Status quo thoughts on the status quo

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In his recent letter, William Smith expresses his concerns with the status quo in the political process: “If the president and his party don’t help the majority of the people during his term in office, vote them out! Until then, how will we know? I am sick and tired of status quo. Can’t we just once pass some bills and see if they will help the American people? Maybe, just maybe, that in turn will help the condition of our country” (Sick of the status quo, February 15).

Although I sympathize with Williams frustrations, it is wishful thinking to expect anything other than the status quo from the American political process. Politicians, regardless of their party, face gross incentives in favor of pursuing their own reelection and virtually no incentives to improve the conditions of the public. As Don Boudreaux said in September of 2009: “No delusions should remain that the most recent presidential election has “transformed” Washington into anything grander than what it has always been: a ’spoils exchange’ where A and B shamelessly conspire to rob C and then swap the plundered proceeds with D for D’s commitment to help A and B retain their seats on this exchange.”

Kurt Bouwhuis

A Stimulating Broken Window Fallacy

Go to 3:25 and listen to President Obama speak about the benefits of  job creation for a window manufacturer in Philadelphia. (watch about 20 seconds… you’ll get the point)

Then watch this clip about the window manufacturer in Pittsburg.

Lastly, read this essay on a window manufacturer from France.  A lot of lessons to be learned…

Dear President Obama:

Here is a great letter to President Obama from Don Boudreaux:

Neither consistency nor sincerity is what they do.

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
………………………………….

25 January 2010

Mr. Barack Obama
President, Executive Branch
United States government
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Obama:

In your weekly radio address on Saturday (Jan. 23) you harshly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United – a ruling that protects citizens, even when organized as corporations, from government censorship of their political speech.  You worry that this decision will allow “unbridled corporate spending” to influence political outcomes.

Now today, the AP reports that “President Barack Obama on Monday offered help for people struggling to pay bills and care for their families….  Among the initiatives: a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; a $1.6 billion increase in federal funding for child care programs and a program to cap student loan payments at 10 percent of income above ‘a basic living allowance.’
….
“Obama is seeking to offer some attractive options to taxpayers, mindful of the painful implications of the loss of a traditionally Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown.  White House advisers see Wednesday’s State of the Union speech as a key opportunity for Obama to recalibrate his message and reset his presidency after that stinging setback.”

Interesting.  You think it dangerous for the republic when corporations use “unbridled” spending to try to affect political outcomes, yet you yourself don’t hesitate to use unbridled spending (of other people’s money!) to try to affect political outcomes.

Seems inconsistent to me, Mr. President.  Don’t you agree?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Fairfax, VA 22030

Birds still fly

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

In his recent letter, Scott Miller states, “it appears that some of our legislators are more concerned with profits for big business than the health and future welfare of their constituents.  Contact senators Stabenow and Levin and urge them to come together around a bipartisan effort to develop affordable clean energy and climate legislation…” (“Go Green,” Jan. 21).

In one breath, Scott acknowledges that politicians are concerned with pleasing special interests.  In his next breath, however, he urges his readers to contact the very class of people he decries in order to create a solution.

I’m puzzled.  Is Scott unaware that several large businesses are currently lobbying for clean energy legislation?  These large businesses will profit from new regulations that crush their smaller competitors.  Once clean energy legislation is passed into law, it would also not be surprising to find that these same large businesses are recipients of special government permits that exempt them from such regulations. 

I admire those who seek to reduce pollution.  I am saddened by those who are blind to the colossal gap between desired outcomes and the actual outcomes generated by government intervention.  Once this gap is recognized, it will become painfully obvious that desirable outcomes will not emerge from encouraging fellow citizens to jump into the slopping pit.

Kurt Bouwhuis

A Political Romance

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Imagine the excitement of wealthy health industry executives as they watch the progression of the healthcare bill through the political system. These executives have been paying lobbyists large sums of money in an attempt to pass healthcare reform and it’s all about to pay off. If the bill passes, it will require every single American to have health insurance resulting in a large increase in the demand for their health services.

An even larger increase in demand will result from a lack of rationing from the consumers. Under healthcare reform, consumers will have access to as many healthcare services as they can get their hands on at no additional costs to themselves. To top it off, a credible third party with deep pockets (government) will pick up the tab for all additional expenses. In short, health reform will offer guaranteed payments and increased revenues to already wealthy individuals working within the healthcare industry.

Some may read the paragraphs above and say that I have it all wrong; healthcare is a human right and the reform is all about helping those who are not fortunate enough to provide for themselves. If this is the thought passing through your mind, you are likely an extremely kind hearted individual who is unknowingly endorsing the plans of special interests. In order to understand why this is true, it is important to be able to distinguish between the actual political process and the theatrical performances that follow.

The actual political process goes something like this – Special interests have a strong desire to extract money from the public purse. Unfortunately, extracting money from the public purse is a tricky process – No one ever approaches the government and says “I need $1 million dollars because I’m a good person and I deserve it.” Besides, special interests are much too sophisticated for such a request. Instead, they pay lobbyists and politicians (through campaign contributions) to ask for the same thing in a slightly different way. As soon as the payments have been made, the theatrical performances ensue. All of a sudden, lobbyists and politicians are saying “We need to pass bill X to protect the middle class.” What remains unmentioned is the $1 million that ends up in the pockets of special interests as a result of bill X.

The benefits of bill X are then mentioned in the media which excites regular citizens, causing a few of them to become activists. These activists are generally the kind hearted individuals mentioned earlier who unknowingly become the frontmen for special interests. The activists then go out on the streets and inform other people of the bill’s merits. Once the bill passes into law, the special interests pocket a portion of the loot for themselves and distribute the remainder to the political party and politicians who helped pass the bill. When another opportunity presents itself, a portion of the loot is spent to hire more lobbyists to begin yet another cycle.

This cycle will continue until the public at large stops romanticizing over the theatrical performances of politicians and realize what actually happens within the political system. With this knowledge, the endorsement of healthcare reform by several prominent politicians will be “no more surprising than that a hog would gorge itself when presented with a trough of food and be about as appetizing to watch.”*

Kurt Bouwhuis

*Andrew P. Morriss, Letter to the Financial Times, Oct. 14, 2008.

Unfathomable Mindset

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is a letter Don Boudreaux recently sent to the Baltimore Sun:

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
…………………………

……….

24 November 2009

Editor, Baltimore Sun

Dear Editor:

You are right to warn against politics infecting health-care decisions (“Medicine trumps politics,” Nov. 24).

But you are also unreasonable to do so.  Yours is among the most strident voices in support of Obamacare.  To demand more government-enforced and financed health-care arrangements AND to decry the politics that arises in response to this government intervention is like demanding government-enforced and financed free love AND decrying the unwanted pregnancies and STDs that would arise in response.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Politics and Theatre

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

John Burke writes in his recent letter that: “[U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak should] also remember that health care reform is a moral issue in itself. That thousands are dying every year because of the lack of affordable health care is also a call to provide help “to the least of these” (Matt 25:40)” (“Stupak Admired,” Nov 18).

I agree 100% that thousands of people dying every year due to lack of health care is awful.  Unfortunately, it does not logically follow that government is the most effective tool for alleviating this problem.  Even if it were possible to accurately communicate the desires of the public to congress, it is highly unlikely that congress would fulfill the desires of the public over the desires of special interest groups. 

The current health care proposals are no exception.  Although health care reform has been sold to the public as a solution to the suffering illustrated above, behind the scenes, it is nothing more than a power grab by big businesses that have effectively used special interest groups to rig government policy in their own favor at the expense of American consumers.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Kids in a Candy Store

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Dana Saxton is troubled by Granholm’s proposal to slash the agricultural extension program (Support Extension, November 12).  She lists several benefits, and concludes by stating: “We need to act now! If we don’t act, we will regret it for a long time… Don’t let this happen!  Support MSU and 4-H. Contact your government representatives now!”

Amongst the lofty benefits of the program, Dana fails to make even a single mention of the costs.  Lacking any idea of its cost, she then urges her readers to contact their representatives in support of the program.  This is akin to entrusting a child with his parent’s credit card at the local candy store.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Eureka!

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

I was reading a few blog posts this morning at Michigan Liberal and stumbled across an interesting passage:

“Meanwhile, I wish someone would come right out and start identifying one of the real culprits for this semi-annual nonsense … Republican hard-line ideology.  The elected Republican leadership talks and talk and talks and tells the GOP base that we don’t need no stinking revenue and that we don’t need no stinking government and we don’t need no stinking gubmint burrowcrats tellin’us what to do, which paints everyone into a corner because people who take that kind of hardline, no compromise approach can’t be negotiated with in good faith.” – Eric Baerren

Eureka!  Eric has discovered why he doesn’t always get his way.  It’s because individuals who think differently about the world (labeled as republicans, laissez fairies, greedy capitalists, GOP, etc…) oppose the confiscation of individual private funds to pay for the grand ideas and solutions of politicians.  This is not to say that this ideology is superior to Eric’s, but rather, that these individuals have every right to at least be skeptical of those who hold opposing ideologies.

Complaining about republicans in politics is like complaining about the inconvenience of having an opposing team in a soccer game.  “If we could just get rid of 11 of those pesky players on the other team, we could score more goals and win more games!”

Change Indeed

Tired of being plundered.

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
http://marketcorrection.powerblogs.com/
…………………………

……….

12 September 2009

Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

So the Obama administration will force Americans who buy automobile tires from China to pay a 35-percent surcharge for the privilege of doing so (“U.S. to Impose Tariff on Chinese Tires,” September 12).

No delusions should remain that the most recent presidential election has “transformed” politics into anything grander than what it has always been: a ‘spoils exchange’where A and B shamelessly collude to rob C and exchange the plundered proceeds with D in return for D’s commitment to help A and B retain their seats on this exchange.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030Chnge

I Feel Safer Now

poker_chips-9545Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

From Reason.com

“In an apparent crackdown on Internet gambling, federal authorities in New York have frozen or seized bank accounts worth $34 million belonging to 27,000 online poker players, according to representatives for the players and account holders.”

It’s nice to know that at any time, the Federal Government can seize entire private accounts when ever they feel like it.  I was beginning to feel unsafe knowing that crazy online poker players were making money.  They were probably having fun at the same time.  We need to put a damper on that!

Great Quote

“There are, though, many especially those greedy for renown and glory, who steal from one group the very money they lavish upon another. They think that they will appear beneficent towards their friends if they enrich them by any method whatsoever. But that is so far from being a duty that in fact nothing could be more opposed to duty. We should therefore see that the liberality we exercise in assisting our friends does not harm anyone. Consequently, the transference of money by Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar from its lawful owners to others ought not to be seen as liberal: nothing is liberal if it is not also just.” – ON DUTIES, Bk.1. XIV. 43 (Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Original Post from Think Markets