Vote For (Or Against) The IMF
The Washington Post is widely read on Capital Hill and the reception among key people to The Hearing blog (run by us and the Post) has been generally very positive. Members of Congress and their staff want to get you more involved in their discussions around economic policy, and we’re experimenting with ways that will help your opinions – whatever they are – get across at a time and in a manner that increases their impact.
To that end, we’re developing on-line polls in which you can register your views on questions that are currently being debated – either in general terms or as specific legislation – on the Hill (of course, longer comments are also welcome; it’s a blog, after all). Today’s question is about whether the United States should provide an additional $100bn to the IMF, as was agreed at and immediately after the recent G20 summit; this is for a hearing held by a subcommittee of House Financial Services, which starts at 10am.
We’ve argued consistently that supporting the IMF can play an important role in stabilizing the global economy, and the Obama Administration handled this aspect of the G20 summit well. But have they made the case for why this is important, how the IMF will change, and what could happen if the recapitalize-the-IMF ball is dropped? Do you really believe the Europeans will follow through on their promise not to press for (yet) another European as the next Managing Director of the IMF (and there are some signs of backsliding on this issue)? Without that, can the IMF fully rebuild its legitimacy?
Does the money for the IMF feel like essential stabilization or a bailout for countries that shouldn’t be bailed out? What would it take to persuade you to support the Administration on this point? Post your comments here or at The Hearing, but the poll is only at The Hearing.
By Simon Johnson