By Noah Rothman
Monday, May 6, 2019
It wasn’t so long ago that “epistemic closure” was
supposedly the exclusive province of Republicans. For years, self-satisfied
liberal analysts maintained that the Fox News Channel and talk radio had
incepted a kind of mood disorder in the conservative body politic that refused
all evidence or information challenging to its most deeply held beliefs. “Every
intellectual movement needs to constantly question itself; otherwise it becomes
stale,” wrote former-Republican-official-turned-GOP-critic Bruce Bartlett in a
typical 2010 remark. “Conservatives have sort of reached a position of
intellectual closure.”
Observers with no clear interest in the Republican
Party’s well-being or the health of the conservative movement offered sorrowful
aperçues about this disorder. In the wake of Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss, MSNBC
host Rachel Maddow counseled conservatives and Republicans to “pop the factual
bubble they have been so happy living inside if they do not want to get
shellacked again.”
The Atlantic’s
Marc Armbinder mourned as follows: “I want to find Republicans to take
seriously, but it is hard.” That was not, he confessed, because the right’s
more serious voices didn’t exist, but because “they are marginalized, even
self-marginalizing.” The GOP, these ubiquitous liberal voices advised, would
have to break its addiction to this self-reinforcing feedback loop if it was
ever again going to be a nationally representative institution.
In 2019, the Democratic Party is giving signs of
suffering from a form of epistemic closure of its own. After the 2010 midterm
election brought Barack Obama’s aggressive legislative agenda to a halt, the
party’s progressive wing has been in the political wilderness. The progressives
spent most of the decade incubating a set of ambitious and far-reaching
ideas—policies that never seem to have been examined along the way by a single
skeptical eye. They have now emerged from their cocoon as the revivified
Democratic Party has taken charge of the House of Representatives and readies
itself for a 2020 challenge to Donald Trump. And the progressives who are
besotted with them seem genuinely surprised that their policy preferences are
being greeted with skepticism at best and astonishment at worst.
The emblematic policy is a smorgasbord of desiderata
called the Green New Deal, only some of which is dedicated to environmental
remediation. The Democratic Party’s climate catastrophists appear to have
convinced themselves that the only surefire way to prevent runaway climate
change is the radical transformation of the economy. To call this 10-year plan
ambitious is an understatement. The initial proposal for a Green New Deal
congressional subcommittee called for the shuttering of all
fossil-fuel-generating power plants, replacing the country’s energy grid,
enhancing its water-related infrastructure, upgrading “every residential and
industrial building” in the United States, scaling back America’s industrial
agriculture sector to “local-scale,” eliminating all greenhouse-gas emissions
produced by transportation, and exporting this technological and paradigmatic
revolution around the world.
This was no rough draft. Within weeks, more than 60 House
Democrats co-sponsored a legislative resolution backing these measures.
Democratic 2020 hopefuls including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten
Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, and Amy
Klobuchar have endorsed the Green New Deal, in whole or “in concept” as
“aspirational.”
Given all this support, you might think that the kinks of
this wild-eyed proposal were worked out long ago. You’d be wrong.
The Green New Deal’s chief proponent—Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—promoted the plan in a Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) document published on her website. The FAQ explained that America would
be reducing its fossil-fuel emissions to zero while eliminating nuclear-power
generation, which would be beyond the capacity of existing technology to
achieve in a 10-year time frame. The FAQ also said the Green New Deal would eventually
retire the internal combustion engine. The document confessed that emissions
from livestock and airplanes might not be eliminated entirely at the end of a
decade, but we’d be well on our way. It would use “highspeed rail at a scale
where air travel stops becoming necessary,” an implausible notion considering
that even California’s progressive Governor Gavin Newsom couldn’t make a bullet
train linking the Bay Area and Silicon Valley work at a reasonable cost.
Indeed, the FAQ was disdainful of the notion that cost should be part of the
equation. “The question isn’t how will we pay for it,” the FAQ insisted, “but
what will we do with our new shared prosperity.”
The FAQ was a disaster. It was mocked, dismissed, and
eventually scrubbed from the Internet. The Federalist’s David Harsanyi called
it a manual for how to “tear down modernity.” The FAQ was “a recipe for
economic Armageddon,” wrote the Washington
Examiner’s Tom Rogan. In what may be the sincerest admission that
Ocasio-Cortez had done her party no favors, the New York Times’ headline read, “Ocasio-Cortez Team Flubs a Green
New Deal Summary, and Republicans Pounce.” But rather than fall on their swords
and acknowledge the crudity of their rollout of the policy, Ocasio-Cortez’s
advisers tried to convince observers that their eyes had deceived them. Robert
Hockett, a Cornell law professor and adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, told Fox News
Channel’s Tucker Carlson that the FAQ was a “doctored document that someone
else has been circulating.” Her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, later
claimed it was only one of many “early drafts” that “got leaked” to the press.
Once it was exposed to the sunlight, the Green New Deal
instantly began to wilt. What would it do to help the millions of people who
would be displaced amid the abolition of any occupation that is made possible
by the burning of fossil fuels? Well, it commits the government to
“guaranteeing a job” to “all people of the United States.” Ocasio-Cortez’s
boosters were especially humiliated by a phrase in the FAQ that promised
occupations to those who are “unwilling to work,” but the unwilling are surely
part of a category as broad as literally everyone in America. To be sure, a
federal jobs guarantee has been the great hope of the progressive left for generations,
but it’s tough to generate traction for that kind of plan while at the same
time outlawing most of the productive economy.
A Brookings Institution analysis of some of the leading
proposals for a federal jobs program found that there are about 50 million
Americans who could take advantage of such a program—some who are currently
unemployed, but many more who are employed full- or part-time making less than
$15 per hour. Such a program would have positive effects. The number of
underemployed workers would collapse, poverty rates would decline, and wages
would rise as competition for low-skill occupations increased.
But what kinds of work would this program guarantee? Some
proposals would expand the ranks of teachers, teachers’ assistants, office-support
professionals, personal-care providers, construction and maintenance workers,
and police and security officers. But that would be little consolation for
those employed in the millions of occupations that would be phased out by the
Green New Deal, many of which require professional expertise accumulated over
the course of a lifetime and provide competition commensurate with those
skillsets. A petroleum engineer would not be fulfilled by his new position as a
public safety officer making minimum wage.
The most aggressive jobs programs would require $5
trillion over ten years, according to Brookings. But that wouldn’t cover the
costs associated with providing displaced Americans job training, educational
resources, and access to a college degree. That, too, is in the Green New Deal,
but it’s not new. “Free” college has become a staple part of the progressive
platform.
Making a four-year college degree a “debt-free”
proposition has become a feature of the Democratic pitch to voters, and few
have put as much meat on its bones as Senator Bernie Sanders. His plan would
cost the federal treasury $470 billion over 10 years, but the financial strain
is the least of his proposal’s objectionable effects. Ironically, “free
college” would exacerbate the very inequality he and other progressives claim
to oppose.
Prior to 1998, the United Kingdom experimented with
taxpayer-funded university education, but the scheme became untenable when more
and more people began to seek degrees as demand for skilled labor increased.
The effect of “free college” was social stratification. Qualified students
sought out schools with the most resources, while lower-tier colleges stagnated
as their incentives to innovate dried up. These perverse incentives disappeared
when the U.K. introduced market reforms into the higher-education system. And
contrary to progressives’ expectations, enrollment continues to rise.
We can already see the pernicious effects of “free
college” on social mobility in states that have tried to make college “debt-free.”
State-level programs that cover the cost of college after students take
advantage of federal aid divert resources to middle-class students and away
from poorer degree-seekers. Two studies, one from the Institute of Higher
Education Policy and another conducted by Ed Trust, found that state-level
“free-college” programs without restrictions provided less benefit to
lower-income students and undergraduate students who are over 25 years old than
to the 40 percent of undergraduate students older than 25 or those who attend
college outside the state where they reside.
“These students still cannot afford college because they
struggle with non-tuition costs, such as books, housing, and transportation,”
wrote Ed Trust senior higher-education policy analyst Katie Berger. This
organization also found that the 200 “free college” programs in 41 states often
limit eligibility based on GPA, credit accumulation, and residency. This helps
manage costs but also has “a disproportionate impact on the students least served
by higher education and fail[s] to address our nation’s college affordability
problem.”
What’s more, states and municipalities struggling to
comply with a federal higher-education mandate would face a widely expanded
pool of applicants, forcing them to enlarge their unwieldy armies of
non-faculty administrators. Between 1985 and 2005, the cost of a four-year
degree exploded. In that same period, the number of faculty in higher education
increased by only 50 percent while administrators increased by 85 percent and
their staffs ballooned by a staggering 240 percent. Those administrative
professionals are not performing make-work jobs. They’re navigating a complex
labyrinth of federal regulations and performing managerial oversight that
full-time faculty cannot. “Free college” would only exacerbate the conditions
that have led college costs to increase by 500 percent in roughly those same
two decades, which suggests that the estimated costs of Sanders’s proposal are
on the low end.
For some Democrats, the promise of “economic security”
would not be satisfied by the promise of employment and education. For them,
“economic security” means a guaranteed income provided by the government that
would, in one go, raise every American over the annual poverty threshold. While
prominent Democratic lawmakers, including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, were
sour on the idea only a few years ago, the Green New Deal subcommittee proposal
endorses “basic income programs.” Goaded by tech-sector giants including Mark
Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Richard Branson, the California Democratic Party has
now embraced the idea of a “universal basic income.” Senators Kamala Harris and
Cory Booker have also endorsed the concept of a “UBI.”
Ray Dalio, manager of the hedge fund Bridgewater
Associates, estimated that providing every American with $12,000 per year—the
current poverty threshold—would cost approximately $3.8 trillion every year.
That is approximately 21 percent of GDP and about 78 percent of all tax
revenues. If a price tag amounting to $38 trillion over 10 years doesn’t make
you sweat, how about the fact that this old idea has been an objective failure
everywhere it’s been tried?
Finland recently experimented with a program that
provided 2,000 unemployed people with a basic income and no reporting
requirements for two years. While the recipients experienced more happiness and
less stress than the control group, the administrators found to their distress
that the program members were not encouraged by their guaranteed income to go
out and find a job. They simply lived off the pilot program’s per diem. What’s
more, the Finnish government concluded that the program, applied to all its 5.5
million people, would require across-the-board income-tax hikes of nearly 30
percent. The nation discontinued the experiment. In July 2017, Ontario also
experimented with a UBI and encountered many of the same problems as Finland.
This was all predictable, due to prior experience with
the idea in…the United States. The “negative income tax,” as it was called, was
essentially a minimum income that phased out as earnings increased. In 1968,
the White House Office of Economic Opportunity selected a series of communities
in New Jersey to test the NIT. The number of hours worked by the program’s beneficiaries
declined, and those who lost a job while on this form of assistance took longer
to find new work than did those without it.
What’s more, as the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
found, the experiment did not increase nuclear family cohesion, as theorists
expected. Instead, it exacerbated the conditions that were leading families to
come apart. “The SRI researchers,” the study read, “hypothesized that the
availability of the income guarantee to some families reduced the pressure on
the breadwinner to remain with the family, while the benefit-reduction rate
also reduced the value to the family of keeping a wage earner in the unit.”
It goes without saying that there can be no “economic
security” without the peace of mind provided by health-care coverage. Perhaps
that’s why health-care mandates are also part of the Green New Deal, which—let
us recall—is supposedly about fighting climate change. This is just one element
of the Democratic Party’s embrace of ever more radical approaches to health
insurance. After the end of the Obama presidency, the Obamacare plan was not
only challenged programmatically by the Republicans who successfully sought to
remove its mandate, but philosophically by Democrats pushing for a single-payer
system. In 2017, one-third of the Democratic caucus in the Senate backed Bernie
Sanders’s Medicare-for-all single-payer plan, and it has only become more
popular in the years since. Today, more than half of the Democratic Party’s
representatives in the House want to open Medicare up to all Americans. They
regularly point to polling that suggests most voters are on their side. But
that enthusiasm dissolves the minute Americans take a cursory glance under
Medicare-for-all’s hood.
Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s experience is illustrative.
Shortly after launching her presidential bid, Harris sat down with CNN host
Jake Tapper, who asked her about the provisions in the single-payer bill she
co-sponsored that would all but do away with private insurance. “Let’s
eliminate all that,” she said dismissively. “Let’s move on.”
The firestorm that followed these comments suggests that
Harris hadn’t thoroughly gamed this out. “It would take a mighty transition to
move from where we are to that,” said the number two Democrat in the Senate,
Dick Durbin. Senator Tim Kaine added that he, too, would be uncomfortable
forcing the 80 percent of Americans with employer-sponsored private insurance
into a government program. “I’m not going to say you have to give it up,” he
said. “You can’t just pull the rug out from underneath everybody’s feet,”
Senator Gary Peters cautioned. Senator Chris Murphy advocated some form of
health-care reform that would be “more politically palatable and ultimately
more popular” than Harris’s “statutory prohibition private plans.” California
Senator Dianne Feinstein said simply, “I’m not there yet.”
What we learned from this is that most Americans might
not have known that expanding Medicare to all Americans essentially
nationalizes the health-insurance industry. Sanders’s proposal makes
employer-sponsored health insurance illegal and would likely crowd most other
plans out of the marketplace by leaving them with an unsustainably small risk
pool. That would force approximately 150 million Americans and their dependents
into a government-sponsored insurance monopoly.
Every one of the 16 Senate Democrats who co-sponsored
Sanders’s single-payer bill knew this, but Harris’s unwise acknowledgement
prompted a Democratic stampede away from Medicare-for-all’s central plank. Many
Senate Democrats balked at the idea that you could simply legislate a $900-billion-per-year
industry out of existence overnight. Fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker,
who also co-sponsored Sanders’s bill, went wobbly. “Even countries that have
vast access to publicly offered health care still have private health care,” he
said when asked if he, too, wanted to eliminate private insurance. “So, no.”
With the pressure on, Harris relented. Her advisers confessed that the senator
was suddenly amenable to health-care reform plans short of single-payer.
Once again, this progressive idea that gained such
purchase among Democrats blew up on the tarmac the first time it met an even
mildly skeptical audience. And the nationalization of the health-insurance
industry was only the most obvious of Sanders-style single-payer’s drawbacks.
Two independent analyses of his plan pegged its costs at around $32 trillion
over 10 years. Those costs would presumably be offset by a series of
assumptions, among them the accrued savings from lower prescription costs and a
reduced administrative burden on hospitals. But most of the savings comes from
the assumption that doctors and hospitals would make do with a radical
reduction in payments—up to of 40 percent less than what they get from private
insurers—without negatively affecting the quality or availability of care.
Environmental and economic policy aren’t the only public
affairs in which the Democratic Party has allowed their youngish left flank to
lead them into uncharted territory. The party is also staking out new ground
when it comes to law enforcement.
Amid congressional negotiations aimed at avoiding another
government shutdown, Democrats came up with a new demand: They wanted to
decrease the number of beds in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
detention centers. Democrats proposed and Republicans eventually agreed to a 17
percent reduction in the carrying capacity of ICE facilities, ostensibly with
the goal of forcing the Trump administration to prioritize the arrest and
deportation of violent illegal aliens. But the artificial cap on immigration
officials’ ability to detain and remove any illegal immigrant from the
country—not just at the border—marked a dramatic departure for Democrats.
It was only a decade ago that Democrats as prominent as
now–Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made a conspicuous point of using the
phrase “illegal immigrants,” an expression that has fallen out of favor on the
left, to communicate their commitment to enforcing immigration law and to
protect low-skilled American laborers from unfair competition. Democrats at the
time often voted in favor of provisions that strengthened border security.
Today, not only do Democrats oppose Trump’s border wall, they’re talking
themselves out of support for any
physical partitions along the border with Mexico. “I’d take the wall down,”
said former Texas Congressman and potential 2020 presidential aspirant Beto
O’Rourke when asked if he would order the removal of existing border barriers.
Senator Gillibrand seemed to agree. “I could support it,” she said, presuming
that tearing down the partitions that currently separate the United States and
Mexico made sense. Of course, it most certainly does not.
When on rare occasion these Democratic utopians deign to
consider how the country will pay for their multitrillion-dollar schemes, the
stop-gap measures they support are laughable. Representative Ocasio-Cortez
suggested higher marginal “tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent” on your “10
millionth dollar.” But only about 16,000 Americans showed that much taxable
income in 2016, the last year in which relevant government data are available.
Her tax hike would raise only about $720 billion over a decade, a little more
than what the United States spends on discretionary non-defense items in a
single year.
Anyone who took a passing glance at Ocasio-Cortez’s
proposal knew that Democrats would soon be looking for a bigger pool of
Americans to squeeze. That’s why Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed a “wealth
tax.” As with so many progressive proposals, the value of this plan rests
entirely on the notion that this idea is common to Europe, so why shouldn’t it
be adopted here? But this, too, doesn’t get the job done. Two University of
California, Berkeley, economists estimated that Warren’s plan for a 2 percent
tax on the assets of households worth over $50 million and a 3 percent tax on
those worth over $1 billion would raise about $2.7 trillion over a decade. That
would just about match what America shells out for its entitlement programs in
one year. Or, it would, if Warren’s proposal was consistent with the
Constitution, which it almost certainly is not.
The 16th Amendment, which gave birth to the federal
income tax, permits the government to “levy tax on incomes,” not to expropriate
private property when the government wants it. The courts have upheld this
amendment’s original parameters by finding that inheritance taxes are
constitutional only if they target the transfer of wealth, not the wealth
itself. Moreover, Warren proposes a 40 percent one-time “exit tax” on Americans
who try to evade her tax by renouncing their citizenship. This over-broad and
discriminatory provision infringes on basic rights. Even if it didn’t, it’s
probably unenforceable.
If progressives are looking for a bigger pool of money to
tax, they can find it most readily through economic growth. More jobs mean more
people paying income and payroll taxes, to say nothing of consumption taxes
they pay when they patronize local businesses, which use that revenue in turn
to hire more people, and so on. But for some on the left, this reliable cycle
of growth isn’t just confusing, it’s unwelcome. Take, for example, the campaign
waged by New York’s progressives against Amazon’s plan to provide New York City
with 25,000 new jobs, each averaging an annual salary of $150,000.
The centerpiece of their grievance—one that eventually
led Amazon to conclude that investing in New York City simply wasn’t worth the
aggravation—was $2.8 billion in tax incentives available not just to Amazon but
any company that qualified. These activists insisted that this money would be
better spent at home on much-needed infrastructure projects. “If we were
willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion
in our district ourselves if we wanted to,” a triumphant Ocasio-Cortez insisted.
This exposes a fundamental misconception about what tax abatements are. That
money can’t be invested in other programs because it hasn’t been earned yet. Earnings have not yet been generated from
which the money would come. And now they never will. Only if one sees all
income and revenue as public property to be doled out as a product of
governmental beneficence could one adopt such a deluded view of tax
incentives.
These progressives do not advocate a flatter and fairer
tax code. They don’t resent tax incentives per se. They only resent this one
firm, in part because it is so successful. Ocasio-Cortez was celebrating the
preservation of the status quo at the expense of economic development and
individual prosperity. This is what it means today to be a “progressive.”
The policies Democrats warmed to in their wilderness
years are unlikely to be realized if one of them wins the White House in 2020,
but that is cold comfort. An influential mass of Democratic voters support
these radical ideas, and the party’s presidential candidates are campaigning on
them. Democrats may be convincing themselves that the popularity of some of
these proposals in polls insulates them from criticism, but that popularity has
already proven illusory. If even gentlest incredulity can bring the whole
progressive edifice crashing down, Democrats may want to consider going back to
the drawing board while they still can.
No comments:
Post a Comment