The Hitchhiker Syndrome
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The New York Times
RECKONINGS
September 30, 2001
T hey started arriving literally before the
dust had settled. The Washington Post
dubbed them "hitchhikers" — people who
want to use the patriotic bandwagon as a
vehicle for their favorite policy proposals. To its credit, the Bush
administration has for the most part been cautious about letting the
hitchhikers on board. But will that restraint last?
The most vocal hitchhikers are conservative pundits, who within a day of the
terrorist attack were urging the administration to use the occasion to ram
through tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, drilling in the Arctic
and so on. This drive reached a sort of climax in the already notorious Wall
Street Journal editorial of Sept. 19, which added appointments of
conservative judges to the list of goodies the administration should grab while
the grabbing is good.
Some politicians took heed. Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, rushed to prepare legislation cutting the capital
gains tax; he was ready to put that legislation in play just days after the
terrorists struck but was somehow dissuaded. And a good thing, too: that tax
cut was a terrible idea, which would have done little to stimulate the
economy, would have greatly worsened the long-run budget prospect and
would have given the lion's share of its benefits to a tiny, wealthy, minority.
As I said, the Bush administration has been pretty good so far about
rejecting the hitchhiker strategy; sadly, the official who was least restrained
was the one with the best policy proposal. Robert Zoellick, the United States
trade representative, did himself and the nation no favor when he appeared
to demand "fast track" negotiating authority on the grounds that it was part of
a counteroffensive against terrorism.
It so happens that free trade is one issue on which the administration is
mostly right and many Democrats are wrong. That does not excuse Mr.
Zoellick's exploitation of a national crisis. Indeed, he has made it that much
harder for well-intentioned free traders to defend their position, now that
their cause has been tainted by his opportunism.
The big question — in its way as big a question as what military action the
U.S. will eventually take in Afghanistan or elsewhere — is whether politicians
of both parties (for there are liberal hitchhikers too) will understand that in
times like these the national good requires a special effort to avoid not just
the reality, but even the appearance of political profiteering.
On economic policy the signals are mixed. Capital gains tax cuts have, it
seems, slipped off the agenda. But some administration officials continue to
push for a cut in corporate profits taxes, an almost equally bad idea that
shares the same defects: it would contribute little to the economy in the short
run, would seriously hurt the long-run budget picture (the most widely
circulated proposal would, according to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, cost $900 billion over the next 10 years) and would deliver its
benefits mainly to the wealthiest families.
Worse yet, such a tax cut would look remarkably like a political payoff. Last
spring the administration urged corporate lobbyists to mute their voices while
the original tax cut proposal was forced through Congress; their interests,
they were quietly promised, would be attended to later. Then it became clear
that the tax cut was every bit as much of a budget-buster as the critics had
warned, and the lobbyists found that their moment had passed. To give them
what they want now would give every appearance of using a national
emergency to reward political allies; that in itself would be a reason not to cut
corporate taxes, even if the proposal were not such a bad idea.
Last week the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, warned that in times
like these people "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." (It did
not help Mr. Fleischer's eroding credibility that the official transcript of the
briefing mysteriously omitted the ominous first half of his remark.) The
comment, aimed at "all Americans," was highly inappropriate.
But a similar comment aimed at his own colleagues would be entirely
appropriate. In the aftermath of the outrage of Sept. 11 the administration
has extraordinary freedom of action. But freedom, as always, comes with
responsibility. Those whom we trust to look after the national interest must
watch what they say and do, lest it seem that the nation's trust has been
abused.
nytimes.com |
