It is difficult to take this inauspicious financial forecast lightly. Stiglitz has one of the world's best minds on this subject, and was surprisingly overlooked as an Obama cabinet appointee (as lamented by many liberal bloggers).
While reading his analysis I could not help but notice an underlying problem with the way fiscal policy is implemented in this country. A product of our rotating democratic system, we cannot help but have mutant policies-- grotesquely different than their original form-- persist throughout consecutive administrations . The brain child of President A will -- regardless of how "good" of an idea it is-- never make it through to President B without at least some minor tweakings. I believe it is this tweaking that is partially to blame for the current financial mess.
Stiglitz mentions that research exists revealing the unfortunate fact that if Clinton's fiscal policies had continued on to this current day, we would be facing a much more managable crisis. But they didn't. Incoming administration wonks had the green light to take a perfectly reasonable set of policies-- policies which are largely responsible for the fiscal (and therefore overall) health of our society, re-work them in accordance with their own ideological preferences, and undermine gains previously made.
I understand why it is important to have general and frequent elections. At the same time, there ought to be some type of way to make certain types of policy untouchable for a certain amount of time, unless some serious reason warrants its reversal. In these instances the parties involved could take it up with the Supreme Court. My roommate, a future lawyer, noted that to work, my plan may require a Constitution amendment. Well Hell, if that's what it took to end racial segregation, or the disenfranchisement of women, then that's what its going to take to put our country back on a consistent economic path of growth. I'm okay with that.
When it comes to controversial topics like appropriate fiscal policy, each consecutive administration will inevitably be filled with minds that think differently-- that have a range of ideological beliefs about the proper and relative roles of government and the economy, of the best way to capitalize on and sustain economic growth, etc. These beliefs are reflected in the policy decisions made.
My proposal is this: When a certain type of policy is implemented, it ought to trigger a shield of immunity that protects it from being changed by the upcoming administration for a certain amount of time. This way-- and particularly with fiscal policy-- our government will enable the effects of a tax cut/hike (to take a simple example) to be evident, rather than co-opt a reasonable policy in mid-stream, predict its failure, and change it accordingly.
Afraid of being bound to suffer from an unquestionably bad policy? Thank this system for enabling you to even deduce the policy's merits. Because we were able to give the policy time and judge its merits cautiously, you can be sure that it will not be repeated.
Rather than being governed by a series of counterproductive, conflicting policies, shifting from one administration to the next, we ought to demand that certain policies (particularly with regards to fiscal health) be immune from this flawed revolving door process. A certain permanence to them would be a sign of prudential governance, and while there will be people who argue that this undermines our democratic system, my answer for them would be similar to a phrase offered by Mussolini that I am particularly taken with:
"The sanctity of an ism is not in the ism; it has no sanctity beyond its power to do, to work, to succeed in practice. It may have succeeded yesterday and fail tomorrow. Failed yesterday and succeed tomorrow. The machine first of all must run!"
Our machine-- capitalism-- is suffering from serious mechanical failure. It needs more than an oil change; the engine itself has seized. Something is needed to make the machine run again. If that means stealing a play from the dusty and unfairly disparaged playbook of fascism, then so be it. Look at where capitalism has gotten us. Are we so transfixed with the idea of potential earnings that we are blinded to some of the more obvious flaws of this system? Or, can we eliminate the subconscious connection between "governmental control" and "loathsome" that has pervaded our system, and enact policies designed for relative permanence to give them the time they need to work (or fail)?
At least then it will be the flaws of the policies themselves that cause failure, and not the capricious but doomed efforts of transient, trigger-happy politicians tweaking the prescription for an already- healing (or even asymptomatic) system.
No comments:
Post a Comment