Wednesday's interesting reads

I think it was on Monday that Pres. Bush sent the Colombia free trade agreement to Congress. Based on some fast track rules I don't understand, it basically sets a specific timetable Congress must follow before a vote they must hold. Democrats are very upset at this because, apparently, Bush broke protocol by not waiting for their blessing before sending it over. Daniel Ikenson at Cato mentioned that "Congress was never going to give the administration an official green light and the president exercised the only real choice at his disposal."

But of course Pelosi and company are fighting back. Based on this post at Washington Wire, they are trying to take steps that would keep them from being forced to the fast track rules. I haven't understood why they're so upset about Bush sending it without their approval. If they can't approve it in its current form, what's the hard of voting it down? Does it mean they have to send it back for renegotiation? Weren't they going to have to do that anyway if they were ever going to let it pass? Again, from Ikenson post at Cato:

"The long and short of it is that by sending the deal to Congress now, legislative intransigence before the November election is no longer an option. Democrats have 90 legislative days (until the end of September) to decide once and for all, in plain view of the electorate, the unions, the business community, and the international community, how they really feel about trade. The vote and the debate leading up to it could expose some deep fissures in the party, and could raise serious questions about America’s credibility and capacity to lead on matters of trade and economics."

That seems pretty accurate after seeing this in a daily news email I get (quoted from the source):

"The New York senator said she will do all she can to defeat the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, now before Congress, even though her husband and her recently demoted chief strategist Mark Penn have worked for it.

Bill Clinton, who championed deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement during his presidency, pushed Democrats to be more open to low barriers to trade. But many labor union leaders and others blame such pacts for job losses, and Obama and Hillary Clinton have criticized them in their bid for blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere."

"Default to a fault" from Free exchange on Economist.com:

"Restaurant patrons were being defaulted into tipping with an opt-out clause. Though I found it far more offensive when I leaned that my lunch companion’s employer defaults her into charitable giving. Her firm automatically subtracts a fraction of her salary and uses the proceeds to donate to several charities of its choice. She can opt out, but most employees do not. She claims few will have the audacity to say to HR, 'I don’t want to give to charity.'...

However, defaulting employees into charitable giving makes my libertarian sensibilities uneasy. Giving to charity is a wonderful thing and has many externalities for the firm in terms of being a stronger presence in the business and social community. Employees may even indirectly benefit from it. But there seems something, well tacky, about automatically taking money from your employees and giving it in the firm’s name....

Default behaviour is a strong tool. Using it to elicit any behaviour we define as desirable, be it tipping wait staff, saving, or philanthropy becomes a slippery slope. All the more reason we should use it sparingly."

On a few of the Econtalk podcasts, they discuss the slippery slope that is governmental paternalism. It's basically the government telling you what they think you should do, encouraging you (through soft paternalism), say through warning labels on cigarettes, or requiring you (through hard paternalism), through seat belt laws. It's all in the name of what's good for you. Taking a step back, it isn't hard to see how some can justify higher taxes on the rich to fund projects that they should care about, like alleviating the plight of the poor. The problem for me is imposition of one person's beliefs, priorities, and preferences on another against his will.

This example of someone having to default out of charitable giving really isn't too far away. It would be a little better if the employer gave the employee the choice as to which charities to which they'd like to donate, but I still wouldn't support it. As it is, it assumes the employee agrees with the objectives of the charities (ultimately) management chooses to support, which is why I'd suspect they'd select relatively neutral charities like the Red Cross. (But even then, is the Red Cross the most deserving of my charitible contributions?) It also assumes that I don't give enough to charities already. As they say, the employees can opt out, but that comes with a social stigma, so few actually do. It just comes back to the idea of paternalism: does your employer know best how you should allocate your paycheck dollars? I don't think so.

"Michelle Obama visits Harrisburg" Charlotte News (HT: Instpundit via Club for Growth)

Quoting Michelle Obama:

"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

This goes back to the discussion above. She could just as well said "...so that someone else can have more whether they want to or not because the majority wants them to."

To me, this gets to the heart of the problem of too much democracy. Imagine the poorest 70% of Americans getting together and deciding they wanted to implement a one-time 100% wealth tax on the richest 30%. What would stop them? Of course the sensabilitites of many of the poorer 70% would stop them, but imagine. Nothing could stop them. What if all non-Muslims decided to get together and ban the free practice of Islam in the US? I don't know what the percentage of Muslims in this country is, but I'm sure it's less than 10%. They could re-write the constitution to let them do it.

Of course these would never happen, but in a true democracy, they certainly could. Is more democracy always the best answer to a question? I don't think so. If 51% of the people think universal health care is an ideal solution, is it then OK for those 51% of the people to require the other 49% to "give up a piece of their pie" to make it happen? Again, I don't think so.

"Get Involved By Avoiding Politics" by Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek:

"Indeed, we are involved better and more fully when we act privately (that is, outside of government) than when we act politically.

Acting privately, none of us intrudes without invitation into other people's affairs. I might volunteer my opinion to my friend that he drinks too much but my friend can ignore me if he chooses. I have no way to force him to live as I believe he should live. For me, then, to become as involved as possible with my friend, I must strive to share my concerns with him in ways most likely to resonate with him."

I'll express my disagreement first. It just seems like he/anyone could use this as justification for simply throwing up his hands and saying I can't do anything about it, so I'll just deal with it. I know he finds issues with public policy and knows that his one vote really will never amount to anything, I agree with him on both counts. (This doesn't mean I don't think people should bother voting just because their one vote won't affect the outcome of the election.) I do believe, though, that if people are unhappy with the direction their government is heading they should try to help change it. To his credit, he did mention in the comments section that he does "not believe that the society in which I live is fundamentally corrupt. Quite the contrary; it's generally very decent and productive and safe." I posted the following comment:

"So those of you, including Don, who are OK not getting involved politically, is it because you don't trust yourselves? I guess I'm saying this in response to either Don's or Russ's post from awhile back that talked about how all politicians respond to incentives. He made the point that some think it's all about getting the "right" people in office, however you define "right", but really all politicians simply act in their own best interests politically and are forced to respond to their electorates.

I assume that many of you would like the government to do things differently. Presumably, to me at least, if you were in office, you could have even a small influence on the way government is run and help shape policy in a way the ensures freedom and minimal government intrusion.

So by not getting involved directly in that process (Don, I'd say that Cafe Hayek is a great way to get involved in that process indirectly) are you saying you're afraid that if elected you'd forget your priorities of freedom and small government? In other words, you’d run as the “right man for the job” but end up just acting in ways that keep you in office. Or is it that you don't think you'd be electable at all, because of your views on government, so you don't want to try? Or maybe, based on Don’s comment before, you don’t think it’s worth the effort because life is good enough and you don’t think you’ll be able to do enough? I don’t want to imply that any reasons are bad reason; it’s just that I just don’t fully understand them."

As for what I agree with from his post. The idea of being most involved when acting privately is a good thought. A similar thing would be said with respect to acting in our best interests verses being selfish. This is a quote from the highlights of this podcast:

"Morality of capitalism: Walter: "If you want to get potatoes from Idaho to NYC, would you want the farmer to be motivated by love for you or love for himself?" What human motivation gets the most wonderful things done? "If you ask me, I'd say greed." Not robbing, but trying to get more for themselves. Cattle farmers get up in the dead of winter, make great personal sacrifice, and result is New Yorkers have meat. If New Yorkers had to depend only on those who loved them, they might have nothing to eat! Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, baker, candlestick maker example: self-interest. Public good is promoted best by private interest. "Greed" is catchier word than 'enlightened self-interest.'"