Would Subsidizing Jobs Be More Conservative than the Minimum Wage?

 

shutterstock_126940808One of the problems of working is that I often I miss interesting posts and comments on Ricochet. One of them was @katebraestrup’s Free Money! No Strings Attached from April which discussed the guaranteed basic income as an alternative to the welfare state. I’ve been thinking about welfare reform — specifically, about the new pushes for minimum wage — but wonder if there isn’t an approach that might be more in-keeping with conservative views. Mind you, everything that follows I’ve phrased in relative terms; I’m offering what I hope is a least-worst alternative, not an ideal one. So, let’s begin with what I regard as the inherent dishonesty of the minimum wage:

  1. It presupposes that any occupation, if plied for eight hours a day (why not six or ten) provides social value equal to a living wage.
  2. Since the costs of the minimum wage are generally passed onto consumers, it represents a hidden tax on those buying goods and services from companies hire minimum wage employees.
  3. Companies subject to minimum wage requirements often compete with foreign competitors who are, of course, not subject to our laws. This makes the minimum wage an internal tariff on domestic labor.
  4. The minimum wage also acts as a tariff on labor as compared to automation. Thus, apart from the supply/demand effects (higher price lowers demand, i.e., jobs), an increase in the minimum wage increases the incentive to automate jobs.
  5. It provides an incentive to hirer illegal immigrants.

But real and harmful as these effects are on workers and consumers, this overlooks the harm minimum wage laws cause employers. First, the laws imply that employers are too tight-fisted to treat their employees fairly without government intervention. Second, it imposes all the burdens of implementing a minimum wage on the employer (whether to raise prices, whose job to eliminate, cajoling supervisors and middle managers to stay on without a raise to help absorb the wage increase, etc.).

So, instead of setting a wage floor, what if we subsidize job creation? To keep numbers very simple, if the employer pays $12.50 an hour ($500 a week), he or she receives a tax credit of $10 an hour. Cost-wise, this is a comparable to Kate’s suggestion of paying $20,000/year to everyone, except: (a) Nobody gets paid without working and (b) The work has to produce a value of at least $2.50 an hour plus the employer’s overhead and ROI.

Such a system could get the attention of a big demographic the Right has been struggling with: when you’re living at the margin, there is a strong incentive to listen to those telling you the system’s rigged so the government needs to look out for you as opposed to those telling you that jobs don’t grow on trees. Subsidizing employers to pay a minimum wage might clear enough space to get some of these messages across:

  1. If you want more of something (job) you should pay people to produce it. If you raise the price of something (jobs via the minimum wage) you get less of it.
  2. Income isn’t a birthright. You must earn income by providing something a greater value to others.
  3. The creation of real jobs requires real creativity. (No president as ever “created” a private sector job, except jobs needed to comply with federal regulations.) Someone has to figure out what people value and how to get it to them at a price they’ll pay. The tax credit recognizes the social value of this creativity.
  4. The subsidy is a transparent tax and wealth transfer, rather than a hidden tax like the minimum wage.

To top it off, this could help us do away with most of welfare (we’d keep social security to deal with those who cannot work; easier said than done, I know).

I realize those creative enough to create jobs could also find ways to milk a new system, so there’s a risk of fraud and abuse. But my question is one of direction rather than details. Could this be a better path for conservatives to work on, rather than just trying to cut entitlements?

Published in Domestic Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Your subsidy seems to target low skill work. It would just serve as more incentive to illegal immigrants to come and work. I guess you would have to tighten up all of that mess as well to even have a hope of preventing that. Then you will also be adding more paperwork to businesses that will need/want to take advantage of the tax break. Then, you will have someone like Bernie Sanders arguing that it is just a tax break for businesses, and the only way to not make it that is to have a higher wage.  Does the break increase with salary? If it doesn’t then the incentive on businesses will be to not give raises.

    The argument that people put forth for the minimum wage is that it is not enough to live on. Creating more minimum wage jobs (which your plan should do) does not solve that problem, it may actually compound it. What you have to make clear to people is that they will be able to move from minimum wage up to the living wage they want. The Democrats want to make a shortcut, which will come with many unintended consequences. This plan doesn’t even seem to do that to me.

    • #1
  2. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    It is an interesting idea. I’d need to think on it more. But it there is a danger that it may incentive employers towards heavy use of labor, which they may want in order to capture tax credits. Actually, many jobs are going away because of automation and increased capital production. So I’m not so sure we necessarily want to keep “jobs” just for the sake of jobs. I consider overall productivity to be more important.

    Also, it may encourage employers to keep their prices high, since the wage is a factor in prices.

    If we want to make wages more liveable, we should be deregulate the housing market and pursue policies that make energy cheaper. People have difficulty living on the minimum wage because of high rents. But this is mainly due to code regulations and development restrictions.

    The minimum wage is a tricky case in and of itself because in practice it turns out to be poorly targeted, given that most people on minimum wage live in families that are working. But a single person on a minimum wage is above the poverty line (not the best measure of course). And two earners in a household on min wage are as well. That’s before benefits.

    • #2
  3. SEnkey Inactive
    SEnkey
    @SEnkey

    I think the plan has more merits than the minimum wage. You’re right that it is picking between the lesser of two evils.

    • #3
  4. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    SEnkey:I think the plan has more merits than the minimum wage. You’re right that it is picking between the lesser of two evils.

    Its certainly an interesting idea. @shellgamer premise was that we’d also eliminate welfare. So I tried to be consistent with that. But we do have welfare and in that sense we are certainly “subsidizing” low wage workers. I mean, look at walmart: you work at walmart and you can still qualify for food stamps. Now Ricochet’s own @jamespethokoukis reports an interesting response to this, citing some great economists. Economists I enjoy (Drs Strain and Wolfers) But the responses don’t seem to dispute the calculations, just philosophy or logic. Look at Dr. Wolfers, again from the article:

    [But as Wal-Mart might see it], if they weren’t working at Wal-Mart at a low wage, they wouldn’t be working at all. The food stamp [cost] would be even bigger.

    My earnest reply would be/is: well if none of those employees were working for them, how would Walmart stay in business? The minimum wage people working at Walmart do provide important services.

    It is an open question as to the total changes of the policies. Perhaps Walmart would raise some wages and automate other jobs away. This is basically the critique of raising min wage laws. But that is a different argument than establishing whether or not we subsidize Walmart employees through our welfare policies.

    • #4
  5. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    The answer is the manufacturing sector must come back. And the American Dream must be, well, more Conservative. John Steinbeck said: “Americans see themselves as temporarily embarrassed Millionaires.” While I don’t agree with him on that being the reason Socialism never took root here, I do think luxury and opulence has replaced our Suburban Home, kids, and two car garage ideals. If I were given a day to fix things, I would take out the Sociology dept. of every college and replace with an automotive/machinist vocational center. Even though I did alright with my Liberal Arts education,  my work is care-taking oriented and incredibly mentally fatiguing. I’d much rather be getting paid, probably more, working on transmissions with a newport dangling from my lips than plugging away at logs of what so-and-so said today.  Machinist work and love for that work needs to be an American tradition again.

    • #5
  6. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    SpamCooke:The answer is the manufacturing sector must come back.

    If I were given a day to fix things, I would take out the Sociology dept. of every college and replace with an automotive/machinist vocational center.

    I’d much rather be getting paid, probably more, working on transmissions with a newport dangling from my lips than plugging away at logs of what so-and-so said today. Machinist work and love for that work needs to be an American tradition again.

    With all respect, the manufacturing sector is fine as measured by GDP and output. It is jobs that have declined, because manufacturing is now more automated and skill intensive. So I think the promise of a voc-tech was a lot stronger before we had these technological shifts.

    There are a lot of problems in US higher education. Getting rid of sociology would solve none of them and hurt a very interesting and necessary field in the social sciences. And yes, we absolutely do need to return more respect and love for people who do manual labor. I was a property CAT adjuster for 6 years. I found myself really fascinated by carpenters and would love to add trim carpentry and cabinetry to my skill set. But I see no reason to begrudge sociologists, and I don’t think that the US will really grow by pushing a “voc-tech” strategy. I’d rather a more diverse sociology field really.

    • #6
  7. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    Goldgeller:

    SpamCooke:The answer is the manufacturing sector must come back.

    There are a lot of problems in US higher education. Getting rid of sociology would solve none of them and hurt a very interesting and necessary field in the social sciences. And yes, we absolutely do need to return more respect and love for people who do manual labor. I was a property CAT adjuster for 6 years. I found myself really fascinated by carpenters and would love to add trim carpentry and cabinetry to my skill set. But I see no reason to begrudge sociologists, and I don’t think that the US will really grow by pushing a “voc-tech” strategy. I’d rather a more diverse sociology field really.

    I was being a bit verbose, I should clarify. Perhaps its a personal bias, as I’ve recently gone back to grad school and have had to take some higher division Sociology classes. Indeed, the statistics slant of Sociology, of the DuBois heritage is absolutely the cornerstone of demographics and other social data. However, I’ve yet to see anything besides that cross the threshold into actual science. I’m sure many can make the same argument for Psychology, but those rigors which gave birth to the DSM can be applied to correct maladaptive behaviors, I am skeptical that Anomie has any applicable purpose. Sociology classes I have taken never melded into any applicable crucible, they all seemed to be superfluous philosophies espoused by the professor lecturing.

    • #7
  8. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    Isn’t this part of the idea behind the Guaranteed Basic Income often pushed by libertarians? It would replace all existing welfare and government payment programs (and their bureaucracies) with a guaranteed minimum income paid out of tax revenues. I assume it would also eliminate the need for a minimum wage. I can see the positives in eliminating the labor market distortions of the minimum wage and the elimination of various welfare and other income support programs and administration. But I can imagine there are plenty of downsides.

    Francis Cianfrocca (of Coffee & Markets) is a pretty conservative guy, and has said that it’s possible at some point in the future that most work (both blue collar and white collar) will be performed by machines, and that great wealth will be generated with little need for human employment. In order to make that work, he says, such wealth will necessarily have to be redistributed. I don’t pretend to know how that would work, but I can see his point if that scenario does play out.

    • #8
  9. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    Instead of manufacturing, I should have said all trade work that requires certification and vocational education. An example: My good friend just opened up a fabrication shop in LA. It is doing surprisingly well–one of the reasons, according to  a TV studio he works with–the people who are certified to make things in Los Angeles proper have vanished. To that end, his master welder had to get back surgery and will be out for a year. He has spent 4 months looking for one in LA to help with work. People have answered the ad who can’t weld,  but want a job “answering phones or whatever”. I know LA is a microcosm of deluded waiters, but even near the San Pedro docks, welding is outsourced to Canadian, Japanese, and Mexican outfits who bring in a team to do what is needed.  Skilled Labor is dying.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/19/the-u-s-occupations-at-greatest-risk-of-a-labor-shortage/

    • #9
  10. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    SpamCooke:… However, I’ve yet to see anything besides that cross the threshold into actual science. I’m sure many can make the same argument for Psychology, but those rigors which gave birth to the DSM can be applied to correct maladaptive behaviors, I am skeptical that Anomie has any applicable purpose. Sociology classes I have taken never melded into any applicable crucible, they all seemed to be superfluous philosophies espoused by the professor lecturing.

    Thank you. Social sciences (SS) aren’t hard sciences, so I don’t think that’s the correct comparison. We can discuss the quant vs qual arguments but that is still controversial in SS. In the end, it is about how you are socialized as a reasearcher. Econ, Poli-Sci, PA, Soc all crossover a lot but emphasize different things and they are all important for balancing SS.

    Good applicable principle? Strong and weak (social) ties. Critical for understanding spacial locations of inner city and slum poverty, whether in Dharavi (India) slums, or in inner city Chicago. Economists and Poli-Sci often ignore this but it is something sociologists are big on.

    @randalh

    If you haven’t read it, Murray’s short book “In our hands” discusses this. But you have the right idea. I’m on the fence about the min. income for moral reasons.

    Re automation– when/if people start to lose their jobs, there will definitely be political backlash that will lead to bad policies, including the least efficient forms of redistribution.

    • #10
  11. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    I’m likely wrong, but I don’t buy the assembly-line eradication of manual labor idea for all fields. It seems like since the Luddites, this anxiety about the elimination of skilled labor through mechanization has been an on-going trepidation that has never really presented itself. Even with the most heavily mechanized assembly-line work of automotive makers, its still the single largest source of jobs in the American economy. And has spawned a host of other specified labor requirements. I don’t claim that certain fields won’t be marginalized by technology, but I really don’t see how machines can completely, or even substantially depress skilled labor needs.

    • #11
  12. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    SpamCooke:I’m likely wrong, but I don’t buy the assembly-line eradication of manual labor idea for all fields. It seems like since the Luddites, this anxiety about the elimination of skilled labor through mechanization has been an on-going anxiety that has never really presented itself. Even with the most heavily mechanized assembly-line work of automotive makers, its still the single largest source of jobs in the American economy. And has spawned a host of other specified labor requirements. I don’t claim that certain fields won’t be marginalized by technology, but I really don’t see how machines can completely, or even substantially depress skilled labor needs.

    Good point. I agree with you on this. And ZeroHedge has also had some posts on potential labor shortages. The WSJ article you cited said businesses would favor “immigration, offshoring, and automation.” This kind of gets us back on the OP topic of subsidies. I don’t like these plans because it does lead us to the subsidies. Socks and tires get cheaper at Walmart but we end up paying for more food stamps and unemployment benefits. It is an empirical question, but, who is really benefiting from this?

    I’d love for there to be less welfare and immigration and more labor training. I suspect you might agree?  There is a talent pool in this country with honorable, though hard, manual labor available to them. We should encourage it, but we don’t.

    • #12
  13. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    Goldgeller:

    Good point. I agree with you on this. And ZeroHedge has also had some posts on potential labor shortages. The WSJ article you cited said businesses would favor “immigration, offshoring, and automation.” This kind of gets us back on the OP topic of subsidies. I don’t like these plans because it does lead us to the subsidies. Socks and tires get cheaper at Walmart but we end up paying for more food stamps and unemployment benefits. It is an empirical question, but, who is really benefiting from this?

    I’d love for there to be less welfare and immigration and more labor training. I suspect you might agree? There is a talent pool in this country with honorable, though hard, manual labor available to them. We should encourage it, but we don’t.

    You’ll get no arguments here.

    • #13
  14. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    SpamCooke: I don’t claim that certain fields won’t be marginalized by technology, but I really don’t see how machines can completely, or even substantially depress skilled labor needs.

    I sure hope you’re right. My oldest son is a machinist (both CNC and manual) who works at a company that rebuilds jet engines. He’s concerned about the future of the occupation and is working on a mechanical engineering degree on the side. But, at the same time, he tells me that his company hires every machinist they can find and much of the time the person they hire doesn’t really have the proper skills to be a machinist. That makes me think that it will be a long time before that skill is in decline. I sent him your WSJ link, by the way – thanks.

    My wife (his mother) is German, and he was lucky enough to intern at a German company prior to beginning his training here. It’s sad that we don’t have the vocational training system they have. He also laments the fact that there is little educational opportunity to grow his skills as there might be in some other countries. As I said, he’s working on a ME degree, but that’s a long way off and he would really prefer to stay in the field he’s in and continue improving technically.

    • #14
  15. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    I try to avoid the dusky, damp corner of my brain that hatches conspiracies–but sometimes I wonder if companies with massive manufacturing hubs in China, Honduras, etc–help aggregate the data which confirms the technological elimination of labor so Americans continue to buy hardware like smartphones, TVs, and laptops for pricey amounts–thinking even those jobs will be gone someday soon.

    But to refocus culpability on consumers, our disregard for local businesses being extinguished by the predatory pricing Walmart engages in, is evinced by our literal stampeding of others to get to a $99 Laptop that’s going to melt the CPU in a week anyways.

    Blech.

    • #15
  16. SpamCooke Member
    SpamCooke
    @

    Randal H:

    SpamCooke: I don’t claim that certain fields won’t be marginalized by technology, but I really don’t see how machines can completely, or even substantially depress skilled labor needs.

    I sure hope you’re right. My oldest son is a machinist (both CNC and manual) who works at a company that rebuilds jet engines.

    As long as you’re hoping and I’m saying, my good friend is a Jet Engine Machinist–and by virtue of being qualified and good, catapulted from a starting salary of 80k to 400k a year. He even gets assigned to travel to China to show the company’s branch there how it’s done.

    American engineers are still the best in the world. I don’t see that stopping any time soon. And congratulations on the genes producing a genius. Since I know one of those dudes, they are of the type that are brilliant and affable. Those dudes always land on their feet.

    • #16
  17. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    SpamCooke:As long as you’re hoping and I’m saying, my good friend is a Jet Engine Machinist–and by virtue of being qualified and good, catapulted from a starting salary of 80k to 400k a year. He even gets assigned to travel to China to show the company’s branch there how it’s done.

    American engineers are still the best in the world. I don’t see that stopping any time soon. And congratulations on the genes producing a genius. Since I know one of those dudes, they are of the type that are brilliant and affable. Those dudes always land on their feet.

    Thanks for the kind and optimistic words.

    • #17
  18. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    @shellgamer a very thoughtful article and I think you do a nice job of supporting your ideas and detailing how you arrived at them.

    Regarding the actual plan itself, respectfully I do not think there is anything conservative about tax credits. Any intentional distortion of a private free market will ultimately succeed in its distortion and thus I cannot support your position.

    Is your idea better than the current regime, perhaps, but I still think that tax credits, subsidies, quotas, minimums, etc. have no place in conservative lexicon.

    • #18
  19. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    The solution to too much government is not to have more government.

    • #19
  20. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    All of these proposals distort markets and incentives.

    Companies will hire people as and when it is in their interest to do so. Government just needs to make it much easier: eliminate fees for incorporation, and all the paperwork and bureaucracy. Treat all employees like independent contractors, etc.

    I know of companies who do a lot of work – and never hire anyone. Voluntarily taking on all the headache would be an abuse of the trust the owners have placed in management.

    Why do people hire Mexicans at Home Depot for day labor? Because it is easy to do so – there is no bureaucracy or regulation. Hiring an American is much harder to do. But that is a problem of our own creation.

    • #20
  21. Stan Kerr Inactive
    Stan Kerr
    @StanKerr

    Doesn’t this play into the criticism some have made of the Republican party, that they don’t oppose government intervention, they just think they can do it better than Democrats?  Economic tinkering is done with the partial motivation of attracting votes to the tinkering party.  With no tinkering there’s no attraction. The government should not be meddling at all, full stop.  In an emergency, such as wartime, there may be an excuse, but not otherwise.  Let’s really, truly be the party of free markets and no government favors.  It’s an awful temptation when the kevers of power beckon so temptingly — even Milton Friedman fell for  it — but it must be resisted and rejected.

    • #21
  22. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    Valiuth:Your subsidy seems to target low skill work. It would just serve as more incentive to illegal immigrants to come and work. I guess you would have to tighten up all of that mess as well to even have a hope of preventing that. Then you will also be adding more paperwork to businesses that will need/want to take advantage of the tax break. Then, you will have someone like Bernie Sanders arguing that it is just a tax break for businesses, and the only way to not make it that is to have a higher wage. Does the break increase with salary? If it doesn’t then the incentive on businesses will be to not give raises.

    Actually, my thought is that this would deter illegal immigration. Any employee should be withholding and paying FICA, so no tax credit without a corresponding withholding payment. This paperwork already exists. If you pay people off the books, no credit.

    And you would have to pay $12.50 to get the credit. So yes, it creates minimum wage jobs, but at something close to a living wage. The employer’s incentive to provide raises is scarcity of qualified employees at the minimum wage. In other words, you need to build you skills to get a raise. We need to realize that wage growth is not a force of nature. To earn more, you must produce more value.

    • #22
  23. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Seconding Valiuth, Goldgeller, iWe and Brent.

    The market distortions would still exist, different sure, smaller maybe, but this doesn’t really solve anything.

    • #23
  24. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    Goldgeller:It is an interesting idea. I’d need to think on it more. But it there is a danger that it may incentive employers towards heavy use of labor, which they may want in order to capture tax credits. Actually, many jobs are going away because of automation and increased capital production. So I’m not so sure we necessarily want to keep “jobs” just for the sake of jobs. I consider overall productivity to be more important.

    Also, it may encourage employers to keep their prices high, since the wage is a factor in prices.

    This ties into my problem with the guaranteed minimum income: people need more than just the means to live, they need something to live for. A job for its own sake is important. As automation increases, it will require more creativity to come up with meaningful work for people. Why not pay people for this creativity?

    Note we’re already seeing a change in consumption preferences for more labor intensive production. Organic foods and craft beers eschew economies of scale and permit workers to take greater pride in their products.

    Prices should be driven by the bottom line, after tax. This would effectively cut the minimum wage (from the employer’s perspective) to $2.50 an hour.

    • #24
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Paying people $12.50 to add $2.50 in value? How is this conservative, or in fact even honest?

    • #25
  26. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    SpamCooke:The answer is the manufacturing sector must come back. And the American Dream must be, well, more Conservative.

    I recently read Yuval Levin’s The Fractured Republic.  A key argument of the book is that both liberals and conservatives suffer from nostalgia. A big example is U.S. manufacturing in the 1950’s, when the United States had no real competition. It was just after World War II, and war torn Europe and Asia were buying our products, but not yet selling them, in competition with us.

    Yuval succinctly says that those days are gone, and we need to move on from that.

    • #26
  27. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    BrentB67:Is your idea better than the current regime, perhaps, but I still think that tax credits, subsidies, quotas, minimums, etc. have no place in conservative lexicon.

    Thanks for the kind comments; I always enjoy your posts and comments.

    Philosophically, I cannot argue with you, Skyler or iWe. But, realistically, I think we have to give some thought to the concerns of those on the economic margin. If you’re working two minimum wage jobs right now, and someone proposes to almost double your wage and sugar coats it with rhetoric that the system is rigged against you, you have a very strong incentive to listen to them. You don’t have an incentive to think about the secondary effects and will eagerly accept sloppy economic analysis finding no statistically significant impact on the number of jobs.

    My approach would say “We’re going to raise your wages while increasing the number of jobs.” That might get their attention long enough for the Econ 101 lesson: if you want something you cannot make yourself (jobs) you need to pay others to produce them. It might also attract support from the employers, as it recognizes their contribution and gives them a tax benefit for the burden of following the employment laws.

    • #27
  28. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    The comments on sociology were interesting.  It was initiated by someone who doesn’t like his job and would rather be doing manual labor “with a newport hanging from…” his lips.

    Not a great visual about manual laborers.  Do most of them really smoke?

    As far as sociologists themselves, what percentage of them are hired in the private sector (or non-government contractor)?  If this field is primarily government oriented, then I’m skeptical about the usefulness of the field.

    • #28
  29. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    Zafar:Paying people $12.50 to add $2.50 in value? How is this conservative, or in fact even honest?

    As compared to a guaranteed minimum income (paying people for nothing) or minimum wage (artificially raising prices to increase wages)?

    Keynes got this much right: in the near term, there is no assurance that the market clearing wage level will be enough for every worker to live on. If we’re going to have a safety net, why not attach it to gainful employment rather than outright indolence.

    • #29
  30. ShellGamer Member
    ShellGamer
    @ShellGamer

    Stan Kerr:The government should not be meddling at all, full stop. In an emergency, such as wartime, there may be an excuse, but not otherwise. Let’s really, truly be the party of free markets and no government favors.

    What economic sacrifices can we reasonably expect of people to join the party of free markets and no government favors? The entitlements are already there, and I don’t think we can reasonably expect voters to just let go of them in favor of principle (no matter how sound).

    BTW, this is a particularly uncharacteristic proposal for me. I’ve always regarded the use of the tax code for social policy as the quintessential political shell game. By taking and giving and taking some more, it becomes almost impossible to tell whose paying how much for what government services. This helps politicians (of all stripes) to avoid any fiscal accountability for their policies.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.