A Stitch in Haste

Next up, after Markos Moulitsas pretty much got universally ridiculed for his anti-corporate screed essay suggesting that libertarian ideals are consistent with liberal Democratic policies, is Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council:

So, if you're looking for government to close up shop, don't vote Democratic. Unlike George Bush and the Republican Congress, we'll give you accountable government that lives within its means. But we want government to do something useful, not just sit there.

"Useful" to be defined, naturally, by Bruce Reed.

Bill Clinton produced the first balanced budget and the first surpluses in 30 years. He cut the size of the federal workforce by 400,000, and imposed a level of spending restraint the federal government hasn't seen before or since.

No, the dot-com boom, the "peace dividend" and — most importantly — gridlock did that. Libertarians cannot of course "vote" for a stock market bubble or to re-win the Cold War, but we can vote for gridlock. The "D" at the ballot box is purely incidental. (Also consider local politics — have states or municipalities where Democrats have wide and deep control of the fisc shown a "Clintonesque" track record? Of course not.)

Just as important, the very essence of limited government is that it must be purposeful, performance-based, and mission-driven. When the purpose is not clear and certain, the outcome and the cost will never be.

The way to get government to do less is by making sure government has something to do? Sorry, but libertarians know better than that.

It is time to end corporate welfare as we know it. We were right to reform the broken welfare system for single mothers, who responded heroically by going to work and welcoming their independence. Ending corporate welfare will have the same impact on both the political and the business world. We cannot compete in a world that is flat if we let every interest in Washington put its thumb on the scale. If we level the playing field by abolishing unnecessary subsidies, we’ll advance the general welfare and be in a much stronger position for the global competition ahead.

Fine — but can we add government-spawned labor unions, which are far worse for our global competitiveness than corporate welfare could ever be, to the list of things to abolish? And while we're on the subject — why do we have public employee unions? If the purpose of collective bargaining is to protect "helpless" workers from "evil employers," then do government employee unions imply that the government is also evil? Libertarians know the answer — does Reed?

And on the question of corporate welfare and global competitiveness: The last time I checked, Robert Byrd was a Democrat — I wonder how Reed and his Democratic Leadership Council felt about the perverted "Byrd Amendment," which imposed protective tariffs on politically favored industries and turned the receipts over to the firms themselves. You don't get more "corporate welfare" than that — was Byrd being a "bad Democrat" when he got the law enacted?

All in all, a far better showing than Moulitsas' blather. But that's not saying much.