 n
January 12, former Congressman Henry Reuss, Democrat of Wisconsin,
died at age 89. I worked with Mr. Reuss for several years back in
the early 1980s, while he was chairman and I was on the staff of Congress's
Joint Economic Committee. Although he and I disagreed strenuously
on economic policy, we got along well because he had respect for economists
and Congress as an institution. Capitol Hill would be a better place
if there were
more people like him there today.
Lest Mr. Reuss's
memory be tarnished by praise from a conservative Republican such
as myself, let me quickly note that he was no conservative nor even
a moderate. Henry Reuss was an old fashioned New Deal/Great Society
liberal. As chairman of the House Banking Committee, he attacked
the Federal Reserve and high interest rates. Later, as chairman
of the JEC, he was an implacable foe of just about everything the
Reagan Administration
ever did.
I used to spar
regularly with Mr. Reuss's top staffer, James Galbraith, economist
John Kenneth Galbraith's younger son. For two years, Jamie was executive
director of the JEC, while I headed the Republican staff. Then,
for two years we reversed positions and I was executive director,
while he headed the Democratic staff.
What I remember
most about that time is that members of Congress took economic policy
far more seriously than they do today. In part, that is because
the economic issues of the day were more serious. Also, the differences
within the economics profession were much deeper and more profound
than they are today.
The JEC was
an important forum for discussing these issues. Established in 1946
as the congressional counterpart of the President's Council of Economic
Advisers, the committee attracted many of Congress's best and brightest.
Among its chairmen was Senator Paul Douglas, Democrat of Illinois,
who in real life had been a professor of economics at the University
of Chicago. The Cobb-Douglas production function, which is named
after him, is still taught in every economics textbook on earth.
Among the staff were prominent economists such as Otto Eckstein,
Norman Ture, and Robert Weintraub.
During the
1950s and 1960s, the JEC was a bastion of Keynesian economics, and
helped lay the groundwork for many of John F. Kennedy's economic
policies. In the 1970s, the JEC was among the first prominent economic
institutions to question the validity of Keynesian economics. Because
of the hearings, reports and studies done by the JEC, even die-hard
liberals like Mr. Reuss, conceded the error of their ways and voiced
support for supply-side economics.
"We have
learned from our mistakes in the past," Reuss told the New
York Times in 1981. "We've given up blind pursuit of Keynesian
demand acceleration." He added that supply-side economics was
important in depriving "demand-side" economics of "an
undeserved primacy."
Mr. Reuss did
not run for re-election in 1982. Even then, his kind of cerebral
approach to legislating was already out of style. It has gotten
far worse since. Congressional hearings
today, in both the Republican House and Democratic Senate, are little
more than PR events. They are held not to inform Congress or the
public, but simply to get press and promote an agenda. Important
legislation is often passed these days with no hearings at all.
I think that
the JEC has suffered more than other committees from Congress's
abrogation of responsibility to deal seriously with public policy
issues. Since it has no power to move
legislation, the JEC is totally dependent on the power of its research
and analyses for influence. If no one in Congress cares about quality
studies and thorough investigations before making important decisions,
organizations like the JEC really don't serve a purpose.
This is not
to say that Congress's need for quality economic analysis has disappeared.
Quite the contrary. It needs it now as much as ever. I just don't
think anyone in Congress has the
interest or patience today to sit through a hearing where they might
actually learn something. Witnesses at hearings today are simply
gladiators, whose job is to score debating points against the other
side's witnesses.
I think it
is more than nostalgia for the "good old days" that makes
me lament the current state of affairs. The country pays a real
price when misguided, poorly drafted, and ill-informed legislation
passes Congress, while pressing national needs are ignored because
they can't be explained in sound bites. I think this is one area
where Henry Reuss and I would see eye-to-eye.
|
