Remedial Economics For Reactionaries and Radicals

As noted before, I've been increasingly impressed with U.S. News and World Report economics writer James Pethokoukis. In this post/column, he completely fisks the Democratic debate that took place in Hanover, NH earlier this week. If this were all he had to do, I would nominate his as the easiest job in America.

If you've a hankering for higher government spending and higher taxes—and I know plenty of people who do—you most likely got a bellyful at last night's Democratic debate... Democrats do realize that America exists in a hypercompetitive global economy, right? Mentions of "compete" or "competitiveness," [in the debates] zero; "China," one; "India," zero; "Asia," zero; "innovation," zero; "productivity," zero; "technology," two...

Thank goodness for global warming. Without it, Dems would seem to be hard pressed to come up with a strategy to grow the economy faster. This from Dennis Kucinich: "I'm talking about a new WPA*..." ...global warming provides a handy excuse for more government spending. As far as dealing with Social Security goes, raising taxes—-by lifting the cap on taxable wages-—seems a popular way of returning solvency to the system. (Such a move, by the way, would be the largest tax increase in American history.) [emphasis and link added]

*(The WPA, or Works Projects Administration was set up by the direct presidential order of FDR in 1935--entirely bypassing Congress. Here's what the uncontested Wikipedia entry about it has to say: "...the program wasted federal dollars on projects that were not always needed or wanted... White-collar WPA projects in particular were often singled out for their sometimes overtly left-wing social and political themes. One criticism of the allocation of WPA projects and funding was that they were often made for political considerations... The most serious criticism was that Roosevelt was building a nationwide political machine with millions of workers. The Hatch Act of 1939 was designed to forbid political activities on government time but the WPA remained politically manipulated by left-wing interests...")

Back then, despite the depression, we stood astride the world. Now, as Pethokoukis notes, we exist in a hyper-competitive global economy. Even if such a thing were marginally acceptable then, it would without question represent economic suicide today.

It has been fashionable for a long time for Democrats to accuse Republicans of wanting to "roll back the clock" on various issues. Not that that's always such a terrible thing on some issues. Yet what we have here is the entire cadre of Democratic candidates failing to address uniquely 21st century issues while simultaneously proposing a list of policies with vintages ranging from the 1930s to the 1970s that have all been tried and found wanting.

That reactionary impulse has only increased on the left as Democrats have begun to realize that history is against them--in the form of baby-boom demographics and fertility rates. The current Congress (and particularly its committee chairs) is a case study in boomer throwbacks running the asylum based on Carter-era assumptions.

Speaking of asymmetrical fertility, here's the other piece of Democratic economic fantasy I've been trying to figure out (this one in the 'radical' category): the she-devil's proposal yesterday that every baby born in America receive (from your tax dollars) a $5,000 bond.

(There are about four million babies born in the U.S. each year. Little wonder she put the proposal in per-capita terms rather than calling for twenty billion dollars in extra federal spending.) Here she is in her own words:

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time..."

Let me first dispense with the aesthetics of her statement before dealing with its substance (such as that is). She begins with "I like the idea", as if, in narcissistic fashion, anything she comes up with is a gift to the American people and yet (paradoxically) also as if this were just a casual mention, not a carefully calculated ploy, as I believe it is. She tosses it off as if, with false modesty, it were really someone else's idea (she doesn't say whose).

If you don't like it, well, she was just floating a trial balloon, you know, so pay it no mind. But if you do, then we all know (wink-wink) it was really her idea all along (aw shucks) and isn't she brilliant (falsely humble smile) and besides (adoringly earnest, glassy-eyed acolyte look) she's a woman you know, so of course we must vote for her in order to rid the world of its patriarchal oppression. (Whatever that is, and never mind Maggie Thatcher or Condi Rice, much less the Islamofascists we're trying to stop whose sharia law enshrines precisely that value).

Then there is the rootlessness of the verb she uses ("to give", in its gerund form here). She carefully avoids attaching that verb to anything in particular because, if she did, it would be obvious that what she is proposing is both a vast new government bureaucracy and the taking of more of your hard-earned money.

The word "giving" exists on its own--floating in space--as if Santa Claus were about to come down the chimney and everybody likes Christmas, right? (We'll forget the Islamofascists for a moment. They surely do not and would thus spoil the fantasy.) But while we're on that thematic track, she thinks, why don't you poor stupid people (does she really think we need to be told, like little children, that invested money grows over time?) think about a Salvation Army Santa ringing the bell in front of the department store at Christmas.

In that context, we can all agree, giving is a good thing, right? We can, however her proposal is emphatically not that--not even in one molecule of its mechanism or intention. Which brings us to substance--all of which is political.

There are several obvious and several not-so-obvious angles to this. (Sorting out which is which is left as an exercise for the reader):

First, it harbors the potential to extend her reach beyond a liberal, affluent, bi-coastal base that has tended to be less-re-productive (in some cases militantly or physically un-reproductive) compared with more traditional families (particularly religious ones) in 'red' states.

Second, combined with a soft policy on illegal immigration, it virtually ensures the long-term expansion of the Democratic base, especially where they have been weak among Hispanics. (Buying votes is a traditional Democratic 'machine' tactic. Nothing new here.)

This is also an end-run on the traditional welfare state, with something thrown in (quite ironically for the income-redistributing Dems) for semi-affluent suburban stay-at-home moms who may have subliminally resented the idea of single mothers in the ghetto getting a hand-out while they have been punished for keeping their family together. At the very least, it takes a stab at the core of Republican support in that demographic and may peel off a few marginal votes among the more secular parts of it.

Finally and most cleverly on her part is what took me 24 hours to realize: this is her defense against the charge of being anti-life/pro-abortion. With the 'gift' of your money, she can say that she supports growing (selected) children into productive, college educated (read: liberally indoctrinated) adults and distract attention from the ones who (ahem, lets be delicate here) never had the chance to make it that far. My goodness, she is clever...