Mitch Daniels And The $5 Bill And Mandatory Paid Parental Leave
Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewed former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in the January Reason magazine. I liked this bit from him with the $5 bill:
My preoccupation for a very long time has been what I believe will be economically, internationally, and probably societally a cataclysmic problem when our debts can no longer be financed on federal debt. That's a failing of both parties.When I talk about taxation in this state and elsewhere, I draw the line to where I think it really leads. This is about freedom. I used to play this little game when I'd visit a high school classroom. I'd say, "Hey, anybody here got a $5 bill?" Some kid would produce one and I'd say, "Oh thanks" and stick it in my pocket and keep walking and talking. The kids would laugh and I'd pretend to not notice they were laughing. Then I'd say, "Please notice that up until a minute ago, Katherine was more free than she is now. When she had that $5, she could decide what to do with it. Now I've got it and I'll decide, and she has to hope I decide on something that is important to her."
I had hope for [Barack Obama's presidency] because, Nixon-to-China style, a Democratic administration has a far better chance of reforming the entitlement programs before they devour us all and our freedoms with them. But that administration--even when presented with a good first start, the Simpson-Bowles report--refused at the last minute to move on with it. I thought that was really unfortunate.
We've passed the easy point. It's now a question of when, although you should never say it's too late, and federally I suppose there's still ways we can muddle through. But up until three or four years ago I thought, looking at the arithmetic, that it was possible that if we just got started, we wouldn't have to diminish the benefits promised to people who are in the system or about to get there. I think that opportunity went slipping past, and so now when something has to happen, someone may wind up with less support than was promised.
I recalled the Daniels bit when I was reading a piece by Jose Nino on Mises about the high cost of "mandatory paid parental leave" -- meaning leave which some lawmakers want to make mandatory for businesses to provide. An excerpt:
Ultimately mandatory paid leave imposes higher costs on both the employers and on employees who do not qualify for -- or need -- leave time themselves. It is essentially a transfer of income and wealth from non-leave-using employees to leave-using employees. The business owner, of course, is also faced with greater uncertainty and with higher employees costs, which can lead to lower utilization of employees overall.
The upshot:
It's ultimately companies and employees who should be the ones negotiating their leave plans. Certain companies pride themselves in their benefits and position themselves accordingly as "family friendly." In a genuinely liberated economy, company-sponsored leave may soon become a feasible option for companies that want to stand out and attract workers.Instead of falling for the "feelgood" legislation that our political climate fosters, we should be looking at long-term solutions like dismantling the regulatory state instead.
Mises via ifeminists
Remember, the combination of entitlement programs, and interest on the federal debt, now consume 75% of the federal budget. Expect to start seeing a lot more pressure for making political out-groups pay for things that the government wants.
Cousin Dave at March 29, 2019 6:22 AM
Daniels is right, as he usually is.
Any attempt to rein in runaway government programs is going to be politically controversial and socially painful. Politicians will promise to defend all benefits and cast any attempts at cutting them as "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor." People who lose their benefits will wail and gnash their teeth. Voters will vote their pocketbooks, preferring to keep politicians who defend programs that will eventually bankrupt the system, if it keeps them in benefits for a few more years.
Reining in government at this late juncture is going to mean suffering; we've come so far in building a welfare state that we have a large percentage of our people who are utterly and completely dependent upon the state for their own continued existence on this planet. Cutting off that support is going to result in starvation, disease, and violence.
We have others who have bought so strongly into the collectivist vision of government as the answer to all problems that any attempt to tell them otherwise will be met with stubborn resistance.
Look at AOC's hysterics over an attack on her Green New Deal. She went into hysterics on the House floor asking if wanting clean water was "elitist" when someone suggested that the Green New Deal was an elitist feel-good environmental program.
Look at Mazie Hirono voting against the Green New Deal when you know perfectly well, she'll vote in every component of it, no matter the cost or long-term destruction to the economy.
Look at flap over the proposed funding cut for Special Olympics. The emotional arguments that were offered in opposition obscured the central issue - that the federal government is spending $15 million a year to augment what is essentially a private charity, money that might be better spent on efforts that actually fall into the government's mandate.
We have way too many politicians and voters who've bought into the "bigger is better" theory of government.
Conan the Grammarian at March 29, 2019 11:49 AM
money that might be better spent on efforts that actually fall into the government's mandate
Someone needs to ask is that really FedGov's responsibility? on all budget items. And then ask again when it's StateGov, CountyGov, and CityGov.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 29, 2019 1:17 PM
It is like a lot of things. Spending grows until it cannot. It looks like that will happen when the federal government fails a bond sale and is physically incapable of making the payments it is used to making.
But in the scheme of things it still looks like Illinois will go bankrupt first followed by California. How those bankruptcies are handled will be predictive of how the federal government will go. Personally I'm in favor of letting those states declare bankruptcy and being liquidated. Their current geography would then revert to federal territorial status. Which would have huge consequences on national politics.
Ben at March 29, 2019 1:43 PM
"The emotional arguments that were offered in opposition obscured the central issue - that the federal government is spending $15 million a year to augment what is essentially a private charity, money that might be better spent on efforts that actually fall into the government's mandate."
What are we spending on public radio and television, and when it makes a profit, where has that gone?
"Their current geography would then revert to federal territorial status. Which would have huge consequences on national politics."
What? Tell somebody in Illinois they're not a state any more, they don't have senators and Congressmen any more?
That's so big an idea nobody will hear it. You'll see massive bailouts because "the state is so vital to the nation" or some such.
I've already seen arguments that the Flint, MI water supply failure is a national emergency that the Feds should fix.
Why would state debt command any more attention than Federal debt?
The United States has died in the gullet of consumers wanting more and more for themselves, unconcerned with the future and ignorant of debt, flatly denying their responsibility to run things. It's just running on inertia now.
Radwaste at March 29, 2019 2:48 PM
I R A Darth Aggie says: "Someone needs to ask is that really FedGov's responsibility? on all budget items. And then ask again when it's StateGov, CountyGov, and CityGov."
Well, somebody did ask that; and they answered that "No it is not." And they were called racists for saying it - that somebody was the Tea Party.
So, nope, it won't change (even with Trump trying to rein in the Fed Gov) until the whole thing implodes.
charles at March 29, 2019 8:24 PM
Depends on who would have to sign for that spending Rad. Sure people will claim Illinois is too big to fail and the US can't survive without them. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to listen to them.
Do you think Trump would gleefully sign a law recognizing Illinois is no longer a state? 20 votes in the electoral college would suddenly vanish. Dick Durban would need to find a new job.
Legally there is no precedent for a state going bankrupt. And to date no state has gotten as close to bankruptcy as Illinois. There are no legal provisions for restructuring. Liquidation and bailout appear to be the only legal options.
Ben at March 30, 2019 7:57 AM
Leave a comment