By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, September 01, 2016
The Brazilians may not know how to run an Olympics, but
they are just aces at impeachments.
Americans should take note.
After a lengthy period of deliberation, the Brazilian
parliament has formally removed from office President Dilma Rousseff, the
corrupt left-wing populist who has been trying to do for Brazil what Hugo
Chávez and his epigones did for Venezuela.
The entire Brazilian political class has been in bad odor
of late, with a wide-ranging corruption scandal at the state-owned oil company
reminding the world why sensible people do not think much of state-owned
enterprises, petroleum-oriented or not. Brazil was riding high for about five
minutes there while commodities prices were unusually strong, but President
Rousseff’s anti-business, anti-trade, anti-investor, welfare-statist agenda —
which differs from the current Obama-Clinton-Sanders-Trump economic vision mainly
in aggressiveness rather than substance — did what it usually does.
Unemployment and inflation took off, and public-sector spending increased
radically, resulting in an unbalanced fiscal position that caused Brazil’s
government debt to be downgraded to junk-bond status.
As with the food riots in Venezuela, the Left in Brazil
and internationally has whispered darkly that this represents a “coup” against
a populist progressive who angered the world’s corporate bosses and free-market
fundamentalists. “Corruption is just the pretext for a wealthy elite who failed
to defeat Brazil’s president at the ballot box,” the Guardian sniffed. The truth is that Brazilians are not eager to go
back to being the country in the Western hemisphere that people cite to illustrate
what India used to be like.
What is of note is that Brazilians have made the
connection between corruption and poverty.
Rousseff’s corruption, at least that which has been
persuasively documented, is pretty small stuff by Brazilian standards — indeed,
by U.S. standards. It is “pedaladas fiscais,” what we might call “creative”
public finance. Brazil has state-run but notionally independent banks and
pension funds, whose coffers were raided through a series of loans to the
Brazilian government in order to hide the fact that the government’s finances
were such a complete and total shambles that payments otherwise could not be
made to popular programs such as cash handouts to the poor and housing
assistance — the stuff that politicians such as Rousseff and her party use to
buy loyalty. In the United States, that sort of thing is just standard
operating procedure for the federal government when it comes to things like
Social Security, and for local government when it comes to public employees’
pensions: magical accounting.
In Brazil, that’s a crime.
Good for Brazil.
About $18 billion was misappropriated through the pedaladas fiasco, most of which was paid
back. By way of comparison, the U.S. government made at least $72 billion in
improper payments in 2008, mostly through the major entitlement programs. A
2014 audit found that a U.S. government-transparency program (!) failed to
account for at least $619 billion in
spending from 302 federal programs, and the data that the government put
forward to a rightly skeptical public was, in the words of USA Today, “wildly inaccurate.”
We have seen the future. At least Brazil has some nice
beaches.
Corruption leads to poverty. It leads to poverty in
Brazil, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Philadelphia, in Los Angeles, in Upstate New
York, and in the Rio Grande Valley. Capitalism — the awesome productive
capacity of free people — can bear many burdens and defray many costs, but it
can be perverted and misdirected, too. From the state-run enterprises in Brazil
and Venezuela to the green-energy fantasies of U.S. progressives, we see that
the real threat to capitalism is not domination but seduction.
Brazil seems to be hearing that gospel. We refuse to
listen.
In November, the people of the United States almost
certainly are going to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton their next president. Like
Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, she will be the first woman to hold the office. Like
Dilma Rousseff, she is an old-fashioned party-machine pol who is deeply and
consistently corrupt, habitually dishonest, funny with money, and prompt to
dismiss any and all efforts at holding her to some basic standard of decency
and accountability as — remember the words, which could have been Rousseff’s —
“a vast right-wing conspiracy.”
We had to impeach the president the last time we had the
poor national judgment to send a member of this hilljack crime syndicate to the
White House, and Mrs. Clinton already has been acting as a one-woman crime wave
when it comes to the laws that regulate how sensitive government information is
handled and how official communications are archived for the purposes of
accountability and oversight. Mrs. Clinton has argued that this all stems from
her being too stupid to understand how to operate a mobile phone: “I used one
device,” Mrs. Clinton lied. (She used many and has a talent for nesting lies
within her lies.) “Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable
person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.”
Poor Huma Abedin doesn’t have one person in her life who
knows how to handle an iPhone.
Mrs. Clinton’s personal corruption is worrying, and it is
almost certain that we will spend some non-trivial part of the coming Clinton
administration unraveling her self-serving lies about her dealings with
everyone from pushy petro-sheiks to Hollywood moguls to Russian oligarchs.
But what is truly more worrying is that we have for the
past several decades been establishing a series of precedents that give American
presidents and legislators the power to do legally that which would in most
ordinary circumstances be a crime, or at least a dereliction of duty. It bears
keeping in mind how quickly this sort of thing can escalate: In 2008, Senator
Obama was bemoaning the PATRIOT Act, which allegedly empowered our spooks to
sneak at peak at your library card; by 2011, President Obama was ordering the
assassination of American citizens abroad. For years, Obama insisted that he
did not have the power to unilaterally suspend enforcement of U.S. immigration
law — “I am not a king,” he said. At some point in the following years, he
apparently acquired a crown and did just that.
Does anybody think that when (to take one likely example)
unfunded public-sector pension liabilities torpedo Democratic strongholds in
Illinois and California, President Clinton will resist the urge to engage in a
little pedaladas fiscais of her own?
What do you imagine the conversation will be like in Washington the day before
the first Social Security check bounces? Will Washington respond to a newfound
commitment to probity and rectitude, or with shenanigans that would make a
Third World potentate blush to contemplate?
In impeaching Rouseff, the Brazilians have taken one
small step toward building a better and more prosperous society, one with a
truly accountable government. We should consider taking similar steps.
No comments:
Post a Comment