Who says you can’t legislate economic prosperity and job security?
The House of Representatives is not exactly a bastion of economic knowledge. But it can be a goldmine for economic educators if they know where to look. Illinois’ 2nd District is a good place to start. Containing parts of Chicago and its suburbs, the district is currently represented by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.
He recently gave two speeches on the House floor that inadvertently teach important economic lessons. In the first speech, delivered on March 2, Jackson teaches us that you can’t legislate prosperity. (You can watch it here.)
He argues for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing everyone the right to a decent home. Jackson asks, “What would that do for home construction in this nation? What would that do for millions of unemployed people?”
The Constitution should also be amended to guarantee the right to decent health care. Jackson implores, “How many doctors would such a right create?”
Education needs an amendment, too. “How many schools would such a right build, from Maine to California?” Jackson goes on to wonder how many jobs would be created by giving every student an iPad and a laptop.
Suppose that poverty really can be abolished by passing a few laws. Jackson isn’t going nearly far enough, then. The Constitution should guarantee everyone not just a decent home, but a mansion filled with servants to take care of every need.
Everyone should have the right to not just a doctor’s visit every 6 months, but a cadre of specialists with access to the latest technologies and tests. This would be a boon for life expectancy.
And why only an iPod and a laptop for children? They deserve supercomputers! And the right to a Harvard Ph.D. Such a law would give America the most educated population in the world; though it would probably know the least.
Congress might as well pass a law guaranteeing an above-average lifestyle for all Americans. Jackson has the right intentions, but results are more important. Clearly a law guaranteeing a decent living standard won’t give the results he’s after.
Jackson’s second speech, delivered on April 15, teaches us that wealth doesn’t come from jobs. It comes from innovation. (That speech is online here.)
Jackson says that the iPad — which he praised just six weeks earlier — has cost thousands of jobs. “Now Borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine,” he said.
Congress’s top priority should be job security. Publishing companies and paper companies are under attack. Government needs to protect them.
If this is the way to full employment, then Jackson is again being too moderate. In fact, Congress can guarantee full employment by passing a single law: just ban the use of farm machinery. Everyone will have a job — as a subsistence farmer. That’s how we know that the number of jobs doesn’t have much to do with actual living standards.
Wealth comes from doing more with less. The iPad gives people access to more information while using fewer resources. When competition eliminates legacy industries like paper and publishing, it releases those resources into growing sectors instead.
Supercomputers for children? Subsistence farming? These reductiones ad aburdum show how unrealistic Jackson’s economic beliefs are. They also show the way what is right.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?