Why Fight History?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not bad people. They just believe in a different economic system than the one that has long since made this country the most prosperous nation in the world.  Unfortunately, their system -- a government-controlled one -- has failed, without exception, each time it has been tried throughout all of human history.  

Their system depends on higher taxes and more regulation so the government can dictate “who gets what.” More so, it also becomes consumed with cronyism where success depends more on “who you know” than “what you know.” Consequently, government involvement perpetuates more government involvement.  It was this economic view that prompted former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to ask Margaret Thatcher: “How do your people get food?”  He was so accustomed to the government determining how people got things he couldn’t understand the efficiencies of a free-market system.  However well-intended, it contributes to the economic decline and the loss of jobs.

You and I believe in an economic system of freedom and choices.  Remove government, allow more competition and choices go up, prices go down. It has proven more efficient than any other economic system. This is true if you are talking about healthcare, energy, housing or milk and bread that you buy at the grocery store. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional progressive caucus believe government and its system of regulators, agencies and bureaucrats can determine who gets what – financing, housing, healthcare, etc.  Sounds good, right?  It gets them votes when they promise things to particular constituencies.  They can pit one group of people versus another.

However, centrally-controlled economies, or economies that are rife with regulation and government control, have all gone the way of the dodo.  Why is it that Congressional progressives feel they can defy the wisdom of the ages?  No matter how good they sound, government-controlled solutions end up hurting everyone, including those they were intended to originally help!

Housing is a good example of government intentions gone bad.  Over the last few decades the government has tried to increase “home ownership” through a bevy of programs that aim to lower credit and remove the risk in free markets that would have ordinarily stabilized the markets.  Congress passed and reinforced the Community Reinvestment Act several times since the 1970s.  They created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  George W. Bush passed the “American Dream Act” that subsidized down payments. 

Consequently, some banks like Countrywide signed up everyone they could and passed the mortgage risk on to Freddie and Fannie.  When auditors suggested there may be a problem at Fannie and Freddie, Congress scolded the auditors.  Congress tweaked the system until they got the political outcome they wanted.  Unfortunately, their years of meddling created a terrible economic outcome.  We all know what happened.  Credit was extended. The risk was removed. Home values artificially skyrocketed.  The housing bubble was created.  It toppled the financial system and, as a result, the people who were supposed to be in homes now are not.   People who had jobs now don’t.  Good intentions; wrong outcome. 

Every single one of the Congressional progressive caucus plans centers on government control of industry and property.  History is in fact crystal clear; as a famed economist once said, “there is no alternative way of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to a free market system.” 

Why fight history?