Following up on my earlier post on Congress' record low approval rating, here is Mark Tapscott with his thoughts on the issue:
Consider the latest Gallup Poll, which finds only 14 percent of the American people have "a great deal of" confidence in Congress or "quite a lot," compared to 19 percent a year ago. That is lowest confidence rating Gallup has ever recorded for Congress since the survey firm began measuring public confidence in major American institutions in 1973.
Congress is far from alone in suffering plummeting confidence ratings. The presidency dropped from 33 percent to 25 percent and the Supreme Court from 40 percent to 34 percent. The "fourth branch" of government, the mainstream media, also has declining public confidence ratings. Television news dropped from 31 percent to 23 percent, while newspapers were down to 22 percent, compared to 30 percent a year ago.
The highest confidence levels were for the military at 69 percent, small business at 59 percent, and the police at 54 percent. Organized labor remained among the lowest at 19 percent, along with HMOs at 15 percent and Big Business at 18 percent.
The root problem is a bipartisan inability - or refusal - to adopt policies supported by clear majorities of the American people. Those policies for the most part involve a significantly lower level of government activism, whereas the political class for the most part seeks only a higher level because it benefits, financially and otherwise, from the higher taxes, greater federal spending and heightened importance of public institutions.
I couldn't agree more. Read the whole article.
The question becomes is there any hope for meaningful political reform or are we better off with the status quo? The average American may be dissatisfied with the way things are, but not enough to revolt against the system. The political problem becomes how can small, positive changes be made on the margin to help reign in the government spending and growth?
As Tyler Cowen taught us in our macro class, the US economy should be okay as long as the economy grows at a faster rate than government spending. If it does not, we are in big trouble. There is much debate among economists which is growing faster and if current spending levels are dangerous. I think nearly everyone (outside the political class) would agree less spending is better.
Instapundit also shares his thoughts on Tapscott's article and also this set of related links:
More thoughts from Sean Hackbarth. And Tammy Bruce wants a constitutional amendment to fire Congress when its approval gets this low.
MORE: Thoughts on burning bridges.
STILL MORE: Apparently Congress doesn't think much of America, either. Well, that would explain a lot . . . .
Question: Given the constraints of the American political system, how can politicians be incentivized to lower government spending?
1 comment:
An interesting question.
How can politicians be incentivized? Easy ... vote them out of they don't do what you want!
One problem is that far too few Americans are really active in the grassroots political system. Most people just kind of follow along, and choose the lesser of two evils.
Another problem is the barriers to entry into politics. Most people perceive that they must be wealthy, well connected to other wealthy people, and be willing to endure enormous personal abuse to enter politics. That discourages many, many good people, and often only leaves those with the most selfish ambitions to even apply for the job.
I think one of the best ideas to implement would be term limits on Congress. However, that would require congressional approval, so that won't happen.
I also think a presidential line item veto would help reign in spending. It works great at the state level.
Post a Comment