Arbitrary standards

ARBITRARY STANDARDS…. Last week, when the Senate’s Republican “centrists” decided it was time to shrink the size of the stimulus package, they announced their intention to cut $100 billion. It wasn’t because they saw $100 billion in spending they thought to be wasteful; they just thought the plan should be smaller, and $100 billion seemed like a good number.

It reinforced the notion that some lawmakers were approaching the policy debate in a recklessly arbitrary way. It wasn’t about identifying what the economy needs and crafting a policy to match, it was about the capricious whims of fickle lawmakers who wanted a bill, as long as it wasn’t too big or too aggressive or too ambitious. The standards for each were frustratingly vague.

To reinforce the point, Ezra Klein found this gem:

In driving down the total cost of the stimulus bill — from $838 billion approved by the Senate and $820 by the House — legislators also sharply reduced proposed tax incentives for buyers of homes and cars that held huge public appeal. Senator Collins said getting the final number to under $800 billion was more than symbolic; it meant “a fiscally responsible number,” she said.

I wish I knew what that means. Negotiators agreed on a $789 billion economic stimulus plan. Is $790 billion a “fiscally responsible number”? How about $795 billion? Or $800 billion?

Collins’ quote reminds me a bit of Adrian Monk caring more about whether the number is 10 than whether the number is right.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation