It’s going to take more than just a big election cycle win for conservative voters to steer Louisiana government from its liberal populist pathology, a recent struggle over welfare spending shows.
It always starts the same way. Something unusual, such as the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, occurs that leftist interests seize upon to leverage into government action and new expenditures. Then after a point it’s declared the new benefit needs to be made permanent, and conservative policy-makers too often capitulate.
Liberals understand fully that a substantial proportion of the public suffers from addiction to government largesse, that once the benefits start flowing many want hit after hit without end. One of the Leninist foundations on which today’s political left is built is the principle that what is its is its forever, while whatever policy space its opponents occupy is always up for grabs.
In this instance, as part of the pandemic response the federal government began paying an extra $40 per month per child per family per month for three months in the summer as an extension of school meal programs, which has come to be called called Summer EBT. Unwisely, Washington Democrats as well as enough Republicans decided to make it a permanent feature to which states could apply starting this year.
Never mind that multiple programs already exist that perform this function for decades. Never mind as well that these alternatives do it better at lower cost. Never mind also that doling out straight cash benefits this way is the method most prone to fraud, error, and inducing the least healthy eating habits.
Never mind that qualifying families already receive several hundred dollars per month in food subsidization. Never mind that if there really were some hunger crisis, despite these expensive existing gifts, that the extra money could be channeled through one of the existing superior programs for delivery. Never mind that especially this delivery method only discourages self-sufficiency, specifically in regarding food provision programs in Louisiana, that disproportionately produces overconsumption and waste within the target population.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his Secretary of Children and Family Services David Matlock initially wisely resisted calls to join in, which would require an estimated $3.6 million or so state annual match – plus several millions of more millions of dollars in software upgrades – to catch an estimated $71 million in federal money, out of billions to be spent nationally in every state. They understood that a program that would address inefficiently and poorly an object of public policy that would have considerable detrimental side effects would end up costing Louisiana taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year, for as even if only a small portion came directly out of their pockets in state taxes, from them the federal government would fleece the remainder, directly or through piling on additional national debt now standing at $34 trillion or over 121 percent of gross domestic product.
But, apparently, not anyone, including usually staunch conservatives, understood this in the Louisiana Senate. Recently, senators voted unanimously (with five absent) to ask Landry to commit to Summer EBT. The measure now lies in the House for consideration, whose members also don’t seem to get it as they voted unanimously for a budget to which they added Summer EBT administrative costs, and in a form where Landry cannot deploy a line-item veto to strip that funding. The budget’s sponsor GOP state Rep. Jack McFarland – chairman of the apparently-dormant Louisiana Conservative Caucus that claims a mantle of fiscal conservatism, no less – has been the most outspoken supporter of the program in the chamber.
All because, it seems, even die-hard Louisiana conservative legislators just can’t get off the smack, especially when it’s close to “free.” Ironically, a House bill wending its way through the legislative process would prohibit state and local governments and their employees from referring to government benefits as “free,” yet legislators, even the most conservative, appear to have no problem in accepting federal largesse for doling out as long as they have to put little down on it, regardless of how poorly and perversely it addresses a public policy goal.
So, Landry has thrown in towel over this obstinacy and now intends to apply for the funds. It’s no surprise that liberal Democrats in the Legislature would want to expand this way the size and power of government – and strengthen the bonds of beneficiary dependency upon them that aids them in their quests for power and privilege – but for conservative Republicans, to this point without any dissent, to go along with this is a betrayal of principles they claim to follow.
There may be more layers to this. It may have been a tradeoff with Landry for their support on other aspects of his agenda, but that begs the question why it’s something conservative legislators would value in the first place. Do they really believe a few-strings cash benefit addition will help? Do they really think this is the best use of a few million bucks compared so many other far more legitimate needs? Do they really think that if they didn’t go along with this appeal to baser instincts within their constituencies – the more “free” stuff showered on voters, the more voters like them and the better their reelection chances – that this is an issue that effectively could be used against them in future elections?
Maybe it all comes down to the liberal populist political culture ingrained into state politics just so pervasively shaping every facet of public policy (especially when it involves “the children”), even for self-proclaimed conservatives. If so, it will be a long, extended haul for conservatives in the public to flush away that destructive worldview.
No comments:
Post a Comment