Critics call the Republican Party hypocritical for convening in a government-built arena.
By William McGurn, WSJ Opinion, August 28, 2012
To learn about crowding out click here.
Apologies to liberals and/or innumerates whose heads are exploding |
Gotcha.
Ever since Republican convention officials announced their We-Built-It theme
for Tuesday night, pundits have been gleefully pointing out that the GOP
festivities will be held in an arena constructed with 62% government funding.
Just shows what hypocrites these Republicans are, goes the received wisdom.
Maybe not. It's true that the Tampa Bay Times Forum was originally
constructed with $86 million from local taxpayers. It's true too that the Tampa
Convention Center just two blocks away, where reporters covering the GOP
gathering will be working, offers an even more egregious example of government
subsidy. Still, it's also true that finding a sports facility these days that
would meet a convention's needs and hasn't in some way been underwritten by
government largess is no easy thing.
Which provokes the great unasked question: What does it say about America
circa 2012 when even those campaigning for less spending find themselves the
beneficiaries of that spending?
Lord knows Republicans have more than once dropped their own snouts in the
federal trough. How often have we watched the same Republican who decries the
expansion of some welfare program happily go on to vote for more federal funding
for ethanol? This brand of imposture was vividly on display in the highway and
farm bills passed in the 2000s by a Republican House under the leadership of
then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Nevertheless, the hypocrisy Republicans now find themselves accused of is of
a different order. The idea behind the snarks about the publicly financed Tampa
arena is that people are somehow guilty of hypocrisy when they benefit from an
environment they did not create and might have opposed on principle had they had
the chance.
Back in February, the New York Times gave us a taste of this when it profiled
a hard-working tea partier who turns out to have used the earned income tax
credit, to have signed up his children for federally subsidized school meals,
and to have an 88-year-old mother who twice had hip surgery paid for by
Medicare. "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It" ran the
headline, implying that people such as this man are phonies or too stupid to
realize the contradiction.
It's not only people at the lower ends of the income scale. In college, this
columnist paid tuition with student loans guaranteed by the federal government.
I deduct my mortgage interest on my taxes. I drive on highways improved by
President Obama's stimulus. I do and have done all this even though I believe
that prices would be lower and most people would be better off if we didn't have
these subsidies.
Or take Paul Ryan, who's become the newest example. This month the GOP's
vice-presidential candidate found himself accused of hypocrisy when the press
found that he'd sought stimulus funding for his own congressional district—after
having voted against the bill.
Surely the real issue here is whether people have any meaningful choice.
Because government funding tends to crowd out private funding, it leaves fewer
and more expensive options in its wake. Generally that means you have to be as
rich as Warren Buffett or living in the most inaccessible Ozarks backwoods to be
in a position to forgo federal dollars.
That goes for institutions as well. In education today, almost every
university, private as well as public, is heavily involved with government, not
least through student loans. The rare, noble exceptions tend to be small liberal
arts colleges such as Grove City or Hillsdale.
The same goes for medicine. Americans used to start up private hospitals all
the time. Does anyone imagine you could build a hospital today to serve the
entire community and keep it all private? If not, haven't we lost something?
The political reality, alas, is that the existing dynamic works to the
advantage of those who want even more government. That's because it imposes an
impossible standard for purity.
Under this standard, a congressman who votes against a spending bill that
passes is deemed a hypocrite unless he then stands aside as federal dollars are
doled out to everyone but his constituents. In like manner, a husband and wife
who believe the government should get out of housing face the same charge if
they take the mortgage-interest deduction on their taxes. Almost no one can meet
that standard, which is the whole point of initiatives such as ObamaCare: Where
once federal programs targeted the needy, they now are designed to implicate us
all.
So here we are in Tampa in August of a presidential-election year, where the
advocates for small government find themselves in the dock because Florida
officials once spent millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the wealthy owner
of a hockey team. Definitely there's a "gotcha" here. It's just not what the
champions of Big Government think it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment