Politicians live for today
Suppose a physician tells you that you likely have only one month to live. He further tells you that the only way to get an extra month or two of life is to consume as much as possible this month. The more you consume, the greater are your chances of living a bit longer.
Do you think you would change your plans and behaviors? Of course. You stop saving for retirement, investing and otherwise preparing for the future. And since your only hope for living a few more months is to consume as much as possible now, you beg, borrow and steal all you can.
It's easy to see that our world would be far poorer and less civilized if everyone not only lived just for the present, but also believed that consuming as much as possible of resources belonging to others would delay death.
Yet the incentives facing elected politicians are much the same as those facing someone who expects to die soon and can extend his life only by consuming as much as possible as quickly as possible — including as much as possible of other people's property.
Each politician is constantly face to face with the political grim reaper because the next election brings the possibility of political death. And few politicians believe in life after political death. Each clings desperately to this political life — to this political office — and ponders electoral defeat with grave horror.
A politician facing re-election in one year has no interest in programs or policies that impose, say, $100 of costs on his constituents today but in return promise $1,000 of annual benefits starting two years from now. If the politician isn't re-elected next year, he'll not be in office to enjoy his constituents' gratitude for the $1,000 of benefits they begin to reap in two years. All that matters to the politician is the fact that raising his constituents' costs today by $100 will reduce his chances of re-election. This politician ignores the long-term benefits and acts only in response to the short-term costs.
Likewise, this same politician will vote to borrow $1,000 repayable two years from now if these funds can be used to generate even as little as, say, $100 of constituent benefits today. The $100 of benefits today improve the politician's chances of winning the next election. And at the same time, today's increase in government indebtedness does little to hurt him at the polls. The reason is that voters don't begin to feel the burden of that debt until after the next election.
Contrast politicians' incentives with those of owners of private property. Private property rights give individuals incentives to act responsibly over the long run. For example, even a homeowner who expects to sell her house in a few months has incentives to keep the house in good repair because the price she'll fetch will reflect how well the house has been maintained.
One of the greatest economic misunderstandings is the myth that government officials are more attentive to the long run than are private entrepreneurs, investors and other owners of private property. Private property rights cause us to live for tomorrow, while the need to win political elections causes politicians to live only for today.
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Stupid Steelers
- Steelers running backs Bell, Blount will face drug charges
- Braves’ error, Sanchez’s sacrifice fly in 9th help Pirates snap long skid
- It’s only exhibition, but these Steelers could solidify roster spots vs. Eagles
- UPMC earnings turn positive, but pressures mount
- GOP: Wolf ‘Fresh Start’ campaign violates Pennsylvania law
- 1 injured in Pa. Turnpike crash in Beaver County
- Pa. trooper injured in pursuit in Washington County
- EDMC to cut costs, roll out new grant
- Karns City RB sets sights on playing full season
- 2 dead in New Kensington shooting; woman says male victim her son