Commander in Chief of the Economy?
April 3, 2008Hillary Clinton gave us a nice little one-liner the other day. “It is time for a president who is ready on day one to be commander in chief of our economy,” she proclaimed. Good one, Hill. Sounds like she snatched the term from one of Ron Paul’s responses in the final debate (go about 5:00 into the YouTube) and tried to twist it into a “positive” thing.
As Paul points out in the video, Article II. Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” However, it doesn’t say anything about the President commanding the economy. That’s what dictators try—and eventually fail—to do.
As any good economist will tell you, in a truly free society, only the market commands the economy, with the principles of competition, supply and demand, self reliance and innovation and as the chief underpinnings.
Hillary went on to say that “sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. at the White House and it’s an economic crisis and we need a president who is ready, willing and able to answer that call.”
Hate to break it to you, Hill, but I’m afraid that phone’s been ringing off the hook for years. The “crisis” is the ongoing abandonment of sound money (a Constitutional gold standard) and free markets. Yet almost no one in Washington has been willing to heed the call (except for Ron Paul, of course).
Since Hillary already wants to extend her “commander in chief” power to the economy, if elected, where would she stop? Commander in chief of health care? (Actually, we already know she’s going for that one.) Commander in chief of education? (How I cringe at the thought.) How about commander in chief of energy? Or of agriculture? Or maybe even the environment? And while we’re at it, let’s just top it off with transportation, recreation, communication and the arts—then throw in a scepter and a tiara and call it a day.
