I Have Seen the Enemy and He is Us[1]

Every campaign season, we hear public outcry about the state of things in our electoral system. These hues and cries seem to coalesce around two primary themes: the quality of the campaigns themselves; and the monotonous lack of character exhibited by the candidates themselves.

Elective politics is a wholesale exercise – appealing to the lowest common denominator of the largest number of people possible, because accumulating more votes than the opponent is all that counts. Given that, it must be recognized that driving up negatives (things people won’t like about a stranger) is easier than driving up positives (enticing people to trust a stranger). This is human nature. And that is why voting records and on-the-record comments are always shown simplistically and out of context, even in relatively “nice” campaigns. They are betting that the voters in the audience don’t know enough about the issues to realize that the material has been edited to be misleading.

Today’s campaigns are waged on television in 30-second increments, which also leads to simplistic superficiality and negative messages. In my memory, only Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” campaign managed to successfully wage a positive campaign on TV, and that’s because everybody was already painfully aware of the negatives of the double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation of the incumbent.

But if negative campaigns are inherently disingenuous, why do they work? Largely, they succeed because nobody is systematically doing objective fact-checking on the ads. While this would be a natural function of the national press, they tend not to do it for reasons ranging from the sinister to the mundane. It falls to the voter to determine the quality of the message – and this is why the quality of a democracy is directly related to the political sophistication of the voting polity. Hence, Benjamin Franklin’s warning: “We have given you a republic, if you can keep it.”

One of the ways Dr Franklin feared we may lose our republic was expressed thus: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic,” and that leads us to the paucity of quality in our public officials. Lord Dalberg, in 1887 wrote to Bishop Mandell that “power tends to corrupt …”, and he’s right. That is why your senators and representatives more closely resemble Orson Welles’ Charles Foster Kane than Frank Capra’s Jefferson Smith. Given dominion over anonymous strangers truly tests the nobility of men. It gets to the heart of intent versus consequences – does a man do well if he accomplishes good by doing bad? And who defines “well”, “good” and “bad”? In the end, we each do, and on Election Day, we all do. While most wouldn’t stoop to the duplicitous depths that politicians routinely practice, we seem more than willing to let them do it for us if we benefit from the process (read: bringing home the bacon). We love to publicly disdain the liars and thieves who we privately re-elect, as long we get our cut.

The Kafka-esque concept of bribing us with our own money is precisely why obviously smarmy self-servers are allowed to recidivate. We keep asking them to.


Walt Kelly, via Pogo.

Congress versus Constitutional Rule of Law

While anxiously awaiting the “Kennedy Court’s” verdict on Florida v HHS, it seems a good time to review the process underway here: there are three layers of criteria comprising the legitimacy of our laws. Trial courts examine the admissible evidence – the provable facts surrounding an alleged infraction of law. Appellate courts examine the lawyers and judges – the way in which trial courts went about their business. The Supreme Court examines the constitutionality of the underlying law itself – is the law within the bounds of limited government permitted by the Constitution. It’s this uppermost layer of the onion skin that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now undergoing.

At issue, in the main, is whether the Commerce Clause[1] allows Congress to compel commerce in order to regulate it. This will be argued as being logically justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause[2] – the individual mandate being necessary to finance the Act as a whole. The government has a structural problem here in that neither the law itself nor the Solicitor General is able to demonstrate an enforceable limit to the power of Congress to mandate individual behavior so as to make citizens come under the regulatory authority of Congress. In other words, if Congress is given the power inherent in the individual mandate contained in the Act, there is no limit as to what Congress could mandate. No line beyond which Congress may not tread. There is a healthcare vector in every imaginable human activity.

This would violate the explicit purpose of the Constitution, which is to establish a government of laws and limited power, allowing the people maximum practicable liberty. This does not require an assumption on part of the Justices, it is contained in everything written by the Founders – The Declaration of Independence; The Articles of Confederation; The Constitution itself; and The Federalist Papers, which explain in detail these very issues.

There is a side dish which may or may not be argued by the petitioners – the 10th Amendment issue of Congress regulating health insurance companies, which are prohibited by Congress from competing across state lines. This black letter example of intrastate commerce seems clearly outside the purview of the regulation of interstate commerce. This is a matter of case law, however, not constitutional law. Congress could easily change the law forbidding interstate commerce between healthcare insurers and consumers.

There is a housekeeping aspect that will be dealt with – the Act contains no severability clause. The Court will have to decide whether, if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional. The boilerplate for writing a law contains a clause stating that if any section of the law is struck down, the remainder of the law remains in full force and effect. The Affordable Care Act contains no such clause, meaning that a reversal by the Court on any section of the Act, technically, applies to the Act as a whole.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “plight of the uninsured,” mostly from pundits and the media. This is transparent to whether or not the mandate is legal. There will be cries of “unfairness” over the eviscerating of the financing of the Act, mostly by Democrats and the media. This is transparent to the legitimacy of the financing mechanism chosen by Congress. There will be finger-pointing over the disruption caused by the cessation of aspects of the Act already in place, again by Democrats and the media. This is transparent to the concerns of the Supreme Court. As noted at the outset, the only thing the High Court examines is the constitutionality of the Act, as written.


[1] The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

[2] Ibid, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

the Obama Misadministration

It’s déjà vu all over again. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, announced yesterday that his committee would not produce a budget before the election, saving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from not bringing one up for a vote. That means that for three out of the last four years, they were unable to meet their legal obligation to produce a budget. Democrats tell us that the Budget Control Act – which dictates $1.2 trillion in targeted cuts or take draconian cuts “across the board” – is “as good as a budget,” which of course, just isn’t true.

So, no budget until November, leaving it up to a lame duck Congress to create the first one in three years. If they, too, decide to abdicate their sworn responsibility, it will be after January 20 before one can be fashioned, and by then, we will have had a significant tax increase – the “Bush tax cuts” and the payroll tax-holiday will have expired – the Pentagon will have been decimated by the sequester, and we will have gone through yet another debt-ceiling “emergency.”

Meanwhile, the investigation into our arming of Mexican drug cartels languishes as Eric Holder’s Justice Department tries to remember what it knew about one of its own programs. First Solar, the example pointed to by Obama as he endorsed subsidizing Solyndra, is the latest victim of the Green Energy revolution, declaring Chapter 11 yesterday. The Secret Service, forgetting that “wheels up” parties are supposed to happen after the president leaves, runs amok in Cardageña [Colombia], joining ten or so service members in a night of drinking and whoring. It is revealed that GSA spent $800K on a “retreat” in Las Vegas, complete with “year books” (made in China), commemorative coins (made in China), clowns, a “mind reader,” and who knows what else. All in the name of shepherding government spending.

The President noted that Newt Gingrich’s “$2.50 gasoline” wasn’t an economic plan, it was a bumper sticker. He was right about that. His idea? The “Buffett Rule” bumper sticker. The President’s flagship achievement, nationalized healthcare, is being reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it’s even constitutional.  By Election Day, President Obama will have incurred more debt that we spent to win World War II and still have over 8% unemployment and less than 4% GDP growth.

He’ll tell us that he needs more time to finish the job.

Frightening thought, that.


It took seven – count ‘em seven – “fact-finding” trips to Vegas before arranging for the “retreat.”

the Buffett Scam

“This is not wealth redistribution,” the President solemnly told us, “it’s not taking from A to give to B. It’s about seeing that future generations have a chance to succeed.” Too bad he didn’t go on to tell us just how raising 17 hours worth of deficit spending would see that future generations succeed.

But let’s look at just what the Buffett Rule is. It’s raising the capital gains tax for people making $1 million or more a year to 30% from its present rate of 18%. What is “capital gains?” It’s the profit one realizes on investments. It’s why people invest. So our president wants to hobble the recovery in the name of “fairness.” Interesting.

The truth is, if, after filing a legal tax return, somebody is still “unfairly” keeping “too much” of their own money, it’s not the fault of the taxpayer, it’s the fault of the tax code. So why not tackle tax reform instead of lapsing into hackneyed class warfare? And by the way, if Warren Buffett wants his secretary to pay the same rate he does, he should consider paying her in stock options. President Obama, who also pays a lower rate than his secretary, realizes about half of his income from royalties (and this wouldn’t qualify under the Buffett Rule), might consider just writing her a check.

First argued that higher taxes are necessary to pay-down the deficit and debt, the Buffet Rule would do almost nothing toward that end – it would take 512 years just pay off the 2012 deficit. Then we were told no, it’s not about revenue, it’s about “fairness.” In other words, the “rich” are cheating us. Class warfare. Now he says that it’s all about giving future generations a shot at success, but the funds will go into the general treasury, meaning that, no matter what he says, it’s about taking it from A and giving it to B.

The Buffett Rule is nothing but cheap politicizing, hoping that enough voters are mad at their rich compatriots that they will vote for someone who will punish those rich deadbeats (and hopefully give the voter something out of it). Maybe it will work – it’s a bet that most Americans don’t understand taxation, business and economics, and he’s probably right about that. But the important point here is that its net effect is to discourage private investment, which puts downward pressure on a recovery. It raises a truly insignificant amount of revenue. The way it’s being sold is pitting the “rich” against everyone else – class warfare.

the Hermit Kingdom’s Rocket

The world has been aghast at DPRK’s determination to test (yet again) a 3-stage rocket that supposedly carries a crude geophysical observation satellite aimed at a polar orbit. At the same time, we have spotted tunneling activity at DPRK’s Punggye-ri site, used for underground nuclear testing. Two disturbing activities, both of which are against United Nations resolutions.

At this writing [0547 EDT on Thursday April 12 2012] the bird is being fueled with liquid propellant – which dictates a launch within 48 hours, lest the LOX corrode the tanks, pumps and fuel lines beyond usability. The missile itself is an incrimination of an old Soviet Scud design, expanded to three stages and outfitted with indigenous guidance and staging circuitry. It is rumored to be vastly improved over the previous 3-stage launch attempts, which would be a good thing since the others have epically failed – the first one not leaving the Sea of Japan’s airspace.

The media has gone absolutely bonkers over the implications of these events, implying that success would give DPRK an ICMB capable of hitting the United States with nuclear warheads.

Given DPRK’s previous record with these things, if they aimed at the US, Canada should head for the basement. We have no indication that DPRK can come close to hitting what they are aiming at with any multi-stage vehicle. We know they don’t have a nuclear warhead – they have only successfully tested one small nuclear device. Much of the first concern – having an ICBM capable of hitting US cities – will be addressed if the launch actually places anything in polar orbit. The guidance, sequencing and timing required to place a satellite in a pre-determined orbit are formidable. If they can do that, they can probably hit the US mainland on purpose. Having said that, the Hawaiis and western Alaska are the only American targets within reach of the Taepodong-3 missile being readied for launch.

Pyongyang insists that the missile being tested is an SLV (space launch vehicle), not an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile), but that’s distinction without a difference, as any missile used to deliver a package into Earth orbit can be retargeted to fall on a given terrestrial point. Both we and the Soviets used ICBMs to modify for use as SLVs.

The second concern – delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere – could be illuminated by the activity going on at Punggye-ri. You need more than one success out of two tries before being a threat to miniaturize and shock-proof the physics package into a dependable, deliverable warhead. An underground test requires a warren of underground facilities around a small cavern housing the test device. The tunneling would be for cable-runs and passageways to accommodate detonation sequencers, instrumentation and technicians. A new warren and cavern must be constructed for each test, as each test effectively destroys most of the last one. Thus, the activity observed probably does portend a future nuclear test.

Both of these occasions are undoubtedly related to demonstrating Kim Jong Un’s competence as new leader of the Hermit Kingdom. But more importantly, they are serving as a trailblazer for how Iran conducts its similar programs. Whereas Iran has successfully launched satellites, they have not reached the level of nuclear achievements enjoyed by DPRK. There is feverish cross-pollination between DPRK and Iran in these matters – Iran’s missile program is based on North Korean Scuds given them by Pyonyang, and both DPRK and Iran were on Pakistani AQ Kahn’s customer-list while he was distributing nuclear how-to kits around the world.

There is a significant difference in approaches, however. DPRK has gone to fruition with its nuclear program, judging that demonstrating and possessing nuclear weapons to be in their best interest. Iran is still in a position to either develop them or merely achieve the ability to produce them, not having overtly committed to either strategy. That, however, is a subject unto itself.


Their first test fizzled, producing what is known as a “partial detonation.” The core was successfully brought to critical mass – producing a fission explosion – but not symmetrically, vastly reducing the yield to the sub-kiloton range. Nobody designs a sub-kiloton nuclear test as a technology demonstrator.

Primary News Number 3: Rick Santorum leaves the Saucer

Well, now that Rick Santorum has “suspended” his campaign, even the we-are-so-much-smarter-than-you media has flashed on the fact that the Republican nomination belongs to Mitt Romney … some aren’t ready to go as far out on that limb, stating (if parenthetically) that Gingrich and Paul are still in the race. No they’re not – they’re using up oxygen in the race, but you have to ping their cell phones to find them.

The reason Santorum is leaving the competition, let me say, is intensely personal – his daughter Bella has a rare life-threatening genetic disorder, Trisomy 18, and was hospitalized again over the weekend. The situation is tragic, and I make no disparaging allegations in this regard. I wish the best for Rick, Karen, Bella, and the Santorum family in this time of deep concern. As an aside, but a telling one, let it be known that Mitt Romney suspended all of his advertising in Pennsylvania as soon as he heard that Bella was taken to the hospital. Classy.

But now that the press has figured out that Romney is going to be the opposition, they can get on with the business of selling Obama to us.

General Election Issue Number 6: POTUS v SCOTUS

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his majority opinion for Marbury v Madison (1803), the definitive case on the Supreme Court’s role as ultimate protector of the Constitution. Our president must have missed that class at Harvard Law.

This all started when President Obama misstated history yet again. This time about the Supreme Court’s role in the formulation of law. “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress,” he uttered at a press conference on Monday. He seems shocked … shocked … “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

This gaffe could have been chalked up as just another hallucinatory lapse by our Law Professor-in-Chief but for Jerry Edwin Smith, part of a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals [Texas] hearing a lawsuit challenging the law’s restriction on physician-owned hospitals. He took the president at his word, which he found distressing. “I want to hear from the attorney general what he believes to be the power of a federal judge to consider federal laws,” he instructed the government’s litigator. “Three pages, single spaced and specific.” He put a 48-hour timeline on when he wanted to receive the reply from General Holder, who is known to slow-walk responses to outside entities.

The first administration damage-control came from Press Secretary Jay Carney. He argued that there’s no dispute from the administration regarding the courts’ authority to strike down laws. He says the president was referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy – such as healthcare.  Wrong, but Mr Carney isn’t a lawyer, so I’ll cut him a little slack. Mr Obama didn’t “specifically” qualify his statement at all – it would be a seismic event for an unelected group to foil the will of Congress. The implication is clear, simple and unambiguous: the will of Congress, as expressed in a signed bill, is limitless and inviolate. And that’s just as clearly wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, spoke to this very principle: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” The Supreme Court is there to undo extra-constitutional actions by other branches of government, whether by inadvertence or design. It is the guardian of limited government, a bedrock principle of America.

Mr Carney’s assertion that the president was referring to “laws addressing challenges to the economy” is equally flawed. First, the president didn’t mention “economy” or “economics” at all in his diatribe; and secondly, the Affordable Care Act is not a law about the economy, it’s a law about the distribution of healthcare. That it may affect the economy separates it not at all from every other act of Congress, all of which have economic impact.

Justice Anthony M Kennedy, the crucial swing vote in many a SCOTUS decision, asked the question pivotal to the whole case – if Congress can command everyone to buy something in order to regulate it, what is the limiting principle beyond which Congress may not go. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, unable to answer the question, offered a soliloquy on the “uniqueness” of the healthcare market. Speaking from the perspective of the constitutionality of the mandate, this was the government’s low-point.

Next came Attorney General Eric Holder’s homework. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation,” as opposed to the president’s “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” language regarding this sort of thing. He then goes on to mention “presumption of constitutionality” and “deference to Congress” that the High Court is to give matters of passed and signed law. This is the legislative equivalent of the presumption of innocence we are all afforded before the bar. General Holder closes with, “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.” Except for the fact that the President’s remarks were antithetical to the principles described therein, he’s right. But that’s not the point. Judge Smith asked for – and received – the position of the Department of Justice on the principle of judicial review. The President’s was succinctly stated by him on Monday.

This whole incident wouldn’t rise above the level of a footnote to the campaign were it not for the seriousness of the implication – not only of the statement itself, but in so publicly stating it during deliberations. In any other court, by any other person, this would be actionable improper behavior.

For the next seven months, no bigger lie can be told than “this is not a political event/statement/activity.” In a town that is mostly political most of the time, during election season, it’s all political all the time.


President Barack Obama, press conference, April 2 2012.

Ibid.

Who, ironically, taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Primary News Number 2: Santorum has become Gingrich

There’s an unfortunately long wait until Rick Santorum gets his chance in Pennsylvania, his home state. I say “unfortunately” because time is not his friend there – his double-digit lead has shrunk to 6.7% and counting[1]. Were I a gambling man, I’d take Romney and the points.

Santorum’s quickly getting to the Gingrich predicament of carrying on because he can, not because he has a puncher’s chance of winning the nomination. The former Senator has said that he will “take [his] campaign to Tampa,” implying his goal is a brokered convention – but to what end? He can’t be saying it would be good for the party – only Franklin Roosevelt has emerged from a brokered convention to win the presidency in the last 100 years[2]. If he’s saying that he wants to leverage his delegates in order to morph Governor Romney’s platform to the right, he has now joined Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich in their Tampa-bound flying saucer.

After last night (Romney won all three contests – Wisconsin, Maryland and DC), Santorum needs 80% of the outstanding delegates to win the 1,144 necessary to get the nomination; and after Pennsylvania, no matter how it comes out, his prospects dim with time, as there are a dwindling number of states left in which Santorum can be expected to have a delegate-relevant strong showing.

It appears not to be what many Republicans really want, but Romney seems, as a practical matter, unstoppable. The party is not doing itself any favors by continuing the self-consuming exercise of prolonging the inevitable. To his credit, Mr Romney is again concentrating his message on President Obama, essentially ignoring the other contenders for the nomination. I can’t remember the last time he even mentioned Congressman Paul or Speaker Gingrich by name, and after last night, I don’t expect to hear “Santorum” escape his lips outside of Pennsylvania’s borders.

It’s gotten to the point where neither is really hurting the other – just name-calling. If the incumbent weren’t such a target-rich environment, this primary campaign would be known as the one where a probable general election winner was destroyed by the process of getting there. As it is, Republicans are risking making the November election a lot tighter than it deserves to be by desensitizing Independents with a trivial fight over non-issues. The party would be best served by getting on to the general campaign as soon as possible, which Mr Romney is trying to do.


[1] RealClearPolitics average of polls, as of April 1 2012.

[2] In 1932.

General Election Issue Number 5: the Obama Recovery

The capital-market crash wasn’t the worst recession since the Great Depression – Jimmy Carter gave us double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit inflation simultaneously – but President Obama’s recovery is the worst since the Great Depression. A recession, left to its own devices will recover in about 18 months – the natural state of a market is to grow. We are two years into this recovery and counting. The deeper a recession, the steeper the recovery – this one is creeping along, barely describing a positive curve. We are about sixty cents a gallon or so (sixty days or so?) away from having gasoline prices pull us back into recession.

Of all economic factors, energy is more ubiquitous than any save credit. It is contained in every product and service, it is a component of advertising and distribution, it is factor in the consumer arriving at the point of sale and back home – if the product is temperature-sensitive, energy is required to keep it fresh. Energy freezes, cools and cooks our food; conditions and lights our homes and offices. It’s everywhere and contained in everything. The worst time to go to war against energy would be during a recession or recovery, yet, intentionally or not, this administration is hobbling recovery by pressuring price upward on all forms of energy in widespread use today.

President Obama, as a candidate, warned us that he wanted to regulate coal out of business, and his EPA fired the opening round this week by making it economically infeasible to build a new coal-fired power plant. This has a chilling effect on investment in existing coal plants by inserting uncertainty into the environment (what’s coming next?). We have around a century’s worth of natural gas deposits, but getting the pipelines for bringing gas to market is an unintelligible maze of red tape, impact studies and conflicting regulations, all of which could be streamlined or eliminated by an administration that meant “all of the above.” It’s abundant, cleaner than oil, and a relatively easy and inexpensive conversion away from removing a statistically significant amount of gasoline from our transportation network. Speaking of gasoline, its cost has more than doubled under this administration, and though a president can’t do much to lower the pump-cost of gasoline, he can do a lot to make it more expensive. Energy Secretary Chu has said that he wants European prices for gasoline here, so I don’t see much hope for mitigation under this president.

Mr Obama is fixated on “Green Energy,” but rather than use government’s best advantage – its ability to encourage basic research – the administration is playing at venture capitalism (picking individual winners and losers), something government does very badly because it does it politically rather than capitalistically. Can you say “Solyndra”? His latest fantasy is algae! What’s next, unicorn farts?!

Now that Japan has lowered its corporate tax rate, the United States enjoys the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world – it’s the administration that’s chasing jobs offshore. The whole taxation picture – personal and corporate – is kept foggy by nearly constant White House statements of wanting to increase taxes on everything not-Green. Coupled with the healthcare morass, this is suppressing any proclivity business might have to hire and expand. Nobody knows how much it is going to cost to do business next year. Uncertainty is anathema to fiscal planning.

Three years of trillion-dollar deficits, and no indication that the administration is interested in cutting spending (other than emasculating the military), is generating European-like debt levels. This debt, in and of itself, could be overcome with a more realistic concept of the role of government in a free society, but these kinds of debts are never “in and of themselves.” We have gotten here by profligate spending with no thought given toward how to finance it. A growing menace to fiscal responsibility is our network of entitlements which, given our demographics of workers to retirees, and politicians’ habit expanding entitlements for votes, is getting exponentially worse with time. To this, the administration has added the vast new entitlement of guaranteed healthcare, which is as philosophically troubling as it is fiscally irresponsible.

Making someone’s livelihood everybody else’s right is philosophically dubious. It confuses a “right” with political whim. By eliminating pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps, Congress has changed the nature of health coverage from insurance to assurance, a shift the insurance industry cannot survive. In plain English, it’s a government takeover of health coverage. The Act is written is such a way as to pressure individuals out of private care and into government plans, and Democrats’ denials of this – given that they wrote the bill – is disingenuous. They lied.

The aging of our population guarantees that these programs will be paying out evermore while contributions are ever decreasing. Both Social Security and Medicare are already paying out more than they take in, and both will be, at current rates, bankrupt by our 46th president. On top of this, and an economy in recession, this administration added a vast new entitlement that may not even be legal – the United States Supreme Court is reviewing it as I write (actually, they have probably already discussed and voted, and are writing their opinions). It’s almost infantile in its fiscal irresponsibility.

If government taxed 100% of the wealth of the 100 richest Americans – not their income, took their whole wealth – it would total $951.2 billion, or 5.945% of a $16 trillion debt. Anyone who says we can tax our way out of this fix is just lying. This administration has painted America into a corner that guarantees a new normal of socialized pain. Congress won’t cut the amount of spending necessary to achieve a robust recovery, and the banks and corporations don’t dare join in a hiring and expansion spree as unleashing their trillions into the economy would guarantee a vicious round of inflation.

They have tied the hands of future governments for a generation or more, and that’s inexcusable.