We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic… Whenever you hear a politician, particularly a Tory politician, use the term “fiscally responsible“, this is a codeword for… will make no difference.
The true meaning is “we will not actually reduce the size of the state, we will just move the pain around a bit”.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It’s a hard choice- either constant pain, or moving pain. I think I would prefer constant pain, as you can get used to that.
If I was a politician, I would have to sound responsible simply to get elected. Especially these days, when the instinctive response of people is to stick with what they know, and earn Brownie points.
Anything radical might frighten the horses. Can’t have that!
The referenced BBC article states:
This scheme may well encourage spreading more evenly the pain of unemployment; it may also help politicians who measure their own performance by the number of ‘long-term unemployed’.
However, I struggle to see what good it actually does for the economy. If it has any effect at all, it is to encourage firms to employ first, the less suitable of those available. Likewise, can it really help firms in the long-term, and in a modern sophisticated economy, to employ, for preference, those whom they actually judge as less suited to the work they have available?
And the BBC article states:
Again I struggle to see how there is overall benefit. If one of two unemployed people is hired, whichever one it is still leaves one unemployed. If the newly employed one has moved from an existing (and ongoing) job with another firm, that job is now vacant: thus there is no change in the overall number of vacancies available for the unchanged number of unemployed.
I’m not really sure what this particular ‘fiscal responsibility’ is, but I doubt I can be persuaded that it is to accept a bribe to go against one’s own best judgement in how to spend one’s own money. Nor do I expect to be persuaded that it is to give such a bribe.
So I am fully with Perry on this one, and continue to wonder about the ability of leading Tory politicians.
Best regards
By targetting the measure at companies employing those who have been unemployed for three months or more, and no doubt imposing further condistions on them, Cameron is making this very bureaucratic and complex (He’s clearly learned from Brown). This will have the ‘benefit’ of directly causing a measurable reduction in unemployment, as it will require an army of new benefits clerks to administer. Cameron seems as attached to the client state as Brown.
Nigel, I think this is one of those situations in which Bastiat’s “that which is unseen” applies. Politicians love to focus only on the “that which is seen”. So, this policy to most people reads as “great, an unemployed person gets a job” and they ignore the unseen- that somebody else didn’t get the job.
If we then factor in the unseen bureaucratic costs, we find, inevitably, that this is just the state breaking windows again…
The overarching tactic in the recent loss of Question 1 in Massachusetts was to portray it as reckless, and pose a vague, never-to-be-seriously-addressed alternative of “responsible” reform. The opponents of Q1 were enabled by newsbimbos, who were on occasion knowingly withholding from taxpayers the true size of the budget (half again as large as the purported budget) that was to be cut, and thus knowingly overstating (by about half) the percentage of the budget to be cut. They were also aided by an anti-taxpayer, pro-connected-corporation political organization Orwellianly named the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a long-time excuser of increased government spending.
Government-employee unions used this umbrella of enablement to pour millions of dollars into targeted advertising attempting to strike fear into voters that essential services, rather than incredibly massive waste, would be cut, and that property taxes, to which they have for years been going to extremes to raise, would increase. They got organizations with pliably-fascist leadership, such as the Appalachian Mountain Club, to pile on the lies (IMHO worth quitting over).
The voters who allowed themselves to be bamboozled should have taken note of the fact that the state budget was increasing by over 5% that same year. They should have taken notice of the huge increase (doubling?) of “Cadillac” Deval Patrick’s governor’s office budget. Instead, they seem surprised that the followup has been to suggest raising tolls on major commuter arteries by about 100 million dollars, accompanying a mere pretense of reform, in order to close the budget gap that their new spending has more than created. It is as if the initiates in Animal House, having asked, please, sir, for another, had been surprised that the paddle actually hit them.
Politicians who use the word “responsible” in their arguments are virtually certain to be radically irresponsible.
O.K. I will be “fiscally responsible”.
There is a large government deficit and “fiscal responsbility” means (if it means anything) balancing the budget – so let us cut government spending so that we do not have to borrow any more money.
Fiscal responsibilty and Mr Cameron will, therefore, support it – unless………
tdh:
I will leave aside my dislike for Massachusetts – a place I have never been, and of which my own knowledge of is political. Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy – the Republcan “Mitt” Romeny the only Governor in the United States (of any party) to make the far left battle cry “universal health cover” a compulsory reality (although if this is the Mass idea of a “Republican” no wonder you have Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy and ….. as mainstream Democrats).
I am more interested in your point about cutting “waste”.
Sorry claims like that are THE problem (as has been pointed out by P.J. and others).
Anyone can talk about cutting waste and corruption – Barack Obama did all the time (“I will go into every program and …..”), just as he promises to cut taxes – anyone can make such a promise, it does not mean the tax cuts will be real.
To be real about reducing taxation one must oppose real large programs with lots of important supporters – not “bridges to nowhere” and other easy targets.
There is a recent example – a test that John McCain (like most politicians) failed.
“give us 700 billion Dollars or the financial system will collapse”.
Unless a politician can say “no I will not give you this taxpayers money” he is not worth supporting – and any talk of “tax cuts” from him or her is a farce.
Who is worth supporting in the Republican party? Shockingly there are some people and they are easy to discover.
Look up which Senators opposed the bailout – really opposed it, not pretended to oppose it as an election year stunt.
There are some Republicans who opposed it and they are worth supporting.
They oppose other large scale government programs.
Rather than just “waste and corruption” – a pathetic postion that anyone can take.
I repeat, we must fight the battle on the battlefield of government spending (real important programs, your “vital services”), not deal in meaningless promises like “cutting waste”.
“But that means fighting on the ideological battlefield of the enemy”.
Yes it does, but it must be done or we lose automatically.
If people accept that government spending is a “good thing” (accpet for “waste and corruption” of course) then it is game over.
We must convice them that that the main government programs, the “vital services”, are the real problem. For they are.
Otherwise (if we choose to fight the battle on taxes and “waste”) then we get things like New Hampshire – a State which is copying Massachusetts.
If one accepts that only high taxes are a bad thing (not the “vital services” of big government) then such copying is inevitable.
I repeat that there are people in politics who really do oppose big things like the 700 billion Dollar bailout. They exist – look them up.
tdh:
I will leave aside my dislike for Massachusetts – a place I have never been, and of which my own knowledge of is political. Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy – the Republcan “Mitt” Romeny the only Governor in the United States (of any party) to make the far left battle cry “universal health cover” a compulsory reality (although if this is the Mass idea of a “Republican” no wonder you have Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy and ….. as mainstream Democrats).
I am more interested in your point about cutting “waste”.
Sorry claims like that are THE problem (as has been pointed out by P.J. and others).
Anyone can talk about cutting waste and corruption – Barack Obama did all the time (“I will go into every program and …..”), just as he promises to cut taxes – anyone can make such a promise, it does not mean the tax cuts will be real.
To be real about reducing taxation one must oppose real large programs with lots of important supporters – not “bridges to nowhere” and other easy targets.
There is a recent example – a test that John McCain (like most politicians) failed.
“give us 700 billion Dollars or the financial system will collapse”.
Unless a politician can say “no I will not give you this taxpayers money” he is not worth supporting – and any talk of “tax cuts” from him or her is a farce.
Who is worth supporting in the Republican party? Shockingly there are some people and they are easy to discover.
Look up which Senators opposed the bailout – really opposed it, not pretended to oppose it as an election year stunt.
There are some Republicans who opposed it and they are worth supporting.
They oppose other large scale government programs.
Rather than just “waste and corruption” – a pathetic postion that anyone can take.
I repeat, we must fight the battle on the battlefield of government spending (real important programs, your “vital services”), not deal in meaningless promises like “cutting waste”.
“But that means fighting on the ideological battlefield of the enemy”.
Yes it does, but it must be done or we lose automatically.
If people accept that government spending is a “good thing” (accpet for “waste and corruption” of course) then it is game over.
We must convice them that that the main government programs, the “vital services”, are the real problem. For they are.
Otherwise (if we choose to fight the battle on taxes and “waste”) then we get things like New Hampshire – a State which is copying Massachusetts.
If one accepts that only high taxes are a bad thing (not the “vital services” of big government) then such copying is inevitable.
I repeat that there are people in politics who really do oppose big things like the 700 billion Dollar bailout. They exist – look them up.
It really is so.
Even the lowest taxed of States (and New Hampshire was till very recently) can go to the left – if all we do is talk about taxes and waste and being better managers.
In the end there is only one alternative to principle – eventual ideological monopoly for the left.
My point about spending increases was not about waste, which was far from the sole thrust of Question 1 (the ballot initiative to eliminate the MA income tax), but rather that there was, in fact, plenty of room for a 27% spending cut, given the great lack of necessity for the spending increases. See this and, more reflective of the advertising, this. The focus of the initiative was smaller government, and the scare tactics used against it lied about increases in property taxes and about cutting police, fire, and hospital services. The main problem was the relative weight of advertising, exacerbated by a greatly degenerated political climate; even Proposition 2 1/2, which limited property-tax increases, had some financing champions (by far in the minority even then), but that was 28 years ago. There is no principle that can reach through the Big Lie.
You have to appreciate what a complete hackerama MA is to know that they could not dispense with bringing up waste in support of Question 1. The waste ought to have served as a reality check.