Badger InstituteBadger Institute
  • Home
  • Issues
    • Taxes
    • Education
    • Crime & Justice
    • Spending & Accountability
    • Economy & Infrastructure
    • Federalism
    • Licensing
    • Healthcare
    • Civil Society
  • Mandate for Madison
  • Research
  • Magazines
    • Diggings
    • Wisconsin Interest
  • Events
  • Media
    • Podcast
    • Fact Sheets
    • Viewpoints
    • Press Releases
    • Badger in the News
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Testimony
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Board of Directors
    • Team
    • Visiting Fellows
    • America’s Future
    • Careers
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Contact Us

Subscribe for Updates

Get the latest news and updates from Badger Institute.

What's New

Why should food stamps be forever stamps?

March 30, 2023

Latest crime figures show a Milwaukee in trouble

March 23, 2023

Wisconsin lawmakers in the dark on broadband

March 16, 2023
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Instagram
TRENDING:
  • Why should food stamps be forever stamps?
  • Latest crime figures show a Milwaukee in trouble
  • Wisconsin lawmakers in the dark on broadband
  • The underfunded part of Wisconsin public schooling
  • Foreseeing the Future of Wisconsin’s Flat Tax
  • Wisconsin voters will be asked about welfare work requirements
  • A state without convictions
  • Why Wisconsin Needs a Flat Tax and Education Reform
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Instagram
Badger InstituteBadger Institute
SUPPORT OUR MISSION
  • Issues
    • Taxes
    • Education
    • Crime & Justice
    • Spending & Accountability
    • Economy & Infrastructure
    • Federalism
    • Licensing
    • Healthcare
    • Civil Society
  • Mandate for Madison
  • Research
  • Magazines
    • Diggings
    • Wisconsin Interest
  • Events
  • Media
    • Podcast
    • Fact Sheets
    • Viewpoints
    • Press Releases
    • Badger in the News
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Testimony
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Board of Directors
    • Team
    • Visiting Fellows
    • America’s Future
    • Careers
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
DONATE
Badger InstituteBadger Institute
Home » The Party that Couldn’t Say No
Economy and Infastructure

The Party that Couldn’t Say No

By Badger InstituteJuly 5, 2012
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest

One of my favorite quotes is from the French economist Frederic Bastiat. In his essay “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas” (“What is Seen and What is Unseen”), he explains, “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

Much of our political discourse is conducted by bad economists. It focuses on “what is seen” — generally whatever immediate benefit government can deliver. In attacking Mitt Romney’s career in private equity, for example, President Obama is a wildly bad economist.

Turning around a failing business can be a painful process and may not always succeed. It may involve misery that is seen. But, if no one were willing to inject the money and make the tough decisions that might rescue a doomed venture, we could foresee even more misery.

In his recent book, Never Enough, William Voegeli writes that modern American liberalism suffers from philosophical incoherence. Its view on the role of government has no limiting principle. The state may — and should — do whatever can garner political support. The Democratic mainstream, he says, is committed to an exercise in what he calls “adhocracy.”

One could defend this as a commitment to find what works and to discard what does not. But given the prevalence of bad economists, this is not what happens. Here’s why.

The benefits of social spending are concentrated and easy to see. The costs are diffuse and not always obvious. A political movement without any firm notion of what the state ought to do — and hence no capacity to resist the political benefits of government largesse — will devolve into the party of government — perhaps not quite government “for its own sake” but uncomfortably close.

One of the most remarkable things about the reaction to Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms was how angry it was. To be sure, the governor’s proposal entailed a pay cut for a sizeable group of people, and no one likes that. But the chanting and occupation — the blue fists and vuvuzelas — cannot simply be dismissed as the anger of disgruntled employees. Nor can the Walker reforms be readily seen as an attack on middle-class families.

The governor’s collective bargaining reforms affected a group — state and local employees — who earn considerably more than the average worker. Given that taxes in Wisconsin aren’t particularly progressive, one might have seen Walker’s reforms as striking a blow for working families.

But recall that a party that believes that the government can do anything will tend to believe that it should do everything. The adhocracy of the left is a conversation about how quickly the state should expand. For a Democratic Party that has come to rest on a coalition of beneficiaries, Walker’s departure from business as usual was existential.

We’ve all seen the yard signs and bumper stickers displayed by recall opponents urging us to “recall Santa” because “I didn’t get what I wanted.” As a criticism of the recall, this message may have been more insightful than humorous. Walker’s message, at least in part, has been that there is no Santa.

There is a fundamental contradiction in being the party of promises. The lack of a limiting principle results in a state with no boundaries other that what is politically possible today. Because the Democratic coalition is based on assembling a majority of voters who see themselves as net takers of tax dollars, and because it is the reach of that coalition that will determine whether Democrats get elected, the modern American liberal has no language to persuade the recipients of government largesse to pay for it.

Thus, President Obama defends every last entitlement and proposes significant expansion in the role of government while promising not to raise taxes on 98 percent of the population. Wisconsin liberals did not want to give things up, but, significantly, were unwilling to explain how they proposed to pay for keeping them.

Tom Barrett refused to explain how he would have addressed the $3.6 billion deficit that led to the Walker reforms. Indeed, his Democratic primary opponent, Kathleen Falk, seemed to regard it as ridiculous that anyone would even ask.

Voegeli points out that conservatives have a bind of their own. They do not wish to raise — and may want to cut — taxes. But they are often either unwilling to propose — or unable to obtain — corresponding cuts in government spending. They, too, can be bad economists.

He suggests that they escape this bind by doing what liberals — dependent on a coalition of beneficiaries — won’t. Conservatives ought to insist that those parts of the welfare state that cannot be ended be made to work — and at the lowest possible cost.

As I have written in these pages, that is precisely what Walker tried to do. The morning after the election, I appeared on a national radio show. A caller from Massachusetts asked why Walker had to limit collective bargaining. He could have just laid off teachers.

The question contained its own answer.

Richard Esenberg is president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and an adjunct professor of law at Marquette University. He blogs at Shark and Shepherd.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Badger Institute

Related Posts

Assembly Speaker calls for tolling to fund Wisconsin infrastructure

March 2, 2023

Foreseeing the Future of Wisconsin’s Flat Tax

March 2, 2023

Another Reason, Governor, to Cut Those Top Tax Rates

February 20, 2023
Categories
Top Posts

Local pols filling old budget holes with massive COVID aid

December 8, 20221,455

This is not four years ago

November 10, 20221,288

A state without convictions

January 12, 2023647

Billions in federal spending in Wisconsin unaudited; results never measured

November 9, 2022493
Archives

Sign Up for Top Picks

Our weekly e-Newsletter with the latest items and updates

Connect with Badger Institute
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
About Us
About Us

The Badger Institute is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit institute established in 1987 working to engage and energize Wisconsinites and others in discussions and timely action on key public policy issues critical to the state’s future, growth and prosperity.

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube LinkedIn

Sign Up for Top Picks

Our weekly e-Newsletter with the latest items and updates

What’s New

Why should food stamps be forever stamps?

March 30, 2023

Latest crime figures show a Milwaukee in trouble

March 23, 2023

Wisconsin lawmakers in the dark on broadband

March 16, 2023

The underfunded part of Wisconsin public schooling

March 16, 2023
© 2023 Badger Institute | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Sitemap

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

This site uses functional cookies and external scripts to improve your experience.

Privacy settings

Privacy Settings

This site uses functional cookies and external scripts to improve your experience. Which cookies and scripts are used and how they impact your visit is specified on the left. You may change your settings at any time. Your choices will not impact your visit.

NOTE: These settings will only apply to the browser and device you are currently using.

CRM Software

Customer Relationship Management Software

Google Analytics

Google Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.

You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.

For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Powered by Cookie Information