Sarah Maricle Ayers: Jeb Bush’s reservations about government freebies are a relief

Jeb Bush’s sluggish movement in the national polls betrays the refreshingly presidential-like behavior he has been exhibiting. In a campaign environment marked by shallow squabbling and impulsive barb-throwing, Bush’s recent statement about limiting governmental benefits demonstrates a serious and sorely needed focus on policy concerns.

Speaking on September 24 in Mount Pleasant, S.C., Bush cautioned against allowing African-American outreach efforts to consist of government-funded gifts, and stressed broader themes of hope and opportunity as more effective alternatives:

“Our message is one of hope and aspiration. It isn’t one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success.”

The critical reactions, however, from media outlets and political detractors have been swift and frivolous. Instead of discussing the effectiveness of trading subsidies for striving, they have been trotting out provocative buzz words like “racism,” advancing the stream of petty jabbing.

The last seven years have seen unprecedented levels of taxpayer-funded giveaways, and so it is logical for a presidential candidate to signal whether his administration would continue this approach. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has the number of food stamp recipients rising by an astronomical 45 percent since 2009. President Obama proposed “free” community college education earlier this year, and general entitlement abounds.

Bush’s reservations on freebies are a relief, and the charge of racism is a nonsensical attack.

If minimizing governmental dependency is such a glaringly error-laden notion, it should be easily derailed with evidence, instead of base incivility. Instead, data are on Bush’s side here and reveal the weak link between subsidies and improved lives. The greatest testament to this is President Johnson’s War on Poverty, which has no gains to show for its $21 trillion in government help.

By contrast, personal choices have the greatest influence on life outcomes, and advancing this belief will benefit all races more than any other modern, feel-good promise. Research characterizes American poverty as being determined mostly by family, social, and educational status, factors that no bureaucratic sprinkling of tax dollars can undo. Bush’s push to lean on hope, opportunity, and self-sufficiency addresses how to break the deeper and cyclical roots of poverty.

Striking a further contrast to Bush’s sober rejection of political gimmicks, his statement is being associated with Mitt Romney’s clumsy income talks of 2012. A Washington Post headline wrote, “Jeb Bush Raises the Ghost of Mitt (Free Stuff) Romney.” This is a media-driven assumption that Romney’s mess is being repeated by Bush. Who can say yet that audiences won’t receive Bush’s free enterprise commentary differently? One unsuccessful candidate does not perennially immunize voters from embracing free- market thought.

Voters, for their part in the campaign, must develop an appetite for economic truths to avoid being seduced by public giveaways. Every time the government provides a benefit, the incentive to create or buy it elsewhere is destroyed, leaving a trail of lost jobs and foregone ingenuity in its wake. Every time an item is added to a governmental budget, resources are stolen from more productive uses. Every time a harmful personal choice is subsidized, it is merely perpetuated. Economic principles should be guiding budget policy, but the impetus lies with voters to reject the gaffes and verbal punches we’re getting instead.

Jeb Bush’s message of aspiration and opportunity is a step in the right direction, and merits more consideration than it’s currently receiving.

Sarah Maricle Ayers has bachelor’s degree in economics from Florida State University, and an MBA from FSU. Her op-eds on economic issues have been published in Florida newspapers. Column courtesy of Context Florida.