1) The stimulus failed to meet Larry Summers' famous criteria of timely, targeted, or temporary.A long time ago, our family started making fun of the North Carolina motto "To be rather than to seem." It appeared to us that, in politics, it was almost always the reverse: "To seem rather than to be." The Obama administration had mastered this. They might seem to be addressing real problems, but their ultimate solution fails to truly address the problem and often exacerbates the situation to make it worse. But at least they seeem to be doing the right thing. And that's all that matters, isn't it?
2) The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.
3) The proposed financial reforms are mostly cosmetic and fail to address the key issues of housing policy and regulatory capital arbitrage.
4) In championing health care reform, the President stresses the unsustainability of our current system, while insisting that nothing will change (you can keep your insurance, keep your doctor, etc.).
The pattern that I see is one of following the path of least political resistance, even if it means failing to make any significant contribution to solving the actual public policy problem. I cannot say that I am completely shocked by this. It is sort of Public Choice 101. But there are a lot of bright, highly-educated people in the Obama Administration who, if they were to step back and evaluate what is happening, would see the pattern for what it is. They believe that they inherited such bad policies that they could not possibly do worse. That belief is starting to look shaky.
Banner ad
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The pattern of the Obama approach to policy
Arnold Kling notices a pattern to how the Obama administration is dealing with public policy.
Labels:
President Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
BO-zo's hubris knows no bounds.
"...seeem to be doing the right thing. And that's all that matters, isn't it?"
The Progressive or Democratic or Leftist view in a nutshell.
I've long asserted, often in Betsy's comments, that this very much seems to be the lib/Dem's primary purpose. They go on and on about "sending a message" and "stand up for" some kind of principle, but they almost never consider the real consequences of their legislation, as if the consequences are irrelevant.
In my mind this is indefensible and irresponsible. But I've found that it's impossible to get lib/Dems to see beyond their symbolism. It's all about good intentions. If their intentions are in the right place, then that is ALL that matters - making them virtuous and anyone opposed evil/greedy/racist/etc.
It's sad. I like a good, reasoned, well-grounded political debate. But it's impossible to find these days. (re: BB, TV, JB, etc.)
I call it hit and run governance.
Everything fails sooner or later. Sometimes in a smooth linear fashion. Sometime with pieces suddenly succumbing to sudden failure and then there is the catastrophic failure of the whole. Things start breaking down and over stress parts that would otherwise keep working. A cascade of faults starts and failures start increasing in an exponential fashion and the whole thing goes boom.
Cracks are appearing in economic, foreign, energy, and foreign policies. One big snap could explode the rest. Words will not help the Obama administration ten.
Post a Comment