Moral Hazards

Earlier this month, President Obama claimed that “We created over two million jobs in the private sector — a million jobs this year alone in the private sector, but in the public sector, we keep on seeing these layoffs having an adverse effect….”  On the floor of the United States Senate earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that “It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers….”  And Vice President Joe Biden has been out on the stump assuring anyone who will listen that Republicans who vote against Obama’s Jobs Bill, or any part of it, are personally responsible for every rape, robbery, and cop killing that ensues after the bill fails.  Obama was plainly lying and Allysia Finley did a fine job of exposing him.  Reid also was plainly lying, and The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial staff did a fine job of exposing him.  Biden was plainly, well, Biden.

Rather than pursue the lies, though, I want to look at a different aspect of this “plan” of the Progressives.  This is in a throwaway line at the end of Finley’s column: “Paying governments to keep teachers and firemen on the rolls may sound good, but it actually creates a moral hazard.”  Let’s explore this moral hazard.

There are, actually, three hazards in the plan to transfer, ultimately, $130 billion dollars (the amount in the original Jobs Bill) to state and local governments, ostensibly to provide jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police.  The first hazard is that this creates a dependency in those state and local governments on continued Federal funding, and it inures those governments from the costs of the jobs they provide.  What happened with the nearly trillion dollar stimulus of 2009 that sent all those hundreds of billions of dollars to the states and cities for hiring teachers, firefighters, and police—or for “saving” all those jobs?  The Federal money ran out, and now there’s nothing left with which to continue paying those employees.  The state and local governments didn’t go through the belt tightening and efficiencies they needed to because, shielded from those costs, they had no incentive to do so.  Thus they still “need” Federal funds.  Continued Federal funding will only continue this dependency, though.  Further, continuing to have no stake in the costs, these governments will continue to have no incentive to take seriously their role in controlling them.

The second hazard concerns the individual recipients—those teachers, firefighters, and policemen—of this Federal jobs “welfare” that is washed through the state and local governments (what there is left of it after those government entities have skimmed off their cut).  They’re drawn into the same sort of dependency and shielding from costs.  They need this steady infusion of Federal largess—both in pay and in lucrative benefits—because, by using it for so long, they’ve lost their ability to work on their own—never mind that they might not be teaching, or fighting fires, or patrolling our streets.  Their dependency is just as complete as the governments through which their payments are washed.  And as with the state and local governments, these individuals have no skin in this game.  They just need their Federal hit.

The third hazard is this.  From where will the money for this “jobs” bill come?  There are three sources for this money: taxes, borrowing, and printing.  Yet, as Congressman Ron Paul points out repeatedly, borrowing and printing are just taxes.  Borrowing is a tax because the loan must be paid back, now and into the future, by us through our taxes.  Printing money is a tax because the increase in money in our economy drives up prices—it’s inflationary.  Ultimately, then, the money for all those dependency-creating transfers must come from the rest of us.  But this isn’t a private enterprise operation, where we as consumers get a choice in the product, its quality, and its price.  This is a government operation, in which we must participate without any choice or control at all: we must pay the tax price, and we must accept the product as it is delivered.  We’re denied a stake in the product; we just have to accept all the risk of which the state and local governments, and the individual recipients, are absolved.

None of this is to say we don’t need quality teachers, firefighters, or policemen; we certainly do, and in spades.  But we can’t continue feeding the expectation that the Federal government will pay for everything forever, that there is no such thing as failure.  That’s the path to national bankruptcy.

Some Miscellany

Telling the truth at inconvenient times: The EU is considering banning rating agencies from publishing ratings on a member country’s sovereign debt whenever that country is in negotiation for a bailout.  After all, worries European Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, who has made the proposal, a rating might be released at an “inopportune moment” and have “negative consequences for the financial stability of a country and a possible destabilizing effect on the global economy.”  M Barnier says that the ratings agencies don’t always publish accurate data.  Of course, the fact that the EU already has negligence (and fraud) laws that can be applied to this situation is unimportant.  It’s better simply to keep investors in the dark than to let them have a few unpleasant truths about European sovereign debt—especially when that debt is at its riskiest: the nation has only just recognized its debt to be worthless or approaching worthlessness, which is why it’s begging for bailouts in the first place.

Can’t trust those cops: They’re too anxious to Tase you, bro.  The New York Civil Liberties Union has their knickers in a twist because “[i]n 60% of cases, the circumstances did not meet standards recommended by experts.”  In their report (“Taking Tasers Seriously: The Need for Better Regulation of Stun Guns in New York”), they claim that “40% of the Taser incidents involved at-risk subjects” and that “people of color are overwhelmingly represented in Taser incidents,” yet the report contains no substantiating data for these claims.  Other beefs: 7% of those Tasered were handcuffed, and another 4% were fleeing. Hmm….  All handcuffed suspects are completely docile, are not kicking or biting risks, cooperatively enter the police car.  And, apparently, if a suspect is lucky enough to break free momentarily, he’s to be allowed to continue—potentially to pursue his misdeeds later.  And the obligatory tear-jerker: a poor 13-year-old boy was Tasered.  Never mind that he was fighting in a mall.  Never mind that the officer who Tasered the boy considered it necessary to “gain compliance.”  Apparently controlling a suspect isn’t allowed.  Of course there are bad apples in every police department, and they need to be weeded out.  And, of course, a few bad apples means we can’t trust the lot of them.

We got him?  The Daily Caller has this (follow the “Full Story” link) Reuters article indicating that in the process of finally gaining control over Sirte, Libya, Libyan fighters killed Muammar Gaddafi.  While the article itself seems clear about Gaddafi’s death (while acknowledging a lack of independent confirmation), the article does raise questions (at least in my grasshopper brain) about the timing of his wounds and of his killing relative to his capture, as well as the actual circumstances of his capture.  And I wonder at the Intelligence value that was lost with his death.

What did he know, and when did he know it?  Rep Jason Chaffetz (R, Utah) and Rep Trey Gowdy (R, South Carolina) are asking rude questions.  In a March interview with Univision, President Obama talked about “Fast and Furious,” and insisted that he “did not authorize it” and that “Eric Holder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it.”  This interview occurred a month prior to AG Holder’s Congressional testimony on the failed operation.  From this, Reps Chaffetz and Gowdy are wondering about things. “Would you inform us how you knew in March of 2011, 1 month prior to his testimony, that Attorney General Holder did not ‘authorize’ this investigation?  [I]f you knew the Attorney General did not authorize ‘Fast and Furious,’ how did you learn that and when did you learn that?  If you knew Attorney General Holder did not authorize it, inherent in that response is knowledge of who did authorize it. That information would be most helpful….”  Hmm….