Saturday, November 7, 2015

Five "Conservative" ideas that will not work

A few months ago, I entered a post entitled Progressive Ideas that Will Not Fix America's Problems.  Liberals and Democrats aren't the only ones that come up with feel-good ideas that do nothing but spend money.

1.  Testing Welfare Recipients for Drug Use

I can't understand why a fiscal conservative would be for this idea.  First of all, it's expensive.  Is it really that effective?  It can actually backfire.  If you are for testing of drug users to catch them, it doesn't work because a most users are smart enough not go anywhere near a government office if they know that there will be consequences.  If you are trying to shame them into treatment, then getting them away from the welfare office is the last thing you want to do.  It can increase panhandling as the only resort that some people will have to get by.  And it can also increase homelessness for the same reason.

In 2014, the state of Missouri spent over 330,000 to test 38,000 welfare applicants.  There were 48 positives.  There are similar results in every state where drug testing for welfare is in use.  Some see more positives, and some see fewer.  In Utah, we have been testing welfare recipients randomly since 2012.  And one thing that people have noticed, is that panhandling has increased.  But people haven't correlated the two.  But it is related.  Drug addicts have become more adverse to applying for welfare benefits, fearing that they will get caught and have to spend time in jail,  and have therefore turned to panhandling.

What will work instead?  Let's battle addiction, and not drug use.  First, we do that by taking away as many things as we possibly can that will lead to addiction.  That means eliminating job loss and alienation.  Helping people see joy and goodness in their life in spite of all of the challenges.  Second, if you want to drug test, that is fine, but emphasize that a positive test will not result in a loss of benefits, especially if the person has children and voluntarily enters into a drug treatment program.

2.  Auditing the Federal Reserve

I get it.  All financial institutions should be independently audited.  So we audit the Fed.  What happens then?

Absolutely nothing.  The Federal reserve is a bank that banks can go to when they need to borrow money.  What will we learn by auditing the Fed?  Nothing.  Will they operate any differently if they are audited?  Nope.  Let's audit the Fed, but let's not expect that things will change just because we do.

I offer no alternatives to this one.  However, if you are looking to win at a game of political gotcha, look somewhere else.

3.  Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The reason so many Republicans like this idea is that there are so many Republican-controlled legislatures where there are Democratic senators.  Virginia has a GOP-controlled legislature and 2 democratic senators.  But there are also states with legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party with Republican Senators.  At this time, if the legislators appointed senators that were from their own party, the GOP would control the senate 62-38.  This would give the GOP a filibusterer-proof majority and put them within 5 seats of an over-ride proof majority.

However, just because you have a Republican State legislature, doesn't mean you would have two Republicans in the Senate.  For example, in Nevada, you have a 11-10 GOP majority in their state senate.  And if I were Harry Reid, it probably wouldn't be difficult to convince two moderate GOP senators to vote for me by showing them how much US taxpayer money I funneled to their state.  Which brings me to my other point.  I believe a repeal of the 17th Amendment would cause more earmarks and otherwise cause more problems than it would fix.

What will work instead?  Give state legislatures the power to impeach members of congress.  This will make them more responsive to the needs of their state.  I will point out that there were weaknesses in the 17th Amendment that were not considered at the time it was passed.  The amendment does not address what a state should do if a senator becomes terminally ill, physically or mentally incapacitated, dies in office or resigns?  Therefore, the filling of a mid-term vacancy in the senate is not uniformly addressed.  That does need to be fixed.

4.  Term Limits

I am for limiting the time someone spends in office, but at the ballot box, not by statute.  I have argued in this blog time and time again against the passage of term limits.  It is a Pandora's Box that will probably make things worse than better.  If you want more information about this one, please scan this blog.

5.  Balanced Budget Amendment

48 of the 50 US states have a balanced budget act on the books, either constitutionally or by legislative action.  The claim is that almost all of them do have a balanced budget, with Illinois being the only exception.  The trouble is that most states SAY they have a balanced budget, but most of them use loopholes, tricks and other language to mask their deficit spending.

Let's take Utah, for example.  We say that we have a balanced budget, but did you know that the state still borrows money?  A capital project, such as a new highway project will be built on borrowed money.  As long as the state pays off the capitol project, before it is completed, it is not considered deficit spending under the terms of the balanced budget statute.  Therefore, it a new highway project will take 5 years to complete, the state can borrow all of the money it will take to complete the project and it still will be considered a non-debt as long as it is paid for in five years.

The second problem is that even though most states have a balanced budget statute, none of those states spell out a punitive action for failure not to balance the budget.  But what can you do?  Would it be fair to include in the amendment that members of congress would be ineligible for election if they fail?

Actually, that is really the crux of the problem with the federal government and their run-away spending.  There are no real consequences if we don't balance the budget.  Expect for consequences down the road, in a generation or two if we fail.  Most current members of Congress will be long dead by the time that happens.

Many states also use a big infusion of federal dollars to balance their budgets.  Do not expect many to willingly give that up.  There is probably no state in the US that can balance their books without money from the Federal Government.  The US Congress doesn't have that luxury.

What will work instead?

Again, focus on the economy.  We have no trouble increasing government spending when the economy is weak.  We must be strong enough to cut the federal spending when the economy is strong, when public sector employees can find jobs in the private sector and when senior bureaucrats, senior military officers and other experienced civil servants are more likely to succeed as entrepreneurs.  When the economy was hot in the 1990's, the GOP was too focused on tax cuts and the democrats were more focused on changing the world through government sponsored social programs.

Let's try this for a new meme, there is no surplus while the government has debts to pay.  Or how about this one, a strong economy is the time for government to pay back debts, not make new ones.