In response to this article by Thomas Friedman in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

Mr. Friedman,

In your "Who's Up for Building Bridges" column, you include President George W. Bush in the Reagan legacy of "tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution".  To steal an inflation-adjusted line from Meatloaf, I suppose that "one out of three ain't bad".  Contrary to popular belief — and, at times, his own rhetoric — President "W" was neither a deregulator nor a limiter of government.  Under his watch, and often at his urging, the federal government implemented Sarbanes-Oxley — a huge expansion of government regulation of business — and increased the total volume of regulations on the financial sector.

While he did engineer a broad-based tax cut (every single taxpayer saw his or her rates reduced, as well as economy-driving cuts in capital investment), he also expanded federal involvement in education, implemented a new drug entitlement for seniors, created a new "faith-based initiatives" program, expanded Medicaid, implemented a new health insurance entitlement for children via "S-CHIP", and doubled down on President Clinton's government incentivization of lending to low-income families (the so-called "sub-prime" mortgages that became the "toxic assets").  In fact, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aside, under his stewardship domestic discretionary spending increased significantly more under President Bush than it did under President Clinton.  This was neither Reagan-esque deregulation nor limiting of government.

I would also note that even during the health care reform debate, there wasn't simply a debate of "ObamaCare" versus "no".  There were a number of free-market reforms proposed that would have expanded choice and competition, access and innovation while reducing costs — without raising taxes, creating new bureaucracies, and imposing new mandates and prohibitions.  These ideas were discarded early in the legislative process, leaving those in opposition to "ObamaCare" with only the choice of saying "no".  If a car is careening out of control in reverse, the proper focus is on stopping the car and minimizing the damage first — then refocusing on plotting a direction forward.

Finally, I would submit that rather than "incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country", the government should instead create a climate where not just factories but all businesses are welcome — not through subsidies, protection from competition, or special advantages for favored industries, but rather by getting out of the way and letting visionaries and entrepreneurs work their magic without unnecessary interference from the government or intrusion on the marketplace.  A simple, efficient tax code and low taxes on imports, payrolls, profits, and capital gains create a climate of innovation and productivity.  Subsidies and tax credits give politicians too much power to dole out favors to special interests, and too much influence over areas where they have limited expertise and information.

We've seen what happens when we rely on government to "build bridges" — we get a Bridge to Nowhere.  Instead, let's get government out of the way, and unleash the magic of the markets.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Along the same lines, I also sent the following letter to the Chronicle:

re:  Who's Up for Building Bridges

In his column about "building bridges", Thomas Friedman makes two main errors.  First, he assigns to President George W. Bush the legacy of the Reagan trifecta of "tax cuts, deregulation and government-as-the-problem-not-the-solution".  In truth, President Bush met only one of the three — one short of even the Meatloaf standard of success.  Under Bush, not only did regulation increase (even in the financial sector — remember Sarbanes-Oxley?), but domestic discretionary spending increased at nearly double the level that it did under President Clinton.

Secondly, he states that government should be "incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country", implying that it is the government who should lead the way in deciding where we should invest in the future, using subsidies and special benefits to guide innovation.  Unfortunately, government tends to use such interventions to protect favored corporations from competition, and to setup benefits for favored special interests.  Mr. Friedman is asking for politicians, acting on the incentive of being re-elected, to somehow predict the future and direct future innovation in areas in which they have limited knowledge and expertise.

We've seen the result when we expect government to lead the way in "building bridges":  we get a Bridge to Nowhere.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX