Ratify New START

Our friend Dr. Preble of Cato does a fine job in this post * both summarizing the state of play on New START ratification and linking to pertinent articles for further background.  I've taken my time on this one, reading both the for and against positions with respect to the treaty.  And while I believe the Obama Administration is dangerously under-resourcing the modernization of our nuclear stockpile, the treaty before us is a worthwhile exercise of super-power statecraft that modestly reduces the numbers of nuclear weapons each nation can field.  I find the arguments raised by Republicans against the treaty to be largely unpersuasive and mostly reflective of petty politics and in some cases, unthinking ideological rigidity. 

That said, Mr. Obama's reasons for advocating this treaty must of course be taken with a grain of salt.  His frequently made assertion that US/Russian treaties that limit the number of weapons they can field leads other nations to choose not to build them--is simply lunacy.  Nations build nuclear weapons because they feel it is in their interest to do so. 

Secondly, Mr. Obama has on many occasions talked about this being a step to a nuclear free world.  The suggestion that the world would be SAFER without nuclear weapons (at all) just does not pass the sniff test.


* Preble chooses to make his point however in classic  libertarian fashion--which is to adopt the "look, look,  they're both wrong" approach to policy.  Whether it means pointing out errors in thinking between liberals or conservatives, or within those groups, I do grow weary of (my perception of) academic libertarians as a bit holier than thou.....

Krugman Is Answered, Again

Paul Krugman took to his perch on the NYT Editorial page yesterday to make yet another statement on macroeconomics that struck me as misguided when I first read it. But since Krugman won the NOBEL PRIZE, I generally feel I ought to defer to him. Unless of course, real economists also say he's crazy.

Which brings me to this post from our friends at Cato. Krugman states in his column today that "Both textbook economics and experience say that slashing spending when you’re still suffering from high unemployment is a really bad idea — not only does it deepen the slump, but it does little to improve the budget outlook, because much of what governments save by spending less they lose as a weaker economy depresses tax receipts."

Cato's answer concentrates on the "slashing spending" part--pointing to the post-WWII US experience in which spending was cut dramatically in one year. In Krugman's defense (or is it contra-Cato), the US was hardly suffering from "high unemployment" at war's end--though the return and discharge of millions of servicemen did raise that specter.

Slope-Mongering

Richard Thaler, co-author of Nudge, provides a well-argued response to Glen Whitman's critique of libertarian paternalism.

...the risk of the slippery slope appears to be a figment of Professor Whitman’s imagination, and clear evidence of his bathmophobia. To be fair to him, this phobia is hardly unique to him and Professor Rizzo. Slope-mongering is a well-worn political tool used by all sides in the political debate to debunk any idea they oppose. For example, when the proposal was made to replace the draft with an all-volunteer army, the opponents said this would inevitably lead to all kinds of disastrous consequences because we were turning our military into a band of mercenaries. The argument is perfectly versatile. If we allow (blacks, women, gays. . . .) into the military then (fill in the awful but inevitable consequence here). If we allow free speech then we will give voice to the next Hitler.

Instead of slope-mongering we should evaluate proposals on their merits. (We devote a chapter of Nudge to an evaluation of the choice architecture used in Sweden’s social security experience.) Helping people make better choices, as judged by themselves, is really not a controversial goal, is it?

Cato On "The New Paternalism"

Glen Whitman of Cato has a longish, but very well-argued point here on what he calls "The New Paternalism", or the increasing tendency of government to intervene "moderately" in areas where it previously did not wield influence. Whitman's best argument is sampled below:

"This would be no great concern, were it not for the tendency of the middle ground to shift over time. A newly adopted middle-ground quickly becomes the status quo. Then a more intrusive option takes center stage, and what used to be the middle-ground becomes one of the bookends. To take just one example, legally mandated enrollment in savings plans (with exit option) seems like the middle ground right now. But once it becomes standard, it will occupy the laissez-faire position. Then a “Save More Tomorrow” policy (with exit option) becomes the new middle-ground. And once that has been adopted, it too becomes the low-end, while automatic enrollment with freedom to choose your investments but without the option to exit entirely becomes the middle. By this route, a series of minor steps can eventually make even mandatory enrollment with specified minimums, highly restricted investments, and no opt-out seem like the “reasonable middle.”

Cato Video on the Real Costs of Public Education

Three minute video that shows how the debate over school funding is often obscured by fast and loose accounting by school districts.

A Great Post On Campaign Finance From Cato

Can be found here.

Key graph:

"The next time someone tells you that donations are “legalized bribery,” ask them why Obama took $18 million from Wall Street and gave them in return endless abuse and hostile legislation.

Quid pro quo, indeed."

Dr. Preble on Obama and Afghanistan

Our favorite libertarian foreign policy expert, Dr. Chris Preble of The Cato Institute, has an interesting podcast up on the Cato website. Dr. Preble's not a fan of Obama's plan--and he makes a lot of sense on a lot of points.

One point I with which I will take issue: Preble says "the American people HATE open-ended commitments" (speaking in support of the President's 18 month limit). Perhaps--but they hate losing more.

Buyers Remorse at Cato?

I've written here before about my affinity for The Cato Institute, the premier libertarian think-tank in DC. I think they are intellectually honest, and they generally do a good job of helping to shape major policy debates by representing the all-important "small government/individual rights" view. Besides that, my homey Dr. C is a big wig there.

That said, I came across this little doozie on the Cato website this morning, dropped there by another big-wig, David Boaz. In it, Boaz brings our attention to yet another encroachment of big-Washington government upon our daily lives, an initiative to have the Feds provide oversight to subway systems.

I'm glad Boaz and Cato are on the beat here--but they simply don't have the standing to do so, given that Cato was an intellectual birthplace of Liberaltarianism, the fusion of liberal principles and libertarianism that rose up as a reaction to some of George Bush's policies. What I'm getting at here is while strict libertarians may have had some issues with GWB (as did strict Conservatives for that matter), did they really think they'd get anywhere in a one-night stand with modern American liberals? Did they really think that once they got in power, the left would suddenly transmogrify into a free-market, low regulation, bong-hit supporting movement (well, I suppose they are getting a little return on their investment in the Administration's treatment of medical pot)?

Libertarians need to make peace with the fact that they'll always be unhappy politically, because neither of the parties goes far enough for them, and neither of the major movements (conservatism or liberalism) aligns closely enough either. But the plain truth of the matter is that the Republican Party and the Conservative movement will always be closer to Libertarians--even when Libertarians try to make us jealous by "sleeping around".