Donald Boudreaux: In 2020, let’s vote for the adult |
Featured Commentary

Donald Boudreaux: In 2020, let’s vote for the adult

Donald J. Boudreaux
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, second from right, on the debate stage July 30 in Detroit with, from left, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., won applause during Tuesday’s presidential debate with this proclamation: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

Were I on that stage, here’s how I’d have responded:

“Senator Warren, perhaps I can help you to understand. As the great economist Thomas Sowell puts it, ‘reality is not optional.’ While we should not be afraid of creative ideas for change, to be worthwhile, these ideas must conform to economic reality. The more we pursue goals that are impossible or even improbable, the less time and energy we have for the pursuit of worthwhile goals that are achievable.

“And so it’s important for us to understand what we can’t do in order to ensure that we focus on what we can do.

“I get that we candidates win applause and votes by promising the moon. Promises made on the campaign trail are cheap, and the temptation is powerful for each of us to out-promise the other. But if we who seek political office really do want to be leaders — as opposed to merely being called ‘leaders’ — we must be responsible and realistic.

“Consider health care. For government to pay for everyone’s health care is for government to further increase each American’s incentive to overuse health care resources. Just as I’m more likely to order steak and lobster, rather than meatloaf, if the restaurant charges me nothing for my meal, I’m more likely to avail myself of highly costly medical care, rather than less costly care, if I’m shielded from the cost of doing so.

“For example, rather than go to an optician to be fitted for new eyeglasses, I’ll instead go to a more highly trained ophthalmologist. Why not? I’m not paying for it! And I won’t ever learn of the person with a serious eye disease who the ophthalmologist would have treated and cured had that highly specialized physician not instead spent time doing for me what an optician could have done perfectly well.

“Because what’s true for me is true for everyone, health care resources are over-used when government pays for our health care, thus driving costs to artificial heights.

“I know: You’ll respond that when people need medical care they should have unlimited access to the very best care. This line sounds good. And it would be fine if resources weren’t limited. But because resources are limited, providing unlimited amounts of the very best health care to everyone is simply impossible.

“Therefore, relieving us Americans of having to pay directly for our medical care will oblige government to ration care. That’s an inevitable result of causing the demand for many kinds of health care to exceed the supply. There’s no avoiding the need to prevent people from consuming all the medical care they seek to consume when they don’t pay for it directly.

“Being realistic and honest about this matter is what is done by the adults in the room.

“Unfortunately, all this political campaigning seems to turn us in to children — brats, even. Frantic to increase our popularity, we make wild promises. We become no different from children, who are fixated on today and heedless of tomorrow.

“But tomorrow will come. And so by being realistic today regarding what government can’t do, we better ensure that tomorrow brings blessings rather than unbearable burdens.”

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.