Here’s One Way To Move Toward Responsible Government and Sane Fiscal Policy

In a world where economic decisions are mostly driven by short-term goals and political pressures, the need for a long-term, evidence-based approach is more pressing than at any time in memory. Enter the Copenhagen Consensus—a beacon of analytical clarity conceived by Danish intellectual Bjorn Lomborg. It aims to reshape global discourse by prioritizing initiatives based on their cost-effectiveness. Imagine harnessing this model to direct fiscal policy!

Many of today’s budgetary problems could be solved if only politicians and voters recognized that not every need and problem is equally weighty. Such recognition—a staple of successful private sector projects—ought to become commonplace in the public sector.

The Copenhagen Consensus has long championed a cost-benefit approach for dealing with the world’s most critical environmental problems. It does this by sorting global issues and their proposed solutions according to potential impact under the constraint of a reality-based budget, rather than ranking them by sentiment. While some critics would prefer a less compromising approach, the result is that investments are guided to where they can do the greatest good for the world when measured by lives saved per dollar. In doing so, the project wields the scalpel of economic analysis to slice through the Gordian knot of global challenges.

This pragmatic thinking should not just be used for global health or climate issues; it’s also a perfect model for how Congress should be making its fiscal policy decisions, where resources are equally scarce and the need for maximum impact is equally urgent. It would also be revolutionary considering the unfortunate way Congress has behaved for decades. A fiscal project modeled on this approach would shift the focus from spending that’s politically expedient to spending that promises the most substantial economi