When I took introduction to political science, I was introduced to the concept of the "
prisoner's dilemma". The problem is outlined as such.
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The whole point of the exercise is to introduce game theory. Here is a matrix of the possible decisions.
|
| | Prisoner B Stays Silent | Prisoner B Betrays |
|---|
| Prisoner A Stays Silent | Each serves 6 months | Prisoner A: 10 years
Prisoner B: goes free |
| Prisoner A Betrays | Prisoner A: goes free
Prisoner B: 10 years | Each serves 5 years |
The interesting aspect of the game is that each individual would be best served to stay silent. In that scenario they serve a combine 1 year in jail. The other three scenarios have them going to jail for a combined 10 years. The only problem is that the rational choice for each prisoner is to betray. Why? Because they are guaranteed to end up in better shape or equal to the other prisoner if they betray. In the other case they may end up much worse off than the other prisoner.
Ok, I see it is an interesting thought problem, but what does it have to do with
Sen Bunning's latest antics?
Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning on Monday again held up legislation that extends unemployment and health insurance benefits....
Bunning said he supports extending unemployment benefits and he tried unsuccessfully last week to negotiate an agreement with the Senate Democratic leadership.
“We cannot keep adding to the debt,” Bunning said in remarks on the Senate floor. The legislation is not paid for, contrary to a recent pay-as-you-go law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law.
Basically, Bunning is saying that he is not going to allow Congress to keep spending taxpayer money without first paying for it. The Democrats immediately jumped on him as being against the working class of America.
The Republican senator’s objection to the funding bill has temporarily shut down multi-million dollar construction projects in several states and canceled highway reimbursements to states worth hundreds of millions of dollars, said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.“As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important construction projects around the country,” LaHood said in a statement. “This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed.”
Sen Reid said Republicans were standing in the way of providing emergency help to people in need.“They said ‘No’ to the families of their own states and all our states who count on us when they need action,” Reid said.
"Because of one senator's irresponsible actions, over 61,000 Michigan workers will begin losing their unemployment benefits on Monday," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. "These workers and their families cannot afford to wait for help."
The evil Republicans just want the common man to suffer! Again, what does this have to do with the prisoner's dilemma? Because it is the same problem that the Democrats are exploiting to trash Bunning. Let's rework the problem to reflect the current situation. On one side we have person unemployed and on the other side we have the rest of society. We have the choice of responsible spending and irresponsible spending. Let's revisit the matrix. The X axis is society and the Y axis is the unemployed individual. The first result inside the matrix is the individuals results and the second is society's result in the game.
|
| | Responsible Spending
| Irresponsible Spending
|
|---|
Responsible Spending
| 40, 40
| 0, 50
|
Irresponsible Spending
| 50, 0
| 1, 1
|
If the government spends irresponsibly for the people out of work then those people are better off, but the society as a whole loses. Why? Because money spent on them is taken from the rest of society. The rest of society is poorer for the transfer of wealth. The Democrats argue that if we don't help the little guy then all we care about is the rich. The rich will get everything and the poor will be stuck with nothing. For Democrats the only two options are the lower left and upper right quadrants.
The only problem with the Democrat's argument is that they offer the same deal to every group in society. If everyone takes their deal we end up in the bottom right quadrant were everyone loses. For that is where the leviathan of government overwhelms the economy and shreds it into tatters.
The problem Republicans face in convincing people that they are better off with responsible spendingt. They are asking people to give up their bit of government pork for the greater good knowing in the long run they will be better off for it. In the example of the unemployed gentleman. While he may suffer initially from the lack of federal money. In the long term he will be better off without it. The economy will recover quicker without government intrusion and new jobs will be created. Allowing the unemployed gentleman to find gainful employment.
What makes it such a difficult sell is that the individual's rational best interest is to take the irresponsible spending. In affect getting a piece of the pie while it is still there. It is difficult to get past this rational with voters when Democrats continually play one group against another. The Democrats have been feasting off this dilemma for years to drive their agenda.
It has worked until recently. People are awakening to see the government nearing the cliffs and are beginning to resist. They are beginning to understand the risks of irresponsible spending and are forming Tea Parties across the country. The move to responsible spending has to start some where and Bunning is leading that charge in the senate. The only question is will people stick together for the common good or resort to their base rationales. We will find out by the general publics reaction to Bunning's stand in the senate.
