Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

We Need To Listen To Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are my two favorite economists–probably because, despite both being Nobel Prize winners– both of them are able to explain their conclusions in language I can (mostly) understand, and because those conclusions usually strike me as eminently reasonable.

Stiglitz recently took on the neoliberalism that has characterized American governance since Reagan. Neoliberalism has been described as an economic system generally opposed to the provision or expansion of government safety nets, and highly skeptical of regulation, extensive government spending, and government-led countercyclical policy.

As Stiglitz notes,

On one side of the economic debate are those who believe in largely unfettered markets, in which companies are allowed to agglomerate market power or pollute or exploit. They believe firms should maximize shareholder value, doing whatever they can get away with, because bigger profits serve the common good.

The most famous 20th-century proponents of this low-tax/low-regulation shareholder-centric economy, often referred to as neoliberalism, are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These Nobel Prize-winning economists took the idea beyond the economy, claiming this kind of economic system was necessary to achieve political freedom.
The strongest argument advanced by neoliberals is that economic freedom translates into political freedom. As Stiglitz points out, however, “not quite.”
We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society…
Friedman and his acolytes failed to understand an essential feature of freedom: that there are two kinds, positive and negative; freedom to do and freedom from harm. “Free markets” alone fail to provide economic stability or security against the economic vagaries they create, let alone allow large fractions of the population to live up to their potential. Government is needed to deliver both. In doing so, government expands freedom in multiple ways.
Stiglitz’ basic argument is that the “Road to Serfdom” isn’t paved by governments that do too much; loss of freedom–serfdom– is a consequence of governing that does too little. He points out that populist nationalism poses a greater threat in countries like Israel, the Philippines and the United States than it does in in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. In those Scandinavian countries, high-quality public education, strong unemployment benefits and robust public health provide an economic floor that shields citizens from what he calls the “common American anxieties over how to pay for their children’s education or their medical bills.”
Discontent festers in places facing unaddressed economic stresses, where people feel a loss of control over their destinies; where too little is done to address unemployment, economic insecurity and inequality. This provides a fertile field for populist demagogues — who are in ample supply everywhere. In the United States, this has given us Donald Trump.
We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.
Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun might mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks might mean others lose the freedom to live.
Stiglitz provides examples of the various ways government regulation can enhance, rather than impede, individual freedom, and he ends by defining what he calls “progressive capitalism” (what I would call the “mixed economy.”) The goal of any economic system ought to be the creation of a broadly shared prosperity. The Isaiah Berlin quote captures the essential problem we face in today’s crony capitalist economy: we have a government that has been solicitous of the freedom and well-being of the wolves, and we’ve ignored the negative effects on the sheep.
Only government can (1) provide a social and political infrastructure accessible to all, and (2) prevent the wealthy and powerful from dominating and harming others. Neoliberalism fails on both counts.
Comments

Let’s Talk About Economic Performance

One of the recurring questions on presidential polls asks respondents for their perceptions of economic performance.
Although Kamala has bested Trump in a couple of recent polls, it has really rankled me that so few Americans have recognized and/or appreciated either the damage Trump did to the economy or the Biden administration’s incredibly successful management of it–management that financial markets and economists acknowledge was masterful, and brought the U.S. out of the pandemic downturn faster (and better) than any other country.
Knowledgable observers compare Biden’s performance to that of FDR. He will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential Presidents. In my humble opinion, the lack of popular recognition of his performance is attributable to his relative lack of oratorical skills–if Biden had the oratorical gifts of an Obama, perhaps a general public fixated on celebrity, salesmanship and hype (and too lazy to consult evidence and data) would have appreciated the extent of his administration’s accomplishments.
The Democratic convention got underway Monday, and in his speech, Biden justifiably reminded listeners of his “greatest hits.” In a column about the convention and the speech, Jennifer Rubin focused on Biden’s economic and foreign policy performance, noting the historic pieces of legislation Biden managed to pass even when the House of Representatives was in the hands of a partisan–and looney– GOP: measures on infrastructure, microchip manufacturing, and green energy investment. Cost controls on insulin and a variety of prescription drugs for Medicare patients. A massive operation to immunize Americans against the coronavirus, despite what Rubin called–accurately– “irrational and destructive” Republican opposition. That operation saved thousands of lives in addition to allowing the U.S. economy to recover. 

These domestic successes accompanied equally impressive foreign policy accomplishments: “repairing and expanding NATO, arming Ukraine, reestablishing the United States’ credibility on the international stage, new and reinvigorated alliances to check China’s power).”

Kamala Harris has been part of the Biden administration, and can be expected to continue the policy approaches that have been so successful. There will be some “tweaks,” but she has administration “bragging rights.” She is running on four years of demonstrated, excellent performance.

So, you might ask, what are Donald Trump’s “bragging rights?” My sister recently listed them, and seeing them all in one list was–shall we say–edifying:

First President in history to serve a full term and increase the deficit every year he was in office.

First President in history to maintain a debt to GDP ratio over 100% for his entire term

Highest annual budget deficit.

Most added to the national debt in a single term.
Most new unemployment claims.
Largest single day point drop in the history of the Dow.
First President in almost a century to lose jobs in his first term.
Longest government shutdown in history (and he did that while his own party controlled both chambers of Congress).
In addition to that dismal economic performance, Trump was also the first President to lose the popular vote twice, the first to maintain a net negative approval rating for his entire term, first to be impeached twice (with bipartisan support for his conviction after both impeachments) and, as we know, the President with the most indictments, guilty pleas, and criminal convictions of members of an administration.
The first to be a convicted felon.
The only people who cheered Trump’s economic policies were the super-rich, who benefitted from his tax cuts–cuts that placed the tax burden squarely on the middle class, and further enriched the wealthiest Americans.
You know what to do. VOTE BLUE.
Listen to the nuns….
Comments

Why Red States Are In the Red

A recent column by Michael Hicks in the Capitol Chronicle focused on a data-point that is far too often overlooked. It seems that calling Republican-led states “Red” is entirely appropriate, because most of them are in the red.

(Before going into the details of the column, I want to note that the Chronicle is part of an encouraging trend here in my city–a trend that is also showing up elsewhere. As I have repeatedly noted, the dearth of local reporting has had a very negative effect on democracy and the sense of community. In city after city, local newspapers have either disappeared or–as in Indianapolis–turned into “ghost papers” that no longer cover the sorts of things citizens need to know about their local institutions. Recently, however, we’ve seen several new media entrants that propose to fill the gap–including Axios Indianapolis, The Mirror, State Affairs, and the Chronicle.) 

But back to Hicks. He begins this particular column by noting that from the end of World War II up until about 1980, economic differences among the states bore little relationship to the partisanship of those states.

In fact, if you picked just one variable that best measured prosperity — per capita income — the was no correlation with political party. There were rich states led by Republican and Democratic governors and poor states led by both as well.

Over the past 40 years, that changed. Today, 19 of the 20 richest states are solidly Democratic, while 19 of the 20 poorest states are solidly Republican. It is clear that the GOP has become the party of poor states, while the Democrats have become the party of prosperous states.

The question, as usual, is “why?”

One big culprit is that political parties changed, erasing regional differences. Up until the late 90’s, there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. That is no longer the case, so as states began to align with national politics platforms.

This trend more extreme today. Even races for local government tend to be highly nationalized. State and local issues are often ignored in primary or general elections. This homogeneity of national politics naturally tends to cause parties to have success in places that are more similar – polarizing states between parties.

A second trend is the sorting by politics increasingly effects household location choice. Though much sorting happens at the local level, the nationalization of politics means that state borders now effect household location choice.

The nationalization of politics means that each party has been staking out positions that appeal to majorities in key states. In this way, politicians are choosing their voters. The sorting of households reflects voters choosing political landscapes they prefer, on economic, fiscal and cultural issues. This trend appears to be accelerating.

That last paragraph reminded me of the demographic observations in Bill Bishop’s 2009 book The Big Sort.

Hicks acknowledges that there is never one simple reason for economic performance, but he also hones in on what appears to be the largest cause of the disparity between Red and Blue states: public education.

The cause of the economic divergence is because human capital — education, innovation and invention — replaced manufacturing and movement of goods as the primary source of prosperity. This means that places that grow will necessarily need to develop and attract more human capital. But the educational policies pursued by both parties are vastly different, with very different outcomes.

The GOP has largely tried to adopt broad school choice, and cut funding to both K-12 and higher education. The Democrats have largely eschewed school choice, but amply funded both K-12 and higher education. Seventeen of the 20 best funded states are Democratically controlled and 17 out of the 20 lowest funded states are GOP strongholds. Educational outcomes between these states are stark.

Educational attainment differences alone explain about three quarters of the difference in per capita income between states….

Voucher programs haven’t just failed to generate superior test scores. They’ve impoverished our critically important public school systems –and kept Red states like Indiana poor. As Hicks concludes,

Economists have been saying this for three decades, without any effect in poor states. The prognosis is simply that poor states — like Indiana — are going to get poorer for decades to come. While rich states will grow richer.

Not that Indiana’s terrible legislature will take note….

I recently discussed the abysmal effects of voucher programs on the podcast co-hosted by Morton Marcus and John Guy: Who Gets What? 

If you have some time, tune in.

Comments

There’s More….

Yesterday, I shared some of the disturbing proposals of Project 2025, but of course, a document of nearly 1000 pages includes many other terrifying “ideas.”  The New Republic has listed several, gleaned from an advance copy of the book by Kevin Roberts, who captained the Project for the Heritage Foundation.

There’s good reason publication of the book has been delayed until after the election.

Dawn’s Early Light has all the misplaced confidence of a movement that’s mistaken a 6–3 Supreme Court and an easily played New York Times op-ed page for some kind of mandate. The party that has won the popular vote in a presidential election exactly once in the last 35 years is not popular, and people do not want what they’re selling. When your only path to power consists in gerrymandering and shaving tight victories in a few key swing states while the opposition runs up the margins nearly everywhere else, you might try for some soul-searching about why people don’t like you, but Roberts and his Heritage Foundation have instead opted for violent threats, claiming a “second American revolution” is coming that will remain “bloodless” only “if the left allows it to be.”

The book details the Project’s enemies: public schools, China, godlessness, and government regulations are prominent, but the Project proposes widespread destruction of numerous other American institutions.

“Every Ivy League college, the FBI, the New York Times, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Department of Education, 80 percent of ‘Catholic’ higher education, BlackRock, the Loudoun County Public School System, the Boy Scouts of America, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the Chinese Communist Party, and the National Endowment for Democracy.”

What is the plan to enact this bloodletting? While there are sops to Ronald Reagan throughout, Dawn’s Early Light is clear that the era of small government is over; Roberts thinks government should be the change he wants to see in the world. The New Conservative Movement, as he terms it, will use the federal government as a bludgeon against any and all of its cultural and economic foes, while the small-minded small government folk are derided throughout as “wax-museum conservatives.”

Roberts wants government to force American to embrace his vision of “Faith, Family, Community, and Work.” And–not surprisingly–“Faith” means Christianity.

Policies that encourage religious observance, such as Sabbath laws and voucher programs that include religious schools, should be encouraged. American society is rooted in the Christian faith—certainly public institutions should not establish anything offensive to Christian morals under the guise of “religious freedom” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

As I noted yesterday, Roberts reserves special animus for reproductive freedom, especially the birth control pill–which he wants to outlaw.

“The birth control pill,” he tells us, “was the product of a decades-long research agenda paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation and other eugenicist and population control-oriented groups.” These eugenicist-sponsored technologies, Roberts believes, are the true culprits, for they “shift norms, incentives, and choices, often invisibly and involuntarily,” making us think we want something that we in fact don’t.

Even a thing you might think the pro-birth crowd might like, like in vitro fertilization—which produces babies!—is not good in Roberts’s view….

This technological conspiracy, where every modern convenience from the Pill to the Playstation is keeping us from our God-given duty to be fruitful and multiply, must be fought at every level—from government tax policy and regulation (to encourage stay-at-home mothers) to pro-family technologies (like Tinder rival “Keeper,” a dating app whose mission is to “end human loneliness by giving everyone the opportunity to start a happy, healthy family”).

The article has much more of this insane world-view. (I just learned that Heritage wants to end government’s hard-won new ability to negotiate drug prices, something that just saved seniors and government billions!) But you might also be wondering how these lunatics plan to sell their vision to an American public unlikely to favor their version of utopia.

Pro Publica has answered that. It’s reporters uncovered “training videos” produced for Project 2025’s proponents/salespersons.

“Eradicate climate change references”; only talk to conservative media; don’t leave a paper trail for watchdogs to discover. In a series of never-before-published videos, Project 2025 details how a second Trump administration would operate.

The videos have strategies for avoiding Freedom of Information Act disclosures, for ensuring that conservative policies aren’t struck down by “left-wing judges,” and for “radically changing how the federal government works and what it does.”

This entire enterprise is delusional. It entirely ignores the existence of a robust contemporary culture that would resist a U-turn to the 1950s (or, really, the 1850’s).

Project 2025 accurately reflects the MAGA worldview. Sane people must defeat it in November.

Comments

Speaking Of Project 2025…

If–as I fondly hope–the Democrats are victorious in November, future analysts of this year’s election are likely to focus on two major reasons for that success: Donald Trump and Heritage’s incredibly witless decision to leak the existence of Project 2025.

I need not belabor Trump’s rapidly disintegrating campaign. He can still pull this election out–if there are more MAGA cult members than I want to believe and too few rational people who vote–but at this juncture, he is rapidly descending into incoherence and obvious senility, and struggling to find an insult for Harris that will resonate. His choice of JD Vance as Vice-Presidential candidate once again displayed his lack of judgment. His constant insistence that America is a hellhole teetering on the edge of depression and teeming with criminals is evidence of his looney-tunes detachment from reality.

Trump’s inability to reach beyond his base– the voters who applaud his incivility and share his bigotries– is one thing; the revelations of Project 2025– the GOP’s transition plan–is another. To call the Plan’s measures “unpopular” is an understatement. As one pundit observed, “it polls like Ebola.”

In a recent Letter from an American, Heather Cox Richardson reported on several of the elements of that document, calling it an “extremist vision of a country ruled by a strongman who took the civil service, the Department of Justice, and the military under his own control in order to slash the popular, secular parts of the government and replace them with Christian nationalism.”

Right-wing evangelicals liked what was outlined in the project, but when the majority of Americans began to understand what was in it, they were quite clear they wanted no part of it. Trump then tried to distance himself from it, although he had publicly praised it, his political action committee had called it his plan, and more than 100 of its architects were people who had served in his administration.

And then it turned out that Trump’s vice presidential pick, J. D. Vance, had written the introduction for a book by Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, the chief author of Project 2025. The original publication date for the book, which calls for “a peaceful ‘Second American Revolution,’” was in September, shortly before the election, but today the publisher announced it would put off publication until November, after the election.

The publication may have been delayed, but several copies of the book were already in the hands of reviewers. Despite Republican efforts to soften or otherwise obscure the party’s efforts to ban women’s reproductive freedoms, the book makes very clear that the folks currently in control of the GOP intend to come not just for abortion, but for birth control and in vitro fertilization. According to these Christian Nationalists, having children should not be considered an ‘optional individual choice,’ but a ‘social expectation.’” The book characterizes reproductive choice as a “snake strangling the American family.”

(The book also says dog parks are “anti-family.” I am not making this up–google it. In the book, Roberts complains that parks catering to dogs, rather than children, are evidence of “the antifamily culture shaping legislation, regulation, and enforcement throughout our sprawling government.” Take that, Rover!!)

Richardson also tells us that–in addition to his enthusiastic introduction to Project 2025–Vance wrote a glowing blurb for another Right-wing screed.

The book, titled “Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them),” calls for purging their enemies from society. “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags,” Vance wrote. “Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people… In ‘Unhumans,’ Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Vance, Heritage and the MAGA movement don’t just oppose reproductive liberty. They oppose Separation of Church and State, “HR, college campuses and courtrooms”–in other words, diversity (“those people”), education (Project 2025 proposes to replace public schools with voucher programs, and endorses current Republican assaults on academic freedom) and the rule of law. The GOP doesn’t just want women returned to the kitchen and bedroom; it wants gay folks back in the closet. And it denies the existence–let alone the medical needs– of trans people.

CNN recently reported on the secret taping of a conversation with one of the Project’s authors, a self-described Christian Nationalist who disclosed–among many other things– the current preparation of Executive Orders and other legal documents in order to facilitate the rapid implementation of Project policies by an incoming Trump Administration.

A vote for any Republican is a vote for this entirely anti-American Project.

Comments