The American system of government works pretty well. In fact, name me a large country (100 million plus people) that doesn't have some level of governmental dysfunction ...
After the Bush administration is done, limiting presidents to two terms will appear a folly. I am reminded of this by Matthew Yglesias' thoughts on the lies and exaggeration in the Social Security privatization campaign.
One thing Bush has done very well is to pursue policies whose electoral and financial benefits are realized now, and their costs later. The costs for the Iraq war keep on appearing off-budget in special appropriations, the Medicare bill, the taxcuts which have sunset provisions to lower their total cost that mysteriously expire in 2009, and now Social Security ... even if Bush is successful the implementation will happen off his watch.
If Bush was able to run for re-election the perennial gambit of pushing the due date for payment out to 2009/10 would not work. Elections, in other words, provide good incentives for politicians to behave in ways that are good over the llong-term. A concern with Presidential legacy is not sufficient to ensure good behavior in office. Elections generally are.
Posted by robe0419 at February 21, 2005 12:45 PM | TrackBackOne aspect of a President having certain desirable programs sunset shortly after his term ends is that it will often reflect poorly on the other party. As "party fatigue" sets in, it is quite likely that the president we elect in 2008 or 2012 will be a Democrat. If popular programs are halted during the opposite party's term in office, it tends to bode poorly for that opposite party. So it could be, as you suggest, an expedience to provide short term benefit with long term cost, but there may also be a component of long-term partisan strategy.
Posted by: Jim at February 21, 2005 01:34 PM