A Post-Health Care Realignment?
From Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to Joe Biden’s Big F-ing Deal, progressives have led a consistent and largely successful campaign to expand the size and scope of the federal government. Now, Matt Yglesias suggests, it’s time to take a victory lap and call it a day:
For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. [...] The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors.
I’d like to believe this is true, though I can’t say I’m persuaded. It seems at least as likely that, consistent with the historical pattern, the new status quo will simply be redefined as the “center,” and proposals to further augment the welfare state will move from the fringe to the mainstream of opinion on the left.
Yglesias, Defending Klein’s Slander of Lieberman
Blogger Matthew Yglesias has a response to my post on Ezra Klein’s slander that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is okay with the mass murder (or the mass negligent homicide) of hundreds of thousands of uninsured Americans.
Yglesias claims that only one of the three studies I cited speaks to what he claims is the central point: the Institute of Medicine’s estimate of how many Americans die each year because they lack health insurance. Yglesias is incorrect. The central point/threshold question is whether giving the uninsured health insurance will save lives. All three studies speak to that point, and all three all cast doubt on the intuitively appealing idea that giving uninsured people health insurance ipso facto saves lives.
To rebut the one study that Yglesias believes to be on point (Kronick), he offers two others. Yet all studies are not created equal. Kronick, Finkelstein/McKnight, and Levy/Meltzer represent the most reliable work that has been done on the relationship between health insurance and health. If I am wrong about that, I hope that one of those authors or another expert in the field will correct me.
But if I am right, it means that Yglesias and Klein are slandering Joe Lieberman and millions of others based on their (Yglesias’ and Klein’s) limited and distorted understanding of the world. (And even if I’m wrong, the Washington Post‘s Charles Lane explains why Klein’s slander is still wrong.)
Then again, considering that Yglesias also has another post suggesting that Lieberman and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are “dumb” Jews free-riding on the intelligence of other Jews, I’m not sure that the Church of Universal Coverage is open to persuasion right now.
‘Letting the Sick Die on the Street’
Blogger Matt Yglesias has described my CNN op-ed on health care as follows:
Meanwhile, in Harvard economist and Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey Miron’s dystopia, if your parents wind up with no money through bad luck or poor decision-making and then you get sick you’ll just die on the street for lack of money.
Did I really say such an outrageous thing? Well, I did not use exactly those words (as Matt makes clear), but yes, that is the logical implication of my position.
And I stand by it. Here’s why.
First, my assessment is that even with no government health insurance, hardly anyone would die on the street for lack of health care. The poor would use their income transfers to buy some health care or insurance. The poor would receive private charity. And health care would be far less expensive due to elimination of the distortions caused by government health insurance.
Second, my position is that government provision of health insurance is enormously inefficient: it means worse health care for everyone, and it wastes resources that can be put to other uses. So the negative of having a few people suffer without government health insurance must be balanced against the good of having better medical care for all and against the good that can be accomplished with those saved resources.
That good might be lower taxes for everyone, or more government spending on education, or greater public health spending to combat HIV in poor countries. Whatever the alternate uses turn out to be, one cannot escape the fact that a tradeoff exists between protecting the poor and other goals.
Why Is For-Profit Education So Difficult in the U.S.?
Matt Yglesias has a post up looking at the PISA scores, and he seems to imply that for-profit schooling has been tried and found wanting in Sweden and the U.S.:
The big difference is that many Swedish charters are run by for-profit firms. We’ve had some experiments with that in the U.S. and it hasn’t worked very well. Nobody’s really found a great way of making consistent profits running K-12 schools in America.
Of course even he notes that Sweden’s schools are highly regulated by the state.
And in the U.S., the difficulty of succeeding in for-profit education just might have something to do with that government monopoly on k-12 education and the $560 billion or so in tax revenues that fund it. Maybe.
Response to Matthew Yglesias re: Uncle Sam’s $4 Million Bike Rack
In response to my criticism of the new federally-financed $4 million bike center set to open at Union Station in Washington, DC, Think Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias says:
I look forward to the day when the Cato Institute does a blog post denouncing each and every publicly financed parking lot or garage in the United States of America.
I’ll take that bait…sort of…
I denounce each and every federally financed parking lot or garage in the United States of America on non-federal property. I’m one of those quaint individuals who recognizes that the Constitution grants the federal government specific enumerated powers. Using federal tax dollars to finance local parking garages, lots, bike centers and racks is not one of the powers granted to the federal government. So let me rephrase my statement from yesterday: Look, I harbor no animosity against [car drivers], but under what authority — legal or moral — does the federal government tax me in order to build [parking garages or lots] for parochial, special interests?
By the way, for an excellent study on the problems with federal subsidies to state and local government, please see my colleague Chris Edwards’ “Federal Aid to the States: Historical Cause of Government Growth and Bureaucracy.”
Here are a few additional random thoughts…
I know so-called “progressives” like Yglesias don’t lose sleep over how much money the federal government spends, but $4 million to park a hundred or so bikes? As Chris Moody noted to me today, if bike security is the major issue, why not pay a guard $12 an hour to stand watch?
Isn’t it possible, just possible, that a bike center with even more racks could have been built for a lot less? Isn’t that the question that people like Yglesias, who want more people on bikes and less in cars, should be asking?
I don’t see anything inherently governmental about building and operating parking garages or bike centers. The absolutely sorriest, most poorly run parking garage system I’ve ever experienced is the one managed by the State of Indiana where I used to work. I recall an overcrowding situation — exacerbated by lousy management — in which the solution put forward was to just build another garage. Hey, someone else is going to pay for it so who cares, right? I often tell people that young libertarians should spend a couple years working in the bowels of government in order to reinforce their belief system with hands-on experience. I’m starting to think “progressives” and other unwavering fans of all-things-government should do the same.
Pervasive Illiteracy in the Afghan National Army
Matt Yglesias has a lot of smart things to say about the pervasive illiteracy plaguing the Afghan National Army. Upwards of 75 to 90 percent (according to varying estimates) of the ANA is illiterate.
As Ted Galen Carpenter and I argue in our recent Cato white paper Escaping the Graveyard of Empires: A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan, this lack of basic education prevents many officers from filling out arrest reports, equipment and supply requests, and arguing before a judge or prosecutor. And as Marine 1st Lt. Justin Greico argues, “Paperwork, evidence, processing—they don’t know how to do it…You can’t get a policeman to take a statement if he can’t read and write.”
Yglesias notes:
This strikes me as an object lesson in the importance of realistic goal-setting. The Afghan National Army is largely illiterate because Afghanistan is largely illiterate…we just need an ANA that’s not likely to be overrun by its adversaries. But if we have the more ambitious goal of created [sic] an effectively administered centralized state, then the lack of literacy becomes a huge problem. And a problem without an obvious solution on a realistic time frame [emphasis mine].
Such high levels of illiteracy serves to highlight the absurd idea that the United States has the resources (and the legitimacy) to “change entire societies,” in the words of retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel John Nagl. Eight years ago, Max Boot, fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, likened the Afghan mission to British colonial rule:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets…This was supposed to be ‘for the good of the natives,’ a phrase that once made progressives snort in derision, but may be taken more seriously after the left’s conversion (or, rather, reversion) in the 1990s to the cause of ‘humanitarian’ interventions. [emphasis mine]
But as I highlighted yesterday at the Cato event “Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?” (which you can view in its entirety here), policymakers must start narrowing their objectives in Afghanistan, a point Yglesias stresses above. Heck, as I argued yesterday, rational people in the United States are having difficulty convincing delusional types here in America that Barack Obama is their legitimate president. I am baffled by people who think that we have the power to increase the legitimacy of the Afghan government. It’s also ironic that many conservatives (possibly brainwashed by neo-con ideology) who oppose government intervention at home believe the U.S. government can bring about liberty and peace worldwide. These self-identified “conservatives” essentially have a faith in government planning.
Yet these conservatives share a view common among the political and military elite, which is that if America pours enough time and resources—possibly hundreds of thousands of troops for another 12 to 14 years—Washington could really turn Afghanistan around.
However, there is a reason why the war in Afghanistan ranks at or near the bottom of polls tracking issues important to the American public, and why most Americans who do have an opinion about the war oppose it (57 percent in the latest CNN poll released on Sept. 1) and oppose sending more combat troops (56 percent in the McClatchy-Ipsos survey, also released on Sept. 1). It’s because Americans understand intuitively that the question about Afghanistan is not about whether it is winnable, but whether it constitutes a vital national security interest. An essential national debate about whether we really want to double down in Afghanistan has yet take place. America still does not have a clearly articulated goal. This is why the conventional wisdom surrounding the war—about whether we can build key institutions and create a legitimate political system—is not so much misguided as it is misplaced.
The issue is not about whether we can rebuild Afghanistan but whether we should. On both accounts the mission looks troubling, but this distinction is often times overlooked.
Obama to Seek Cap on Federal Pay Raises
USA Today reports that President Obama is seeking a cap on federal pay raises:
President Obama urged Congress Monday to limit cost-of-living pay raises to 2% for 1.3 million federal employees in 2010, extending an income squeeze that has hit private workers and threatens Social Security recipients and even 401(k) investors.
…The president’s action comes when consumer prices have fallen 2.1% in the 12 months ending in July, because of a massive drop in energy prices. The recession has taken an even tougher toll on private-sector wages, which rose only 1.5% for the year ended in June — the lowest increase since the government started keeping track in 1980. Private-sector workers also have been subject to widespread layoffs and furloughs.
Last week, economist Chris Edwards discussed data from the Bureau of Economic research that revealed the large gap between the average pay of federal employees and private workers. His call to freeze federal pay “for a year or two” received attention and criticism, (FedSmith, GovExec, Federal Times, Matt Yglesias, Conor Clarke) to which he has responded.
As explained on CNN earlier this year, the pay gap between federal and private workers has been widening for some time now:
I Would Rather You Just Said “Thank You, Private Schools,” and Went on Your Way…
Some well-known bloggers are being terrible bullies, beating up on private schools.
Felix Salmon kicks things off by hoping the government tightens the definition of a “charitable” organization and begins taxing private schools who don’t “do a bit more to earn it.” Matt Yglesias agrees that private schools are mooching deadbeats and ups the ante, calling them actively harmful as well. Finally, Conor Clarke at The Atlantic agrees, but makes the other two look like panty-waists by proposing the government radically narrow what is considered a charity in the first place.
Yglesias even has the temerity to indict private schools for the failure of NYC public schools:
And as best one can tell, their main impact on the common weal is negative, drawing parents with resources and social capital out of the public school system and contributing to its neglect. You’d have to believe that New York City’s public schools would be both better funded and free of this kind of nonsense if a larger portion of the city’s elite were sending their kids to them.
Really? Would we have to believe what Yglesias says? No, it’s not “the best one can tell.” According to the evidence, Yglesias’ breezy, offhand accusation is demonstrably wrong. Increased competition from private schools actually improves public school performance.
And the more kids who leave public to go private, the more money the schools have for the kids who remain.
What ingrates. They complain about the lost tax revenue while dismissing out of hand the billions of dollars that parents and donors spend every year to educate children outside the government system. They dismiss the fact that these parents and donors are saving taxpayers in the neighborhood of $60 Billion a year based on current-dollar public school spending and the number of kids in private schools.
Finally, if this is all about rich people getting a free ride, why aren’t these guys screaming about means-testing public schools? Why shouldn’t we charge rich parents tuition to attend public schools? If a charitable deduction for private schools is so bad, why isn’t a free public education even worse?
Is Dr. Tiller’s Killer a Terrorist?
I’ve been intrigued to watch the foment about whether the man who killed Dr. Tiller is a terrorist.
At the ThinkProgress Wonk Room, Matt Duss says, emphatically, “Yes, Dr. Tiller’s Murderer is a Terrorist.” LifeNews.com, a nominal representative of the other “side,” is equally eager to report that abortion activists are calling pro-life advocates “terrorists.”
Mostly, it appears, the Tiller/terrorist question is emotional energy-drink for both sides of the abortion debate. We should let these ideologues be ideologues and move on. But it is worth thinking about the issue in terms of terrorism broadly and in terms of reducing violence prospectively.
Here’s an interesting statement of Duss’ about the killing: “It’s [sic] goal was to intimidate women against exercising their right to choose abortion, and to intimidate doctors who perform them.” Perhaps Duss has had an opportunity to interview Tiller’s killer, who has been highly forthcoming, but more likely Duss is imputing motives to the killer that fit his own worldview and that start an argument he wants to have.
Knowing nothing about the killer, I think it’s a possibility that he might have wanted to avenge what he sees as wrongful deaths that the doctor has brought about, with no contemplation of the prospective effect on women or doctors. The killer might have been trying to impress someone he knows who hated Dr. Tiller. Perhaps he suspected Dr. Tiller was sleeping with his wife (very unlikely, but possible). I don’t think that Duss is wrong, but ascribing motivations to people based on the results they cause is a fascinating habit. To match the hugely shocking results of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush supplied huge reasons that terrorists do what they do, and a deeply unproductive “war on terror” was on.
Now, if the goal is to reduce violence, calling Dr. Tiller’s killer a “terrorist” seems distinctly unhelpful. The criminal laws against homicide contain every penalty that the killer deserves, and he should get justice as the criminal law prescribes it. There is no criminal offense called “terrorism” – and there shouldn’t be, for reasons that follow.
The question in play with Tiller/terrorism goes to future violence – the actions of others. If Tiller’s killer has allies – direct allies or people who agree with what they think he was doing – calling him a “terrorist” will tend to exalt his actions to them. They will perceive it less as an ugly murder and more as political violence done for a cause – something righteous.
If Tiller’s killer were to become widely viewed as a “terrorist,” this would deepen the resolve of his “allies” because they would come to regard the political structure as arrayed against them and their cause. Tiller’s killer would look heroic to them, and his example is one they might seek to emulate in their ideological struggle.
The better approach is to methodically and calmly apply the criminal law to the killing – without rhetorical excess. Putting aside the “political” content will let the ugliness and sadness of the murder carry the day in terms of public attention. This will signal to abortion opponents who might be susceptible to “radicalization” that violence is something sad and pathetic people do. The criminal law accords criminals the justice they are due, families grieve, and the society moves on.
These messages will drain power from the idea of using violence to advance political aims. The best way to talk about the killing of Dr. Tiller is to deal with it only as a grisly and pathetic murder – if the goal is to protect doctors who perform abortion from future violence.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
