Ties between businesses and government
Dear Editor,
With respect to the articles entitled “Government Behind the Wheel: More A Matter of Politics than Economics” and “An Analysis of the Financial Services Bailout Vote”; your writer’s give an accurate depiction of the systemic failures currently plaguing our economy. The two articles in the context of two different scenarios paint a vivid picture of government influence and control on the private sector while also describing the degree by which political agendas trump the betterment of our Nation’s people and economy.
The main goal of a business is to profit, and our government’s goal should be to ensure economic growth and stability. Ideally, all levels of government should work with each other and with private-sector businesses to accomplish a fair and rational balance between their respective roles to maintain a just society. However, sometimes as in both cases presented in the articles the relationship between government and businesses can become too close causing an upset in the balance. This risk sometimes entails a “revolving door” between government and business, where personnel slide from senior private-sector jobs to top official posts and back again causing those who regulate to be too close to those whom they regulate. This is most seen in finance and banking with entities like Goldman Sachs for instance.
Imbalances are also a result of fear. One example of this can be seen with the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The consensus from the public was that Main Street should not have to bear the brunt of the miscalculations of bankers, brokers, and financiers. Politicians were concerned about the reaction to government intrusion, but many interviewed said they were even more fearful of the consequences to our economy if they voted against it. As it turns out the economic recovery of banks who qualified did not matter if there were political ties involved. One United Bank did not qualify, but political ties to Congressman Frank and Waters voided meeting any necessary criteria to receive assistance. Does it really matter how much honest, hard work Americans are doing to grow and prosper our economy if an invisible hand is always manipulating the system? While many of them may have voted yes with pure intentions, I believe it was just another way to further political agenda and out of concern for their standing in the polls.
Politicians seem to lose the support of the public when they are dishonest in their intentions. Most of them claim to live by one mantra, but their actions say something entirely different. For instance, President Obama spoke on numerous occasions of his desire to achieve balance by governing in an open and transparent manner. However, looking back at the findings from the studies of the Chrysler closings you see the opposite intent behind his actions. Obama claimed to have no ties to the closings, yet all the closings occurred in states supporting the right and not the left. Whether directly or indirectly through the automobile task force, Obama’s supporters were protected from the negative consequences of the closings. In turn this protected him from losing constituents. If our government officials are self-serving and only looking to further their political agenda, how can they efficiently work together with private-sector businesses to boost our economy? They must find a way to improve the system. Rarely does one act alone to solve a problem more often it takes a partnership between business and government to make a significant impact on social or economic challenges.
Often, I feel the government misses the mark in getting to the root of a problem. Take the healthcare initiative – Medicare for all. Is universal health insurance really a promise of better health? For instance, think about a patient who comes in the emergency room diagnosed with having an asthma attack. The patient needs to sleep somewhere to avoid triggers, but in fact is homeless staying in a shelter with no air conditioning. Is health insurance really going to better this person’s health in the long run? Neglecting social factors in our public discourse would be a mistake. Health insurance coverage is a critical determinant of health that should be discussed, but candidates running for president should also discuss their plans to strengthen communities by addressing homelessness and other social factors contributing to America’s health gap. Conversations should be broadened from health insurance to a holistic conversation about health.
Close ties between businesses and government is necessary. Strong economies need strong businesses and trade requiring good relationships with policymakers. Gatherings like the World Economic Forum, where business leaders and governments have heated talks on panels and make nice off the camera- there is a need to do both now more than ever in a time of slower economic growth and privatization of services that were once provided by the public sector. Not to mention a time where public trust is at a low ebb. The importance of this working relationship should be recognized openly not condemned. The complex dance between businesses and government is never ending and always evolving.
Sincerely,