Friday, December 25, 2009, 4:28AM ET - U.S. Markets Closed for Christmas.

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist

You Get What (and Who) You Vote For

by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Excellent (339 Ratings)
4.076698/5
Posted on Tuesday, July 3, 2007, 12:00AM

I'm going to do something I've never done before in public: I'm going to defend our elected politicians.

True, the Bush administration is a disaster, for reasons I don't need to recount here. And the governor of my home state (Illinois) has taken incompetence to a new level. We still have no budget for the new fiscal year despite the fact that the Democrats control the governor's mansion, the House, and the Senate. With no meaningful political opposition, they've had to create gridlock on their own.

On a national level, Congress seems incapable of any meaningful bipartisan action. Immigration? Social Security? Health care? Curbing CO2 emissions? We'd be lucky to get reform in any one of those areas in the next two years, and I'd bet against even that.

So why am I willing to cut these guys a break? Because I've become increasingly convinced that we voters are the problem, not the people we send to Washington (or to Springfield, Sacramento, Concord, and so on).

Why can't politicians just "do the right thing"? Here are six reasons (most of which have more to do with us than them):

1. Because it's usually not clear what the "right thing" really is.

What's the right thing on abortion? Gay marriage? Even if you're sure that you know the right answer on those issues, I can assure you that there are about 100 million people who believe the opposite -- with equal certainty.

Even seemingly pragmatic issues like tax policy and health care have ideological components embedded within them. For example, you can't make any meaningful decision about the tax code without first deciding how progressive a "fair" tax system ought to be -- and that's a value judgment, not an economic question.

And you can't "fix" health care without first deciding whether every American deserves basic health care or not -- another question without a "right" answer.

Sometimes gridlock is just a clash of basic values.

2. Because voters seem unwilling to accept the pain or expense necessary to generate significant long-term benefits.

This is true whether the issue is raising the retirement age (one obvious and reasonable fix for Social Security) or instituting a carbon tax (the most efficient way to deal with climate change).

I often ask my students on the first day of class a seemingly simple question: "Why aren't there any policy changes that would make us better off without any corresponding pain or sacrifice?" There's usually silence for a while, and then I answer my own question: "Because if there were, don't you think Harry Truman would have done it? Or Bill Clinton? Or George W. Bush in his first term?"

If there were a way to make lots of Americans better off without making anyone worse off, then it would've happened a long time ago. Instead, we have many policy options for which the social benefits are likely to exceed the social costs -- but none that won't leave someone screaming.

3. Because most of us reward pork-barrel politics, whether we realize it or not.

Do you get angry when your elected representative brings home pork? Or do you go to the ribbon-cutting ceremony and thank Congressman Schmoe for adding a $23 million earmark to the transportation bill to build new playgrounds for your schools? If it's the latter, then you're part of the problem.

After all, how do you think Congressman Schmoe got that $23 million in federal money for something that should really be funded locally? Do you think he stood up on the floor of the House and gave such a moving speech about the merits of playgrounds that the members of Congress, many of them weeping openly, were moved to allocate the funds? Or do you think he made a series of deals in which three or four hundred other members of Congress also got millions of dollars for pet projects in their districts?

Hint: It's the latter.

4. Because organized interests will make life miserable for any politician who embraces many sensible economic policies.

In my short career as a Yahoo! columnist, I've called for a carbon tax; explained why we should privatize the postal service; criticized coal subsidies; advocated raising the retirement age; embraced free trade; and blamed the teachers' unions for some of our public education problems. (Actually, I can't remember if I've blamed the teachers' unions for anything yet, but I will soon.)

So, if I were to do something about public policy, rather than just write about it, I would begin my campaign with massive opposition from the oil and gas industry; the coal industry; most postal employees; the AARP; the teachers' unions; and every other union that's not keen on more trade with India and China.

And that's before I tell the world what I think about abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, Guantanamo Bay, and legalizing drugs. I'd be lucky to get eight votes, including from my immediate family.

5. Because it's always easier to pass the problems along to the next generation.

Imagine a restaurant in which you had the option of paying your bill -- or leaving it on the table for the next customer to pay. Who among us wouldn't leave it on the table?

For a wide range of issues, such as Social Security and global warming, we can choose to "leave it on the table" and let the next generation deal with it. True, the harms grow over time, and the necessary fixes grow progressively more painful. But it won't be our pain.

We have a history of casting aside the politicians who advocate paying our own bill rather than sticking it to someone else.

6. Because being an elected representative is a really rotten job that discourages many of the best and brightest from public service.

And when they opt out, it leaves a vacuum for those individuals who 1) Crave power for its own sake, 2) Want to be famous but couldn't start a rock band, and/or 3) Plan to make some real cash by trading on their political experience once they leave office (if not sooner).

Let's assume that we would like our members of the House of Representatives and the Senate -- all 535 of them -- to be among the most talented and motivated individuals in the country. So, I suppose the business equivalent would be the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. (As the name would suggest, there are 500 of them.)

According to Forbes, the average total compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO is just over $15 million a year. The average member of the House or Senate makes around $170,000. But it's worse than that, because politicians have to live far more public lives than CEOs do. They get the media scrutiny of Paris Hilton while living on the salary of a high school superintendent.

I don't think we should pay politicians $15 million a year, but I wouldn't think twice about doubling or quadrupling their salaries. And that goes for judges and other public servants whom we expect to be really talented individuals.

True, these people are performing a public service, but so are doctors, and we don't ask them to work for 2 percent of what their skills would command elsewhere in the economy. In the long run, you get what you pay for.

The beauty of representative democracy is that our politicians give us what we want. Doesn't that make us the culpable party?

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Excellent (339 Ratings)
4/5
Sign-in to rate!

102 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 102<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • LisaM - Thursday, July 19, 2007, 1:47PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Morons looking for simple, attractive answers attract idiots who will spout simple, attractive answers. Bush was elected TWICE. That means that a majority of American voters are idiots. To those of you who are offended by this characterization: GOOD. You DESERVE the man you elected.

  • JohnnyBeGood - Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 8:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Please stick to economics. We have enough political talking heads...

  • Dean - Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 8:11PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    You have it entirely right in this article. Too bad for us all that there isn't any kind of a reasonable solution to our problems with the US government because of public apathy and ignorance. I can imagine that things will just keep on devolving for the next couple of generations till the country literally falls apart.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, July 16, 2007, 5:57PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    You missed one key point. Our system was built for gridlock. We placed more importance on protecting individual rights and property than creating a system for producing good and innovative public policy. Our system works as designed...

  • Joe S - Monday, July 16, 2007, 5:08PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    The astute student of politics will recognize that Wheelan is describing the problems with socialism. We should all then wonder how our country's came to be so explained.

  • Larry K - Thursday, July 12, 2007, 2:33AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    as usual - another rant from the naked economist with no new ideas or solutions to big problems.

  • K - Monday, July 9, 2007, 9:07AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Spot on, as usual ... Wheeler and Holman Jenkins (of the Wall Street Journal) are perhaps the only two voices of libertarian sanity remaining in the increasingly shrill cacophony of hysteria and lunacy that is today's media. I take issue with only one point from the article: "I often ask my students on the first day of class a seemingly simple question: 'Why aren't there any policy changes that would make us better off without any corresponding pain or sacrifice?'" As Wheeler is no doubt aware, there is in fact one such policy: Give *everyone* what they want today, and finance its exorbitant cost by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars and promising to pay the next generation back, with interest. P.J. O'Rourke once called this very thing "short-sighted, incredibly stupid, and exactly what we've been doing for decades." But I'm sure the good Doctor will address this folly in a future column - which I, as always, will look forward to.

  • Odin - Monday, July 9, 2007, 2:29AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I totally agree. I'm not an American, I'm from the Philippines, but all these things hold true just the same. I followed my heart and scrutinized every politician who ran for office last election here. I ended up voting for only four senators. Only two of them made it and they don't have many allies. The one whom I believe in the most did not win(but got close to getting a position, seems we need only a few more of me), perhaps primarily because of number 2 (bitter pill). The one who'm I want out of the senate is the most popular, mainly because of #2 (he keeps shooting down bitter pills), and partly because of #5 (quick fixes that only makes problems worse later). A few months, maybe years down the road, there will be demonstrations, and my people will blame one politician again, for problems caused by those they voted for. I have long come to believe (and wish to change) the fact that democracy is really the rule of the stupid many over the enlightened few.

  • Linda - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 11:03PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    The Irony of Democracy! He is right on! Maybe 40 percent of what happens in this country is for the Majority but everything else are these side deals that waste our time and resources (money). If you don't think we are leaving the bill on the table for the next customer you are blind. Look at the issues with our automakers, the huge pensions and health care outlays for which they are responsible put them at a huge disadvantage. (Quality, Ford is great quality so don’t blame quality) this closely mirrors what we are going to be facing as a country. The point he is making, is that we are not running this country like a fine tuned fortune 500 company. If we were, we would not be wasting tax payer’s money. Each representative is not doing what helps the country as a whole but some little group that will help that representative get elected again. (Where is the democracy in that?) For the most part we don't have the talent representing us that could run this country like a fortune 500 company. He is right on!

  • andyourpoint - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 7:54PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Really- Chuck, you have got to be kidding. Who the hell ARE you anyway?- certainly not an "expert" on anything except maybe tooting your own uninformed, opinionated ideas. Your "article" is a perfect example of "blaming the victim" mentality- we are responsible for the decisions/actions of our elected officials because we haven't taken enough responsibility to properly guide them to "do the right thing"?!? NO- let's be brutally honest here- Bush and the other polititians of his kind have run roughshod over the general public over the past number of years because they COULD. They have used and abused their power to manipulate the system and the public and have gotten away with it BIG TIME. This is not the fault of the electorate- it is a sign of the lack of morality of the polititians themselves. What we need to do IS take some responsibility NOW and throw the bums out- not wait for another election to do so, but to expose their criminal behaviors once and for all and them demand their resignations, prosecute their criminal actions, and/or force them out through the lawful use of our constitutionally provided Impeachment powers. And if anyone is "responsible" for being "asleep at the wheel" of this runaway freight train called our (bankrupt) "democracy"- to the tune of a trillion dollars (much of it which has gone to line the pockets of a particular vice-president's cronies who "rebuilt" Iraq) during the past eight years, it is our public media- news reporters, television news organizations- the press in general- who have been repeatedly lazy and fearful of chronicling the many examples of immoral and criminal behavior perpetuated by Bush, Chaney and their minions and refused to lead a public outcry against these acts. Yes, we do have ourselves to blame- for not refusing to put up with this situation any longer- but the real blame needs to be placed on those in power who have so effectively learned to manipulate what was once an effective check and balance system of democracy. When those in power have learned how to control information, pass laws favoring their own private political agenda and not the needs of the people, and to control and influence the electoral process so well in their favor, "voting" alone will no longer be effective until we no longer allow our system to be used in this manner. What we DON'T need is a columnist like you Chuck taking the easy way out and coming up with some Op-Ed piece to entertain us on this very serious matter on a Sunday night. In fact, I have a great idea- lets throw you out and get a real columnist who knows his political rear-end from a hole in the ground!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 7:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The Author said "The pure beauty of representative democracy is that the politicians give use what we want" I disagree, in a representative democracy the people running for office can promise or say they support anything to get elected but then VOTE the opposite way once elected. In addition, concerning the statement, "that it's usually not clear what the right thing to do is", has some merit but even when it is clear, like concerning education, the politicans still fail. US public elementary and secondary education ranks rather poorly when compared to other industrialized nations.

  • Paul Germer - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 1:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    this hits the nail on the head. Great article and doesnt matter what side of the aisle you are on I think you can agree with the authors comments. Wish more people would hold their elected officials accountable but financial responsibility and getting elected seem to be opposite of each other

  • JamesG - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 10:18AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    regardless of nitpicking the details, the overall point, that if we as the public paid more attention to the decisions made on our behalf then we'd have better results, is an excellent one. not everyone needs to be in politics, but clearly politics doesn't get the attention it deserves from the citizens. how many people can name 2 of their congressional reps? and even then, do you know of any specific bills they voted on and how they voted? you can't blame the media for not knowing because this info is out there. if people were interested then how your representatives voted would sell papers and be more prominant in the articles, plain and simple. even if you don't go to the polls you still vote with the dollar. and those votes go to gossip, scandal, and mindless entertainment so much of the time. so it's easy to fool those people with flashy smiles and empty promises when possibly a great, but not as good looking, candidate is standing there too. and those that are informed are unfortunately stuck with the task of trying to work around the ignorant masses. bottom line, if the majority of voting americans looked past the rhetoric and bumper stickers and paid attention to sensible, cohesive ideas that solve problems we all are facing then we as a nation would be much better off. and at the very least, we wouldn't keep voting for the same types of people who just take our money, line their pockets, and do very little that is in the best interests of the constituents.

  • MarcF - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 6:41AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Really tells it like it is. Not a piece that inspires confidence in the future.

  • AlwaysCorrect - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 4:55AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    If I wanted to read about politics I would go to that section of Yahoo, not to Yahoo Finance. Get a clue you bore.

  • Octopus - Sunday, July 8, 2007, 1:04AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Let's see, we elect these politicians to lead our country, but us citizens are to blame? Get these lame author off Yahoo!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, July 7, 2007, 1:28PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    It is pretty obvious where the political stance resides in this article. When 'government' presumes to know more than the people it governs, then very bad things will ensue. I don't have to recite the history of that behaviour. Please leave these suggestions at the door.

  • Eduardo - Saturday, July 7, 2007, 1:25PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Best column ever! However, the answer to "why aren't there easy, painless decisions to be made anymore?" is not the "efficient market" BS (it would have been done before). I don't know the answer, but don't you think there are new realities now that change our notion of pain? A carbon tax now is not painful -- it's a necessity. Two hundred years ago, the no-brainer decision might have been painful and now it may not be due to technology, science and new realities (think of tax for researching drugs in a world without drug companies. Now there's not need for that, since there are drug companies -- okay, simple example, but you get the idea).

  • DARYL F - Saturday, July 7, 2007, 12:50PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This fellow is typical of the Elitests that think they know what's good for the rest of us peon's. There isn't a TAX or Extra Spending these Liberals wouldn't pass on to the rest of us. I wonder who will protect us when these loonies take control of the government. They will probably import more Doctors from the middle east to make sure we have the care we need. Just like the doctors from the middle east tried to assist those in Glascow. You know these liberals really have compassion & the world's sycopath's will listen to their reason. I think Wheelan should get a real job thats helpfull to society & stay out of coffee houses getting new insite of GROUP THINK with his LEFTEST BUDDIES.

  • John - Saturday, July 7, 2007, 12:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    He fails to mention to solution to the problem. Term limits. Constitutionally enforced. The problem is these guys become entrenched squatters and it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. Amend the Constitution. 2 terms for senators and 6 for the house. Period. After that, you're gone back to the real world of living with the citizens that you clam to represent.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, July 7, 2007, 11:12AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Good clear thinking---please keep it up

  • Jeffrey H - Friday, July 6, 2007, 11:55AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    The problem being faced was covered so beautifully on South Park... we get to pick between Giant Douche and Crap Sandwich. It doesn't matter that we dislike either, that is all we get...

  • Stephen M - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 8:59PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Who says our politicians "give us what we want"? The people -- a majority, anyway -- applauded Bill Clinton's three balanced budgets. When George Bush took office he received a $230 billion surplus from Clinton and quickly squandered it, then plunged us into deficit spending. The people didn't like that, but could do nothing about it. Same with the war in Iraq. Bush couldn't get us into that war until he began waving the nuclear cloud at us, and we bit. It's not the people who are to blame, it's the lack of leadership. And once we choose a leader it is almost impossible to get rid of him.

  • Anita M - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 6:14PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Fascinating! The biggest problem we have in this country is that the average citizen is ignorant. They're more interested in what Paris Hilton is up to than what the political candidates actually stand for. The voting process has turned into American Idol. People end up voting blindly along party lines or for whomever had the flashiest TV commercials. And that means that money is what wins elections. As for the complaints about the $170K salary being high already: remember that they have to maintain two households -- one in DC and one in their own home states. Sure, a lot of their expenses are subsidized, but there are plenty of watchdogs out there making sure they don't take money for things they shouldn't. DC also has a very high cost of living, so $170K isn't that much, considering. Of course, the fact that most of them are already wealthy makes it kind of moot, but I think he was talking about how to encourage those who aren't millionaires to run for office in the future. As for universal healthcare... do you really want this inefficient government in charge of your health care? I don't, and I don't want to pay for people who smoke and ruin their own health. People do need tot ake some responsibility for themselves. Too many people screw up and expect the Government to bail them out (think about all the greedy fools who took out funky adjustable mortgages to buy houses they really couldn't afford). But health care costs do need to come down. I personally depend on my health insurance because even with my 6-figure income, I would find it hard to afford the $3000 per month that my prescriptions alone would cost. Having a chronic condition (at no fault of my own) is really expensive :-) Unfortunately, I don't know what the correct solution is. I wish I did.

  • artemis - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 3:50PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Great article. Wheelan discussed some pretty controversial issues here without sugarcoating his opinion. I respect that. I would like to see him discuss Social Security further. It is a hotbutton for me and I don't see a lot of opinion being expressed; I assume that's due to the PC factor. I don't understand why this is even an issue. Yes, there are a lot of baby boomers, but they already paid in their Social Security; the government owes it to them. I am paying in my Social Security; when I retire, the government will owe it to me. Just because they blew all of their money doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist. If I rack up my credit card, I have to cut costs until it's paid off. I don't see why this should be any different.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 3:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    You are most certainly telling the truth. Our politicians are idiots because we allow them to be idiots...because we ourselves are foolish. Most Americans dont want to face up to the fact that this is a goverment of the people, for the people, and by the people.

  • Nell - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 12:24PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I would like to have given this an "excellent" rating, however the ratings system doesn't tell you how to do this and therefore I apparently gave it a "poor" rating without even knowing I was doing so.

  • Rod S - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 11:31AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Wow, an Expert Columnist on Yahoo! who actually knows what they are talking about. I have often had these same thoughts when pondering the fate of our nation. It seems that politicians are excellent at winning popularity contests by handing out all manner of goodies to the constituents. These come in the way of feel good legislation like smoking bans in cars carrying children for the everyday voters and big juicy tax abatements for their corporate sponsors. If We the People would stand up and force our elected officials to keep the size, scope, and power of government withing the legal confines of The Constitution we would not have the problem of escalating deficits and a government that grows exponentially. Keep up the good work Dr, Wheelan!

  • b - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 2:02AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    If you count (present-value discount) the pensions that house/senate members make, they make a lot more than $170k/yr

  • Beth - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 1:44AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Smart and funny gets my vote every single time!

Showing comments 6-35 of 102<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Charles Wheelan

Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

An accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, now available in paperback.

View more about Charles Wheelan.

The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as "clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty."

Order Naked Economics today. Average customer review on Amazon.com: 4.7 out of 5 stars.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.