ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Your concern is valid, the legislators should care more about the content of laws than about re-election. However, describing this as one party problem is naive and, frankly, just this side of ignorant.
jlr,
I'm not sure what "this side of ignorant" is, but I didn't describe it as a one-party problem. Notice that this post is about public choice, not about Democratic Party choice. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, on war.
David
David, the critique of public choice is that that it says that's true is trivial, and that what it says that's not trivial is false.
You're giving an example of the first. What reader of a newspaper or political scientist going back, say, to Machiavelli did not know that politicians need to do things to acquire power? Repeating this in theoretical form is trivial.
What would not be trivial is showing that *all* politicians care about is power (or money). But such a finding would be false.
Sorry, should read "what it says that's true is trivial..."
[The preview button is on the blink.]
Actually, the tacticians for "change" in the U S healthcare system aim to drive the private sector cost curve upwards at an accelerating rate.
The effect will be to cause those impacted to succumb to provisions for cost redistribution through governmentaly directed operations.
What scares me about the non-trivial conclusions of public choice isn't that all that politicians care about is getting re-elected. This is trivially false and not what I believe the theory implies.
I agree more with R. Richard that the non-trivial implication of public choice is that some politicians may be deliberately intending to make a problem worse while claiming to fix it.
Presumably the motivation for this duplicity would be to profit politically from the future crisis by blaming it on actors literally framed by the implications of the original bill.
Actually, maybe this conclusion is trivial after all. Certainly, Machiavelli would have approved.
Public choice theory predicts that politicians will dismiss public choice theory.
Jeffrey,
"What would not be trivial is showing that *all* politicians care about is power (or money). But such a finding would be false."
Actually, I think there is very solid evidence that the statement is true. Politicians never create and offer a service with a risk that no one will pay for it. They make us pay first and then design some level of "service" that ensures them a profit. That is, they always take the money (and power) up front.
As a corollary: Keep in mind that practically all complex legislative constructs are done by the un-elected (staffs), not those who will face the electorate.
It has become more important to understand the make-up of those un-elected and how they come to their posts and with what agendae.
This issue is a great overlooked factor in both the proliferation of legislation and the disconnect between the electorate and the mechanism of federal (or large state) government.
R. Richard Schweitzer
"In other words, what matters to them is that they do what's necessary to get reelected regardless of the contents."
Why that is:
Providing they bother to read anything at all, most people go only so far as to look at the headlines or, in the case of the slightly more industrious, the first line or two from each article. They listen to radio stations that recycle the same news every 10 minutes. The information they pick up from the Internet is what they happen to notice at Yahoo! when they retrieve their e-mails. Most of what they watch on television is commentary that supports their point of view, but provides very little detail.
They select their representatives based upon the claims made in the campaign junk mail they receive.
As a result, most people are clueless when it comes to issues such as National Healthcare and will remain clueless until it affects them personally. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late. :\
David,
It looks like this is another clear example of the Principal-Agent problem inherent in our representative form of government. The incentives of the agent (congressman) are not aligned with the best interest of the principals (electorate) in our government. I still believe, to paraphrase Churchill, a representative democracy is the worst form government except for all the others that have been tried.