There is an interesting story about a college chemistry professor who put an extra credit question on his chemistry class’s final exam: “Is hell endothermic or exothermic? Support your answer.” For those of us whose last chemistry class was several decades ago, endothermic means absorbing heat; exothermic means releasing it.

Most students tried to answer using the formulas they’d studied. But one student took a very different approach. Here’s an expanded retelling:

The student wrote, “To determine whether hell absorbs or releases heat, we must first consider how its population changes. Specifically, how many souls enter hell, and how many leave. Now, it’s reasonable to assume that once a soul enters hell, it stays. I have never heard of anyone being granted weekend leave, an early discharge, or a transfer to a more desirable location. Therefore, the departure rate is effectively zero.

As for arrivals, numerous religions maintain that people who don’t follow their particular faith are going to hell. Since those religions disagree, and most people belong to no more than one religion, we can conclude that hell has a substantial and continuously growing population.

So now we must consider whether hell is expanding fast enough to accommodate everyone. There are only two possibilities. “First, if souls arrive faster than hell expands, hell becomes increasingly crowded. Temperature and pressure rise until, eventually, all hell breaks loose. However, if hell expands faster than souls arrive, temperature and pressure fall until hell freezes over. To determine which condition actually exists, I turn to evidence from my own experience.

During my freshman year, Theresa Marshall told me, ‘It’ll be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you.’ And for the next several semesters, her prediction appeared safe. Despite my considerable efforts, nothing happened that would suggest even a modest cooling trend.

However, last night Theresa did sleep with me, which means hell must have frozen over. Therefore, I think we can conclude that hell has released sufficient heat to reach the freezing point and is therefore exothermic. Furthermore, Theresa’s repeated cries of ‘Oh God! Oh God!’ clearly indicates Divine Intervention of some kind, which I submit constitutes experimental confirmation of my theory”

The student received the only A.

The student received an A because his nonsensical theory was entertaining. Politicians sometimes get elected for the same reason. Unfortunately, though, their theories come with a bill and usually in the form of higher taxes.

Consider universal rent control, a policy espoused by the Democratic Socialists of America. The appeal isn’t difficult to understand. Rent is expensive, and people need somewhere to live. Nobody needs a chemistry degree to recognize the problem. And we can only imagine the following campaign conversation.

“The rent is too damn high.”
“Agreed. What’s your solution?”
“Pass a law making it lower.”
“Will that build more apartments?”
“No, but it will make the apartments people can’t find much more affordable.”

And therein lies the difficulty. Making the price more attractive and making the product more available are two entirely different things.

If a restaurant advertises lobster dinners for five dollars, I’m interested. If it has no lobster, I’m less impressed. And if democrat explains that lobster is now a human right, I still want to know what’s coming out of the kitchen.

The Democratic Socialists of America also propose building publicly owned housing. That addresses the supply question and deserves examination. But it brings us right back to the questions every ambitious proposal should answer: How much will it cost? Who pays? How soon will the homes be available?

The carpenter expects wages. The concrete supplier expects payment. And the plumber probably won’t accept an “atta boy” in exchange for installing the toilets.
Those expenses don’t make publicly owned housing a bad idea by themselves. They do mean the proposal needs a credible budget and a practical plan. Calling something a right doesn’t establish either one.

The student’s answer is humorous because his supposedly scientific proof rests on taking Theresa’s figure of speech literally. In politics, the convenient assumption may be that a worthy goal guarantees a workable solution.

Start with a desirable outcome, assume the inconvenient parts will take care of themselves, and announce that you’ve solved the problem. The plaudits arrive immediately. The bill takes longer. I don’t object to wanting affordable housing. I object to treating a promise as proof that the plan will work. Show me the costs, the plans, and the results. Then we have something to discuss.

So, before you cast your ballot come November it might be wise to consider if that same “Divine Intervention” that was present for the college student will be at play if the democrats win – because I can guarantee that no amount of fiddling with the math or making hollow promises will make any of their proposals work.