Money and progress

In the minds of many people the solution to every problem is simply to spend more money on it. This is actually quite logical. Given that with money you can purchase more resources to address the problem, it stands to reason that money should help take care of it.

In the public policy arena, however, this has dreadful consequences. If a bill comes up, for example, to spend -- i.e. take from taxpayers and reallocate -- money on children's health care, a vote against is seen by a number of people as a desire to withhold health care from children. This of course, is not the case at all. Rather, the vote against was probably cast because:

• There are better methods of ensuring children's health than government expenditure.
• There is no guarantee that more money will solve the problem.

Few issues better demonstrate this than education. Everyone is in agreement that education in this country, particularly K-12, is, shall we say, suboptimal. Therefore, if we spend more money the problem should be solved. Except that isn't the case at all, with plenty of empirical evidence to back this up.

Consider the following two graphs from Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute:

Spending has gone up. The pupil-to-teacher ratio has gone down. And what has been achieved? Not much. Steady increases in both spending and federal intervention have produced little to no progress.

It isn't just education. Let's remember that arguably the most successful public policy move of the last 20 years was reforming welfare in the 1990s that reduced government expenditures and involvement. The result was a decline in welfare recipients and poverty. This is a trend that continues even in the current economic environment.

Barack Obama likes to talk about breaking with the failed policies of the past, and I am in full agreement. Increases in spending and government control are the policies of the past, it's time for a change.