Jerome Powell is out — for good reason. Here are 4 of his top blunders.
Kevin Warsh, the primary intermediary between the Federal Reserve and Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, was confirmed on Tuesday to a 14-year term as Federal Reserve governor and confirmed on Wednesday as Jerome Powell's successor as chairman of the U.S. central bank.
Powell, who was first nominated to the Federal Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and whose term as chair ends on Friday, wished Warsh well. However, he also provided his replacement with something more valuable than a nice sentiment: examples of what not to do, or at least, what to avoid doing.
Powell has, after all, dropped the ball on numerous occasions — sometimes with catastrophic consequences for the country. Here are just four examples.
1. Don't worry, it's 'transitory.'
Powell stated on March 4, 2021, in the second year of the pandemic, that inflation might increase but that it would likely be "transitory" and not enough for the central bank to raise record-low interest rates — a decision some suspect was geared toward pleasing then-President Joe Biden and thereby securing Powell's reappointment.
'Most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder.'
MarketWatch's Greg Robb noted that Powell's wrong-headed "transitory" view of inflation — one that would define his eight years as Fed chair — precluded the Fed from raising interest rates until 2022 while the Fed was also buying up bonds "and swelling its balance sheet."
Thanks to Powell's mistake — which economist Mohamed El-Erian, former PIMCO chief executive, said was "probably the worst inflation call in the history of the Federal Reserve" — the Fed was consistently on the back foot.
RELATED: Your bank can shut you down overnight — here’s how to protect yourself
Facing the highest inflation Americans had seen in 40 years — inflation that no longer appeared to be "transitory" — Powell ended up raising interest rates 11 times between March 2022 and July 2023, when its benchmark rate reached a range of 5.25% to 5.5%.
Powell told "60 Minutes" in a Feb. 1, 2024, interview:
In hindsight, it would've been better to have tightened policy earlier. I'm happy to say that. Really, it was this. We saw what we thought was that this inflation, which seemed to be mostly limited to the goods sector and to the supply chain story. We thought that the economy was so dynamic that it would fix itself fairly quickly. And we thought that inflation would go away fairly quickly without an intervention by us. That it would be transitory.
Powell leaves office with inflation well above the Fed's 2% target for five consecutive years.
2. Betting against Trump's tariffs, tax cuts
While reluctant initially to raise interest rates when Biden was in office, Powell previously demonstrated an eagerness to raise rates in 2018 when President Donald Trump was in office and the economy was booming.
"Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates," Trump said at the time. Powell "almost looks like he's happy raising interest rates."
The repeated hikes, which Trump blamed for coinciding stock market turmoil, were supposedly prompted by concerns that the Republican president's tariffs and tax cuts, the latter of which were framed as a $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, might together contribute to inflation.
Powell stated that "fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative. In this environment, we anticipate that inflation ... will move up this year."
Economist Donald Luskin, chief investment officer for Trand Macrolytics LLC, recently noted that "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump’s tariffs in 2018 and 2019 led to any inflation at all."
Economist and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro wrote last year, "Powell's audition for 'worst Fed chair' began shortly after his February 2018 appointment. Promising President Trump in the Oval Office a supportive posture to secure his nomination, Powell instead aggressively raised rates into the low-inflation, high-growth Trump economy. Powell wrongly believed Trump's tax cuts and tariffs would spark inflation — they didn't."
Powell's bet against Trump's tariffs and tax cuts proved consequential.
"As Powell's Fed hiked interest rates four times in 2018 — despite muted inflation and strong labor market gains — economic momentum slowed sharply," wrote Navarro. "According to the Fed's own September Tealbook, most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder."
"It would cost the American economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic output and tax revenues," added the trade adviser.
3. Fed renovation scandal
Powell reportedly greenlit luxury renovations to the Fed's Washington, D.C, headquarters that exceeded the original budget by roughly $700 million and is set to cost around $2.5 billion.
Controversy over the renovations — which include a rooftop terrace with gardens, VIP dining rooms, "premium" marble, and water features — came to a head in January, several months after U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte called for an investigation into Powell and his removal as Fed chair.
RELATED: Debit card company promises to pay your bill ... sometimes: 'Buy now, pay maybe'
Powell said in a Jan. 11 statement that "the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multiyear project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings."
An activist Biden-appointed judge quashed the grand jury subpoenas in March.
"Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve," Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said in response to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg's rulings. "This is wrong, and it is without legal authority."
Last month, the Trump administration dropped the criminal investigation into Powell over his luxury renovation project.
While apparently off the hook, the controversy nevertheless hangs over Powell as another example of costly mismanagement.
4. Bank failures
Powell and his underlings also failed to prevent the March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the third- and fourth-largest bank failures in American history, respectively.
Powell acknowledged weeks after the bank failures that the Fed's efforts to intervene were too little, too late.
"It does kind of suggest there's a need for ... regulatory and supervisory changes, just because supervision and regulation need to keep up with what's happening," said Powell. "My only interest is that we identify what went wrong here ... make an assessment of what are the right policies to put in place so that doesn't happen again, and then implement those policies."
One of Powell's lieutenants, then-Vice Chair Michael Barr, admitted that the "Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful enough action."
A damning April 28, 2023, report on the Fed's bungled supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank — the conclusions of which Powell ultimately accepted — said that:
- "Federal Reserve supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity";
- "When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough"; and
- "The Board's tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach."
Inflation hits milestone not seen since 2023
As the United States navigates a fragile ceasefire in its conflict with Iran, the price of oil has remained volatile and high. Brent crude, the international benchmark, was trading at $104.21 per barrel at market close on Monday, nearly 57% higher than its pre-conflict price. Inflation has risen as a result and is in a territory it hasn’t been since 2023, according to an analysis by NBC News.
On Tuesday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly Consumer Price Index update for April. It reported that inflation in April was 3.8%.
A vast majority of Americans don’t trust either party to fix the economy.
The bureau stated in a press release that the rise in energy costs is responsible “for over 40% of the monthly all-items increase.”
In its report on the April inflation numbers, NBC News noted that in Friday’s April jobs report, average hourly earnings rose by 3.6% over the past year. This marks the first time since 2023, during the Biden administration, that wages have not kept pace with inflation.
Despite the runaway inflation of the Biden years, Democrat congressional leaders pounced on the inflation news. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.) said in a statement, “From his tariff taxes to his disastrous war in Iran, President Trump is making life even harder for American families. Today’s inflation data confirms what everyone can see: Costs are out of control.”
Republicans, on the other hand, are focused on the growth in jobs and the economy in general and reminding voters of the Biden-era inflation. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said, “While inflation has come down substantially since the 21% spike in prices seen when Democrats controlled all of Washington, American families are still looking for additional relief, and that is why Republicans acted to deliver the largest tax cuts in American history.”
Smith further highlighted the growth in GDP and hope that the new chairman of the Federal Reserve would be “a leader over monetary policy who understands that high interest rates have held back the true economic potential of our country.”
RELATED: The SAVE America Act won’t be enough to save the GOP from a midterm bloodbath
A consensus seems to be brewing among investment experts that unlike the broad-based inflation of the early part of the Biden presidency, this inflation could truly be transitory if energy prices come down.
“The report still showed only limited evidence of fully broad-based second-round inflation effects,” said Arielle Ingrassia, an investment specialist at Evelyn Partners, according to IFA magazine.
“That leaves the overall picture closer to an energy and transport shock than a full inflation spiral — at least for now.”
The inflation release Tuesday coincides with findings from a new CNN/SSRS poll that shows "roughly two-thirds of Americans say that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country. And Trump’s approval rating stands at 30% on the economy, a career low,” according to CNN.
But Democrats do not fare well in this new polling either. A vast majority of Americans don’t trust either party to fix the economy.
As the nation heads into a midterm election being shaped by redistricting battles, Americans' perceived economic outlook will continue to be a determining factor for the control of both the House and Senate in November.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
How Our National Debt Jeopardizes Families’ Futures
Lawmakers focused on their reelection in a few months or years care little about whether the United States faces economic stagnation decades from now.The lone Republican who could tank Trump's Fed pick
President Donald Trump's pick to overhaul the Federal Reserve has enjoyed support from the commander in chief's allies in the Senate, but one lawmaker just might shut down the nominee's confirmation.
Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to chair the Federal Reserve back in January after publicly feuding with current Chair Jerome Powell for failing to cut interest rates and for his multibillion-dollar renovation of the Fed building. Since then, Warsh took the first step of the confirmation process by going to Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday.
'Political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable.'
Warsh received glowing reviews from the seven Senate Republicans after his hearing, including from GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has butted heads with Trump in the past. Despite Tillis' endorsement of Warsh, the retiring senator drew a bold red line for the administration that could cost the confirmation.
"Kevin Warsh is a great nominee to be chairman of the Federal Reserve, and I look forward to supporting him out of committee once the DOJ drops their bogus investigation into Chairman Powell that threatens the independence of the Fed," Tillis said in a statement.
RELATED: Federal Reserve makes key decision on interest rates — and Trump won't like it
Tillis has repeatedly demanded that the administration suspend its investigation into Powell, even threatening to block nominees he supports, like Warsh. Notably, the Senate Banking Committee is composed of seven Republicans and six Democrats, meaning Tillis' vote is necessary to advance Warsh's nomination assuming the vote falls along party lines.
"The Department of Justice continues to pursue a criminal investigation into Chairman Jerome Powell based on committee testimony that no reasonable person could construe as possessing criminal intent," Tillis said following Warsh's nomination in January. "Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable."
"My position has not changed: I will oppose the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee, including for the position of Chairman, until the DOJ’s inquiry into Chairman Powell is fully and transparently resolved."
One viable "off-ramp" that has been floated by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who chairs the committee, is to create a subcommittee to investigate and oversee the Federal Reserve's over-budget construction. This would, in effect, replace the Department of Justice's criminal probe into Powell but still allow the administration and its allies to investigate the Fed.
It's unclear whether the DOJ would drop the investigation, but Tillis expressed enthusiasm about the potential resolution.
“I not only think it’s a good off-ramp, but I also think it’s good governance,” Tillis said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Fed’s independence has become a constitutional absurdity
The independence of the Federal Reserve System has become a major source of public controversy. As political leaders signal dissatisfaction with monetary policy, officials and commentators rush to defend the central bank’s insulation from democratic pressure. We are told, as if it were self-evident, that central bank independence is a pillar of sound economic governance.
But this confidence is misplaced. The economic case for central bank independence is far weaker than its defenders suggest. And the constitutional case is weaker still.
Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership.
Start with economics. The standard argument is that independent central banks deliver low and stable inflation because they are insulated from short-term political incentives. Elected officials, facing electoral pressures, might be tempted to juice the economy with artificially loose monetary policy. By contrast, independent technocrats can take the long view.
Early empirical studies did show that countries with independent central banks experienced lower inflation. Yet more recent research has cast doubt on this relationship. The correlation is sensitive to different samples and methods. In many cases, the supposed benefits of independence disappear entirely.
A more plausible explanation has emerged. Countries that enjoy low and stable inflation share deeper institutional characteristics: respect for the rule of law, stable political systems, and credible commitments to property rights. These are the real foundations of sound money. Central bank independence accompanies these basic governance norms, but its stand-alone effect is debatable.
This matters for a free-enterprise economy. Monetary policy is not a neutral technocratic exercise. Interest rates are prices: the price of time, risk, and capital. When insulated officials tinker with those prices at their discretion, the result is distorted market signals. Cheap credit can mislead investors, encourage unsustainable projects, and redistribute wealth in opaque ways. Independence does not eliminate politics. It simply hides politics behind a veil of expertise.
If the economic case for independence is overstated, the constitutional case is entirely bunk. The Constitution is clear: Congress holds the power “to coin Money” and “regulate the Value thereof.” Monetary authority, like all legislative power, originates with the people’s representatives. Congress may delegate certain functions to administrative bodies, including by creating a central bank. But delegation is not abdication.
Those who exercise delegated authority remain accountable to the laws Congress passes and, ultimately, to the chief executive charged with enforcing them.
Yet the modern Fed operates as if our constitutional framework were irrelevant. Its leaders enjoy significant protection from removal. Its decisions (targeting interest rates, allocating credit, regulating banks, etc.) have sweeping consequences for the entire economy. If this does not constitute the exercise of executive power, it is hard to say what does.
The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that administrative agencies cannot be insulated from presidential oversight simply because they possess technical expertise. The separation of powers does not yield to convenience, nor to the promise of better policy outcomes. Yet when it comes to the Federal Reserve, the court has signaled a willingness to tolerate precisely such insulation — a “special case” for the most powerful economic institution in the country.
This exception is indefensible. Appeals to history or prudence, however well grounded, are not constitutional arguments. An agency that wields executive power must answer to the chief executive. Concerns about how that works in practice does not justify ignoring the Constitution.
The truth is that central bank independence persists not because it is firmly grounded in law or economics, but because the alternative unsettles us. We worry, not without reason, that elected officials might misuse monetary policy for short-term gain.
But the Constitution does not permit us to resolve that fear by concentrating vast economic power in the hands of unaccountable experts. A free and self-governing people must confront the difficult task of designing institutions that combine competence with accountability.
RELATED: If Congress can’t oversee the FBI, who can?
That begins with Congress. There are several legislative reforms that can restore the rule of law to monetary policy. First, lawmakers should narrow the Federal Reserve’s mandate to a single, clear objective — price stability — rather than the vague and conflicting goals it currently pursues. A simpler mandate would make it easier to evaluate performance and hold policymakers responsible when they fail.
Second, Congress should revisit the legal protections that shield senior Fed officials from removal. Freedom of judgment is one thing; freedom from oversight is another. Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership. Legislators ought to make it easier to fire central bankers.
Finally, the president should take a more active role in ensuring that the Fed operates within its statutory and constitutional bounds. This does not mean dictating day-to-day interest rate decisions. Instead, it means recognizing that monetary policy, like all exercises of government power, must remain subject to democratic control.
President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chairman is a good start. The two must work together to restore the Fed’s ordinary day-to-day operations, something missing since the 2007-08 financial crisis.
Economic stability is obviously desirable. But we cannot purchase it at the cost of self-government. Republican principles require officials to be answerable to the people. If we are serious about preserving the constitutional order and free enterprise, we must abandon the comforting myths of central bank independence and restore accountability to the Federal Reserve.
Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.
'Golden Age of America is upon us!' Delayed January jobs report exceeds expectations
After almost a week's delay, the Department of Labor released the highly anticipated January jobs report on Wednesday.
Originally scheduled for release on February 6, the January jobs report exceeded many experts' expectations.
'WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!'
The Department of Labor reported that 130,000 non-farm jobs and 172,000 total private jobs were added in January, nearly double the expectations set by one poll of economists, according to Fox News.
Furthermore, the unemployment rate was slightly lower than expected, sitting at 4.3% compared to the projected 4.4% rate.
RELATED: DOGE program is successfully shrinking the federal workforce, new jobs report suggests
Fox noted that the Department of Labor revised the November and December jobs reports down by 17,000 jobs, taken together.
President Trump reacted to the latest jobs report with enthusiasm while also calling for other actions to improve the U.S. economy: "GREAT JOBS NUMBERS, FAR GREATER THAN EXPECTED! The United States of America should be paying MUCH LESS on its Borrowings (BONDS!). We are again the strongest Country in the World, and should therefore be paying the LOWEST INTEREST RATE, by far. This would be an INTEREST COST SAVINGS OF AT LEAST ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR — BALANCED BUDGET, PLUS."
"WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!" Trump added.
The White House's Rapid Response X account reported some more job-related news on Wednesday morning: "Under President Trump, federal employment has declined to its lowest level since 1966 — and the lowest level in recorded history as a share of the total workforce."
The post included a chart showing federal employment over the last five years, showcasing a precipitous decline since January 2025. According to the chart, there were more than three million federal employees in January 2025, but that number dropped below 2.7 million by January 2026.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump picks 'numbskull' Powell's replacement for Fed chair
President Donald Trump has officially selected Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s successor.
Trump nominated Kevin Warsh for the role, noting the financier’s extensive experience, including his former role as a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve. At the time of Warsh’s appointment to the board in 2006, he was 35, the youngest appointee to serve, Trump claimed.
This announcement comes after a longtime feud between 'numbskull' Powell and the president.
Warsh is set to replace Powell in May after Powell's term officially ends.
"I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best," Trump said in a Truth Social post Friday. "On top of everything else, he is 'central casting,' and he will never let you down.”
RELATED: Fed Chairman Jerome Powell fears criminal indictment as Trump-Fed confrontation intensifies
This announcement comes after a longtime feud between "numbskull" Powell and the president, with Trump often criticizing Powell's refusal to cut interest rates.
This conflict came to a fever pitch when Trump's Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into Powell over his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee in June 2025, when he discussed the ballooning cost of renovation to the Fed headquarters.
In a statement following the subpoena, Powell claimed the investigation was actually a political response to "whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — nor whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation."
Trump was originally considering National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett for the role, but later suggested he would pick someone else because he wanted to keep Hassett in his position.
"[There] was great speculation that highly respected Kevin Hassett was going to be named Chairman of the Fed, and a great Chairman he would have been but, quite honestly, he is doing such an outstanding job working with me and my team at the White House, that I just didn’t want to let him go," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
"Kevin is indescribably good so, as the expression goes, 'if you can’t do better, don’t try to fix it!' Thank you Kevin for doing such a great job!"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
How the 30-year mortgage helped create a permanent housing bubble
You won’t hear many people object to President Trump’s executive order to ban corporate purchases of residential homes. The idea sounds like common sense. But it targets a minor symptom while leaving the real disease untouched — and in some respects, it risks making that disease worse.
Institutional home-buying already peaked during the COVID-era bubble and has receded since then. In most markets, corporate ownership represents a small share of total inventory. Even at its height, it never explained why housing costs exploded for everyone else. High prices created the opportunity for institutional buyers, not the other way around.
The goal should not be cheaper debt. It should be cheaper homes.
Government policy inflated the housing market. Institutional buyers simply responded.
During COVID, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates toward zero. Mortgage rates fell below 3%. At the same time, the Fed bought roughly $2.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, and HUD expanded “affordable homeownership” programs that widened the pool of subsidized buyers. Those policies produced predictable results.
When the government offers 2.5% interest for 30 years — often paired with minimal down payments backed by the FHA — buyers flood the market. Sellers respond by raising prices. The bubble becomes a feature, not a bug.
Institutional buyers entered that environment because it looked like easy money. Higher home prices also pushed rents up, so developers built more homes for long-term rental. Both trends flowed from the same source: a government-shaped market that made housing unaffordable, then subsidized the unaffordability.
Trump now seems focused on the symptom — corporate buyers — while ignoring the machinery that inflated the market in the first place.
He has spent months fighting Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to bring rates back down toward zero. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve still holds about $2.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Trump has also announced a plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase another $200 billion in MBS. The stated goal is to lower mortgage rates.
But the goal should not be cheaper debt. It should be cheaper homes.
Artificially lowering rates props up prices and slows correction. Prices in many markets have begun to soften. That correction should continue. Policies designed to suppress rates will keep prices elevated and risk inflating the next bubble.
That brings us back to corporate home-buying. Even at the COVID peak, institutional buyers — defined as entities owning at least 100 single-family homes — owned about 3.1% of the housing stock. That number has since fallen to around 1%. Investors see the market turning, and they have started backing away.
So Trump’s corporate-purchase ban arrives late, targets a relatively small share of the market, and risks becoming cosmetic cover for policies that keep the bubble inflated.
If Trump wants to drive prices down and permanently realign housing with median incomes, he has to reverse the policies that inflated the bubble. That means attacking the structure, not the headline.
Get government out of the mortgage market. Trump’s next Federal Reserve chair must commit to unwinding the Fed’s mortgage-backed securities portfolio. That $2.1 trillion cushion keeps mortgage rates lower than the market would otherwise set. Those artificially low rates inflate home prices.
End universal “homeownership for everyone” policy. The federal government keeps subsidizing buyers who are not ready to buy. Those programs inject cash into housing demand that would not exist in a real market. The goal should align prices with income, not chase a utopian dream of universal ownership. After decades of subsidies, deductions, and federal credit support, the home ownership rate still sits around the mid-60% range.
Stop chasing near-zero interest rates. A 30-year loan at 2% sounds appealing until you realize what it does to prices. Cheap money bids up homes across the board. Buyers pay the price forever even as politicians brag about the “deal.” Trump should let the market set rates. Recent rate cuts have not restored normal home buying either. Sales remain weak because prices remain too high.
End the 30-year fixed mortgage. Instead of floating longer loans — 50 years? Madness! — the country should move in the opposite direction. Before the New Deal era, short-term mortgages, often three to seven years, dominated the market. Federal policy transformed that structure.
Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act of 1934, establishing the Federal Housing Authority. The FHA insured long-term, fully amortizing mortgages with fixed rates, low down payments, and standardized payment schedules. That system moved the market away from short-term balloon loans and laid the foundation for longer terms.
RELATED: America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself
Congress eventually authorized the 30-year mortgage in 1954. VA loans under the GI Bill and the expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later built a secondary market that made long-term fixed-rate loans attractive to lenders.
Government insurance, guarantees, and liquidity support made 30-year fixed mortgages feasible, which is why they represent 80%-90% of U.S. mortgages today. Without those interventions, lenders would not carry that risk.
The larger point remains simple: Sellers can’t charge prices buyers can’t pay. Prices explode only when government subsidies and government-backed long-term debt expand what buyers can “afford” on paper.
Unwind the subsidies. Unwind the guarantees. Unwind the cheap-money machinery. Let incomes, not federal policy, set the ceiling.
Housing should function like other consumer markets, not be engineered by Washington. Prices should reflect what people earn.
That’s the fix. Everything else treats symptoms and pretends to solve the problem.
Here’s What Trump And Other Republicans Can Do To Solve America’s Housing Affordability Crisis
'Potential home buyers would benefit greatly from a whole-of-government approach at the federal, at the state, and at the local level,' said Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
Oprah and The Rock are facing MAJOR BACKLASH over THIS