Free Stuff

In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney received a fair amount of coverage with his comments about the 47%. Basically, he said that 47% of the electorate would vote for Obama no matter what because they are dependent on government and need Democrats to provide for them.

Other Republicans have made similar comments, and many have characterized the Democrat debates as a contest to give away free stuff. (View from the Left)

Now, there's proof. Drawn to this because I'm curious about what drives people's politics, I was surprised to see that Romney's comments were justified. Maybe not 47%, but a solid segment of Democrats vote Democrat for the free stuff.

Excerpt from study (with my comments in bold)

I was caught off guard by how specific and personal Democratic voters’ issues tended to be. One woman told me she had lost a job because she had to take care of a sick relative and wanted paid family leave. Another woman told me her insurance stopped covering a certain medication that had grown too expensive and she liked how Clinton and Sanders talked about lowering drug prices. One man told me his wages were stagnant at his hotel job and he was looking for policies to increase them.

Though the first two would qualify as free stuff, "policies that increase [wages]" doesn't necessarily qualify unless the policy is a minimum wage or legislation raising the wage.

Another way to spin this, as opposed to Vox saying "Democrats want specific things and Republicans want philosophical," is to say that Democrats want policies that help them personally, Democrats are selfish with public policy, while Republicans want what's good for the country. I'm sure the Left is apoplectic reading that, and I'm not saying it's always true. I would argue, however, that the non-elitist portions of the Democrat party are motivated more by personal wishes than what's good for everyone.

(If you read the link above to the Daily Kos, they cite how rich Republicans support lower taxes and weird tax breaks, etc. that benefit them, which is probably true for some Republicans, but why do so many Republicans support lower marginal rates at every level when most of them are not paying the highest levels?)

Trump Effects Economic Knowledge in the Media

From Yahoo! Finance's website.

Of all the times I've read or heard stories about tariffs, the only thing I've ever heard was how they would help American workers: Our steel manufacturers need to be protected from Chinese dumping. Tires too.

I can never recall reading a mainstream news article that mentioned that tariffs harm consumers, though it is mentioned frequently on Economics blogs I read.

Now, once Donald Trump proposes tariffs, they're terrible for consumers!

Of course, I already believed that, but I guess I can thank Donald Trump for changing the media's minds on tariffs. See, presidential candidates are extremely instructive. Despite the media constantly criticizing him and his followers, without him, they would never have seen the detrimental effects of tariffs.

Thank you, Donald Trump.

Does anyone believe we'll ever see a politician cite a report that carefully balances the costs and benefits of a new policy?

New York City lowers speed limit to save lives

Why don't reporters ask for that?

The Universe of Public Policy

I got a laugh from this. Apparently, Democrats lost the Senate last election despite agreeing with the voters, policy-wise, on "everything."

Here's a list of ALL public policies.

• Raise the Minimum Wage to $10.10
• Let illegal immigrants stay
• government should limit greenhouse gases
• upper income people pay too little in taxes
• corporations pay too little in taxes
• gay marriage should be legal
• congress should improve Obamacare but not repeal it

Knowing this should make the next Presidential election a lot more focused. No more foreign policy debates, no one cares about abortion, apparently, or guns.

A Can of Worms

One of the biggest realizations I had during and after the ACA debate was that the left clamored for this encyclopedic bill without caring (at least publicly) about the costs/downsides of the bill. I never heard one news report, heard one elected Democrat, or read one "progressive" blog article that tried to weigh the pros and cons. I'm sure there were a few bloggers who briefly mentioned a downside, but by and large, the left believed the ACA would reduce the uninsured rate to zero, some thought it would lower costs, and the most connected probably knew taxes would be going up for the richest.

The only party that really should have done more homework to present the problems with the ACA was the news media, and they did nothing of the sort. No reporting on how premiums would have to go up if those with pre-existing issued were guaranteed insurance, no talk about the effects of allowing students up to 26 to stay on insurance, no discussion of the minimum loss ratio regulation. All of these regulations--as far as the media were concerned--were freebies. Only positives.

Now, I'm worried about the same thing happening with Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC is going to reclassify the internet as a public utility. This will allow them more power to regulate it. It is very important to understand, that as it is, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET that this will fix. Instead, the Net Neutrality activists want this to forestall fast lanes, primarily.

My concern is that all of those who are advocating this policy change have not really considered all of the downsides of doing so. They are scared of prioritizing content, this will prevent that, so this must be done. What else will it enable the FCC to do? Shouldn't that be part of the debate? Wouldn't it be prudent also to wait until the cable companies do this prioritizing and see what the effect is before we outlaw it? There's a chance that prioritizing would be better for consumers.

I would fear a slow-lane internet that receives no maintenance and gradually deteriorates, but I believe we should address that problem when it occurs; reclassification could have large, unintended consequences (as many regulations do).

(Don't) Be the Change you Want to See in the World

In an interview with PJ Media's Michelle Fields, Robert Kennedy, Jr. gave us some insight into the hypocrisy and quest for power that the left has. He said, "It's much more important to change your politician than it is to change your light bulb or your cell phone or your automobile."

Robert Kennedy, Jr., and those who agree with his politics believe the only way to better ourselves is to give other people power over us and pass laws that everyone must live by. He's asked whether he would set an example by giving up his cell phone or his car, and he basically argued that he's not going to do it alone, what we need to do is pass a law that will outlaw it nationally.

This is analogous to the left being unwilling to voluntarily pay higher taxes. They want everyone to pay higher taxes; if it were the law they'd happily abide it, but until then, they won't pay a dime more.

The next quote reinforces this idea, but I want to be careful, it seems to be an incomplete thought in the video, so it will be easy to claim I took it out of context. If it didn't fit so well with the rest of his rant, though, I wouldn't include it.

"...We don't care what kind of car you use, but we're going to make a law that says you can't make a car in this country unless it gets 40 mpg or you can't make a car unless it's an electric car."

The ellipses stand in for "If [the Koch brothers] were to say to us." But he never finished the hypothetical. I believe the above quote captures what Kennedy believes. Watch the video for yourself. This quote is around the 2:40 mark.

Demagoguing the Supreme Court

There's really a lot to say about this term's Supreme Court decisions. Much of it has already been said. One thing that's probably been said elsewhere, but I guess I just realized in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision was just how political politics is.

I read many times (never from the Left) just how narrow the decision was. That it only applied to a few "contraceptives," and that the majority of them were still required and offered by employers. Many, who are capable of nuance, talked about how these contraceptives were not banned, but that the employers cannot be legally compelled to offer them.

What I realized was that many of those on the Left understand these issues, and know they're being demagogues. They're doing it, cynically, just to drum up the "war on women" angle. Here's a good rundown of the facts vs. demagoguery.

It shouldn't be surprising that the politicians exploit the voters' ignorance (it happens on our side, too, let's admit). I guess it really hit me when I read an article about how the Obama administration knows that the "fact" that women make 77% of what men make is not true, but they repeat it just to gain media (if I could find a link, I'd put it here). Again, the blame should lie squarely on the media. It's their job to expose this cynicism. If the politicians are too slippery to admit what they're doing, the media should be reporting the truth.