Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
Keynesian economics: According to Keynesian economics the state should stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector — through, for example, adjusting interest rates and taxation and funding public projects.
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Dr. Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Oakland, Calif.-based Independent Institute, penned an article in Monday's Christian Science Monitor that suggests the most intelligent recommendation that I've read to fix our economic mess. The title of his article gives his recommendation away: "Instead of stimulus, do nothing — seriously."
Stimulus package debate is over how much money should be spent, whether some should go to the National Endowment for the Arts, research sexually transmitted diseases or bail out Amtrak, our failing railroad system.
Higgs says, "Hardly anyone, however, is asking the most important question: Should the federal government be doing any of this?"
He adds, "Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments.
"Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget."
By bringing up the idea of constitutional restraints on Washington, Dr. Higgs is whistling Dixie. Americans have long ago abandoned respect for the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government. Our elected representatives represent that disrespect.
I'd ask Higgs: Isn't it unreasonable to expect a politician to do what he considers to be political suicide, namely conduct himself according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?
While Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution, I doubt whether they are indifferent between a growing or stagnating economy. Dr. Higgs tells us some of the economic history of the U.S.
In 1893, we had a depression; we got out of it without a stimulus package. A major recession hit the country in 1920-21; though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the Roaring '20s.
In 1929 came an economic downturn, most notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive government intervention — you might call it the nation's first stimulus package.
President Hoover and Congress responded to what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs, propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses, and financed state relief efforts.
When Franklin Roosevelt came to office, he became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over protracted depression where the economy didn't fully recover until 1946.
Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court.
Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress.
The Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package."
An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the court, and the court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate.
My question to my fellow Americans is: Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?
A more fundamental question is: Should Washington be guided by the Constitution?
In explaining the Constitution, James Madison, the document's acknowledged father, wrote in Federalist Paper 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax, spend and regulate as it pleases or have Americans said, "To hell with the Constitution"?
1) ABC's George Stephanopoulos was puzzled on Sunday's This Week when new
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele saw a difference
between government-created temporary "make work" jobs and jobs created by
the private sector: "I guess I don't really understand that distinction."
When Steele charged that "what this administration is talking about is
making work," Stephanopoulos interjected, "But that's a job," leading
Steele to explain: "No, it's not a job. A job is something that a business
owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's [Obama's] creating"
are projects that "have an end point." Answering Stephanopoulos'
confusion, Steele elaborated: "Well, the difference, the distinction is
this. If you got a government contract that's a fixed period of time it
goes away. The work may go away. There's no guarantee that there's going
to be more work when you're done that job." To which, Stephanopoulos
retorted: "But we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the
private sector just in the last year." Steele tried again: "Yes, but they
come back though, George. That's the point. They've gone away before and
they come back."