Tag: government growth

Categories
folly free trade & free markets moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

Trump’s Road Rage

infrastructure, shovel ready, government, roads, illustration

There is no reason why the states shouldn’t handle their own infrastructure. Not only in funding, but in direction and method of production and “distribution.”

But politicians aiming for the presidency tend not to even consider that heresy. And journalists, of course, tend to rah-rah for the nationalist planning notion, too. It’s easier to cover everything from Washington. I remember much talk of “our crumbling infrastructure” back in the 1980s.

Thankfully, Shikha Dalmia has not jumped onto that bandwagon. The Reason writer notes that Trump is trumping Obama’s fling with “shovel-ready jobs,” demanding that the federal government spend up to a trillion in infrastructure “stimulus.”

Forget for the moment the obvious contradiction: pretending to be an outsider, Trump is pushing as “insiderish” a program as imaginable.

I wonder: is Trump playing the cuckoo here, placing an alien idea into his constituents’ nests? Are his supporters about to be “cucked”? (As alt-rightists like to put it.)

Trump looks abroad for models of beautiful roads and bridges and trains and all the rest. If you travel “from Dubai, Qatar, and China,” he bemoans, our biggest cities give off a certain “Third World” vibe.

Dalmia blanches: “the countries Trump is praising as models for a better America are all autocracies that have made a complete hash of things.”

Boy, we do not need to find another way to make a complete hash of things here in the States. And our federal budgets are strained (and pushing us further into debt) as it is.

Besides, it is not written in stone, concrete, or even asphalt, that these United States’ roads and bridges must be made the federal government’s business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

infrastructure, shovel ready, government, roads, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Progressives’ Progress

Want to understand a political movement? Distinguish between its early proponents and its later followers. The thinking and rhetoric change over time.

Take Progressivism. It started out as an intellectual movement. Its leading lights were Americans who had studied in foreign colleges and universities. They brought back European ideas of an aggrandized state to counteract American notions of limited government.

Though I disagree with their notions almost totally (with interesting exceptions), it’s worth noting that they thought they were “scientific,” and would sometimes even encourage an experimental attitude towards public policy: Devise new programs, test them, chuck them when they don’t work.

Modern “progressives” don’t seem to sport that “testing” idea any longer.

I just received an email from BarackObama.com, which was complaining about the Speaker of the House, who — on TV, of all things! — said that “Congress ‘should not be judged on how many new laws we create,’ but rather on ‘how many laws . . . we repeal.’” My BO correspondent found this “embarrassing”:

We elected our members of Congress to work on the issues we care about: creating jobs, fixing our immigration system, fighting climate change, and passing laws to reduce gun violence.

We didn’t put them in office to sit there and wind back the clock.

Notice the assumption here: All the laws on the books are good, serving the common good; none are worthy of repeal.

Doesn’t seem like an assumption an early Progressive thinker would have made. But for too many of today’s progressives, progress apparently consists in accumulating regulations, rules, prohibitions, and tax programs as if each one were a pearl of great price.

Progress is government growth? That defies common sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Divided We Stand

Politicians like to talk about “unity” and “co-operation” and “getting things done.”

This would be all well and good if, when they manage to co-operate, they could restrain themselves from going whole hog and radically increasing government spending.

But the evidence is: They can’t.

Politicians in Washington are most co-operative and least “obstructionist” when the legislative and executive branches are united by party — that is, the majority’s in Congress is the same as the president’s. But look what happens when there’s united government under one party: Government growth.

A graph compiled by Mercatus Center research fellow Matthew Mitchell makes this easy to see:

Since Eisenhower, the federal government has grown every administration, every year. But the rate of growth is highest when government is united by party. It tends to grow less when there’s divided government. The rate of growth? 2.55 percent with divided government, and nearly double that — 4.67 percent — with united government.

If you look at the graph carefully, you can see there are anomalous developments and periods. And you can see that some famous (Reagan, Clinton-era) attempts at pruning spending hasn’t amounted to a reduction in total spending, yet. But still, the graph is a bit comforting, when you realize that we have divided government now, after a period of united government and massive spending increases.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.