Insecure Security
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson sounds a common theme: "Historically The Democrats have been the party of security" -- meaning, the Democrats and their pet policies of high taxes and extensive regulation by government have, in this view, created security for ordinary Americans against the perils and uncertainties of free markets. Hooey. Meyerson, like too many others, mistakes rhetoric for results. Since the New Deal, Democrats -- as representatives of the Government Faithful -- have indeed championed legislation boasting titles such as "Fair Labor Standards Act" and "Full Employment Act," as well as programs sporting names such as "Social Security" and "Medicare." Sounds good. But the "Fair Labor Standards Act" -- which creates a national minimum wage - prices many unskilled workers out of the job market, cruelly casting them for long periods into the ranks of the unemployed. (This legislation, by the way, was enacted in the 1930s to protect northeastern textile mills and their workers from the upstart mills in the American south. The chief competitive advantage of southern mills was access to a low-cost labor force. How is it fair, I've always wondered, for Uncle Sam to forcibly price some workers out of jobs in order to benefit other workers?) And, of course, Social Security is wholly insecure - and becoming more insecure daily. And yet the Government Faithful somehow find it ennobling to compel ordinary men and women to participate in this insecure system. Of course, the Government Faithful also routinely clamor for higher taxes. The idea is that private citizens don't spend their own money as wisely as does government. The Government Faithful somehow persuade themselves that person A is more secure if person B forcibly takes person A's money and then spends that money allegedly on person A's behalf. Some security.
Posted at Don Boudreaux at 7:16 AM
