And Reaching New Levels of Incoherency
You gotta give the NYT credit for trying to present
different points of view. The paper has
given over part of its OP/Ed pages to conservatives. But year after year, conservative after
conservative the effort fails because there don’t appear to be any
conservatives who purport sanity. Here
is one of the blithering buffoons, David Brooks from a recent opining.
In a press conference, Cotton offered
a rationale for his bill. “There’s no denying this generation-long surge in
low-skilled immigration has hurt blue-collar wages,” he said. If we can reduce
the number of low-skill immigrants coming into the country, that will reduce
the pool of labor, put upward pressure on wages and bring more Americans back
into the labor force.
It seems like a plausible argument.
That is, until you actually get out in the real world.
Cotton and Perdue’s position, which
is now the mainstream Republican position, is based on the unconscious
supposition that American society is like a lake, with a relatively fixed
boundary. If you cut the supply of fish coming from outside, there will be more
food for the ones born here.
The problem is that American society
is actually more like a river. Sometimes the river is running high, with a lot
of volume and flow, with lots of good stuff for everybody, and sometimes it’s
running low.
Really, that is word for word. Can’t say we have every heard of the American
economy being like a lake full of hungry fish.
That is, if we understand what he is saying correctly, which is doubtful
because he probably doesn’t understand what he is saying.
But the prize goes to Ross Douthat, who has decided he will
pass on some half baked ideas as wisdom.
So as an experiment, I
thought I’d write a few columns (an intermittent series, as events permit)
floating genuinely radical visions of how policy makers might respond to our
order’s slippage toward something worse than stagnation.
Okay, that sound intriguing, except for this.
These will not be ideas
that I find entirely convincing, they will not be fully fleshed-out,
And to prove that point he goes on to propose this.
So an emergency response would set a
more ambitious goal: a swift boost in work force participation and family
formation, using a few sticks and a lot of very expensive carrots.
The carrots would include a large
wage subsidy and a
large per-child tax credit and a
substantial corporate tax cut and an
employer-side payroll tax holiday to encourage hiring. They would also include
an infrastructure bill written to include a certain amount of make-work
spending, and an increase in government hiring in traditionally-male fields —
more military spending earmarked for recruitment, more federal cash for hiring
cops.
The sticks would include cuts to
disability and unemployment benefits and tighter Medicaid eligibility rules for
the able-bodied — not as “pay fors,” but simply to make sustained worklessness
less pleasant.
Well let’s see. First
of all we already have a large wage subsidy, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Okay, good idea to raise it, but that’s
nothing new. And a larger per child tax
credit? Well the policy is to address
men who aren’t working, and taking care of children is not the reason why. More hiring for the police, gee an idea that
Bill Clinton came up 25 years ago with and successfully implemented. Tighter Medicaid eligibility for the able
bodied? Apparently Mr. Douthat has no
idea how strict Medicaid already is. And
of course with ACA, staying out of the workforce to get health care is no longer
an issue, but will be once his Republicans repeal ACA.
Cut unemployment benefits?
Well if Mr. Douthat thinks he could live on unemployment pay we welcome
him to try. We give him a week.
And here’s what to look forward from Mr. Douthat.
The scale of spending means
this proposal gores more conservative oxen than liberal ones. But that’s only
because I’m saving a related proposal to ban pornography and video games for a
later installment in this series — which I promise will only grow more
outlandish as it grows.
Seriously? Now
outlandish is fine but shouldn’t there be just a little thought behind what one
writes for the Times. Well getting a
conservative with a little thought may be beyond even the capacity of the
Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment