Living in San Antonio, one might think I am mentally under the weather due to, well, the weather. We have received the most rain I can remember in my 7+ years living here. But guess what; I love it! It's keeping summer temperatures down, we don't have to water our lawn and, consequently, we're saving on our water and electric bills. The other day I heard news radio talk in terms of record levels for the Edwards Aquifer, the main source of drinking, bathing, watering, etc. water for the area. Incidentally enough, it was while doing one of my favorite things, reading bedtime stories to one of my girls, that all this came to head...in my head ("Daddy, why'd you stop reading?")
The first thing that came to mind is something that pops up from time to time; people paying attention to politics and the goings-on of their different levels of government about as often as they pay attention to the Olympics. What brought it to mind recently was an article in the Washington Post by Markus Prior ("The Real Media Divide", http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501110.html). It's no secret to those who know me that my T.V.-watching habits have changed and been squeezed in the last few years, basically ever since I started paying more attention to relevant stuff (the aforementioned politics and government). I should clarify what I mean by 'relevant'. Watching The Food Network or DIY and/or HGTV is probably relevant if you cook or build and/or decorate houses for a living. In his piece, he declares that "The new fault line of civic involvement is between news junkies and entertainment fans," with fewer than 20% making up the former. It doesn't surprise me that the other 4/5 have become even more entrenched in entertainment that "promises greater immediate gratification," and that, as a result, "cut down on their political participation" even more. What I lament is that they don't go far enough and just refrain from voting. Because they pay so little attention to politics, they are more susceptible to 30-sound bites, what makes politics politics and politicians politicians. If you don't know, for example, that tax increases on wealth and the creation thereof actually hurt the economy, or that school choice would actually help your child's education, please stay home on that first Tuesday after the first Monday every other November (research).
The second item to disappoint me stemmed from James Pethokoukis' blog entry in U.S. News & World Report yesterday ("1980s Redux: Hillary Clinton and Industrial Policy", http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/7/23/1980s-redux-hillary-clinton-and-industrial-policy.html) concerning industrial planning. One could successfully start and finish the argument against industrial policy by simply saying, as Pethokoukis does, that it was the Democrats "'big idea' to counter Reagonmics", a philosophy that provided and/or laid the groundwork for the economic growth of the past quarter century. But that wouldn't be any fun. Pethokoukis hits the nail on the head when he counters the claim by Ezra Klein, he of the recent opinion that the U.S. can probably remain the wealthiest country in the world even if keeping people from working more ("Land of the Overworked and Tired", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-klein15jul15,0,6435203.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail), that industrial policy seems to have worked in recent years for China and India by pointing out that "it's easier to run an industrial policy when you are a developing economy playing catch-up rather than a leading-edge economy that relies on innovation for future growth."
That gets to the heart of what depresses me; don't Democrats want us to remain a "leading-edge economy"? Don't they want us to remain the wealthiest country in the world, or do they perhaps feel guilty that we are, and want us to come back to the pack? Such a policy, along with their pro-union and "soak the rich" stances, would certainly do it. It would engender favoritism toward certain industries and big companies therein in the form of tax breaks, protective trade barriers, etc. For one, under Democratic leadership, it would, no doubt, be easier to unionize workers. Thanks to the hit the bottom line that results at least partly from unionization, trade barriers would have to go up to protect these companies from foreign competition (never mind the screwing the consumer gets). After all, we can't allow this policy to fail, now can we?? To pay for the tax breaks derived from the favoritism, the unfavored companies would effectively have to pony up more. Sure, "the rich" are "the rich" no matter how they make their money (assuming Democrats believe wealth is actually created), but the favored "rich" aren't as affected by their personal income taxes because of how handsomely their rent-seeking activities would probably be paying off. In the meantime, the unfavored, and everyone else for that matter, are being discouraged from inventing new and improving existing products. Where's the incentive when you're being taxed more??
Did I mention that ever-increasing trade barriers and taxes hurt the overall economy, both on the supply and demand side? I'll save that for another day. Right now, I'm going to go watch storm clouds gather and enjoy myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment