A new op-ed by Charles Sauer in RealClearMarkets raises a pointed—and uncomfortable—question: why are some Republicans embracing the very kinds of policies they once criticized for driving up prices?
At a time when Washington claims to be focused on lowering costs, Sauer argues that policymakers risk repeating the same mistakes that defined the last several years—just under a different banner.
“What we experienced during those years wasn’t actually ‘inflation,’ but rather public policy choices that favored unions and raised prices.”
Sauer makes a clear distinction between monetary inflation and policy-driven price increases—arguing that regulatory decisions, particularly those designed to favor organized labor, can ripple through the economy in the form of higher costs for consumers.
While such policies may have aligned with the Biden administration’s worldview, the shift among some Republicans is what stands out.
“For Republicans… switching over to support big government regulations in already over regulated industries is a 180-degree turn.”
At the center of the debate is the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Bill, where proposals to incorporate provisions from the Railway Safety Act (RSA) are gaining traction. Sauer argues that these additions are less about safety and more about mandating labor structures.
“A two-man provision might sound good on its face, but if two men are better than one, why not require three, four, or five?”
The critique is straightforward: if staffing mandates aren’t grounded in evidence, they function as economic interventions rather than safety measures. According to Sauer, existing research does not support the claim that larger crews improve outcomes—raising questions about the real intent behind the policy.
The downstream effects, he warns, are not theoretical.
“An inability to adjust operating models over time means higher costs for transportation, which means higher costs in retail stores.”
In other words, policies that restrict efficiency in one sector rarely stay contained—they spread across supply chains, ultimately landing on consumers.
Sauer also points to a broader historical irony. The deregulatory push that helped modernize transportation and reduce costs came from an unlikely source.
“The decision to deregulate transportation… came from one of the most liberal presidents of the modern era – Jimmy Carter.”
That legacy, Sauer suggests, is now at risk of being reversed—not by ideological opponents, but by policymakers who once championed limited government and market-driven outcomes.
The takeaway is simple but consequential: when policy begins to prioritize political optics or special interests over economic fundamentals, the results tend to look the same—higher costs, reduced efficiency, and fewer choices.
Read more at RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
