.
The editorial admonishes that “the public should demand an honest assessment, from critics and supporters” of the Massachusetts health plan. Indeed.
A fuller response to these spurious claims may be found here.
I wish I could run a newspaper, so I could print false stuff and then not correct it. Oh wait, I do blog…
Filed under: Cato Publications; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Washington Post Misrepresents Individual Mandates
Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter to the editor I sent to The Washington Post:
“Like Car Insurance, Health Coverage May Be Mandated” [July 22, page A1] paints a misleading picture of proposals to require Americans to purchase health insurance – i.e., an “individual mandate.”
First, the article lacks balance. It cites three politicians who support an individual mandate but none who oppose it, a group that includes a majority of Republicans. The article claims an individual mandate “has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance,” even though most conservatives, including the movement’s flagship magazine National Review, oppose the idea. The closest the article comes to offering an opposing perspective is one conservative who has supported an individual mandate in the past and may yet again, just not yet.
Second, the article makes the demonstrably inaccurate claims that an individual mandate “lowers overall costs” and “help[s] keep premiums down” by adding more young and healthy people to the insurance market. Forcing healthy people to purchase insurance does not affect premiums for sicker purchasers, because insurers set premiums according to each purchaser’s health risk. The article confuses a mandate with price controls, which force low risks to pay more so that high risks can pay less.
Finally, if an individual mandate reduced overall costs, then health care spending would be falling in Massachusetts, which enacted the nation’s only individual mandate in 2006. Instead, overall health spending is rising, and the rate of growth has accelerated under the mandate. Rising health spending implies rising health insurance premiums, which has also been the Massachusetts experience.
The “Washington Monument Syndrome” Backfires in Massachusetts
While politicians and bureaucrats generally are on the same side, there are occasional conflicts. For instance, if politicians want to limit the growth of an agency’s budget (an infrequent impulse, to be sure), the bureaucrats get upset and sometimes they fight back. A common tactic is to try and generate public opposition by leaking to the press that they will have to curtail something that taxpayers actually value. This is known as the Washington Monument Syndrome, which is a reference to the National Park Service’s petulant decision about 40 years ago to close national monuments two days per week because of a very small budget reduction. A very perverse example of the Washington Monument Syndrome just took place in Massachusetts, where officials at the New England Zoo threatened to kill some of the animals if their subsidy was reduced. This was so over the top that even the state’s collectivist governor felt compelled to condemn the bureaucrats for using dishonest scare tactics. The Boston Globe reports:
Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accused Zoo New England officials of creating a false and inflammatory scare with their warning that state budget cuts may force them to close two Greater Boston zoos and euthanize some animals. “As a supporter of the zoo and a parent who has visited often, the governor is disappointed to learn that Zoo New England has responded to this difficult but unavoidable budget cut by spreading inaccurate and incendiary information,’’ Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement. And a second Patrick aide emphatically ruled out the killing of any animals. …Zoo officials declined to comment on Patrick’s remarks yesterday. They also canceled a public event to welcome two French Poitou donkeys to the Franklin Park facility in honor of Bastille Day tomorrow. John Linehan, Zoo New England chief executive, was scheduled to attend the event. …On Friday zoo officials released a statement saying the funding reduction might require them to shutter both zoos. Then on Saturday, they issued a statement that said state bureaucrats – and not animal-care professionals – would be responsible for deciding whether some animals would have to be killed if the zoos closed. …At least one visitor to the Franklin Park Zoo yesterday suggested the operator solve the budget crisis on its own. “I wonder why the Franklin Park Zoo doesn’t raise their prices so they can support themselves,’’ said Emanuel Achidiev, 28. “They shouldn’t have to rely on the state.’’
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets