To be alive,
to be able to see,
to walk,.
..it's all a miracle.
Arthur Rubinstein
Libertarian Populism
The discussion starts by recalling Romney's eavesdropped 47% gaffe last year, i.e., since a large proportion of the voters do not contribute to paying government overhead and in fact are net recipient of federal freebies, they were vested in Obama's redistribution schemes. As I hear yet another reminder than only in one election since 1988 has the GOP candidate won the popular vote (Bush 2004), I get a little annoyed with the obsession, like Carney's (one of the panelists) analysis here. I don't want to write yet another opinion on why Romney lost the election, but let me start by pointing out from 1972 through 1988, the Republican beat the Democrat in electoral landslides except in 1976, and Ford likely lost that election because of his unpopular preemptive pardon of Nixon.
What has happened since 1988? I think part of it has due to with noncompetitive campaign operations, the GOP has been inept at marketing itself, particularly on economic issues, and it has had candidates whom did not know how to position themselves for the general election campaign. On the latter point, consider McCain whom made linking himself to Bush, still beloved by the partisan base, a key tactic that would backfire in the general campaign as Bush's approval ratings plunged to around 30%; he also inexplicably contradicted his experience argument against Obama by choosing an incompetent Sarah Palin. (But, to be honest, the election had more to do with the economic tsunami--and Obama represented the safety net party.)
Romney was Obama's dream candidate--a wealthy candidate whom all but gave away unpopular ObamaCare as an election issue because of Romney's precursor reform in Massachusetts. Romney could have run against Bush/Obama economic policy and foreign nation building, but he also shot himself in the foot with his tough stand on immigration. Going back to Carney, he points out that Romney focused on more well-to-do white-collar suburbs--with little to show for the effort. Well, DUH! We know that the Dems have dominated yuppies, academia, the financial service industry, government workers and high tech industry voters for multiple elections now. I also criticized Romney for a conservative campaign strategy: he seemed to think all he had to do was point out the economy sucked and he would win by default.
(A good anthology of libertarian populism is available here.) I dislike populism intensely; you can think of it in alternate forms like the little guys or Joe Six-Pack against the elites, Main Street vs. Wall Street, the Big Banksters, Big Business. The libertarian variation adds the "Big" label to government and particularly focuses on regulations (often influenced by big industry lobbyists) as an anti-competitive weapon. I would probably add Big Unionism, particularly within the public sector, which intrinsically works against government efficiency and adversely impacts the right to work and contract. We can also see a populist critique in terms of the tax code with all sorts of exemptions, deductions, deferrals, etc., which primarily benefit a small percentage of persons and/or politically-connected companies. (This is perhaps a bit of an oversimplification but see the earlier cited cross-reference.)
Why do I dislike populism? Because it is intrinsically divisive, and I don't think economic success is a bad thing or necessarily a result of a corrupt bargain with government. (I do criticize Big Government and various special interests, of course, but the issue has more to do with the counterproductive effect on economic liberty and growth and the rule of law.) I don't intend to doubt the motivation of legislators or civil servants; I think transparency is a much better tool than regulation, simplification of taxes and regulations is a benefit to taxpayers or businesses that can't afford accountants, lawyers or lobbyists, and a consumer-oriented perspective results in more consumer products and services. (By "consumer-oriented" I'm not referring to so-called consumer public interest groups but policies lowering supplier barriers of entry, like occupational licensing restrictions.)
I think the best thing the GOP could do is to focus on the effects of government failure on economic growth and become more consistent in limited government philosophy (e.g., Big Defense and interventionist foreign policy). They need to do a better job talking about diminishing returns to and opportunity costs of federal policies and expenditures and how government involvement in healthcare and college has exacerbated inflationary pressures.
A more populist perspective might look at low mismanagement of entitlements could eventually result in a Detroit bankruptcy-like day of reckoning for senior entitlements, poor taxpayer services, loss of purchasing power of the dollar, etc. I think a recent Cato Institute podcast talked about gun registration fees as high as $500. Guess what that means; imagine if you live in a low-income, crime-ridden neighborhood; "progressive" legislators essentially stripped people whom may have less responsive police protection of the right of self-defense, not unlike how poll taxes were used to disenfranchise certain voters.
/
Cato Event, "The Future of Transportation and the Highway Trust Fund"
I don't want to paraphrase the entire content of the panel (I do wish Cato Institute would attach presentations, article/references, etc along with the videos). O'Toole talks about how rail boondoggles end up getting approved despite how lower-cost alternatives like improved bus service (for example, driver delays of surface-rail operations may not be estimated: a quick reference to Bastiat's 'things unseen'); rail projects, other than perhaps in NYC, are often money losers (operations and maintenance backlogs). One counterproductive policy: percentage vs. absolute dollar limits, i.e., if you scale up the project, the federal match is maximized. There's talk about how about how 16% of the highway trust fund goes to (money-losing) mass transit and/or how federal overhead bites into funding or unduly restricts state/local outlays (say, for instance, for (green) bike trails): A paper O'Toole cites, "Paint is Cheaper than Rails", is available here. As O'Toole notes in another post, "Yet rail transit does virtually nothing to relieve congestion or make our highways safer. Moreover, transit suffers from its own infrastructure crisis, mainly because it is funded mostly out of tax dollars that get spent on glamorous new rail lines rather than user fees that would be spent on maintenance."
I heartily endorse O'Toole conclusion to the latter post: "In short, the key to sound infrastructure is funding that infrastructure out of user fees rather than tax dollars. Since that’s true, one way to improve highway safety would be to develop a new system of user fees that local governments can tap into so that local as well as state highway engineers receive sufficient funds and the appropriate signals about where to spend money."
Exactly right. The taxpayer should not be subsidizing Biden's trips on Amtrak back to Delaware; he should be paying full fare (user fee). Why would the federal government have paid for the Bridge to Nowhere? If a bridge is feasible, Alaskan drivers should pay to drive across it.
I also like Scott Beyer's discussion of market urbanism--think of it as decentralized market-oriented policies.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy and Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux
The Beatles, "Get Back"
