Milton Friedman, Socialist

If John McCain or Sarah Palin had written Milton Friedman's obit in 2006, would they have vilified the Nobel laureate economist widely regaled as the father of modern conservatism as some kind of anti-capitalist who was bent on spreading the wealth around?

Or are they simply unaware that it was Friedman, the laissez-faire icon and dean of neoconservative economics, who first advanced what he called the "negative income tax" as the most efficient means of alleviating poverty?

Friedman's notion, which Barack Obama has reincarnated under a slightly different rubric, was to use the tax system not just to collect revenue but also (egad) to redistribute wealth.

Imagine how McCain and Palin would play at, say, a meeting of the American Economic Association if they substituted "Friedman" for "Obama" in their recent campaign rhetoric:

"Milton Friedman's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington." -- McCain.

"Friedman's plans to raise taxes on some in order to give checks out to others is not a tax cut, it is more government growth and it's another government giveaway. Whatever you call his tax plan and that redistribution of wealth, it will destroy jobs. It will hurt our economy. And it's about time that we all called Milton Friedman on it." -- Palin.

Comments

[moses22304]

Mr. Warden:

You are only partly correct in identifying Friedman's negative income tax proposals. I believe that you have left out a major aspect of that idea, namely, the almost complete dismantling of the federal bureaucratic agencies dealing with low-income government programs. Friedman was interested in making governmental programs more efficient by cutting out the bureaucratic inefficiencies caused by red tape and the inherent overhead costs associated with running the programs.

Say, the federal government runs a program to subsidize housing for low-income populations at a cost of $1 billion. Of that amount, 15% to 20% goes to a federal agency to run that program. Therefore, there is a "waste" of $150 to $200 million. By eliminating this overhead cost, either the entire $1 billion could be given out or taxes can be decreased as that overhead costs would no longer be needed. It is here where Friedman would have certainly disagreed with Obama. Not only does Obama intend to adopt a form of Friedman's negative income tax, but also intends to increase the size and number of government programs. This is exactly the type of inefficiencies that Friedman wanted to eliminate.

Eliminating government inefficiencies would be good for everyone. Every month the IRS would cut a check to low income people, but it would also mean that taxes would used more efficiently and those who get checks from the government would be able to use it how they feel would be the best for their interests.

[Jessrond]

What's really scary is the term "communist."

People on some forums still spam the same crap about Muslim Terrorist from Kenya.

Anyone who disagrees with Bush is "Pravda" and "in the tank for Obama."

What's even scarier is that "Muslim" is a curse word.

I hope we can return to 1962 again, but without homophobia and racism.

We need to teach economic history in public school. Not just the charts and laws etc.

[IsaacB]

Minor correction. The article refers to Friedman as the "dean of neoconservative economics".

Friedman's opposition to the Iraq War was but one example of his differences with the Neocons.

He tended to identify himself as a libertarian.

[Rob Warden - Huffpost Blogger]

I certainly did not intend to defame the late, great Milton Friedman by lumping him in with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush. Friedman was a "neoconservative" before that became a derogatory word. Some 40 years ago, I had the pleasure of interviewing Milton and his wonderful wife Rose several times at length for a series (two in fact) that I wrote about his views from the Chicago Daily News. I remember him telling me at the first of those interviews something to the effect that "We're all working for the same thing [i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number]. The disagreement is only about how best to achieve the common goals." In those days it was still respectable, and even honorable, to be a conservative.

[Jessrond]

Can someone get this out more mainstream?

Politico, Slate would pick up on this.

Reason too.

I am a folower of Comrade Friedman and Comrade Smith.

Keynes too. Keynes and Friedman had differences, but some of it was Friedman changing the bad/disproven parts about Keynes.

[LeftRight]

Not to mention the fact that Adam Smith, the CREATOR of the idea of the so called "free market" was a strong believer in govt regulation OF that market!