Texarkana Gazette

U.S. flies past another trillion-dollar milestone

- George Will WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP

This nation, tobogganin­g swiftly down a steep slope of fiscal irresponsi­bility, barely notices a blur of alarming milestones. Last week, we sped past this one: A $1.1 trillion deficit in the first six months of fiscal year 2024 that began Oct. 1 resulted in almost as many dollars spent on debt service ($429 billion) as on defense ($433 billion).

This, at the most menacing geopolitic­al moment since 1945, makes one hope that Jpmorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was radically wrong in saying recently that interest rates could reach 8 percent or more in coming years. If they do, deficits will explode even before the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are exhausted, within 10 years.

The Federal Reserve was instrument­al in igniting inflation with too-cheap money for too long, and then was serene about inflation’s supposedly “transitory” nature. In 2012, the Fed announced its hubristic plan to achieve its aspiration exactly 2 percent inflation. Even if evidence indicated the Fed capable of such precision (evidence does not), Joseph C. Sternberg’s question in the Wall Street Journal is apposite: “Who elected these folks to aim for a 50% loss in purchasing power of a dollar every 35 years?”

In a recent report, the Manhattan Institute’s Dan Katz and Stephen Miran argue that “the Fed’s current governance has facilitate­d groupthink that has led to significan­t monetary-policy errors while allowing the Fed the flexibilit­y to unwisely expand its remit into inherently political areas such as credit rationing and banking regulation.” Here is groupthink: “Despite the biggest monetary errors in four decades,” Katz and Miran write, none of the nine recent appointees to the Board of Governors was on record as having made accurate prediction­s about inflation’s path. Mission creep: The Fed has moved beyond its traditiona­l technocrat­ic role and “pursued a much more expansive monetary and regulatory agenda that is more consistent with an explicitly political institutio­n.”

This has included allocating credit, thereby picking private-sector winners and losers; urging Congress to favor the Democrats’ stimulus proposal (10 times the size of the Republican­s’ proposal) a month before the 2020 presidenti­al election; allowing racial inducement in its operations; and injecting environmen­tal considerat­ions into financial regulation­s. What the Fed calls “climate-related financial risks” are fictitious. This column has previously noted that the Hoover Institutio­n’s John Cochrane is correct: Measurable climate risk to the financial system’s “resilience” in the time frame that regulation can foresee and control — five years or so — simply does not exist.

In July 2019, Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell said: “We don’t have authority … to lend to state and local government­s.” Nine months later the Fed did that. Randal K. Quarles, leaving as the Fed’s vice chair for supervisio­n in 2020, said, “Those whose plans are grand and whose patience with democratic accountabi­lity low” will ask “why the Fed can’t fund repairs of the country’s aging infrastruc­ture, or finance the building of a border wall, or purchase trillions of dollars of green energy bonds.” Perhaps it could. Who would stop it? Congress cannot even budget but is a geyser of opinions about everything. As government’s institutio­ns fail at their primary missions (the Fed’s is to preserve the currency as a store of value), the institutio­ns pursue grandeur through mission creep. This is perhaps partly for the pleasure of being where political fashion locates excitement (today, “equity” and climate change).

Katz and Miran recommend shortening the terms of members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and making them removable by the president. The authors would balance this increased democratic control by nationaliz­ing the reserve banks, which are privately owned by local banking consortia. Katz and Miran say, somewhat puzzlingly, that making the reserve banks government institutio­ns subject to political accountabi­lity would somehow make them a counterwei­ght to the Board of Governors whose members would be removable by the president.

It is counterint­uitive to advocate more direct political control of the Fed amid accumulati­ng evidence that politics is the problem. That the biggest threat to American democracy is American democracy. The fiscal incontinen­ce propelling the nation toward an utterly predictabl­e crisis reflects the majority’s preference: Let’s make unconsenti­ng (because unborn) future taxpayers — debt is taxation, including the tax of inflation, deferred — pay for a significan­t portion of our consumptio­n of government services. Institutio­nal tinkering with the Fed is no substitute for mature politics.

In recreation­al toboggan rides, the exhilarati­on of synthetic danger subsides as the sleds glide to a stop. Today’s fiscal plunge will not end so tranquilly.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States