100% this.
In *normal* times, fiscal rules can be important & useful mechanisms to filter out policy options that aren& #39;t fiscally realistic or feasible. We are not in normal times.
[short thread follows with GOT memes]. https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320793865587027969">https://twitter.com/LindsayTe...

In a live and on-going crisis, when you don& #39;t yet know the full scale, extent or duration of the real-world costs, why would gov& #39;t say "we& #39;ll intervene, but only up to $X fiscal cost"? That& #39;s akin to saying "after the costs of the crisis reach our threshold rule, we peace-out"

Winter is coming. A fiscal rule now will limit government spending, but it won& #39;t, on its own, ensure spending is on the right things to get us through to an actual recovery (which we are not yet in & anyone who says & #39;worst is over& #39; is selling something).

Some fans of a fiscal anchor *now* might hope that it would focus the attention of policymakers, stop them from pursuing non-pandemic spending on pet projects. Let me just say that if the soaring case rates don& #39;t yet have their attention, then a fiscal anchor ain& #39;t an answer.

Intergenerational fairness matters in how we handle this crisis. Kids and youth today are already paying a very high price (in education, social development, physical and mental health, early employment experiences++).

Why wouldn& #39;t they be willing to amortize some of the fiscal costs of mitigating and managing those social/economic/private costs *IF* the money is used to ensure they have a brighter future than will be the case if we peace-out early & #39;cuz fiscal rule?

Ok, back to writing for me.