Entries categorized as ‘Political Animals’
Bill Easterly does a good job of sticking up for Hayek.
Hayek could be quite different than Hayekians. That distinction needs to be made in this era of tea parties and the dominant liberal-vs.-conservative false dichotomy.
I think it’s great that some conservatives are boosting Hayek (I wish progressives would, too; they’d find a lot to like). It just appears they aren’t reading him very closely. Do bear that in mind before associating Hayek with conservatism.
Worth reading: Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” Print it out. Read it closely. Mark up the margins with your notes and reactions. Agree or disagree, this essay rewards deep and careful thought. I’ve read it several times over the years, and every time I pick it up again I learn something new.
Categories: Economics · Great Thinkers · Philosophy · Political Animals
Tagged: bill easterly, classical liberalism, conservatism, conservatives, hayek, liberalism, progressive, progressives, tea parties, tea party, william easterly
George Will has a good column today. He does a wonderful job contrasting Hayek’s philosophy of humility before complexity with the early 20th-century progressive mindset of planning and scientistic design. The framework applies surprisingly well to today’s health care debate, with President Obama playing the role of Woodrow Wilson. Very thought-provoking.
Categories: Economics · Health Care · Philosophy · Political Animals
Tagged: barack obama, george will, hayek, Health Care, health care debate, health care reform, humility, obama, president obama, progressive, progressivism, uncertainty, woodrow wilson
If you’re gay, you can’t donate blood. It’s illegal. The ban was put in place in 1983, during the early days of the HIV/AIDS scare. It may have made some sense in those days, when HIV testing was less than trustworthy. But it sure doesn’t now, with modern screening technology.
Obviously, keeping HIV-positive blood out of circulation is a wise policy goal. But most gay people don’t have HIV/AIDS. Rather than screening donors for sexual preference, they should be screened for blood-borne diseases. Straight people already are. And it works quite well. Current policies are keeping healthy, willing donors out of the system.
The outdated ban could soon be coming to an end. Sen. John Kerry and 15 of his colleagues, usually more prone to passing regulations than repealing them, are urging the FDA to repeal this one. You can read their letter here.
The one disconcerting thing about the letter is that every single one of the signees is Democratic. Not one Republican joined in. That could be because Sen. Kerry and the others deliberately excluded them for political reasons. But the GOP is famously behind the curve on gay rights issues. So maybe Republicans were asked, and said no. I don’t know.
Republicans should send their own letter supporting Sen. Kerry’s position. Enlarging the pool of eligible blood donors is an unabashed good. It’s a classic gay rights issue. It’s also a health issue. Blood would be more readily available for patients who need it. Economists would add that increasing the supply of blood will lower its price – a good thing in this age of rapidly rising health care costs.
Categories: Economics · Health Care · Political Animals · Regulation of the Day
Tagged: aids, blood donors, democrats, donating blood, fda, gay, gay rights, Health Care, hiv, hiv/aids, John Kerry, kerry, republicans, senate, Senator John Kerry
From yesterday’s WSJ.com Political Diary (subscription required):
The same day President Obama called for another $50 billion to $100 billion stimulus plan (and concomitant increase in the deficit), he also appointed the chairmen of his Deficit Reduction Commission. It says a lot about Washington that almost no one got the irony of those paired announcements.
Indeed it does. Fortunately, the Commission’s job is pretty simple. There are only two ways to cut the deficit. One is to cut spending. The other is to raise taxes. Cutting spending is the right thing to do. But it is also politically difficult. There is a lot of fat to trim from the budget. But government has little incentive to put itself on a diet.
That’s why the Commission is expected to recommend a tax increase, probably in the form of a VAT. A prestigious bipartisan Commission can provide the political cover that Congress and the administration need to avoid the embarrassment of backtracking on their policies.
Wayne Crews and I recently warned why a VAT is a bad idea in Investors’ Business Daily. Hopefully some of the arguments will find themselves into the debate.
Categories: Economics · Political Animals · Taxation
Tagged: commission, cut spending, deficit, deficit commission, deficit reduction commission, obama, obama deficits, tax increase, taxes, value added tax, vat, washington
Headline from The Hill – “Pay-go gets passed, then it gets bypassed“
Pay-go budgeting rules — that any spending increases must be offset with spending cuts or tax hikes elsewhere — have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. One of them, the emergency exemption, is invoked as early as the second sentence of the article.
In theory, pay-go is supposed to be a way to slow the growth of government. But it’s all for show. Nobody really means it. Just invoke the emergency exemption. Then spend all you like. Appearances matter, especially in Washington. But they should not be confused with reality. And reality is that Congress is going to spend and spend some more, no matter what budgeting rules are in place.
Shame on them for trying to make people think otherwise.
Categories: Economics · Political Animals · Spending
Tagged: budget, federal budget, federal spending, government spending, pay-go, pay-go budgeting, pay-go rules, spending
When Niccolo Machiavelli died in 1527, Washington, DC was still more than two and a half centuries away from being founded. But he understood perfectly how that dismal city would work, as Bertrand Russell reminds:
“In the absence of any guiding principle, politics becomes a naked struggle for power; The Prince give shrewd advice as to how to play this game successfully.”
-Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, xxii-xxiii.
Machiavelli was, in many ways, the first modern public choice theorist. Had he lived in a post-Adam Smith world, he would have made a fine economist. A politician’s guiding principle is usually not ideology. It is to remain in power. So they behave accordingly. The first lesson of economics is that people respond to incentives. If someone’s incentive is to get re-elected, they will behave in a way conducive to achieving that goal. Morality and the greater good compete for a distant second.
Categories: Books · Great Thinkers · Pith · Political Animals · Public Choice
Tagged: bertrand russell, Great Thinkers, machiavelli, Philosophy, the prince, washington, washington dc
Good news:
The House suspended votes for the rest of the week because of the impending snowstorm while the Senate may cancel votes on Wednesday.
The Republic is safe until at least Thursday.
Categories: Political Animals
Tagged: congress, house, senate, snowmageddon, snowpocalypse, snowstorm
The New York Times apparently has a juicy profile on New York Gov. David Paterson in the works. It should run sometime this week. The Hill reports that ‘There has been speculation the piece will contain details about Paterson’s personal life that would result in his resignation.”
Paterson’s rival in the Democratic primaries, Andrew Cuomo, stands to benefit. Resignation or no, Paterson is already unpopular. And Cuomo has $16 million in campaign funds and counting.
Paterson’s resignation would also likely hurt the Republican candidate, Rick Lazio. Political junkies might remember him as the sacrificial lamb in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 senate race. By possibly sparing Mr. Cuomo a bruising Democratic primary, the Times may be assigning Mr. Lazio a similar role in this year’s gubernatorial race.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals
Tagged: andrew cuomo, david paterson, election 2010, new york governor 2010, rick lazio
February 9, 2010 · 1 Comment
Sen. Richard Shelby, who placed holds on over 70 of President Obama’s nominees, has lifted all but three of them. Politico reports:
A spokesman for the senator said Monday that with attention brought to these two concerns, the political maneuver had “accomplished” its goal and was no longer necessary.
Translation: “We were getting too much bad publicity.”
The three holds that Sen. Shelby is keeping in place have directly to do with the Alabama-based pork projects that he believes will make him look good to the Alabama voters he will be facing in November. So, in a way, nothing has changed.
This brings up a legitimate question: can earmarking abuse sometimes be an agent for smaller government?
Few, if any, of President Obama’s appointees will work to decrease the size and scope of government. Now that their path is cleared, they will probably do net harm to taxpayers. This is the nature of government workers, whether Republican or Democratic.
Sen. Shelby’s motive for blocking them is despicable: stealing from taxpayers to improve his re-election prospects. But one wonders if those same taxpayers would have been better off if Sen. Shelby had stuck to his guns.
Categories: Earmarks · Economics · Elections · Political Animals · Public Choice
Tagged: alabama, alabama senate 2010, Earmarks, election 2010, holds, limited government, obama, obama nomination holds, obama nominee holds, pork, president obama, Public Choice, richard chelby, sen. richard shelby, sen. shelby, senator chelby, senator richard shelby, shelby
