By Karen Petrou
- Judging U.S. rulemaking by its benefits to the public good, not just by its impact on private wealth, is transformational and, with a new CBA methodology, also more than possible.
- Equitable rules can be both effective and efficient.
- Maximizing the public good is not synonymous with redistribution or reverse discrimination.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12866, creating hurdles ahead of federal rules that are “economically significant.” This was measured by a cost of $100 million or more. On January 20, President Biden began a long-overdue rewrite, stipulating that federal rules are henceforth to be judged not just by their impact on private wealth, but also by what becomes of the public good.
Continue reading “Rules We Can Really Live By”
By Karen Petrou
Perhaps nothing is as startling about the 2020 election as the bad calls pollsters made up to the minute votes were counted. One might have thought all the mistakes that led to similar 2016 gaffes were corrected – pollsters certainly said so – but they weren’t and the reason why is sad, but simple. The political-science models on which polling is premised are, like monetary-policy models and so much conventional wisdom, predicated on the vibrant U.S. middle class that once was but is no more. As we showed early on the economic inequality blog, economic inequality breeds not just acute political polarization, but also a strongly right-leaning shift in voter sentiment. No wonder – American voters denied the iconic promise of modest economic security and inter-generational mobility are angry. The more they see prosperity enjoyed by only a few and often a progressive few at that, the angrier they get. Add in COVID, and this is a witch’s brew of economic despair, social anger, political polarization, and national instability.
Continue reading “How Inequality, Not Polling, Predicted the 2020 Election”