| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| From Each According to His Ability... |
| 2008-01-25 |
| Hillary Clinton's quest for economic justice by Jacob Sullum During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said putting together the right kind of stimulus package is "a part of economic justice." The remark reflected a major campaign theme for the New York senator, who has declared she would pursue "a new vision of economic fairness" as president. That slogan should set off alarm bells for anyone who recognizes that economic outcomes result from myriad individual choices. To impose her vision of economic fairness, Clinton would have to override those choices, compromising freedom in the name of equality. Clinton's aim is economic equality, not legal equality, and you really can't have both. As the economist and political philosopher F.A. Hayek observed, equal treatment of people with unequal abilities leads to unequal outcomes. In this sense social justice is, if not a "mirage," as Hayek argued, at least in conflict with procedural justice. So it's not surprising that many of the policies Clinton believes promote economic fairness strike others as decidedly unfair. In 2006, for example, she endorsed a successful Commerce Department petition by Syracuse candle makers to impose a tariff of more than 100 percent on candles imported from China. "Our manufacturers deserve a level playing field," Clinton explained, "and we owe it to them to make sure that others do not unfairly circumvent our fair trade practices." In Clinton's view, then, fairness demands that all Americans pay more for candles to subsidize manufacturers in her state. More generally, Clinton advocates "smart" trade rather than free trade, insisting on "strong protections for workers and the environment" that reduce the competitive advantages of foreign producers. She wants "jobs that cannot be shipped overseas," which can be achieved only by interfering with companies' profit-maximizing (and consumer-benefiting) decisions. For her, globalization is not what happens naturally when people are free to exchange goods and services on mutually agreeable terms; it's a process that needs to be "managed properly." Clinton wants to "curb the excesses of the marketplace," which in her view include not just foreign competition but high salaries for corporate CEOs, risk-based insurance premiums, and foreclosures on the homes of people who fail to make mortgage payments. Intent on implementing her "new economic blueprint," she overlooks the possibility that such practices developed for sound reasons and that arbitrarily limiting or abolishing them might have unintended consequences. When it comes to fiscal policy, Clinton seems to see herself as a kindergarten teacher "fairly" doling out cupcakes, giving no thought to who baked them in the first place. In a recent New York Times interview she worried that "inequality is growing" and waxed nostalgic for the "confiscatory" tax rates of the post-World War II decades. Clinton would use higher taxes to pay for universal preschool, universal college, universal health care, and universal high-speed Internet access, among other taxpayer-funded goodies. These she calls "the investments we make in each other," and they are just like investments, except that there is no reliable test of whether they make sense, since the people paying for them have no choice in the matter and are not the ones who stand to benefit. There's a similar problem with Clinton's proposal to "create millions of new jobs by investing in clean energy" through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund. When a politician talks about the jobs government spending will create, it's usually a signal that the spending cannot be defended on its own merits. A Strategic Thumb Twiddling Fund could create millions of new jobs too. In the Times interview Clinton suggested that as president she would be prepared to ram through her economic program on straight party-line votes. "If you really believe you have to manage the economy," she said, "you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it." The history of central planners and their failures suggests a different lesson: If you really believe you have to manage the economy, you shouldn't be president. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #5 Yes, FOTSGreg! Which, to me, makes the whole slogan of change so amusing. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-01-25 17:50 |
| #4 ^^^^^^^^^That |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-25 15:44 |
| #3 Indeed |
| Posted by: Kelly 2008-01-25 15:16 |
| #2 While I despise the woman and firmly believe that she's at least a socialist if not an outright communist, and has only her own best interests in mind rather than America's or Americans, I'm not so certain we have all that much to worry about. President's have a great deal of power, yes, but they can only propose law, not make law. Despite what Hillary might think Congress makes law and she can only suggest,cajole, blackmail, and coerce Congress critters to do her bidding. However, every 2 years we, the American voter (as opposed to the American "people" who don't vote), get a chance to tell Congress that they failed to rein in a President who exercises to much power or has done to much damage. And every 4 years we, the American voter, get a chance to toss a President out on his or her ear. I don;t know if many people have noticed this, and it never fails to raise the ire of those on the left, but if Hillary is elected for even 1 term, we will have had a Bush or Clinton in office for 24 years straight (assuming Hillary survives her first 4 years and does not get elected again, otherwise it'll be 28 years (4 for Bush 1, 8 for Clinton I, 8 for Bush 2, 4-8 for Clinton II)). That's longer than FDR served. Those are not Presidency's, those are Dynasty's. This country does not need Dynasty's. We fought a Revolution to throw off the yoke of a dynasty. Nobody, no matter what they might think or who they might be, deserves to be President of the United States of Anerica. Such "visions" are neurotic and possibly psychotic or sociopathic at least. Such delusions are typical of such people as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro. It's a psychosis seen in hereditary and dynastic rulers of the past. I'll never vote for another Bush or Clinton as long as I live because, while I like our current President very much, we do not need dynastic government in this country. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-01-25 14:03 |
| #1 This woman is a Communist and always has been. She would love to get her hands on the controls. Look out. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-01-25 10:47 |