One would think that central planners would figure out that they’re really just building a system to protect their own social group’s interests, but the rest of us should figure it out even if they won’t
Rhode Islanders, especially, should heed the admonition of The American Interest that Puerto Rico may be a final warning lesson to states within the United States:
This [bankruptcy] could have been avoided by sensible and timely cuts, by turning a deaf ear to public sector union demands for wages and salaries, by a series of small but definite steps away from the blue model, welfare state governance. But the press, certainly including the NYT which is now reporting the disaster, would have attacked any politicians taking these steps as “harsh”, or “cruel to the poor”.
Now Puerto Rico is in a deeper hole, with much more suffering than any of the moderate cuts would have imposed.
Just look at the false rhetoric permeating the debate over some overly mild reforms to the disastrous ObamaCare entitlement system for a timely illustration. Any restraint on government programs is declared to be a “draconian cut” that will hurt or kill people, marking politicians who support reforms as evil. This will not end well, but just like junkies, supporters of big government just want that one more fix, and let tomorrow take care of itself, somehow.
In The Washington Times, Cheryl Chumley tells the 2008 story of her husband’s sudden illness and brush with death. Her insurer at the time, Blue Cross Blue Shield, didn’t deny any bills, even though the doctors keeping her husband alive told the family to prepare for his imminent death.
It was a few months after my husband left the hospital from his heart attack that we ran into one of the nurses who cared for him — at a presidential campaign event, no less. One chat led to another and the subject of socialized health care was raised. And this is what the nurse said: Had my husband been on Medicare or Medicaid at the time of his heart attack, the doctors would have quit their life-saving efforts long before his 10 comatose days had ended. Why? Because the government health care plan wouldn’t have paid for the around-the-clock intensive care. The situation would’ve quickly evolved into a pull the plug, wait and see what happens type of deal.
It occurs to me that, in a competitive market, of course this would be true. The insurance companies are selling insurance, which means everybody who buys insurance is thinking of these sorts of horrible circumstances. If it gets out that a particular insurance company doesn’t cover them, then the value of insurance for that company and generally goes down.
So, it’s in their interest to accurately price risk so as to charge a rate at which they can maintain their value proposition. They do this with a mix of pricing features, including premiums, deductibles, and maximum out-of-pocket limits. A consumer with a low tolerance for risk may choose to pay a high premium, while one who wants to save money understands that risk is part of the equation.
Central planning is a completely different thing. In that scenario, supposed experts are figuring out how best to distribute resources. They don’t have to have attractive products, because nobody has a choice. ObamaCare’s hybrid system of planning and choice transforms the insurance incentives into hiding costs, not accurately assigning them.
Susan L.M. Goldberg writes on PJMedia:
A scathing report, highlighted in the UK Daily Mail, details the findings of the Institute of Economic Affairs regarding Britain’s universal free childcare program. The bottom line: researchers have concluded that a government-funded, government-mandated universal daycare and pre-K program has done nothing more than bankrupt the middle class while failing to serve the country’s poor. What’s worse, government involvement has led to excessive regulation that not only drives up programming costs, but limits parental choice when it comes to how they would like to care for and educate their own children.
Goldberg suggests that universal pre-K plans have “everything to do with providing glorified daycare services so that parents can go to work.” That’s only partly true. Such programs also have to do with creating more unionized jobs that rely on government mandates and subsidies.
We’ve reached the point that government is acting entirely as a self-interested business, using its metastasizing ability to tell people what to do and how to live (backed by its authority to tax, jail, and kill) to generate business for itself, in a cycle of kickbacks and political quid pro quo. In the name of doing good, by providing services that it insists people need, too-big government is undermining the very things that define good in life, from freedom to family.
Differences in the cost of health care between men and women weren’t as big a deal when most people married for life; we should look in that direction for solutions, rather than forcing insurers to deny reality.
The human inclination to dictate and control comes back around in the United States
Josh Blackman highlights one of those political truisms that still surprises when one sees evidence.
First, he cites a 2009 Kaiser Family survey finding that support flips for an ObamaCare provision that makes it difficult “for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most” when people are informed that it would increase their own premiums. Next, he cites the same phenomenon in a more recent Cato/YouGov survey, concerning the “community rating” provision that forbids adjusting premiums based on medical history.
This is why it makes a difference how surveys are worded and, even more, what points news stories present. It makes progressive policies look much, much more attractive if there’s never any cost associated with the feel-good legislation. Every story should contain a micro-lesson on basic economics.
Making this tendency more tragic, in this case, is that these small populations of exceptions could be addressed in ways that are much more fair and much better economically and with regard to outcomes.
Knowledge, as they say, is power, which is why the Left spent decades corrupting institutions like the media and higher education by which Western Civilization transmits its information.
Well, the WTNH headline out of Connecticut is just about all you need to know: “Income tax revenue collapses; Malloy says taxing the rich doesn’t work,” but here’s a brief explanation:
Connecticut’s state budget woes are compounding with collections from the state income tax collapsing, despite two high-end tax hikes in the past six years. …
It’s happening because the state of Connecticut depends too much on its wealthy residents, and wealthy residents are leaving, and the ones that are staying are making less, or are not taking their profits from the stock market until they see what happens in Washington.
Rhode Islanders should consider that this goes in reverse, too. Lower, broader taxation will foster the import of wealth and productive activity within the state. For a quick lesson, see Thomas Sowell’s latest post-retirement essay.
For progressive governments in the Northeast, the whole purpose of a civic entity (like a state) is to construct the perfect society as they see it. This doesn’t work.
For classical liberals (now called “conservatives”), the purpose of a civic entity is to provide some structure and security for the society as a whole (as distinct from the security of an individual or particular organization). This does work, and should be the focus of our state.
Government should be small enough in scope that a broadly applied tax won’t hurt the less advantaged. In that way, we’ll have prosperity and greater economic mobility, or opportunity for people to climb the ladder.
The American Interest highlights an issue that ought to be a big topic, in Rhode Island, related to President Trump’s tax reform proposals: the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes.
The deduction overwhelmingly benefits six-figure earners. The benefit is largest for affluent people living in states that impose high income tax rates, which are much bluer than average. …
Some SALT opponents will claim that the measure would create a system of “double-taxation,” and they aren’t entirely wrong. But if this were really the concern, states could address it by making federal tax deductible from state tax bills. Of course, that would impose new costs on states, just as SALT imposes costs on the federal government. This is at its core a fight over resources, and it’s one that the working class deserves to win more than coastal high-flyers.
Rhode Island would take a hit if this proposal were to pass, but it’d be deserved. More importantly, it has the easy remedy of lowering spending and local taxes. Ta-da! Problem solved!
The post makes another significant point: The deduction takes the pressure off of relatively wealthy Rhode Islanders to get involved and hold their government accountable. After all, the additional taxes that result are deductible on their federal taxes. If it were not, such folks would have more incentive to take an interest in how things really run around here.
David Harsanyi finds the ghoulish worldview of self-styled “science guy” Bill Nye objectionable. This particular paragraph of Harsanyi’s, though, allows for an interesting tangent into how the Left and Right think:
We live in a world where Ehrlich protege John Holdren — who, like his mentor, made a career of offering memorably erroneous predictions (not out of the ordinary for alarmists) — was able to become a science czar in the Obama administration. Holdren co-authored a book in late 1970s called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” which waded into theoretical talk about mass sterilizations and forced abortions in an effort to save hundreds of millions from sure death. Nye is a fellow denier of one of the most irrefutable facts about mankind: Human ingenuity overcomes demand.
This is just a single example of progressives’ comfort with concepts like forced sterilizations and forced abortions. Harsanyi also quotes progressive Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as saying, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Other examples would easily be found.
What comes immediately to mind for a contrast is the Left’s reaction to Charles Murray. Anybody who has read Murray’s original flash-point for controversy, The Bell Curve, would know that the book…
- acknowledged differences in intelligence,
- reported that in current circumstances, these differences do relate statistically (although not inevitably) to racial groups, and
- warned about the future consequences of allowing such trends to develop.
Murray and co-author Richard Herrnstein were concerned about the development of a “cognitive elite” in proverbial gated communities lording it over everybody else. In order to avoid that in the future, they said, we must honestly address the data and answer thorny questions of culture and political philosophy.
Think about that. Murray is attacked as a “white supremacist” by the Left for arguing that we’re headed toward a divided, dystopian future that we should strive to avoid. Meanwhile, voices on the Left are lauded despite their openness to divisive, dystopian policies in the present.
Trust in Trump (versus the elite), trust in intelligence gathering, trust in pensions and economic development, and trust in the police
After a mentally exhausting local board meeting, I can’t help but muse on its implications for the rule of law and self governance.
Westerners are figuring out that their compassion is being abused and that the abusers’ preferred policies bring about outcomes that are an affront to the compassionate.
Relationship of government to the people, with cheese sandwiches, welfare, probation, and campaign finances.
It’s difficult to believe that Bob Plain isn’t trying his hand at parody with an interesting article on RI Future today about “lunch shaming”:
It’s known as lunch shaming. Students are subjected to special, sometimes embarrassing, treatment because their parents didn’t pay the school lunch bill. “Some provide kids an alternative lunch, like a cold cheese sandwich,” according to a recent NPR story. “Other schools sometimes will provide hot lunch, but require students do chores, have their hand stamped or wear a wristband showing they’re behind in payment. And, some schools will deny students lunch all together.”
The so-called cheese sandwich policy seems popular in suburban Rhode Island: Bristol/Warren, South Kingstown, and East Greenwich all use it.
From Bob’s article it appears that we’re talking debts in the amounts of $5 or $10, which seems like a paltry amount that districts could find some way to accommodate. I’m trying to imagine a working-to-middle-class private school taking such steps. In a transaction in which one side actually has the option to leave, other approaches have to be considered, whether a mandatory up-front fee, a deposit of some kind, a credit card on file, mandatory use of a payment processor that handles the collection, or a slight increase to all lunches in order to generate a reserve fund that provides a buffer for this sort of “debt.”
Putting aside the “what would the private sector do” comparison, though, think of what this little story says about the relationship of government to the people. Adults in position of authority over school districts with budgets in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars are agonizing over ways to embarrass children so as to extract a few owed dollars from their parents. That doesn’t indicate a mindset of provider-client or public-servant–beneficiary. Rather, it indicates the dynamic of ruler-subject similar to a Dickensian orphanage.
Suffice to say it takes a series of monumentally bad social and public policy decisions to get us to the point at which the proverbial lunch lady is scornfully handing a child some bread and cheese over $5 owed. We should start unraveling those decisions.
The window is closing for mainstream liberals to impose the rule of law on their radical allies before a countering force from the political Right is fully unleashed.
GoLocal is reporting that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island plans to move a good chunk of its Providence workforce to East Providence:
Despite making promises to the City of Providence in 2007 to centralize its work force in its gleaming $125 million tower, Blue Cross Blue Shield of RI confirmed late Tuesday that it will be moving more than 125 jobs out of Providence to East Providence.
The Blue Cross Tower is assessed at $46 million, but only pays a portion of its tax obligation because of a generous twenty-year tax stabilization.
Average residents tend to get caught up in rhetoric and lose sight of basic realities like incentives. Although individual workers and executives do take morality and personal fulfillment into consideration, private businesses ultimately exist to make money (whether for profit or non-profit). If they don’t do that, they don’t get to do what it is they do. Likewise, politicians’ have to gather votes and political support, otherwise they lose both their livelihoods and ability to accomplish what they want.
So, when a particular arrangement is no longer optimal for a business, given other opportunities, it will walk away from deals. And when a politician comes into office who didn’t make a particular deal and is building a different base of support, the dynamic changes from that direction.
Public policy should therefore build beneficial incentives and then let people work out their deals in a free market. From cutting deals for office buildings to reshaping an entire population for the benefit of a sugar-daddy industries (through, for example, “free tuition”), it is utter folly to accept central planners’ promises that the people can make out in the long run.
The Wall Street Journal’s Jennifer Levitz reports that the GOP-governed state of Maine is looking to add work requirements to the Medicaid program for those enrollees who are able-bodied adults. When the state did the same with the food stamp (SNAP) program, enrollees dropped 90% and analysis suggested that the group of people who had been on food stamps actually saw an increase in wages.
The argument against such reforms shows the completely different starting point of each side:
But Maine’s approach is drawing criticism from advocates for the poor, who say jobs, volunteer positions and transportation to either of them can be hard to come by in rural pocketswith persistent unemployment. They say those losing the assistance turn to charities instead, increasing demand at food banks.
To which I would ask: So? Whether society provides food for the poor through a government program or private charity, we’re still supporting our neighbors.
The implied difference is that private charity has the feel of relying on the goodness of others while government programs have the feel of society’s handing over what it owes — an entitlement, in other words. That difference is critical, and right in line with the work requirement.
What we owe each other is the chance of personal development and fulfillment, which comes from working, including being part of a self-supporting family team, even if not everybody within it works. For those who really can’t work and who aren’t part of family that can address the greater challenges it faces, we should offer help in a way that shows genuine concern and community, not forced entitlement.
The attitudes and mechanics of welfare affect each other. There’s a difference between the obligation to care for other people and a right to be cared for. When a third party — government — asserts the authority to impose the obligation and bestow the right, it harms those who face adversity and deprives those who contribute of the benefits of being charitable.
Way down in his weekly roundup column, Ted Nesi highlights another point from the recent RI Kids Count report:
One statistic that stood out: Rhode Island now has the fifth-lowest birth rate in the country, following a 15% slide in the number of babies born here over the last decade. What does that mean for the state’s future? It’s already having an effect on the economy, with Care New England saying the decline in births is hurting revenue at Women & Infants.
That’s an understated example of the effect of this dynamic. Indeed, it would be difficult to overstate the effects of an increasingly sterile population.
To touch on one narrow political matter: As I’ve pointed out in Tiverton and for the state as a whole, our public schools have generally lost about two full grade-levels worth of students in the last decade. Picture no fourth and no fifth grade students in the entire state; that’s how much enrollment has decreased. This leaves a bureaucratic, unionized, and expensive education establishment demanding increased budgets to educate fewer children, which its partisans do against a taxpaying public that has less and less actual use of the schools. That battle alone will be huge in Rhode Island.
But even an issue of that magnitude is as nothing to the reorientation of a society with fewer children. The way people think and interact with the world will change on that basis. Indeed, not having children (or not having multiple children) takes pressure off of people to become full adults, making them more susceptible to the pitch of the “government plantation” advocates to look to central planners as parents to us all. It also makes us vulnerable to people from other cultures in which Peter Pan has been held at bay.
One wonders: If it weren’t for the heavy government-centric packaging and cover of the left-wing Brookings Institution, wouldn’t so-called progressives be highly skeptical of efforts like the Partnership for Rhode Island?
This is about CEOs addressing large societal issues and figuring out how money and expertise might advance certain efforts, said [Neil] Steinberg, president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, one of the nation’s oldest and largest community foundations.
For a refresher, refer back to my piece on the “Wexford-Brookings Franchise.” This is about business magnates working with government insiders and non-profit profiteers to shape our society more to their liking. (We can trust that they like being wealthy and elite, by the way.)
We’re watching every socio-political lesson from history and fiction take shape before our eyes, and so many people are caught up in low-level political squalls and identity politics that we’re strolling right along with it.
The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity has been placing more emphasis on the need for “civic society” institutions — that is, moving authority and decision making away from government and toward other institutions by which we interact, like business, churches, non-profits, and so on — but we mean something substantially different. In our vision, people work together to solve their problems, forming organizations as necessary.
In the Wexford-Brookings-RI Foundation model, the people who already hold all the cards in our society essentially interweave government throughout our institutions to use them as leverage in their centralized goals. That’s not freedom; it’s subjugation, however friendly a face they manage to put on it at first.
You’ll find out what I’m talking about as I do, because I’m just making it up. Probably something about immigration, some drug dealing going on, attacks on Christians, and letters to the editor.
RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity CEO Mike Stenhouse has been playing off Rhode Island progressives’ slogan about a “fair shot” agenda, which consists mainly of policies that reduce economic freedom so progressives can buy support by forcing other people to hand over money. Stenhouse’s riposte is that it’s a “no shot agenda for businesses.” I’d suggest that he should drop the second part. Progressive policies are harmful for everybody, business owners, employees, and people who aren’t working. Stephen Moore makes the case succinctly in The American Spectator, listing a number of specific policies and concluding:
These examples merely scratch the surface of scores of governmental polices that are regressive. Could it be that the gridlock and polarization in Washington would be ended by a bipartisan reform movement to scout out and remove laws and rules that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most? One universal goal that we should all agree on and aspire to is equality of opportunity — which these laws squelch.
Where are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi and the class warfare warriors on reversing government policies that are stealing money and opportunities for low income and minority families? Do they care about protecting the poor? Or do they care more about protecting big government? It’s time to really find out.
No need for investigation. As proven in Rhode Island, progressives want to help the poor and disadvantaged only inasmuch as that translates into more wealth and power for them, through government. Progressives to whom that doesn’t apply aren’t progressives; they’re conservatives.
As Islamists “cocoon” and work with the Left to do the dirty work of cultural deconstruction, the Right can’t afford to retrench.
A little bit of economic reasoning should lead columnists like Mark Patinkin to consider whether the “lazy gringo” thesis accurately describes America’s problem.
The first thing one sees upon picking up the Newport Daily News today is a stock photo of me next to the quotation:
You can go straight from doing nothing to running for U.S. Senate on the Republican side because there are so few people involved.
I was one of a half-dozen Republicans and conservatives whom Derek Gomes interviewed for an article about Republicans in the state, to complement a recent one about Democrats. (Unfortunately, the article isn’t online for non-subscribers.)
One part of my extended statement to Gomes that I wish had made the cut was a benefit to being out of power: The RIGOP has no influence to sell, so people tend to be involved for the right reasons, and the odds of corruption are lower.
I also wish the article had gone into some of the other topics Gomes asked me about. He quotes Young Republican Barbara Ann Fenton as saying that Rhode Island Republicans are socially liberal, compared to the party nationally. I’d suggested in my interview that that might be part of the problem. The unanimous support for same-sex marriage, for example, is why I am (as Gomes notes) “a conservative but not a registered Republican.”
As a worldview, socially liberal and fiscally conservative is untenable, at least inasmuch as we acknowledge a responsibility to help the less fortunate. Part of our solution for those folks must be to help build a healthier society overall. If (for example) the “fiscally conservative” solution is simply to rely on private charity, it’s difficult to make the case that we shouldn’t just make our charity compulsory through taxation.
I talked about this in my Last Impressions podcast last week, but Megan McArdle’s article about Utah’s success with income equality and other social markers deserves additional attention. One thesis is Utah succeeds by mixing people of different socio-economic backgrounds:
Sims has looked at what happens to kids from schools in pairs of counties located along state borders, which provides something close to a natural experiment. Adjacent counties can be assumed to have broad overlap in the kind of people and businesses that locate there but will, because of their different state governments, have different levels of school funding and institutional practices. Sims found this made “almost no difference.”
So he asked, in his words, “What are schools doing?” Answer: exposing students to social networks that aren’t like theirs.
I’d suggest that McArdle pulls up short on this count, especially with regard to comparing Utah to other parts of the country. She segues into a discussion of racial homogeneity and the state’s racial past, but a different focus might be more relevant.
The prominent Mormonism in Utah introduces a strong influence to celebrate middle-class values. When schools and the broader society mix children of diverse backgrounds and encourage the disadvantaged ones to emulate those with stronger family backgrounds, that’s helpful. In more-socially-liberal areas, the mixing can go the other way if adversity or victimhood status bring the social value.
The role of government in: charity, innovation, waitressing, and grabbing parents off the street and locking them up.
A recent Investors Business Daily editorial lays out the fiscal circumstances wrought by our profligate government and points to a more socio-political problem that affects us at the state level, too:
So 75 cents of every dollar the government collects will go to those three programs[, Social Security, Medicare, and disability]. That doesn’t leave much room for stuff like defense, infrastructure and all the other things government now does. And our national politics will turn into a long, vicious battle between those who get checks from the government, and those who don’t. It won’t be pretty.
Rhode Island and its municipalities already experience that “long, vicious battle,” although it’s tempered by the fact that those on the losing end (that is, taxpayers who pay more in than they take out) can just leave the state.
That fact requires those who get the government checks or collect services in excess of their contributions to have the presence of mind to reduce the taking in order to avoid calamity. Watching local and state politics as I do, I’m not confident that people behave so rationally. Until crisis hits, it’s much too easy to ignore problems and justify one’s actions for emotional or ideological reasons.
This struck me while listening to East Bay Democrat Senator Lou DiPalma on RIPR’s “Political Roundtable” and the associated “Q&A.” Lou’s a smart guy with an interest in understanding facts, but genuine concern and a practical bent simply don’t rank against that insidious phrase that he repeats several times about “the right thing to do.” By the end, that phrase becomes a talisman for him, warding away wicked objections.
One can tell that the senator determines what that “right thing” is first and then applies practicality to rationalize it and then get it done, sidestepping questions about broader effects and government’s legitimate role. Is it “the right thing to do” to insinuate government into every area of our lives and to make it so difficult to advance in this state that families suffer and leave?
I wouldn’t say so.
For a couple generation’s, it’s been the Thing to blame Religion for failing to make people perfect; now we’re seeing that they’ll pursue their imperfections within other belief systems, too.
Crying out for mercy, Mormons helping Mormons, and a community of suckers
Open post for podcast.