If he's the answer, what's the question?
I don't mean that as a slam of him. I mean it in a more literal sense then it might sometimes be used.
I posted a post that concentrated on the point that it is the government that forces the costs of government program on us (and indirectly those who lobby for the programs, both true lobbyists, and to a lesser degree anyone with any level of political activity to support the program), not someone anyone who might benefit from the program, or impose costs on it.
"The Nanny Two-Step" is subsidizing something (even for people who don't explicitly ask for the subsidy) and then using that subsidy to control people, with the idea "we can't let you do that, if you do that you might get a subsidy and we can't afford to give you one", ignoring the point that they could simply let you do it without giving you the subsidy.
I suppose Rudy might be the answer to that point if he was going to undertake a massive rollback of government, but I doubt he would try, or succede if he did try. He might even be a limited answer if he put major effort behind making arguments like the one Julian Sanchez made in that blog post I quoted, and then if he supported policies that where in the spirit of that argument, at the very least trying to stomp out the second step of the "nanny two step" (restrictions on liberty to control the size of the subsidy) even if he didn't go after the first step (the subsidy).
But I'm not sure I really see that from Rudy. |
