Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris has chosen Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, to be her vice presidential running mate. This choice has prompted reflexive criticism of Walz' policies during his time as Governor of Minnesota.   Prominent among these are complaints about his policy to provide school breakfast and lunch for K - 12 schoolchildren, regardless of income. Another complaint is aimed at his declaration that Minnesota will be carbon neutral in electricity production by the year 2040. Still another is expanded voting convenience by adding voting places, days and hours plus drop boxes.  These government policies have earned Walz such labels as "tax and spend liberal," "socialist," "left-wing radical," and even "Marxist."

School Breakfast and Lunch

         Governor Walz used state funds to expand the school lunch program to include breakfast and lunch for all students.  He did this for two reasons: first, the non-poor were eating junk food that did not support their learning process; and secondly, if the meals were not provided to all kids, then those whose family incomes  were low enough to qualify for the federal lunch program would be identified as poor, inviting shaming and bullying. Walz removed the stigma by feeding all the students.

         Expanding the school nutrition program also enabled schools to achieve "economies of scale:"   Once the equipment and staff are in place to serve, say,  a third of the kids who are on federal lunch, the extra cost of serving the rest of the kids is fairly small. The capital equipment is already in place, the staff is hired, and additional supplies can be ordered likely with quantity discounts.    The school provides certain supplies and textbooks and computer-aided instruction, why not nutrition-aided instruction?   The benefits of school meals are public goods; as they say in Minnesota,  'each student learns better when they all learn better.'

 Carbon-neutral by 2040

         The root cause of the greenhouse emissions problem is called an economic "externality," i.e., a bi-product of buyer-seller exchange activity where  neither the buyer nor the seller face incentives to control -- or even monitor --  the costs of their actions.   The external cost of production is borne by the public rather than by the buyers and sellers of the electricity.     It is well understood in economics that regulation is needed to control externalities.    Unregulated markets will overproduce and underprice goods like electricity when they are generated with fuels that emit an external cost.   

         It is ridiculous to affix the pejorative "socialist" label to controls on emissions.    This is recognized by the self-described pro-market "conservative"   Climate Leadership Council that proposes a tax on carbon emissions and a tariff on imports from countries that fail to control their emissions.  (For more on carbon regulation:  https://shepherdexpress.com/news/issue-of-the-month/how-will-the-carbon-tax-slow-climate-chaos/)

 Voting rights

         Walz has proposed to make voting more convenient by adding polling places and expanding voting days and hours at those polling places, plus drop boxes for added convenience. It is ridiculous to affix "Socialism" to efforts to reduce the time cost of voting and to assure that the votes will be counted. In fact, it is just the opposite: when you impose high time costs on some people relative to others, representation is shifted to those with relative ease in voting.    Non-representative government redirects government resources, financed by tax dollars, toward those who have a voting advantage.  If it is socialism, it is socialism for the rich.  (For more on Socialism for the Rich see an earlier essay in Econ4Voters:  https://www.grassrootsnorthshore.com/20230824_mt).