I was annoyed by the media's pouncing on Besty DeVos for proposing a budget that cut federal funding to the Special Olympics. My first thought was that isn't not the business of government to be funding such things in the first place, no matter how laudable the organization's work. "How much should we fund the Special Olympics with federal money?" is a very different question from "Do we as a society value the work done by this organization?" The answer to the former can be zero, while the answer to the latter can be "Yes, very much so." A society that highly values religion and religious institutions (as in early America) would still be very wise to draw a boundary separating church and state. I don't see why that principle shouldn't apply here.
My slightly snarkier response was, "Oh, really? Suddenly everyone knows exactly the right quantity of federal spending on the Special Olympics? And that it just so happens to be the current amount?" What brilliant policy analysts we all are! How wonderful it is that we all paused, took a deep breath, and performed a cost-benefit analysis of this single budget item. Amazing that we all computed the operating needs of the Special Olympics, estimated the volume of charitable giving that can be counted upon, and came up with precisely $17.6 million as the difference. High-fives for not answering such important policy questions with your emotions!
My even snarkier response was something like: "Why do you all hate the Special Olympics so much?" (I very nearly titled this post "Why Do Betsy DeVos's Critics Hate the Special Olympics So Much?", but then I realized that some people only read the title and don't bother to read the actual post.) Nobody was calling for an increase in spending on the Special Olympics. Nobody was paying attention at all until it became a hot-button news item. There's a lot of room between $17.6 million and infinity. Why weren't you calling for an increase? Here is a crystal ball that shows us a world where that number is twice as high, or another one where it's ten times as high. Would the denizens of that world pounce on you for your insufficient spending on the Special Olympics? Would they scorn you for failing to act to increase it? I'm sure in those worlds, anyone arguing to cut spending on a beloved cultural event would face the same kind of wrath as Betsy DeVos. There is no rational sense of "the right amount," just an emotional reaction that "beloved cultural icons shouldn't be defunded, ever." This should give us pause, because there is no way of deciding that the current amount of spending on something is too high (even if it really is too high). The recent flap over the Special Olympics has nothing to do with actual policy and everything to do with virtue signalling. There is plenty of reason to believe that the Special Olympics would be able to cover the shortfall with additional charitable givings if the federal government cut them out of the budget. See the Reason piece linked to above. The Special Olympics has revenues of $149 million, and federal grants are ~10% of that. A slightly more aggressive fundraising drive would surely cover any shortfall. Unless we really don't value the Special Olympics as a society. In which case forcing people to subsidize it is just wrong.
How to even steelman this? Maybe someone thinks, "Governments are deliberative in setting budgets, so we can be confident that the $17.6 million figure is right. It's vetted by many expert policy analysts. That explains why it doesn't need to be higher." In fact I often hear this "policy is the way it is for a good reason" argument, but I think that's a mistake. If I were trying to make the case that budget decisions are not deliberative and not backed by any kind of rational analysis, the DeVos story would be Exhibit A. "It's $17.6 million. Let's make it zero!" (public outcry) "Okay, we won't cut it at all!"
No comments:
Post a Comment