The pro-statism crowd routinely argues that we need more government. Every so often, though, one of them inadvertently stumbles on the truth. But they then refuse to draw the logical conclusion. For instance.
- One of President Obama’s health appointees noted that quality increases and prices fall when markets are allowed to operate – yet he concluded that we should further restrict market forces in health care.
- The IRS Commission admitted the tax code is a complicated mess and that he pays someone else to compile his tax return – yet he dodged a question about whether Congress should fix the mess with something like a flat tax.
- A New York Times reporter produced a chart showing that the only successful budget deal in recent decades was the one in 1997 that included tax cuts – yet he then complained that we can’t deal with red ink because Republicans won’t agree to a tax increase.
We now have another example to add to the list. Thomas Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times, where he specialize in ponderous columns that reflect the views of the left-wing establishment. Today, he has a column complaining about gridlock in America. Here are some key excerpts.
Does America need an Arab Spring? …has American gone from a democracy to a “vetocracy” — from a system designed to prevent anyone in government from amassing too much power to a system in which no one can aggregate enough power to make any important decisions at all? …A system with as many checks and balances built into it as ours assumes — indeed requires — a certain minimum level of cooperation on major issues between the two parties, despite ideological differences. Unfortunately…several factors are combining to paralyze our whole system.
This is remarkable, in part because he is stunningly wrong. The political class in Washington manages to spend about $4 trillion per year and churn out tens of thousands of pages of new regulation annually.
The politicians also manage to enact dozens of new laws every year, almost all of which expand the size and scope of the federal government. If that’s gridlock caused by “vetocracy,” then I shudder to think what activist government looks like.
But the part that really shocked me was that Friedman basically acknowledged that the problem is big government.
…the huge expansion of the federal government, and the increasing importance of money in politics, have hugely expanded the number of special-interest lobbies and their ability to influence and clog decision-making.
This is a facepalm moment. Friedman begins his column by complaining that our system is sclerotic and that this makes it hard for politicians to enact more laws, yet he then admits that our system is sclerotic because government is too big already. And it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that Friedman wants to make government even bigger – which is why he’s complaining about gridlock in the first place!
By the way, I can’t resist correcting some of Friedman’s sloppy analysis in the final excerpt above. He complains about role of money and special interests in politics, but he fails to connect the dots. If he did, he would understand that political money and interest groups are inevitable consequences of a bloated public sector.
As I explain in this video, big government facilitates and encourages corruption. To put it in colloquial terms, if you create a big pile of garbage in your living room, don’t be surprised when you get infested by rats and roaches.
[…] he does work at the New York Times, which is tediously left wing (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), so we’ll give the newspaper an award for the “Own-Goal […]
[…] it’s because of silly editorializing, such as this bit of amateur political analysis by Thomas Friedman, this foolish look at international taxation by the editors, and this laughable column arguing that […]
Every time i start to read a Friedman column, I get so convulsed with laughter that I have to stop:
“I had to catch a train in Washington last week. The paved street in the traffic circle around Union Station was in such poor condition that I felt as though I was on a roller coaster. I traveled on the Amtrak Acela, our sorry excuse for a fast train, on which I had so many dropped calls on my cellphone that you’d have thought I was on a remote desert island, not traveling from Washington to New York City. When I got back to Union Station, the escalator in the parking garage was broken. Maybe you’ve gotten used to all this and have stopped noticing. I haven’t. Our country needs a renewal.
“And that is why I still hope Michael Bloomberg will reconsider running for president as an independent candidate, if only to participate in the presidential debates and give our two-party system the shock it needs.”
This made me think of Michael Moore taking against guns on MSNBC where he answers his own question and fails to see it. He moaned and lamented the fact that all kinds of people are carrying concealed firearms nowadays, not just the usual hicks and hayseeds, but doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professionals. He then highlighted the ‘irony’ that the places with the highest rate of concealed carry also have the lowest rates of murder, assault, rape, etc. No, no light bulb went off over his head, he just continued fuming and asked why do they need guns in places with low crime rates.
As they say, “you can lead a horse to water…”
Ever see Rep. Paul Ryan debate Pres. Obama on healthcare and budget issues? Ryan took him by the hand, led him down his own logical dead-end and left him there. All Obama could do was glare, literally, no reply whatever. He’s too married to his ideology, he cannot be taught the truth at this point.
Leftism has become a religion in the worst sense of the word.
Andrew_M_Garland:
“They believe with religious certainty…”
Actually, I like to call the left/progressive belief in government control a “hyper-religion.” Religion is the belief in something without evidence to support it. (‘Faith,’ if you will.) “Hyper-religion” is a belief in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You know, the centrist challenge to Reagan from John Anderson took votes from Carter, not Reagan. It gave the Democrat center someone to vote for who wasn’t the Republican when they couldn’t stand Carter either.
Not sure this will do for Obama what Friedman hopes.
He, they know. They are always for bigger gov. Always.
[…] More on Friedman from Dan Mitchell. […]
Liberals/Progressives reject the idea of unavoidable consequences. They admit that some consequences are unintended, but they deny responsibility for them.
They think that they are responsible only for the consequences which they wanted, if these happen at all. The bad consequences are the evil forces of “those other people”, to be removed by further tweaking of their plans and by more control over everyone. They believe that their plans would succeed if only everyone would agree with and support them.
They believe with religious certainty, that because they dearly want a better world (run by themselves), it follows that they will create a better world, eventually, after a few temporary intervals of turmoil and destruction. The glorious end justifies breaking a few eggs, or a whole lot of eggs. They can’t just give up, that would be wrong.
In the meantime, everyone should shut up and join in the effort. Any dissent may derail the entire operation. We are all in this together, especially those who will be paying for it.
Leading the People – If You Don’t Agree Now, You Will Later
=== ===
They have a solution that will work if we would only stop arguing and agree with them.
They may need to omit some information about the new arrangements and what these will cost. They observe that ordinary people do not think well enough to make decisions in their own long-term best interest.
Dissenters are either uninformed or selfish. There is no need to argue about the specific meanings of words. The good of the society justifies telling some lies, if it comes to that.
The solution requires that we all pitch in and not be greedy. The people with the most resources will put their extra income or property into the pot.
They will modify or replace the solution if it doesn’t work. They will design a new solution the same way they designed the first solution, through thought, research, and discussion among themselves. Further solutions may require more resources.
=== ===
Argentinian authorities complaints againts the lack of Repsol investments on their argentinian subsidiary comparny YPF and then, they justify their ultimate intervention in the market and the nationalization of YPF.
Repsol responsibles prove their investment were there but they recognize that the continuous intervention of the argetinian goubernment in the fuel prices to artificial and populist low prices does not allow Repsol to invest as much as they would like with confident enough of return of investment.
C’est la vie.