Wisdom of Rodney Dangerfield
10 August 2008
Editor, New York Post
Dear Editor:
John Edwards is merely the latest politician caught lying about his bad behavior ("No Test for 'Love Lips' John," August 10).
This little tempest should serve to remind us of the wisdom contained in the late Rodney Dangerfield's lament about a string of bad fortune: "The way my luck is running, if I were a politician I'd be honest."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
What a Character
9 August 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Gail Collins nicely compares the character of Grover Cleveland with that of John Edwards ("Ken Doll in Lust," August 9). Cleveland courageously protected his philandering law-partner's reputation by giving his name to a child whom he really did not father. Edwards, in contrast, first lied about his philandering, and then excused it by noting that his wife's cancer was in remission!
But an even more noteworthy difference separates these two men. Unlike the protectionist Edwards who believes that government should redistribute wealth to the poor, Cleveland was a free trader who believed in personal responsibility. Arguing in his second inaugural address that "the lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned," Pres. Cleveland declared that "its [government's] functions do not include the support of the people."
Grover Cleveland's laissez-faire ideals are today sadly out of fashion. So, too, is his excellence of character.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Party Stupid!
8 August 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman is confused ("Know-Nothing Politics," August 8). While I agree that Bush's attack on Iraq was both stupid and immoral, many of the reasons that persons on the left (such as Mr. Krugman) offer against military intervention abroad apply equally to "liberals'" case for government intervention domestically.
Just as many on the right naively fantasize that foreign problems are best solved by force, "liberals" fantasize that domestic problems - real and imaginary - are best solved by force. Jobs disappearing in Ohio? No problem - force Americans to buy fewer foreign goods. Too many Americans without health insurance? Force taxpayers to give it to them. The "distribution" of income doesn't satisfy some Very Caring Person's criterion? Government should forcibly redistribute. A mine collapses in West Virginia? Uncle Sam should force mine-owners to increase safety. See. All very simple.
Unlike Mr. Krugman, I believe that both political parties are the party of the stupid - specifically Republicans are the party of the stupid and the hypocritical and the Democrats are the party of the stupid and the arrogant.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
No Plunder
7 August 2008
Director, Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis
Dear Sir or Madam:
I received your e-mail encouraging me to ask my representatives in Congress to vote for H.R. 6567, which would "increase federal research funding for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis."
Even though in March IPF killed my dear mother, I cannot join your crusade for more taxpayer funding to fight this horrible disease. Congress does not conjure resources from thin air; any resources devoted to finding a cure for IPF must be taken from some other use - and there's no reason to suppose that Congress can judge better than private individuals how best to use resources. Who's to say that resources taken by government from the private sector to support IPF research would not yield even greater long-term benefits by being left in the private sector? Perhaps resources devoted to IPF research would otherwise have been used to cure leukemia or to develop an automobile engine powered by water.
More importantly, being touched tragically by that disease gives me no moral claim to have Congress, in my name, take resources from other people. I can, and do, ask people to voluntarily fund IPF research. I cannot, and will not, support any effort to force them to do so.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Where's My Culturally Appropriate Health Care?
6 August 2008
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
La Clinica del Pueblo's Mauricio Silva boasts that his clinic supplies "culturally appropriate health care" (Letters, August 6). I love this idea! And I presume that in this age in which diversity is celebrated and all cultural preferences are equally respected and protected, I can receive my own culturally appropriate health care.
In my culture - call it individualist - I am not forced to pay for anyone else's health care and no one else is forced to pay for mine. I'm free to choose to buy health-care insurance as long as it isn't forcibly subsidized. And persons in my culture are mortally offended at the prospect of being forced to participate in any collective scheme of health-care financing or provision.
I call upon all persons respecting diverse cultures to stand up for mine, which today is endangered - to help me and my fellow individualists protect our culture from forcible assimilation with the dominant one that is arrogantly trying to strip us of our unique cultural folkways.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Minimum-Wage and Poverty
5 August 2008
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
You should rethink your "Rethinking minimum wage" (August 5). First, your history is flawed; the federal minimum wage began in 1938, not in the 1950s. More importantly, it's untrue that "the data...are compelling" that "a minimum wage is helpful in the fight against poverty." Economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, in research published last year in the respected scholarly journal Contemporary Economic Policy, find that "minimum-wage increases (1988-2003) did not affect poverty rates overall, or among the working poor or among single mothers."* This finding is consistent not only with the fact that only a tiny fraction of workers (less than 5 percent of the workforce) are paid wages as low as the minimum, and not only with the fact that 80 percent of minimum-wage workers live in non-poor households, but with other rigorous studies.**
There's no factual basis for your suggestion that researchers have formed a consensus that minimum-wage hikes reduce poverty.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
* http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1295049071.html
** http://www.epionline.org/studies/vedder_06-2001.pdf
What's Fair?
4 August 2008
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Your editorial page today offers much evidence of the incessant talk about tax "fairness." But the issue is far more difficult than most people suppose - and more serious than pontificating politicians pretend it to be. In the early 1990s economist Steven Landsburg showed why by asking a simple question:
"Suppose that Jack and Jill draw equal amounts of water from a community well. Jack's income is $10,000, of which he is taxed 10%, or $1,000, to support the well. Jill's income is $100,000, of which she is taxed 5%, or $5,000, to support the well. In which direction is the policy unfair?"
An honest person will admit that this question has no indisputably right answer. Prof. Landsburg then asked "If I can't tell what's fair in a world of two people and one well, how can I tell what's fair in a country with 250 million people and tens of thousands of government services?"*
If only politicians were so honest and humble.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department f Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
* Steven E. Landsburg, The Armchair Economist (New York: The Free Press, 1993), p. 49.
