David: While I don’t disagree with you on policy grounds, a
government program doesn’t have to work very well to develop a
political constituency. It is easier for beneficiaries to see the
check they are receiving in the mail, for example, than the net
effect of the subsidy on the cost of what is being subsidized.
Medicare and Medicaid are certainly responsible for a good deal
of the cost-shifting and inflation in our healthcare system; both
programs still command significant constituencies that would oppose
any cuts. Student loans may bid up education costs, but whenever
cuts or higher interest rates are proposed, many students cry foul.
The Democrats’ basic approach to education and healthcare has been
the same since the New Deal. Despite the obvious flaws in their
programs, polls still usually show them with advantages on both
issues.
Our political culture contains something of a pro-subsidy bias,
as long as the electorate believes the recipient is deserving. That
doesn’t mean a program can never fail so badly or cost the
taxpayers so much that the electorate will revolt — consider the
Republicans and welfare reform in the 1990s. But passing an
economically counterproductive policy isn’t, I’m afraid,
necessarily credibility-destroying.
