Usually, governing involves some experimentation. You never know if policies are going to work until you try them. It wasn’t clear in the 1990s that welfare reform would be effective. Few thought George W. Bush’s Medicare drug benefit would be anything but a disaster. But those were all small potatoes compared to some of the things Barack Obama will be deciding. We are about to embark on a vast improvisation on economic policy that stands a very good chance of failure.
It’s frustrating, but let’s face it: nobody really knows how the U.S. and global economies will respond to the huge stimulus package soon (we hope) to come out of Washington. There’s the straightforward notion that a boatload of federal spending will create jobs, at least for a while. And that tax cuts will put money in people’s pockets, which might make them feel better, even if they don’t spend it. But both of those are primarily short-term outcomes - desired ones, of course - but mainly political in nature. Beyond that horizon things are very dark and confusing indeed.
Can a stimulus do the job? Well, maybe. It is, in the end, all we have. Amity Shlaes wrote a piece last week recounting how many of FDR’s improvisations didn’t work. But when Shlaes goes on to give her own prescription, it’s colored by her dislike of taxes and spending. Is a capital gains tax cut really the answer? Again?
The Times-Picayune’s Angus Lind has a 
