4 ms·

I think you are misunderstanding the incentives that drive politicians if you think extra health care costs would make them change their subsidy policy. They su

I think you are misunderstanding the incentives that drive politicians if you think extra health care costs would make them change their subsidy policy. They subsidize because the recipients are powerful donors who want them. It isn’t because it is sound fiscal policy.

roenxi 6y ago
Adding to this; there is also no evidence that the US's politicians care about financial incentives as applied to the US government. If it affects them personally then they'd jump like a cat on a stove; but if it only affects the budget they aren't going to respond to any incentive. If the US was being influenced by financial incentives it wouldn't be doing many of the things it does. Like tax cuts or spending more money.
- neutronman 6y ago
  The monetary policy of the USA is insane these days. Tax cut and spend is here for the moment. Taxes will go up but so will spending...
Aeolun 6y ago
Then fix that? Powerful donors should not exist.
MattGaiser 6y ago
Yes, because cheap food is not something that would otherwise interest lots of people... Increasing corn production also does not play to a crucial constituency in the Presidential elections... This obsession with “rich donors” ignores that voters will also get mad at politicians for the consequences of eliminating those subsidies.
- jyounker 6y ago
  The smaller your donor base, the fewer people you have to make happy. My personal belief is that this is why income inequality is inversely correlated with democratic representation.
reducesuffering 6y ago
Food subsidies poll extremely well and the US votes for them. They are one of the least controversial public policies and not because of "powerful donors." Almost all countries subsidize food production and there are strong reasons why this is so. Primarily, countries want a robust domestic food surplus for social stability. High food prices or lack of food leading to famine are one of the highest causes of social unrest.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Ok, even if you are right, they still aren’t concerned with the fiscal impact of the policy.

roenxi 6y ago

Adding to this; there is also no evidence that the US's politicians care about financial incentives as applied to the US government. If it affects them personally then they'd jump like a cat on a stove; but if it only affects the budget they aren't going to respond to any incentive. If the US was being influenced by financial incentives it wouldn't be doing many of the things it does. Like tax cuts or spending more money.

neutronman 6y ago
The monetary policy of the USA is insane these days. Tax cut and spend is here for the moment. Taxes will go up but so will spending...

Aeolun 6y ago

Then fix that? Powerful donors should not exist.

MattGaiser 6y ago

Yes, because cheap food is not something that would otherwise interest lots of people... Increasing corn production also does not play to a crucial constituency in the Presidential elections... This obsession with “rich donors” ignores that voters will also get mad at politicians for the consequences of eliminating those subsidies.

jyounker 6y ago
The smaller your donor base, the fewer people you have to make happy. My personal belief is that this is why income inequality is inversely correlated with democratic representation.

reducesuffering 6y ago

Food subsidies poll extremely well and the US votes for them. They are one of the least controversial public policies and not because of "powerful donors." Almost all countries subsidize food production and there are strong reasons why this is so. Primarily, countries want a robust domestic food surplus for social stability. High food prices or lack of food leading to famine are one of the highest causes of social unrest.

cortesoft 6y ago
Ok, even if you are right, they still aren’t concerned with the fiscal impact of the policy.