Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr: Solve Unemployment By Creating Constitutional Rights to Houses, Health Care, Education . . . and iPods? Huh?

Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat from Illinois, thinks we could solve our unemployment problems by writing into the Constitution that every person has a right to a “decent home”, health care, and “a decent education”. Rep. Jackson figures that all these new rights will create millions of new jobs building homes, providing medical care, and building schools and providing students with laptops and iPods. Check out the video below the fold.

Long on Emotional Appeal, Short on Common Sense

As is typical with so many on the Left, Rep. Jackson’s comments are long on emotional appeal and short on common sense.If everybody has a constitutional right to a decent house, doesn’t that mean the federal government has to provide houses for those that don’t have them?  And what happens if one person has a more decent home than another person? Do they get to sue in court for a better house?

I don’t know a single person that wouldn’t wish for a nice home, good medical care, and a decent education for every American. The problem is that we live in the real world. Somebody actually would have to pay for all those new rights Rep. Jackson proposes. Providing houses, medical care, laptops, and iPods for millions of people would nothing less than astronomically expensive – and the federal government can even pay for the promises it’s already made.

Rep. Jackson’s Broken Window

Rep. Jackson impassioned plea before the House of Representatives also contains an absurdity very similar to French economist Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy. The following is an excerpt from Bastiat’s work, That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

Big government statists are always proposing government projects as a means to employ people and stimulate the economy. At first glance, it probably makes sense because you’re employing people and those people are in turn buying groceries, cars, iPads, etc. in other words, what is seen is that the money trickles down through the economy from person to person, supporting a whole chain of buyers and sellers.

The problem is that the big government types always ignore the part that is not seen. Bastiat continues:

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

What Rep. Jackson and other statists ignore is that the money government spends has to come from somebody in the private sector. In other words, when government spends money to buy somebody a house, taxpayers have less money in their pockets to buy themselves houses. Even worse, when government borrows to spend money on stupid ideas (like most of what Rep. Jackson proposed), taxpayers not only have to pay for the expense, but the accrued interest as well.

Statists seem to think that money just grows on trees, but it comes from the private sector. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar less that somebody in the private sector can spend. In other words, what is seen is that the government spends money on its projects. What is not seen – and often ignored – is that some taxpayer somewhere has less money as a result that he can spend how he wants.

Yup, Health Care is Not a Constitutional Right
One final thought – I thought it was amusing that Rep. Jackson acknowledged in the video that health care indeed is not a constitutional right. I wonder if the Democratic leadership later got on his case about that one, considering Democrats are always insisting that everybody has a constitutional right to health care.

Conclusion
I’m sure there are some people on the statist Left that really do mean well, they really do want a good life for everybody. The problem is that their solutions to make that happen don’t work in the real world. There is no way that we can possibly ensure that everybody is materially equal without imposing a far worse tyranny to do it.

Though there are those that mean well, there also are plenty on the Left that make brain dead proposals such as these because it is effective for buying the votes of poor people with other people’s money. Unfortunately, there are many people with whom this kind of message resonates and they vote accordingly, not realizing that by cutting the economic throats of those better off, they inhibit their own progress up the economic ladder.

I don’t know many people that have gotten jobs from poor people. Do you?