Greg Mankiw As Romney's Propaganda Minister

Greg Mankiw, shows us in this article, that he would have made a good propaganda minister. He has been trying to figure out a way to distinguish between his client's healthcare policy in Massachusetts and that of his opponent's healthcare plan that many in the GOP base have been taught to hate. His solution is to argue that people are free to migrate from states and localities if they do not like state and local laws. Therefore, there is competition between state and local governments which is like competition in business. On the other hand, it is not as easy to migrate from one's country. That gives the federal government monopolistic powers. If you don't like Obama's healthcare law, which is like the Massachusetts healthcare law, citizens are not as free to reject the product on offer. They can't vote with their feet.

Mankiw's argument, on behalf of his client, is clever but it ignores the fact that there has not been a mass migration from Massachusetts as a result of Romney's healthcare bill. The public reaction, and the consequences of the bill, have been highly favorable. The citizens of Massachusetts have spoken with their feet. The favorable market reaction in Massachusetts implies that it is a product that should be more widely available. The GOP efforts to discredit the plan appears to be purely political. It would be like preventing a business from selling a product nationally that has been tested by the market reaction in Massachusetts. His argument also suffers from another flaw. HIs client does not want to cut our national defense budget. Support for the defense budget is stronger in some states than in others. Should citizens in states that would like to reduce the defense budget be allowed to exercise their freedom by reducing their federal taxes accordingly? That would provide competition for the federal monopoly and it would maximize consumer choice and economic freedom. Maybe his client would argue that some monopolies are good for the country.

Mankiw goes a bit further with argument based on the goodness of market competition. He argues that conservatives like competition, and they would like more competition in government. According to Mankiw, liberals prefer a federal monopoly because they believe that government should do more than providing services to its citizens. They want to redistribute wealth. Citizens who oppose redistribution are not free to migrate from the country. Their only recourse is to elect his client, who does not want to redistribute wealth or income. The election is really about the maximization of individual freedom. As someone once said: "The poor should be perfectly free to sleep under bridges."

I like the way that Mankiw has framed the 2012 election. Should we maximize the freedom of Americans to sleep under bridges or we should we restore the progressiveness of the federal tax system? I think I know how the market will respond.