« The Solution Crisis | Main | The Wicked Paradox Redux Again »
March 29, 2009
Reader Comments: "Solutions"
Most readers of my op-ed, “The solution Crisis,” generally agreed with me—adding their own take. Anne, over at CosmopolitAnne comments:
The problem with our solutions is that we have forgotten what a solution is actually supposed to do. A solution should not only fix the problem but prevent it from happening in the future. All of the fore-mentioned solutions were quick-fixes, aimed to solve one specific problem. Many solutions are too hastily enacted just so that the American people cannot complain that the government isn't taking action. This goes for the stimulus package as well as the 90% on bonuses over $100,000 for executives of companies that have received tax payer funds. All that the new tax on bonuses is going to do is make the executives find some other loop-hole in the system to funnel the money from the company into their personal bank accounts. However, I agree Bowles, would much rather have a government who is seen to act too slowly on many good problems, than leaders who chose bad solutions our country will never live down. You can't blame our leaders for taking their time to carefully ponder what the correct way to fix a good problem is, but you can fault them for enacting a solution that only opens a whole new can of worms and another problem to pretend to solve. The executive and legislative branches should watch and learn from the judicial branch. Enact solutions and set standards that embody the basic underlying core values of our country and can be applied to multiple situations in the future.
Our friends over at the “Subcontinental Breakfast” agree as well—but are quick to extend the criticism to the media:
The danger of failed solutions overshadowing the very problems they were meant to solve is a real issue, but the use of tax laws for punitive purposes, at least in this case, doesn't seem like it'll end up like that simply because of the overwhelming "outrage" of the public (as beaten into our heads thanks to that great industry, the 24-7 media) about the AIG bonuses and the "greed and ambition" of Wall Street.And in order for solutions to be spectacular failures like Bay of Pigs or Vietnam, it's usually because public tide has turned against the government actions and so it can be reported as such (and subsequently also beaten into our heads until it really does overshadow the problem).
But that simply makes it a bigger problem, because the public or whatever the media creates of it, is not holding Congress in check in their readiness to punish the Wall Street fatcats (which can lead to things like this). The solution will evolve into a larger mess if they continue to use tax laws this way, especially when people begin to realize what they're doing.
On the other hand, George at “Rand Review” isn’t quite so sure:
“Charley Rangel expressed misgivings. He didn’t think tax law should be used for punitive purposes. And he was absolutely right." You state this as what I would take to be a premise, namely: Tax law should not be used for punitive purposes. However, I am really interested to know the reasoning behind this premise. Is the proceeding paragraph (where you mention the various positions held on the progressive tax and flat tax by liberals and conservatives, respectively) the justification? If so, then aren't liberals ultimately choosing between two evils, that is to return the ill-spent $165million tax dollars vs. to lose an argument to conservatives? If the proceeding paragraph was not the justification for that premise, then I would be very interested to know what Rangel's argument was.
Posted by stevemack at March 29, 2009 02:41 PM
