Future Prospects for Economic Liberty

One of the justifications for the massive growth of government in the 20th and now the 21st centuries, far beyond the narrow limits envisioned by the founders of our nation, is the need to promote what the government defines as fair and just. But this begs the prior and more fundamental question: What is the legitimate role of government in a free society? To understand how America’s Founders answered this question, we have only to look at the rule book they gave us—the Constitution. Most of what they understood as legitimate powers of the federal government are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Congress is authorized there to do 21 things, and as much as three-quarters of what Congress taxes us and spends our money for today is nowhere to be found on that list. To cite just a few examples, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to subsidize farms, bail out banks, or manage car companies. In this sense, I think we can safely say that America has departed from the constitutional principle of limited government that made us great and prosperous. Read more »

Washington’s Lies

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true. Read more »

Have We Seen This Fed Movie Before?

The bull market snapped back yesterday and prospects for modest economic recovery still look good. But I want to issue a warning or two about the latest policy statement from Bernanke & Company. I am not thrilled about it.

The Federal Reserve is keeping its fed funds target rate down near zero and is talking about adding another $1.5 trillion to its balance sheet through the purchase of mortgage bonds and Treasuries. Now, I don’t care whether those purchases come sooner or later. They represent massive new dollar creation and potential inflation. The Fed is targeting unemployment, not price stability or King Dollar.

Here’s my question: Is the Fed repeating the very same easy-money mistake it made between 2002 and 2005, when it totally bubbled-up and inflated housing, energy, and financial markets, all of which led to a 6 percent inflation rate down the road? Of course, all of that also led to a very deep recession. So color me worried.

Distinguished monetary historian and Fed expert Alan Meltzer from Carnegie Mellon says the Fed needs to wind down the printing of excess cash and balance-sheet expansion in order to stop future inflation. He’s absolutely right.

And even if government health-care control doesn’t pass, it’s bad enough that Uncle Sam is borrowing too much and spending too much. This will slow future prosperity and bias the system toward inflation.

In the short run, excess liquidity from the Fed may be good for stocks. In the longer term, it is not good for stocks, the economy, or your pocketbook.

Little Green Cars

Get ready folks: America is about to own a car company. As of Monday, we the taxpayers will own more than 70 percent of GM. Whether the company will be formally renamed Government Motors remains to be seen. But that’s what it will be.

Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago — where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it — the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty-billion dollars of TARP money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That’s highly unlikely, with car sales presently hovering around 9 million a year.

In other words, taxpayers are not going to get their money back. Yes, we the people will be left holding the bag for the mistakes of GM’s management and labor leaders over the last four decades. Read more »