Utah's senate primary will be held in less than a week, and deserves serious attention from us as voters. Whichever of the republican candidates who wins is almost certain to win in November, and probably be an incumbent for many terms to come. I've decided to summarize my thoughts on the candidates, from the perspective of an economist and political observer. Please forgive the unsolicited advice if it isn't helpful; and feel free to pass it along to others if it is helpful.
Stakes are high
First, my singular concern for the current elections is to shift the congress back to fiscal conservatives. My professional opinion is that our federal government is heading in the wrong direction on every economic policy.
- Entitlement spending (Social Security and Medicare) were already posed to bury us in debt in the next two decades. Instead of trying to fix the shortfall, we have expanded our obligations in Obamacare (and financed it using the very tax increases that could have shored up Social Security and Medicare!)
- Freddie and Fannie, banks, AIG, and US auto companies made reckless decisions for a reason: they knew they were "too big to fail" and would be rescued in the worst case scenario. Instead of forcing these companies to reckon with their decisions, we have bailed them out, and thus guaranteed that they will repeat these bad behaviors in the future.
- Federal spending is run amok with frivolous pet projects --- you can bet that Alaskans would never build that bridge to nowhere if they have to pay for it themselves. We need to have all projects with purely local benefits pushed to the local level (Jason Chaffetz has this rule in funding decisions); yet the "stimulus" bill was the most egregious case of funding the trivial using money not just from other states but from other generations!!
To be clear, these disasters have been amplified over the last two years, but the eight years prior were equally reckless on fiscal conservatism. The way I see it, our so-called conservative leaders knew that we would vote for them for our social values, and so they could abuse the fiscal principles whenever it was convenient. Sadly, Bob "TARP" Bennett had a major hand in this decade of extravagance, with spending growth outpacing the Clinton years.
Who do you trust?
This is why I am very skittish in choosing the new republican guard. We've been betrayed by big-government-spenders in conservatives clothing in a major way, and those betrayals are largely responsible for the party's ouster in '06 and '08. I think all republicans know the right "buzz words" to use; the question in my mind is, "Do they really believe it?"
First, does he actually understand what conservative principles mean --- how they translate into specific policies? I can't tell you how aggravating it is to hear someone call himself a Reagan conservative, then proclaim his support government ventures into private enterprise, like iProvo (a.k.a. adventures in wasting money). Clearly there's a disconnect there, and we can't afford to elect someone who doesn't get it.
Second, will he stand by his principles, or can they be purchased? How committed is he? Now, I realize that politicians need to find compromise to find an acceptable middle ground. But there are some aspects that we can't accept; otherwise we'll just be killing the country more slowly than the other guys.
On this basis, I stand firmly with Mike Lee. It hasn't been easy to reach this decision; both candidates have very similar policy proposals and speak the same buzz words. So let me cite the evidence that convinced me that Lee is a true fiscal conservative, and raises doubts about Bridgewater. It is possible that Tim Bridgewater is a solid conservative, but while there is any doubt, I am standing where I am more confident. The risk is too high that Tim is a Bush rather than a Reagan.
On the Issues:
It's hard to discern any significant differences in the policy proposals of the two candidates. Both are full bore on repeal and replace of Obamacare, favor a flat income tax, eschew earmarks, etc. But frankly, these are exactly the positions you would have to take to be politically viable this year. A person can spend hours trying to read between the lines of their website parsing words, but it's hard to infer much beyond the fact that both men are solidly proclaiming the Tea Party approach to fiscal reform.
So this forces me to search for evidence as to whether they will govern the way they campaign. Neither has a track record in government, so unfortunately we have to put a lot of stock in the indirect evidence available. For me, there are:
Their employment history:
This has been a dominant topic in recent ads against Mike Lee. Now I'm sure we're all a bit suspicious of lawyers --- heck, I've got three in my family :-). But there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. Mike is not one of those product liability or medical malpractice lawyers who try to make a mountain of a mole hill (and a fortune from the dispute). He has been focused on constitutional law --- ensuring that our rights under that inspired document are correctly understood.
I take particular comfort knowing that he was a clerk for Justice Alito twice (once when Alito was on an appeals court, and later when he entered the Supreme Court), who is strongly committed to interpreting the constitution under its original intent. This speaks volumes of Mike's own commitment to the rule of law and fidelity to the constitution's limited government. I also trust that Mike is in the image of his father, Rex Lee, who was an excellent legal scholar and served under Reagan as solicitor general.
Now, on Tim Bridgewater. I think most people like the idea of having a "real businessman" in office, in hopes that he will understand the process of creating jobs and hopefully have more respect for the free market. As an economist, I think those hopes are ill-founded. Just because you own a business doesn't mean that you want a free market. Sure, you want government to get out of YOUR way, but more often than not, a businessman is happy to have government get in their COMPETITOR'S way.
(For instance, the company he worked for, Raser Technologies, happily went to the trough to snag federal "stimulus" dollars. Now, Tim was their consultant, not their owner, so I don't want to make too much of this, but it does make me nervous.)
And they just because you can run one business, you may not see how a policy affects the whole nation. This is the difference between micro and macro economics --- sometimes the moving to the big picture isn't just repeating what happens at the individual level. A simple example: if a government gives one guy $1000, he'll be able to buy something more with it. If it gives everyone $1000, you'll just get inflation, and no one is better off.
So be careful about assuming businessman = free market economics. Just look at the likes of Warren Buffet and George Soros; sure, they've got business savvy, but I don't trust either one of them to set economic policy. The question is whether Tim has and sticks to true principles, and being a businessman doesn't ensure this.
The Company They Keep
It is surely true that not all endorsements are created equal; it wouldn't be useful to just count the numbers on each side, for instance. But a few key ones can be very revealing.
In Mike's case, the ones that catch my attention are Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, and Mark Levin. These are proven and faithful fiscal conservatives who felt they can trust Mike more than Tim.
A few of Tim's endorsements, on the other hand, are downright troubling. First, there's the fact that Bennett endorsed Tim; if Bob thinks Tim is more to his tastes, I'm all the more in favor of Mike. Another that really disturbs me is that Tim proudly accepted the endorsement of the Utah Medical Association. This group endorses Health Care reform a la Obamacare: cover everyone, forced participation, no letting people opt for less coverage if they are healthier.
(This is also another example of why you can't just trust a businessman. Doctors organizations aren't particularly likely to think of what is in the national best interest; they just like the idea of more patients and being able to do procedures without concern for billing and prices. Might sound good, but one should understand the consequences; see my blog on health care.)
No comments:
Post a Comment