Fact vs. Public Choice Theory
[ed. note -- Dr. Niskanen originally posted this as a comment on Greg Anrig's post from Tuesday. We are reposting it here for anyone who may have missed it.]
The comments on my first post barely merit a response. The primary objective of this post was to challenge Anrig's assertion that the policies of the Bush administration have been wholly consistent with long-standing conservative principles; this is a question of fact, not of public choice theory. The dismissal of the conservative policy institutes as refuges for those who could not earn an academic appointment is absurd; I wonder whether this assertion would also be made about the Century Foundation. In my case, I have been a full professor at the University of California, both in Berkeley and Los Angeles.
In Chapter 6, Anrig describes the effort to limit and rationalize federal regulation as "Sophisticated Sabotage" by the right. In fact, President Carter was the first to establish a White House level review of federal regulation in his Council of Wage and Price Stability, a initiative that built on good studies by the center-left Brookings Institution, and this role was later strongly supported by President Clinton. The outcome of this process was a substantial reduction of the older forms of economic regulation and an increase in the federal regulation of health, safety, and the environment. I wonder what evidence that Anrig might offer that is consistent with his assertion that this was all the consequence of some conservative conspiracy.
In Chapter 7, Anrig is correct to conclude that the Milwaukee school choice experiment "hasn't worked like we thought it would in theory." Providing quality education to the children of poor single mothers has proved a major challenge to both public schools and private schools. For all that, Anrig does not acknowledge that the Wisconsin legislature increased the number of voucher-eligible students from 1% of the Milwaukee public school enrollment to 15%, removed the restriction that participating private schools must be nonsectarian, and reduced the state regulations to which these schools are subject, nor does he explain why this experiment has received high marks from two Harvard professors. Something must be going right.
Wow, somebody's in a snit!
Unfortunately, Niskanen barely merits a response.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 20, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
[...] In my case, I have been a full professor at the University of California, both in Berkeley and Los Angeles. [...]
[...] built on good studies by the center-left Brookings Institution [...]
[...] this experiment has received high marks from two Harvard professors [...]
Niskasen's entire post is based on a logical fallacy: the argument from authority.
Give facts and figures, not a list of credentials or supporters, and I'll consider your claims then.
September 20, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. Niskanen's point seems to be that deregulation can't be ascribed to a "right-wing conspiracy."
Carter and airline deregulation? Clinton and telecommunications deregulation?
And as for public choice theory --
"In April [1998], Vice President Gore ordered agency heads to make it easier for employees to get waivers from internal rules and regulations. Gore said many federal agencies' internal policies have no basis in law and simply stand in the way of efficient government." GovernmentExecutive.com
September 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, ok, valid criticism, but keep in mind that this "post" was not originally written as a "post," but as a response comment on Greg Anrig's thread (link to that at the top of this page.) The editors here made it into a full "post," not the writer. It's not like lots of commenters don't do similar all the time.
September 20, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever walk around Berkeley? Meet people?
Just wondering.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 20, 2007 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Nice double standard.
Republicans aren't real conservatives but Cato is full of real professors! So nobody'd better tar Cato with any of the Republicans' dumb ideas.
However, it's perfectly OK to tar Democrats with the dumb conservative ideas that Carter and Clinton bought into. For that, Dr. Niskanen is happy to provide examples. What a treat.
September 21, 2007 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cute. For the second time in as many replies, Niskanen feels compelled to smugly declare the work of his opponents unworthy even of comment, before commenting on them.
Charming and classy, William.
James Fallows called this technique, common on the right, condescension from below.
September 21, 2007 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I should have added, before my response, that this post barely merited a response.)
September 21, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good lesson in making enemies. Kind of like our foreign policy.
But remember, conservatives like enemies, it keeps them focussed.
September 21, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goodie, I'm glad to have another crack at the esteemed Dr. Niskanen. First off, I'm not suprised that he objects to the mentioning of the fact that his organization is the progeny of the John Birch Society--i'd want to keep that quiet too!
The Cato Institute represents itself as a Libertarian organization, believing in free markets and small government. This all sounds well and good, however, peeling back the language, 'small government' is really code for 'deregulation.' Of course, the Koch brothers would like to have as few laws as possible governing their operations, however:
Which brings me to my favorite quote of Niskanen's:
...the left has not made any broadly appealing policy proposals for over 30 years.
I think the catch here is that we at TPM are discussing the People of the United States, while Mr. Niskanen is referring to US Corporate Interests. Of course, all of the environmental gains of the past 40 years have made huge positive gains in the quality of our environment, and the health of our citizens, while Niskanen probably sees this aspect as merely a negative operating cost for big business, and an impediment to the all-important corporate profit.
September 21, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...the left has not made any broadly appealing policy proposals for over 30 years."
Greg's thesis concerned achieving goals of governance; Niskanen thinks about selling a policy. So maybe Left proposals haven't been passed, or weren't "broadly appealing". I'm not convinced of the seond, but the discussion was about programs that were begun (or stopped), and the results of those actions. It's not about who is getting their bills passed.
If Mr. Kiskanen thinks he is representative of conservative thinking, he's not showing it in a good light if he misses the whole point of the discussion.
September 21, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Anrig's chapter on social security is his arithmetic. This chapter takes the same line that the Century Fund has taken for years, essentially downplaying social security's financial problems by adopting the narrowest form of actuarial accounting.
Anrig argues that a mere 2 two percentage point increase in the payroll tax would solve everything, an arguement that assumes that the trust fund is an asset to the government. And he takes a strict 75 year actuarial period, ignoring anh shortfall thereafter.
He claims that the net liability of social security is only $3 trillion and that the delay is only $160 billion a year. The Trustees Report now estimates that the total liability is now $15.5 trillion and the cost of delay is $660 billion a year.
Second, he dismisses the possibility that personal accounts cannot generate a higher rate of return than social security, a position with which we difffer but recognize that is a serious issue. Even if Anrig is correct, however, his argument would only apply to the transition period, not beyond.
Finally, when criticising "progressive price indexing," he says that the result would be lower total benefits than simply cutting benefits to a sustainable level. He reaches this conclusion by subtracting revenues diverted to personal accounts and assuming no return at all to those accounts,
In summary, I regret participating in this discussion of the Anrig book, in which both the book and the discusion have no respect for analysis and evidence and are too quick to impugn the motive or question the intelligence of anyone who does not agree
September 24, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir, the academic background, or lack thereof, of the denizens of such august institutions as Hudson, Heritage, AEI, Manhattan, and any of the other marketing machines that Olin, Scaife, Coors, Bradley, et al, have funded over the years, is hardly the issue.
It's the fact that these junk tanks provide refuge from the peer-review process of fact- and procedure-checking, at the expense of writing to the corporate funders' agenda.
I won't even discuss that the RealUglyOnes use these oubliettes to buy off former Administration members who know too much but have no funds, and might be tempted to, shall we say, tell the truth about all things Republican AND conservative.
You've been a prof at Berkeley and LA, and George Will is a great baseball reporter. Neither of particular value to the 'conservative' argument.
September 24, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink