Gold to Go: Coming to a Town Near You?

“Toward gold throng all, to gold cling all, yes, all!”—Goethe (Faust)

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has offered reassurances (here and here, for example) that inflation won’t become a big problem over the next few years, but investors aren’t exactly buying it. Instead, they’re buying what they always buy as a hedge against inflation: gold. In response, the price of gold has risen about 80 percent since late 2008.

Ex Oriente Lux AG, a German company founded in 2007, has created the world’s first vending machines that dispense the venerable inflation hedge. Customers can visit a Gold to Go machine and withdraw gold coins and gold bars in several sizes between 1/10 oz. and 1 oz. Prices are updated every ten minutes. The company’s machines are currently up and running in Abu Dhabi (UAE), Reutlingen (Germany), Madrid (Spain), and Bergamo (Italy). The company says it will add 35 machines this year (including ones in Florida and Las Vegas, according to a recent report on CNBC.com). It plans on adding a couple hundred around the world next year. This page on the company’s website provides information to potential partners interested in franchising and licensing.

To anyone considering pursing this business opportunity, I would like to nominate thirteen sites in the United States as a high priority for Gold to Go machines: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. A flurry of activity at Gold to Go machines in cities with Federal Reserve Banks — and especially near the headquarters of the Fed’s Board of Governors — would make newsworthy footage for business television programs.

Who knows? It is conceivable that the public would become better aware of the relationship between gold prices, inflation, and the monetary policies of the world’s central banks — and grumble loudly enough for our political leaders to take notice. If so, Gold to Go could become an unnecessary relic, a victim of its own success. Until that day arrives, however, I’ll wager my Canadian Gold Maple Leaf that Goethe’s line will remain as prophetic ever.

HT: Jeff Tucker

The Obama Administration Makes BP Look Good

Two months ago I said the Obama administration was making a mistake to demand that BP turn over to the federal government the responsibility for compensating victims of its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  My reasoning was that the move would shift what should be an adversarial position between claimants and BP to putting those claimants in an adversarial position with the Obama administration.

In today’s edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, my local newspaper, a front-page story reports exactly what I said would happen.  Here is a link to the headline, but like many newspapers, the Democrat (an appropriately-named paper, by the way) requires a subscription to read its articles.

Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the state government, and Democratic candidate for governor, is quoted as saying, “I’m sick and tired of this,” referring to the Obama administration’s handling of the claims process, and says she’s “at the tipping point” of filing a lawsuit against the Obama administration.  That is Florida’s Democratic candidate for governor!  “If that’s the only place to go, then so be it,” she concludes.

An owner of a bait and tackle shop in Pensacola says, “BP, now, looking back was excellent,” and says about Obama’s administrator of the claims process, Kenneth Feinberg, “He’s a liar.  I hate to be that blunt, but he is.  He tells you what you want to hear…”

When you think of all the bad press BP has received over the spill, it is remarkable that the Obama administration can make BP look good by comparison, especially when the comparison here is how each of them handled the aftermath of the spill!

I’m not finding fault with Feinberg here.  Trying to fairly compensate victims of BP’s negligence will not be an easy job, and as I said in my earlier commentary, “…lots of people are going to claim financial harm, and lots of them are not going to be compensated as much as they think they deserve.  It’s human nature to think you deserve more than you’re getting, especially when you believe someone has harmed you.”

Understandably, many people will be dissatisfied with the outcome of the claims process no matter how fairly and efficiently it is carried out.  That is why it was a huge blunder for the Obama administration to force BP to give up what was its legal obligation and take this obligation on itself.  Just two months later we see how true this is.  The anger that should have been directed at BP is now being directed to the Obama administration, all because the Obama administration demanded it!

Here’s the Ballot in Florida’s Fascinating Senate Race

Florida’s U.S. Senate seat that was vacated by Mel Martinez last year has generated an interesting race.  Conventional wisdom was that if former Governor Jeb Bush wanted that seat it was his for the taking.  After he said he wouldn’t run, current Governor Charlie Crist announced he would run for the Senate.

Crist was elected governor in 2006, running as a Republican, and had Bush decided to run for the US senate seat, undoubtedly Crist would have run for a second term as governor, and as incumbent would have been the strong favorite to win a second term.  But the open senate seat was too tempting, so he announced for that race, with the strong support of the Republican Party of Florida.  To give himself an extra edge, Crist appointed his long-time friend George LeMieux to fill out the remainder of Martinez’s term, with LeMieux making the promise that he would not run to keep that seat.  Everything seemed to be going Crist’s way in that race, but…

As many readers will know, Republican Marco Rubio, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and a Tea Party favorite, also entered that race.  Top party officials discouraged him, saying they didn’t want to have a bruising primary that might hinder the Republican Party in the general election, but Rubio’s candidacy gained strength and by early 2010 he appeared to be out-polling Crist.  The Party’s wish to avoid a bruising primary came true when Crist left the Republican Party to run as an independent.

We know that election law is stacked to favor incumbents, and to favor the major party candidates over independents and minor party candidates.  Florida’s ballot for the US Senate race is a good example.  Here is the list of candidates voters will see on November 2.

  • Marco Rubio (REP)
  • Kendrick B. Meek (DEM)
  • Alexander Andrew Snitker (LIB)
  • Bernie DeCastro (CPF)
  • Sue Askeland (NPA)
  • Bruce Ray Riggs (NPA)
  • Bobbie Bean (NPA)
  • Rick Tyler (NPA)
  • Charlie Crist (NPA)
  • Lewis Jerome Armstrong (NPA)

By Florida law, the first candidate on the ballot is the one from the governor’s party.  Governor Charlie Crist was elected as a Republican, so that puts his nemesis, Marco Rubio, at the top of the ballot.  Florida law specifies that next on the ballot is the candidate from the other major party, which is Democrat Kendrick Meek.  Then minor party candidates are listed, which puts Libertarian Party candidate Alexander Snitker third.  Candidates with no party affiliation are listed below those affiliated with parties, in the order in which they qualified.  Crist was second-to-last to qualify for the senate race, so will be second from the bottom on the ballot.

I am no fan of Charlie Crist, but you can see how Florida election law puts him at a distinct disadvantage.  You have to look pretty hard to even find his name in that list of ten candidates; meanwhile, Marco Rubio has the advantage not only of a major party affiliation, but of having his name appear first on the ballot — thanks to Crist having been elected governor as a Republican!

At the moment polling shows Rubio to have the edge in this race, with Crist running second and Meek running third.  But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Meek get more votes on election day than Crist, partly because of people who will always vote Democrat no matter what, and partly because of Crist’s hidden position on the ballot.

It is really hard for third party and independent candidates to win elections, partly because of partisan voters, but also because election laws work against candidates who aren’t affiliated with one of the two major parties.  Florida’s list of candidates for US Senate is but one example of the way election law works against minor party and no-party candidates.

Credit Shortage or Regime Uncertainty?

We are now mired in the third year of a recession produced when a housing bubble inflated by easy credit finally burst — as it was bound to do sooner or later. From the very beginning, government officials, among whom I include the people who run the Federal Reserve System, have proceeded as if the way to correct a problem created by easy credit is by easing credit. Hence, the plethora of unprecedented Treasury and Fed lending programs and the “quantitative easing” the Fed has used to acquire a variety of iffy securities, especially mortgage-related securities held by Fannie and Freddie, as well as by commercial and investment banks. Whenever Ben Bernanke has spoken about the crisis, he has made repeated reference to the Fed’s measures to keep credit flowing to businesses and consumers, and he has undoubtedly tried to practice what he has preached.

The problem has been that the institutions, especially the commercial banks, in which the $1 trillion plus in Treasury and Fed payouts has lodged have shown little disposition to lend or invest these funds; instead, they have been content to let them sit as excess reserves in their accounts at the Fed.

Recently, Congress approved a bill to make funds available to community banks for lending to small businesses. Although this initiative was no doubt intended as a sop to small-business lobbyists, who have complained throughout the recession that the government’s assistance has been channeled mainly to big banks and other large institutions, the question that now arises is:  Will the banks and the small businesses avail themselves of the opportunities this program creates? The answer appears to be that for the most part they are not interested, because in the present conditions, borrowing will not solve a pressing problem for them and indeed might well entangle them in a new problem with regulators.

An article on this matter by Pallavi Gogoi was published recently in the Los Angeles Times. I paste it below, unaltered except that I have highlighted certain passages. In my mind, this report provides further grist for the mill of those, like me, who see regime uncertainty as a significant factor impeding the investment revival that will be required if we are to have a genuine economic recovery. But you be the judge.

NEW YORK (AP) — President Barack Obama’s $30 billion small community business lending program faces one big challenge: many of the community banks and businesses it’s supposed to help don’t want it.

The lending program is part of a bill that passed the House of Representatives on Thursday and now awaits the president’s signature. The legislation contains a mix of tax cuts and credits aimed at helping small businesses. The centerpiece of the bill is an effort to make billions of dollars available to community banks for loans to small businesses.

It seems like a simple effort to unclog a credit pipeline that has been blocked since the financial meltdown two years ago. But interviews with seven community bankers, as well as small business owners, show a reluctance to participate.

“People in my constituency can’t get credit, and this will get money out to small businesses, who are the engine of job creation for this country,” said Republican Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, who co-authored the amendment that created the lending program.

Bank executives say their customers don’t want loans, even at low interest rates, because the sluggish economy has chilled expansion plans. Some say the federal money isn’t worth it because they fear it will come with too much regulatory oversight.

“We have taken a strategic decision not to have our primary regulator, the government, also be a partner in our bank,” said William Chase Jr., CEO of Triumph Bank in Memphis.

Chase said the bank already has enough capital to meet the paltry demand for loans. “Our business customers are mired in uncertainty and are reluctant to invest in their businesses,” Chase said.

Ninety-one percent of small business owners surveyed in August by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said all their credit needs were met. Only 4 percent cited a lack of financing as their top business problem. Plans for capital spending were at a 35-year low.

Jack Rajala just laughs when asked if he wants to take out a loan today. He’s in a fight to save his family’s lumber business that has been buffeted by the recession and housing meltdown.

“I’ve seen many ups and downs; this is unquestionably the toughest,” said the 71-year-old Rajala, the third-generation owner of Rajala Companies of Deer River, Minn. Since 2008, his company closed two factories and halved the number of employees to less than 100 as orders plummeted for windows, floors and door frames. Annual revenue is down 50 percent since 2008 to $5 million, and the company is losing money.

Rajala is symbolic of the challenges faced by Obama’s small business lending initiative. The $30 billion fund will be run by the Treasury Department, and money will be awarded to banks deemed strong by regulators. Banks that have less than $10 billion in assets are eligible.

“It will provide incentives to invest and create jobs for 4 million small businesses,” Obama said at a news conference Sept. 10. “It will more than double the amount some small business owners can borrow to grow their companies.”

Obama has to bridge the gulf between money that’s available and the needs of businesses. The NFIB survey found businesses don’t intend to borrow until they have more customers.

Community banks will have to pay an annual dividend of 5 percent to the U.S. Treasury. However, when banks increase their lending to small businesses, their dividend rate declines on a sliding scale. So, if a bank increases its small-business lending portfolio by 2.5 percent, the dividend payment goes down to 4 percent and so on, said Paul Merski, chief economist at the Independent Community Bankers of America, the lobbying group for small banks.

The dividend payment increases to 7 percent if banks don’t lend to small businesses.

“The crucial questions facing business owners are does it make sense to make an investment right now, and will it generate positive returns?” Josh Lerner, professor of finance and entrepreneurial management at Harvard Business School.

Noah Wilcox, CEO of Grand Rapids State Bank, with two branches in Minnesota, said he already has more capital at his $250 million bank than he can lend out.

“Many of our clients, business owners, put their projects on ice in 2008 because their job number one is to see their company through to the other side of this economic crisis,” said Wilcox.

And then there’s concerns that the government money will have strings attached.

The fears stem from what happened under TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, formed at the height of the financial meltdown to pump money into banks. Banks that accepted TARP money had to later cut dividends to shareholders and limit compensation to top executives. They were also penalized for early repayment.

In this new legislation, the government is taking steps to avoid the tarnish that accompanied TARP. The key part of this effort: Banks can return the money without penalty if rules governing the small business loans change.

But Chase, the bank CEO in Memphis, isn’t convinced.

“The rules can be changed any time,” said Chase.

Higgs Comes to the University of Alabama (Liberty and Power Lectures, October 5)

I am delighted to announce that our own Robert Higgs will be appearing at the University of Alabama on October 5 to do what he does best. He will offer his legendary insights into the origins of the American Military-Industrial Complex. The talk will be in Room 205 at the Gorgas Library at 6:00 pm. He will be featured as part of the Liberty and Power Lectures.

Higgs is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal the Independent Review. He is the author of such path-breaking works as Depression, War, and Cold War, Crisis and Leviathan and Competition and Coercion.

Laptop Bombardiers, circa 1942

The Kosovo war in 1999 gave us the term “laptop bombardiers,” used for those journalists and intellectuals who, safely ensconced in their Manhattan and Georgetown apartments, called relentlessly for more and heavier ordinance to be dropped upon the hapless Serbs. The laptop bombardier flourished during the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures of George W. Bush, as battle-hardened warriors like Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and Victor Davis Hansen filled the blogosphere with their calls for more — more bombs, more drones, more troops — and no quarter, no negotiation, no understanding, no compromise.

I was recently reading the introduction to the 1995 Penguin Classics edition of John Steinbeck’s classic antiwar book The Moon is Down, written as Allied propaganda in 1942, and was surprised to read that Steinbeck was attacked by the laptop bombardiers of his day, men like Clifton Fadiman and James Thurber. They thought he was soft on the Germans:

Steinbeck’s method was far subtler than that of the overcooked rant customarily served up in this country at the time. . . . Steinbeck refused to adopt the contemporary Teutonic stereotypes. There are no heel-clocking Huns, no depraved, monocled intellectuals, no thundering seig heils in his fable-like tale. Instead, Steinbeck depicts his putative Germans as human beings with normal feelings. They offer the citizens of the conquered country justifications for their invasion. They plead for understanding. They miss their families. They want their victims to accept them. Yet nothing can disguise their theft of freedom, and eventually the local patriots’ desire to regain it impels them to resist. The militarily superior invaders retailate, but the impression remains that ulimately the patriots will prevail because a society of free individuals is stronger in the long run than a totalitarian power dependent on herd men. In the mayor’s words, “It is always the herd men who win battles and the free men who win wars.”

Steinbeck’s affirmative, toned-down approach to propaganda in The Moon is Down touched off the fiercest literary battle of the Second World War. Many critics liked the novel, but some did not, and their number included such formidable names as Clifton Fadiman and James Thurber. In effect, the detractors accused Steinbeck of naivete. The creator of the savvy, muscular realism of The Grapes of Wrath was now being soft on the Nazis by depicting them as human beings.

Steinbeck’s response, written ten years later, is instructive:

I had written of Germans as men, not supermen, and this was considered a very weak attitude to take. I couldn’t make much sense out of this, and it seems absurd now that we know the Germans were men, and thus fallible, even defeatable. It was said that I didn’t know anything about war, and this was perfectly true, though how Park Avenue commandos found me out I can’t conceive.

Park Avenue commandos. . . . What a great term! One can only imagine the reaction were a novelist to write this way today about, say, Iranians.

Good Riddance to President Obama’s First Economic “Brains Trust”

Larry Summer’s announcement that he will return to Harvard’s faculty at year end, following hard on the heels of the resignations of budget director Peter Orszag and of Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, has summarily taken down the ornaments of President Barack Obama’s Christmas tree appointments to positions of influence on economic policy.

None of them will be missed.

Like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz before them, all three apparently caught “Potomac fever”. Professor Stiglitz, it should be remembered, opportunistically supported an increase in the federal minimum wage during the Clinton administration despite having published evidence of its negative effects on employment, especially for low-skilled, minority group members seeking entry-level jobs.

Professor Romer, despite knowing better, predicted that passage of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would keep the U.S. unemployment rate below eight percent. It nevertheless remains stuck at 9.5 percent.

Mr. Orszag always has been too much of a technocrat, with little appreciation for political realty (see my review of American Economic Policy in the 1990s, co-edited by Jeffrey A. Frankel and Peter R. Orszag, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002, posted on Economic History Services, August 16, 2002, URL: http://www.eh.net/ bookreviews/library/0527shtml.)

In any case, perhaps economists appointed to positions of public trust are intellectually honest after all. It is to be hoped that the resignations of these three economic advisers to President Obama will force him back to the center. But don’t count on it.

Bootlegger-and-Baptist Alert, Reefer Madness Edition

Guess who recently donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a California group lobbying against marijuana decriminalization? The California Beer & Beverage Distributors. The beer guys are, of course, concerned only with public safety. Says a spokesperson for Public Safety First: “Let’s keep in mind the beer and beverage distributors are the folks who deliver beer and beverage products. The truck driver, the forklift drivers, you know, the warehouse workers. You know, these are folks who have traffic safety and employee safety issues, first and foremost.” Beer consumption is, of course, in no way related to things like traffic safety. And who ever heard of substitution effects?

Actually, the Huffington Post item that broke the story is unusually perceptive (for the Huffington Post), noting that Public Safety First is primarily supported by law-enforcement agencies, who stand to lose a major revenue source if marijuana laws are reformed. “Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces’ budgets.” But of course all they really care about is public safety.

This Week in The Lighthouse: Government’s Cost | U.S. Economy | Fourth Amendment | Venezuelan Elections

This week’s Lighthouse discusses the Independent Institute’s new Government Cost Calculator at www.MyGovCost.org, Robert Higgs on regime uncertainty, Joseph R. Stromberg on the decline of the Fourth Amendment, and Alvaro Vargas Llosa on next week’s elections in Venezuela.

Here are links to the individual items:

1. What Is Washington’s Spending Costing You?
2. It’s the Economic Rules of the Game, Stupid!
3. Whatever Happened to the Fourth Amendment?
4. Liberty at Stake in Venezuelan Elections

You can sign up to receive The Lighthouse (and other email alerts from the Independent Institute) here.

Another Crisis Over, Thanks to the Government

It’s all over the news. “The recession is over.” The mainstream economists say so. This was the longest recession since World War II, I heard on the news (say, I thought the economy was just dandy throughout that war—oh, never mind).

The end of this terrible recession into which the free market plunged us is all thanks to the federal government, of course. In particular, we owe the Obama administration our gratitude for its stimulus program. But we should also tip our hats—hats we can presumably now afford to buy— toward the Bush administration for its TARP bailouts, without which the banking system would have completely collapsed, credit would have dried up and we would have all starved to death.

This is another wonderful crisis brought to an end by government. All within about a month of the end of the Iraq war! That, too, was a crisis, incalculably costly in American blood and treasure. The Iraqis, too, were suffering, or so we heard some time several years ago. But thank goodness that horror is now over. Sure, there are still U.S. soldiers there, shooting, killing and dying—but this does not mean the war is not over, just as the high unemployment figures and inconsistent private investment do not mean that our economic troubles are somehow still persisting.

Speaking of which, the economy sure has been perfected by government’s responses to all the various crises, hasn’t it? Not just currently, but going back many years. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, which not only allowed for the financing of the Great War that succeeded in securing democracy throughout the world and precluding any wars from ever again being necessary, but also ensured that our monetary system has been completely solid ever since—no banking panics, no trouble keeping the U.S. dollar strong and stable. Well, there was the Great Depression, but FDR sure acted quickly to make sure we’d never have another big boom and bust. The sharp increase in regulation, federal spending, taxes, stimulus and government control over money in the 1930s sure put an end to any economic problems. The early 1970s might have looked bad, but that was just an illusion, as Nixon fixed that for good by closing the gold window and giving us price controls. The dotcom recession? Bush remedied that once and for all with an engineered housing bubble that was egged on by the most respected of America’s Keynesian economists. All that government intervention from 1913 and the New Deal through the 1970s and onward sure kept the economy from ever falling off the tracks again. And yet, when it did fall off the tracks again in 2007 and 2008—when it was called the greatest financial collapse, at least since 1929—government sure came to the rescue, fixing the disaster caused by the free market, for we all know that the century worth of cascading interventions into the financial markets, the real estate industry, money, banking and the overall economy, could not possibly have had anything to do with this last recession; only the remaining sphere of American economic freedom could be the culprit.

Speaking of the economy, remember how America used to have a crisis with poverty? Lyndon Johnson sure put an end to that. I don’t actually know if the war on poverty ever ended as decisively as the Iraq war has—probably sometime in the 1990s, with welfare reform. Now the government doesn’t need to wage war on poverty any more. It has won. Poverty is vanquished from America.

Although, in the 1980s and 1990s, there sure was a homelessness crisis. It was all over the news. It must have been a very big deal. But no more. The war on homelessness stopped that, thank goodness. Now even left-liberals don’t ever talk about any sort of homelessness problem, so there must not be one.

Speaking of domestic crusades from the last couple generations, remember when our public schools were failing? Thank goodness for the ramping up of public school spending in the last 40 years. Where would we be without it? If not for the war on illiteracy, Carter’s Department of Education, Bush’s No Child Left Behind and the rest of the government’s constant intervention into educational life, we’d probably have such an illiterate, uneducated populace that we’d elect to the presidency men who brag that they don’t read newspapers, or come close to electing Vice Presidents who can’t name two important Supreme Court decisions.

And to think that all this progress has happened alongside the many other problems the government has solved. Back in the 1960s, Americans used to do illegal drugs. Thanks to Nixon, Reagan and all the presidents since, practically no one does illegal drugs, the war on drugs is over, according to the current administration, our streets are safe and we didn’t have to sacrifice any precious liberties to get here. Meanwhile, Americans consume only the safest of pharmaceuticals, and everything that is effective comes quickly to market. We can also be certain, thanks to agricultural subsidies, that healthy food is easily accessible and unhealthy food is more expensive. If the market handled farming completely, you’d probably be able to get a box of corn-syrup-drenched snack cakes for less than a bag of carrots. And if you did overeat and needed medical attention, health care would be massively expensive. Thank goodness for more than fifty years of increasing federal involvement in health care. But it’s too bad that this federal involvement did not prevent the unregulated free market from causing a health care crisis that Obama had to repair with his gigantic health care plan. We can take solace, at least, that the health care crisis is finally over.

The environment is also totally clean, thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures that there will never be, say, a huge oil leak off the Gulf Coast that lasts for a couple of months before being plugged. And as for oil, it sure is affordable, thanks to the numerous price regulations and America’s active energy policy, which the last eight presidents have assured us would stabilize prices and produce “energy independence” within a few years. And we need plenty of oil in this country to power our wonderful automobiles, which are built by the kind of companies that are the fulcrum of the American economy, a fulcrum we can thank Uncle Sam for propping up. Now that we know the auto industry is secure, we can drive those American cars with pride on our wonderful government roads—roads you know are safe, with practically no deaths on them. Could you imagine private industry handling the roads? Not only would they be congested and littered with potholes, we’d have thousands of deaths per year, probably more than ten times as many as died on 9/11.

Which brings us to terrorism, the great crisis of the last decade. Solved, thanks to government. Indeed, the “war on terrorism,” just like the “war in Iraq” and the “war on drugs,” has been officially over for a more than a year. Another great government success, and at minimal cost, too.

Americans used to think that government itself could be a serious problem, as it was prone to corruption. Another crisis solved. Thanks to our trustworthy Congress passing campaign finance laws, we know that Congress will never be corrupted.

Some might say this post is sardonic—even cynical. Can we afford to be sarcastic in the current climate? We can afford practically anything, I say, thanks to the end of the recession—another total victory for the government. And we all know that, thanks to our four-trillion dollar central government in DC, our military-industrial complex, our millions of pages of federal edicts, our millions of federal employees, our national police forces unbound by traditional legal constraints, our thousands of regulators, our dozens of welfare programs, our public school system, our government infrastructure, our Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, our numerous international quasi-governmental organizations from the WTO to the UN, not to mention the massive state and local bureaucracies that most Americans are blessed to live under—we know that thanks to all this government, we will never see another crisis comparable to this ghastly recession. And if we do, we can always blame it on the free market and the lack of government involvement.

  • Catalyst
  • Beyond Homeless
  • MyGovCost.org
  • FDAReview.org
  • OnPower.org
  • elindependent.org