The Cost of "Doing Something"
Commenta 
3rd July , 2009Matt Welch deconstructs the "do something, it’s an emergency" meme in this excellent article at Reason.com.
|
On the eve of what would be a 219-212 House of Representatives vote in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the New York Times editorial board argued that whatever the bill’s eventual price tag, it sure beat "the costs of doing nothing." Warned the Gray Lady: "By any measuredrought, famine, coastal devastationthe costs of inaction, of clinging to a broken energy policy, will dwarf the costs of acting now." |
Bolding mine. That statement borders on insanity, IMO. Can anyone tell me how to predict the cost/benefit balance when no one knows the costs or the benefits of options A and B?
|
If that argument sounds familiar, it is. Times columnist Paul Krugman, while declaring those 212 nay votes guilty of "treason against the planet," posited that "we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself." Therefore, "How can anyone justify failing to act?" |
|
Hyperbole aside, the urge to have the government do something in the face of a perceived crisis is arguably the most powerful and effective legislative engine known to man. If the crisis is acute enough, backers of state intervention will even admit that content matters less than the mere existence of action itself. Another way is to look back in history, and see how previous laws passed using this justification have stood the test of time. |
He then takes a look at four specific cases: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, and The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and shows how "effective" those pieces of legislation have proven to be.
Then he leaves us with this parting thought.
|
There are times when doing something with the federal government is the perfectly appropriate or reasonable response to a given challenge. Such is the fodder of constructive public policy discussion. But when a politician or pundit uses scare language about the perils of inaction, that is often an attempt to shut discussion down, and force through something today that many of us will be sorry about for years to come. |
Yet even now, in this very forum, we hear people claiming that government must do something to solve the healthcare crisis, when nobody knows what that something should be.
(It’s worth noting that the HMO mess which contributes mightly to today’s healthcare crisis was, in turn, legislated in those hallowed halls of Congress by Ted Kennedy, once again "The Man With The Plan.")
My question: Why do people fall for the "do something, even if it’s wrong" mantra?
Original post by Don