On cash benefit, LA GOP legislators sell out

Blog: Between The Lines

Abstract

It's going to take more than just a big election
cycle win for conservative voters to steer Louisiana government from its
liberal populist pathology, a recent struggle over welfare spending shows.

It always starts the same way. Something unusual,
such as the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, occurs that leftist interests seize
upon to leverage into government action and new expenditures. Then after a point
it's declared the new benefit needs to be made permanent, and conservative
policy-makers too often capitulate.

Liberals understand fully that a substantial
proportion of the public suffers from addiction to government largesse, that
once the benefits start flowing many want hit after hit without end. One of the
Leninist foundations on which today's political left is built is the principle
that what is its is its forever, while whatever policy space its opponents
occupy is always up for grabs.

In
this instance, as part of the pandemic response the federal government
began paying an extra $40 per month per child per family per month for three
months in the summer as an extension of school meal programs, which has come to
be called called Summer EBT. Unwisely, Washington Democrats as well as enough
Republicans decided to make it a permanent feature to which states could apply
starting this year.

Never
mind that multiple programs already exist that perform this function for
decades. Never mind as well that these alternatives do it better at lower cost.
Never mind also that doling out straight cash benefits this way is the method most
prone to fraud, error, and inducing the least healthy eating habits.

Never mind that qualifying families already
receive several hundred dollars per month in food subsidization. Never mind
that if there really were some hunger crisis, despite these expensive existing gifts,
that the extra money could be channeled through one of the existing superior
programs for delivery. Never mind that especially this delivery method only discourages
self-sufficiency, specifically in regarding food provision programs in Louisiana,
that disproportionately produces overconsumption and waste within the target
population.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his
Secretary of Children and Family Services David Matlock initially wisely
resisted calls to join in, which would require an estimated $3.6 million or so
state annual match – plus several millions of more millions of dollars in
software upgrades – to catch an estimated $71 million in federal money, out of
billions to be spent nationally in every state. They understood that a program
that would address inefficiently and poorly an object of public policy that
would have considerable detrimental side effects would end up costing Louisiana
taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year, for as even if only a small
portion came directly out of their pockets in state taxes, from them the
federal government would fleece the remainder, directly or through piling on additional
national debt now standing at $34 trillion or over 121 percent of gross domestic
product.

But, apparently, not anyone, including usually
staunch conservatives, understood this in the Louisiana Senate. Recently, senators voted unanimously
(with five absent) to ask Landry to commit to Summer
EBT. The measure now lies in the House for consideration, whose members also
don't seem to get it as they voted unanimously for a budget to which they added
Summer EBT administrative costs, and in a form where Landry cannot deploy a
line-item veto to strip that funding. The budget's sponsor GOP state Rep. Jack McFarland –
chairman of the apparently-dormant Louisiana Conservative Caucus that claims a
mantle of fiscal conservatism, no less – has been the most outspoken supporter of
the program in the chamber.

All because, it seems, even die-hard Louisiana
conservative legislators just can't get off the smack, especially when it's close
to "free." Ironically, a House bill wending
its way through the legislative process would prohibit state and local
governments and their employees from referring to government benefits as "free,"
yet legislators, even the most conservative, appear to have no problem in accepting
federal largesse for doling out as long as they have to put little down on it,
regardless of how poorly and perversely it addresses a public policy goal.

So, Landry
has thrown in towel over this obstinacy and now intends to apply for the funds.
It's no surprise that liberal Democrats in the Legislature would want to expand
this way the size and power of government – and strengthen the bonds of beneficiary
dependency upon them that aids them in their quests for power and privilege – but
for conservative Republicans, to this point without any dissent, to go along
with this is a betrayal of principles they claim to follow.

There may be more layers to this. It may have been
a tradeoff with Landry for their support on other aspects of his agenda, but
that begs the question why it's something conservative legislators would value
in the first place. Do they really believe a few-strings cash benefit addition
will help? Do they really think this is the best use of a few million bucks
compared so many other far more legitimate needs? Do they really think that if
they didn't go along with this appeal to baser instincts within their constituencies
– the more "free" stuff showered on voters, the more voters like them and the better
their reelection chances – that this is an issue that effectively could be used
against them in future elections?

Maybe it all comes down to the liberal populist political
culture ingrained into state politics just so pervasively shaping every facet
of public policy (especially when it involves "the children"), even for self-proclaimed
conservatives. If so, it will be a long, extended haul for conservatives in the
public to flush away that destructive worldview.