The Southern Male Democrat

It looks like we’re in for a wild ride during these last seven weeks before the election! As we enter the home stretch, one thought keeps recurring to me; there is a cost of doing nothing.

Before we can consider that point, we must first acknowledge one truth. The choice in the presidential election is not about individual competence (at least at the top of the ticket…  ). Arguing the red herring of “experience” between Senators McCain and Obama ignores the fact that both candidates, having won their parties’ primaries, have already been vetted by the millions and millions of people who voted in the primaries. Over the roughly 18 month primary process, these candidates have had to prove their mettle through countless debates, interviews, town halls and good ol’fashioned one-on-one voter contact. Candidates who aren’t ready for prime-time, don’t win their primaries - it’s sort of a natural selection process. You may be a die-hard Republican who’s not going to vote for Obama no matter what, but you’d have a tall order to argue that he would be incompetent. Likewise, I may disagree with nearly all of McCain’s policy positions, but at least I know he’s not a dummy who would be in over his head. Both men are equally suited to lead their party’s charge to convince people - “try it our way.”

And finally, we have arrived at my point - when you take personal qualities (which, as I’ve said a gazillion times, no one can accurately judge via mass media snippets) off the table and consider the debate for the direction of our country, there is a cost of doing nothing.

The general argument for conservativism is this - “Government is the problem. To try and use government to solve problems equates with socialism as it costs the taxpayers hard-earned money.” Granted, that’s a little broad, but is not too far off the mark. Regardless of the issue - education, healthcare, taxes, etc. it always boils down to arguing against burdens placed on the individual in solving our nation’s collective problems. Fair enough? As an admitted partisan Democrat, that line of thought just doesn’t seem very deep to me.

Sure, there’s an easy argument to say - “The Obama tax plan will give me less money in my pocket. “(Of course, the Republicans aren’t telling you that only 5% of Americans could feasibly say that.) Or - “National health insurance is “socialized medicine” and will cost all of us more in taxes.

But why don’t the people making those type of arguments take the NEXT step, and show us what the status quo is costing all of us right now? After all, these problems don’t go away just because the government doesn’t fund them. For example -

The number of Americans without health insurance increases every year. (Let me head some googling smart ass off at the pass. YES - that number decreased last year, but it was the result of more poor kids being covered by government programs.) But if any of these people are are injured, or fall seriously ill, they still receive treatment, right? And all of us with insurance pay for that in our premiums, and the number of people in the existing government programs rises, thus costing us more tax money.  So what’s the cost of what we do now versus trying a government solution?

The vaunted free-market has yet to come close to solving our energy problem.  Our economy (and our national security) is tied at the hip to a non-renewable resource. The ever-rising cost of oil ripples throughout the economy and makes everything cost more, in a time when most people have less. But mention increasing fuel effenciencies and you’re branded as Karl Marx for daring to compel a company to take action faster than the market may dictate. So what’s the cost of what we do now versus trying a government solution?

Every time there’s talk of raising the minimum wage, the old chestnut gets rolled about about how business can’t afford it, they’ll have to pass the costs along to the consumer and lay people off because they can’t afford it. Ummm….how about the savings business will see through decreased turnover? How about the increased effenciency they’ll get through a more motivated workforce? For a big business, if you’re worried about showing that extra quarter percent of profit, why not cut the salaries of CEOs and upper management, who make 364 times what the average worker makes. (a gap that has risen steadlily over the last 30 years…).

Now I am no policy wonk, so I am not going to get into debating each of these issues tit for tat in the comments section.  Again, my point is that there is a cost of doing nothing. Each of the examples above show different ways of looking at a given problem beyond cost to the individual in the short term.

And now for the grand finale. Anyone who knows the SMD figured I was setting up the “gotcha” so here it is. Under Democratic Administrations the government gets bigger and under Republican Administrations it gets smaller, right? (again, generally - for example, the cost of government grew under President Bush as the result of military spending - don’t quibble - work with me here…)

It turns out that there is indeed a cost of doing nothing. Consider this study from December 2007 by an economist at the University of Nevada, Reno. Eggheads can use that link. Here’s the synopsis.

Economic performance from 1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”

Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

Regarding the question of statistical significance, Parker noted:

The differences in growth, unemployment, and the corporate profit share are all statistically significant, and support the argument that the economy may actually perform better under Democrats. The differences in weekly earnings, stock market growth, inflation, and multifactor productivity all favor the Democrats as well, but these differences are not statistically significant.

I know that study isn’t the end all be all, but it illustrates my point as well as anything else. When you compare the candidate’s positions on issues (and you’re ALL doing that, right?? ) take a second to think a little deeper. Government is not inherently a problem and collective solutions can be better for everyone in the long run. At least think about it.