Is There an Award for Most Idiotic Economic Policy by a Presidential Administration?

If so, I nominate this proposal by the Obama administration that would allow unemployed people to sue if they think a company of 15 or more employees denied them a job because they are unemployed. Does the Obama administration have a goal of doubling the unemployment rate in a few months? I'm pretty confident that such a provision, if passed, would accomplish this. If you are an employer, would you hire anyone at all? Or would you hire under the table by not advertising openings? Or would you not hire someone who already has a job, even if she were the best applicant available to you, because you feared a lawsuit? The only way to protect yourself would be to hire only unemployed people, but the unemployed people who apply might not be as qualified as an employed person. Thus, your business will not grow as much as it could because you cannot hire the best person available.

While (real) economists cannot predict exactly what will happen when government regulates the economy, we do know that government intervention breeds consequences that the government planners find worse than the problem they are trying to cure. The government planners then create more rules and regulations to fix the new problems, which then lead to more unintended consequences. This continues until either the planners see the err of their ways (highly unlikely) or the economy becomes completely socialized.

This idiotic provision is an attempt to fix a problem that was created and continues to be exacerbated by the Federal Government, its vassal States, and the Federal Reserve Bank. The only solution to economic growth is to remove the State from the economy and allow businesses and entrepreneurs to create goods and services for the masses. The problem is that politicians and regulators are too corrupted by the power that they wield and will never admit that they are the problem. They only need to mix the right combination of policies together and chant the magic words. Then, Poof!, economic prosperity will return and they can take credit for it.

Remember my first maxim of the State: If given a choice between increasing or maintaining revenue and power versus protecting the lives and property of its citizens, State agents will choose the former. Fixing the economy requires lower taxes and fewer regulations. Both necessarily require that the State give up revenue and power so that its citizens can improve their lives. I simply do not see this happening.

Comments

[Redman]

Hum, stupid is as stupid does; sounds about right to me.