Tag Archives: political economy

Government vs Charity

Posted on by
Reply

Which is to say, Government welfare/wealth redistribution vs private charity.  Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator (I, VT) Bernie Sanders has given the Progressive-Democrats’ game away.  The subject is private donors giving hundreds of millions of their own money to fund scholarships at colleges and universities.  Sanders tweeted that

Mr Smith’s gift was “extremely generous” but added that the “student crisis will not be solved by charity. It must be addressed by governmental action.”

Robert Smith is Vista Equity Partners CEO, and his gift was directly to Morehouse College class of 2019: he’s covering 100% of their college debt.  Other private donor gifts include

  • the Starr Foundation and Sanford Weill’s funding a $160 million scholarship program at New York City’s Weill Cornell Medicine to “eliminate education debt for all of its students with financial need”
  • $450 million from private donors to New York University for all tuition costs for all its medical students
  • $150 million scholarship fund for Columbia University endowed by former Merck CEO Roy Vagelos and his wife to mitigate medical students’ debt
  • $1.8 billion for Johns Hopkins from Michael Bloomberg for undergraduate financial aid

But Progressive-Democrats want government to do it all.  The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board has the right of that:

[P]rivate generosity has an advantage in that it is more accountable than public policy.

Aside from government’s subsidies inflating costs, though, there’s much more.  Private charity is much more flexible than government’s necessarily one-size-fits-all, it’s better targeted, it goes to the recipients the donors—whether private individual or private charitable organization—choose, and it goes in the form of the donors’ choosing.

And that gives private charity much broader and much deeper reach than anything government can achieve.

But that’s also outside the control of Government, and that’s anathema to Progressive-Democrats.

Market Demand

Posted on by
Reply

In a Letter to the Editor in a recent Wall Street Journal, Thomas Michaels wrote,

John E Stafford asks why “starting salaries for public-school teachers in many states are under $40,000 a year….” The answer is supply and demand. There are more “qualified” teaching graduates looking for a job than there are openings in their desired location. Union protection and state-mandated benefits assure that placeholders stay in place. Market theory says that when there are more goods available than the market requires, the price goes down.

A bit of basic high school-level economics, a subject that isn’t taught in high school very much.

That brings me to another reason why teacher salaries are so low.  Public school pupils fare poorly in progress testing, in college preparation testing, in their ability to function in a modern workplace. This is so in absolute terms, in comparison with peer and near-peer national competitors, and in comparison with domestic charter and voucher schools.  The quality of the product just isn’t that great.

Medicare-for-All and Middle Class Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Even Stephen Colbert wants to know: under Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) payment scheme for her Medicare-for-All scheme, will middle class Americans’ taxes go up? He put the question to her in so many words:

You keep being asked in the debates how are you going to pay for it, are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes…. How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to be raising the middle-class taxes?

Warren’s answer:

So, here’s how we’re going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations…. and hard-working middle-class families are going to see their costs going down.

Colbert tried again:

But will their taxes go up?

Warren evaded again:

Health care is a basic human right. We fight for basic human rights, and that’s Medicare-for-all.

The plain and simple meaning of Warren’s evasive answers is yes, middle class taxes will go up as part of her payment scheme. Their taxes will go up a lot.

EU Version of Brexit

Posted on by
Reply

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is very real.  He also says he told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson

…I have no emotional attachment to the backstop.  But I made clear that I do have an intimate connection to its commitments. I have asked the prime minister to make, in writing, alternatives.

The commitment of the backstop, the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which violates a central premise of the vote to leave the EU—British control of British borders—still amounts to a backdoor to partitioning Great Britain. Keep in mind that one of the EU’s early offers on this backstop was that Great Britain could put its hard border on the Irish Sea coast—an offer quickly deleted when its purpose was recognized as too obviously presented.

On top of that, Juncker has shown his unseriousness in these “negotiations” with his demand that Great Britain offer all the alternatives. Juncker has no need, apparently, to stoop so low as to offer his own.

Indeed, led by chief negotiator Michel Barnier,

EU negotiators say that he [Johnson] is yet to offer a viable replacement solution.

Because if they offered their own solution, and Great Britain accepted it, then Juncker and his court would have actually to say, “Yes,” finally.

It’s hard to see how negotiations can get more bad faith than this.  Juncker is like an emperor on the throne awaiting the pleas of his supplicant.

Continued Intransigence

Posted on by
Reply

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker makes it clear.

Britain has still not proposed any workable alternatives to the Northern Ireland “backstop” within the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the EU said on Monday.

And

President Juncker underlined the commission’s continued willingness and openness to examine whether such proposals meet the objectives of the backstop. Such proposals have not yet been made[.]

Juncker knows full well that the “backstop” is not just a deal-breaker, it’s a non-starter for the British. It demands that a core feature of the Brexit vote three years ago was so that Great Britain gets control of its own borders back, yet the “backstop” requires Great Britain to surrender its Irish border to the EU.  That can only be taken as a first step to dismantling Great Britain.

What demonstrates the cynicism of the EU and of Juncker is that they, and he, have steadfastly refused even to offer their own “workable alternatives.”  It’s the EU’s backstop.  Full stop.

In place of counter-offers, Juncker is offering only vapid, uselessly rhetorical pretense and empty willingness to “discuss the next steps.”

He plainly wants Great Britain to drop its Brexit plans and meekly beg for forgiveness for its effrontery. Despicably, so do Labour and too many so-called Tories.