Don't you really mean to say that you hope whoever wins the presidency has the courage to adopt the advice of his economic advisors, particularly professional economists? I'm not sure that's what the country needs, now or ever. There are sound reasons why the ideas you mention are not politically feasible--the electorate won't stand for them. Don't discount the collective common sense of the electorate. President Truman once stated that if you lined all the economists in the world up end to end they would still point in all directions. That's not the kind of thinking I am comfortable with guiding governmental economic policy.

The "go-to economists of 2008." I bet that'll be a segment on VH1's "I Love the 2000s" show a decade from now.

Seriously though: Do all economists think schools should be held accountable for what students learn? What is the role of parents in this? It seems to me that communities get the schools they want. Obviously schools need to be held accountable, but only after parents fulfill their obligations. Treating schools as factories -- you're given an input (an uneducated kid), and expected to produce a specific output (an educated kid) -- is an obscene simplification.

The other things listed -- carbon tax, SS benefit reductions for the wealthy, the insertion of some rationality into the health care system -- are fine. But I don't get the schools point.

Dan, why aren't you someone's go-to economist?

> Do all economists think schools should be held accountable for what students learn? What is the role of parents in this? It seems to me that communities get the schools they want. Obviously schools need to be held accountable, but only after parents fulfill their obligations.

Steele apparently believes that a school that doesn't work should be funded if the reason that it doesn't work is outside its control.

He's wrong. We don't fund public schools to fund good public schools. We fund public schools to educate folks. If said education doesn't happen, there's no reason for any funding, and that conclusion applies regardless of the reason for the failure.

If Steele objects, perhaps he'll tell us why we should spend money trying to educate folks who not only refuse to be educated but interfere with the education of others. And no, "we need to try" doesn't count. Good intentions and large piles of money can not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Useless Sam Grant,

"The electorate won't stand for them" because a lot of people are economically illiterate: some macroeconomic principles can be counter-intuitive to the layman. (e.g Free Trade vs. Protectionism)

Secondly, the "collective common sense of the electorate" isn't always correct, nor does it necessarily always produce the maximum benefit. It wasn't too long ago that a flat-earth theory was considered "common sense."

Biomed Tim--spoken like a true "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help" type. Of course, all us unwashed peasants are too stupid to know what's good for us, so we need people like you and some economists to tell us.

Rubbish.

Economists in Washington who have the courage of their convictions are generally on leave from PERMANENT academic and think-tank jobs.

chsw