Shotgun Monday: Soda Banistas and Greedy Pensioners

Let the government tell you what’s best

Philosophy Professor Sarah Conly dismisses soda ban opponents in her piece “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” by accusing them of putting forward “large cups of soda as symbols of human dignity.” [Apparently she’s never tried Arizona competitor and contestant for “most depressing instance of crass social movement commercialization” Peace Iced Tea).  Ban opponents hold onto the “false” notion that we’re all “free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life,” not realizing that humans suffer from a raft of cognitive biases that render them incapable of doing so.  The answer is for soda-lovers to “[give] up a little liberty” for the good of the majority, recognize “that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis” which “the government has the resources to do,” and let the government “help us get where we want to go.”

So much to criticize, so little time.  First off, the ban decision was not made by a benevolent technocratic people’s champ.  It was proposed by a multi-billionaire as a way to decrease the healthcare cost of treating poor people without having to put any taxpayer (read: Bloomberg) money up.  The masses being skeptical of “we know best” proposals put forward by elites that just so happen to benefit those very same elites is a healthy thing.  Second, the question of which paternalistic laws are put forth or enacted is critical.  If we wanted to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of all potential nanny-state laws, I would guarantee things like mandatory psychiatric counseling for Wall Street bankers, emissions controls on mega-mansions and strict limits on speculative trading would top the list.  What are the chances in hell of any of those passing?  Why?  Finally, although society should encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior, there’s many ways to do this.  Education campaigns, provision of better alternatives, the modification of prices and laws that are not 100% enforced can all do the trick.  Even though there’s a law against speeding, I have the freedom to push it to 120 (or 67 in my ‘84 Buick Regal) m.p.h. and risk the consequences.  There isn’t a limiting mechanism in my car that prevents it from going above 75 or 80 m.p.h. (unless that limiting mechanism is being a Geo Metro… boom!) and there shouldn’t be.  It’s this kind of choice, free from the meddling of manipulative political and economic elites that Americans are seeking to preserve.

Linguistic tricks to stick pensioners

The New York Times also ran a piece Sunday titled “Pension Funds Wary as Bankrupt City Goes to Trial” about the upcoming battle between pension funds and municipal bond holders over “who takes the losses” in Stockton, California’s impending Chapter 9 bankruptcy.  Wall Street bondholders and bond insurers like Franklin Advisers, Wells Fargo Bank and Assured Guaranty obviously want police officers, fire fighters and office clerks to take a hair-cut on their retirement, and the folks that represent pensioners who actually lived and worked all their lives in Stockton think the outsiders should pay more.

While the article does a decent job of explaining the fight as “workers and retirees” vs. “municipal bondholders,” (though it could easily be “rich investors”) it focuses almost exclusively on the unsustainability of pensions and uses right-wing talking points and vocabulary to describe the situation.  The authors label pensions “budget-busters,” which perfectly echoes the right-wing attack on public workers.  They also use a classic rhetorical maneuver by saying that in 2011 “Stockton paid a little more than $20 million to [its pension fund] – about double what it paid to run its public libraries.”  You might as well have said “about ten times what it paid to protect victims of domestic abuse” or “about fifteen times what it paid to provide meals to starving children.”  Needless to say the Wall Street bankers, whose obnoxious demands for recompense from career public servants kick off the debate and finish the article, are not subject to the same heart-wrenching comparisons.  This oldie vs. poor dichotomy is a favorite of the center-right technocratic set, who often pit Medicaid against discretionary spending for the poor (which could actually be a hilarious Celebrity Deathmatch ripoff with an army general and robber baron watching and cheering from just outside ringside) during budget fights.  This framing is unfortunate, but predictable, as establishment reporters are disproportionately influenced by powerful institutions.