Planning And Democracy: Redux

by Mario Rizzo 

The Senate Finance Committee has filed its current version of healthcare reform. It is here.  

(HT: Volokh Conspiracy)  

It is 1,502 pages long and it is in legislative language. If passed, it will affect our lives in important ways. Let me suggest that you all read it carefully and then let your senators know what you think. 

Of course you won’t do that and neither will I. We are rationally ignorant and we shall remain that way. 

Will the senators, not on the committee, read it? I doubt it. They will be too busy giving their opinions on selected portions. However, special interests will know about the particular provisions that affect them. As to the senators on the committee, staffers will give summaries. How much they understand or care about provisions that affect the general interests in contrast to the interests that elect them is unknown.  

The welfare state makes a mockery of the rule of law and of representative democracy.

Politics in One Lesson

by Roger Koppl

It is better to signal goodness than to do good.

That’s it.  That’s the lesson.  (Thanks to Steve Horwitz for the title of this post.)  Democratic politics is mostly about signals not substance.  The lesson is simple, but somehow hard to learn.

Writing Propaganda

by Gene Callahan

The kind of writing that craftily describes political situations, not in order to get at the truth of what is going on, but in order to bolster some party platform, always upsets me. The kind of moves made are similar no matter what party is writing the propaganda, so analyzing a sample from one side of an issue — like the one found here — is useful for tuning one’s “propaganda radar” to detect BS coming from the other side(s) as well.

Mr. Avni’s editorial is purportedly about the situation in Honduras, but it’s true purpose is to paint President Obama as being an enemy of the US. Let’s take a look at the kind of underhanded writing techniques that can be used when all one cares about is scoring points for one’s own side:

“Obama threw his lot in with deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya…”

Well, Obama “threw his lot in with” the idea that democratically elected leaders shouldn’t be deposed by military coups. How much he likes Zelaya himself may have nothing to do with that lot throwing.

Paul Krugman Is Right About Differences

by Mario Rizzo

 

Paul Krugman is right. David Broader recently said that we need “the best ideas from both parties.” We could of course interpret this trivially. I too want the best ideas to predominate. But Krugman sees an important point:  

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground. 

Old Wisdom for New Year

by Chidem Kurdas

 

New year, new government, new policies, new promises. How about some wisdom distilled from the past? Here is a selection of quotes I find illuminating.

 

Since (the legislature) possesses authority to arrange everything, it cannot refuse responsibility for anything. There will be no particular grievance which it will not be regarded as capable of removing … However, it is a fact that most of the grievances of particular individuals or groups can be removed only by measures which create new grievances elsewhere. …

Friedrich Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty; v. 1, University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 143-144

Hayek Explains Bush on the Auto Bailout

by Mario Rizzo

Today from George Bush’s remarks announcing to use of TARP funds to bailout the auto industry —  until they ask Obama for more later next year:    

… [M]y administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.

Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.

This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I’m announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.

Planning and Democracy

by Mario Rizzo

 

 

The Senate could not agree on an auto bailout package. So what may happen now? The Treasury may lend the Big Three about $15 billion under the authority given to it in the TARP legislation to buy any financial instrument necessary to promote financial market stability. This authority was thus not to do any specific thing but to do what in the judgment of Henry Paulson would help fix the system. So Congress basically gave the Fixer an almost blank check.