Up with Chris Hayes 11/11/2012 -- Progressive priorities

You can tell from the topics of discussion among progressives what priorities they've set post-election. Progressives aren't looking back to address the lack of anti-war advocacy, and they aren't forming a resistance against violation of civil liberties, violations which Obama has probably increased, and they aren't scolding Obama for not following through with the closing of Gitmo, comprehensive immigration reform or breaking up the banks, just to name a few progressive demands on the list that was started in 2008.

No, the priority on the Left post-election is to use this strong message from the American people to raise taxes on the rich and spend more money on investment/stimulus. On Hayes' show he had an ex-Bain capital employee who defended the investor class on one side of the discussion, then he had four progressives counting himself, and more as the show went along, on the progressive side.

The defender of investors said that taxing the rich by the amount prosposed by Obama will bring in 50 billion dollars, then raising capital gains tax will bring in about 50 billion more, and that leaves 900 billion to close the deficit. A female economics professor from NY said that spending on such things as unemployment extension will create a multiplier effect, and when businesses see that government is going to support the unemployed, then businesses will start investing the trillion or so dollars they have sitting on the sidelines. A newly elected congress person from NY reiterated the stimilus argument, claiming that higher taxes under Bill Clinton brought about a booming economy. Hayes said he doubts that the deficit is a real problem and that he sees no reason why we can't continue to run a deficit since there is no inflation and none of the terrible economic consequences that are presaged by opponents to deficit spending.

There were other arguments on the show, like whether Big Money lost or won in the election. Although Hayes touched on it by asking if it matters that both sides spent a huge amount of money, the consensus from the progressive panelists was that the money donated to Democrats came from small donors who represent democracy, and the money donated to Republicans was from billionaires who seek to control the country by means of their wealth. There are conflicting reports, and when the fog lifts we'll know the numbers, but I imagine that Big Money did win -- it was on the Democrat side, and I seriously doubt there was much difference between Soros-type donations, union donations, and Democratic crony donations and the Big Money donations to Republicans from the Koch brothers and others -- Big Money won a Democratic victory, and the donors will be rewarded.

You would have to write a book to answer all the claims made by progressives on Haye's show, but several claims stand out. One is that extending unemployment benefits will work to give businesses confidence to invest in hiring and expansion. The money to pay for unemployment has to be taken from the private sector where it could be used more productively, and if we keep the current number of unemployed going with benefits, it will not add anything to what the market has alread factored in. If government went back and told all 12 million or so who are unemployed that they will receive indefinite unemployment benefits, the argument would be stronger, but not necessarily. Business people have been burnt by stimulus and promises that government can jumpstart economic recovery through investment in the economy. Business people are concerned about the financial health of the country and how much we owe, because the debt will have to push interest highers as the debt grows. The Fed is holding interest rates down artifically now, but the pressure will build. Even if there were a government-created bump in economic activity, as soon as all the money that has been pumped into the eocnomy starts circulating and heating up the economy, prices will rise, and this is a hidden tax. Higher prices and higher interests rates will send the country's economy back into a recession.

Because companies no longer trust government intervention to pump up the economy, there's no expansion or strong hiring. Companies have improved efficiency and productivity, and they're doing fairly well overseas, so they're waiting until they know what the rules and costs of doing business in American will become. Extending unemployment will add to the deficit and debt, but it will not create economic growth. Hayes likely says that the deficits don't matter because he and his friends, the people around him, are doing fine. About 20% of Americans who are capable of working and making a good living, are not doing so well. This 20% is either underemployed or unemployed. When Hayes says there is no inflation, he misrepresents inflation -- inflation is an increase in the supply of money. The Fed is pumping 30 billion dollars into the economy every month. What Hayes meant is that he doesn't see widespread price hikes, but price hikes are something different from inflation, although usually when we have inflation, an increase in the supply of money, we have widespread price hikes. We don't see the price hikes widespread at this point because we are experiencing stagflation, economic stagnation because businesses don't have confidence to hire and expand, and we have an increase in the supply of money, inflation.

However, Hayes is overlooking energy prices and food prices, both which have risen and are not counted in the price hike measurements. Everyone has to pay higher energy prices and higher food prices, so this is a hidden tax that is no longer discussed much in the media although higher energy and food costs hurt the poor, elderly and middle class in ways that don't much bother the likes of Hayes. So, yes, Hayes and his progressive colleagues have a different view. What's the problem they say? Oh, those 20%, well we're going to help them. When we give them crumbs...uh...welfare benefits, they will spend the benfits and magically the economy will grow and money will flow. Unemployment benefits are peanuts to people who need good jobs and a bright economic future. This idea on the Left that welfare will solve our spending and debt problems is ludicrous. We're spiralling out of control. The more people who need welfare payments, the more we go in debt and more money is spent by government that can't be spent or invested by the private sector. If the private sector felt confident that government will not intervene in economically destructive ways, and that congress will not go back over and over demanding higher taxes, as they'll have to do to pay for the huge deficit and expanding debt, then businesses would invest their money and hire.

The argument is whether the recovery will be generated by the private sector in a free market, or whether the recovery will be generated by government spending and interventionis in a statist system with progressive policies. The argument that Bush represented the private sector, free market side is flat wrong, and what we're seeing is just a continuation of statism under the blue flag, and the progressives are doubling down on the interventions and spending. We're headed for disaster.

It's not funny anymore

For awhile it was fun to go to Progressive websites and stir the statist pot with talk of limits on government power and free markets, but now it's getting creepy. The degree to which much of the Left has accepted a fascist type of statism is troubling -- it's beginning to border on totalitarianism. I'm not sure if it's a result of brainwashing, or if there's a need to be taken care of by a State that has replaced the Christian God. Maybe people need the comfort of a powerful entity which can trump the unpredictability of the market -- as more and more people are told that competition in the job market is unfair and based on advantages which can't be overcome, they see themselves as victims and the market as evil.

Many Americans have grown up in an anti-capitalist environment that offers the possibility of existing outside the labor force, a world in which the political is primary, and government arrangements can use and control capitalism to support those who choose alternate lifestyles to the workaday world in the private realm. More and more people are outside the labor force, disdainful of the market, and fewer people are paying for the cost of government programs which support these people. We appear to be in a transitional period in which we have to throw off the parasites intent on expanding the welfare state to create options to working for a living. Under the guise of caring for the poor and the downtrodden, progressives are capitalizing on the welfare state to expand government benefits to make it possible to live fairly comfortable without a job, or to secure a government job in which competition doesn't factor in and performance is not important. Of course this can't continue -- Greece is an example, if we need one. But we don't need an example, because common economic sense tells us it won't work.

The height of Progressive arrogance

I will start referring to everyone on the Left as Progressives as long they keep supporting Progressive causes, because they certainly aren't liberal. Liberal is a label that's earned. But that's not what I want to write about here.

I want to re-address Progressive criticism of those on the Right who criticize government's power-grabs yet demand that government not take half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. First of all, this all started because a handful of old people at Tea Party rallies held signs saying "Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare", so the whole Leftist hoopla over the signs is over-blown.

But, consider the perspective of some Americans who are now, say, 70 years old, who started working at, say, 18 years of age, who have had real money that they earned through their labor taken out of their paychecks for close to 50 years, and they were never given an option of whether they wanted to keep that money and buy their own medical/retirement plan or let the government do it -- the government said they would do it, and that was it -- they did it.

Now, when Obamacare is cutting half a trillion out of Medicare, and the older people don't know what's up in a 2700 page bill, and the politicians don't know either, of course the older people are going to say wait just a damn minute -- You forced me to pay into this medical plan for 50 years, so by God deliver what you promised! Now, is that so hard to understand?

Where's the liberal honesty?

Progressives, for the most part, are honest about what they want, but modern liberals are still dishonestly avoiding any committments. Progressives angrily denounce Obama when he plays his moderate strategy for political gain, while modern liberals play along and pretend that Obama is a moderate and that Progressives should realize that governing is done in the center. It would be one thing if most liberals were really centrists and pragmatists, but they always wind up supporting the Progressive agenda and opposing the Right even when good sense on certain issues would call for support of the Rightist positions. Progressives will not support the Right because their espoused political beliefs are diametrically opposed to the Right and they oppose the Right on principles. When modern liberals oppose the Right, they do it on the basis of assumed Rightist hypocrisy, claiming that the Right doesn't really believe what they say they believe, but simply want to protect the rich.

Modern liberals sneer and guffaw when you suggest they support a social democracy that is similar to many European socialist schemes, while Progressives proudly own their socialist leanings, yet modern liberals are voting for and silently supporting the principles of social democracy. If modern liberals want credibility going forward, then they should committ to limited government and a free market or to statist control through social democracy. There will be no respect for those sitting on the sidelines afraid to take a stand. Lukewarm, I spit you out. The problem is that modern liberals are not liberal, and the sooner they quit pretending and give the name back, the better it'll be for political honesty and open debate regarding serious issues revolving around government's appropriate role in our lives.

Contradictions in American politics

The Democratic Party is a party of contradictions, and Obama faithfully represents the contradictory nature of the party. I understand there are differences between modern liberals, the "Left", progressives and the Democratic Party -- conflating all these terms equates the likes of Glenn Greenwald with Maxine Waters, Paul Krugman with Sam Harris, Bill Clinton with E. J. Dionne, Ed Schultz with Charles Taylor -- all these individual are quite different, and they have quite different ideas on many current issues, yet, what ties together many disparate thinkers on the general "Left" is the Democratic Party. I'm assuming that all these people vote for Democrats and not Republicans. Many of the thinkers might criticize certain elements and aspects of the party, but they continue to support the party and have put the party in power.

I understand the resistence to being affiliated with a political party as if it defines a person, and it wouldn't be an issue if our government had not taken on so much power through the years. Now, though, government is so powerful, it's critical that Americans pay attention to politics and who's running the government. Because there's intellectual diversity on the Left, and because there's also a party line, paradoxes abound in the political realm. It's true of both Right and Left, but the Left is presently holding power. The leader, President Obama, has recently criticized Romney for being a pioneer in outsourcing jobs to China and India. This populist salmagundi of nationalism/socialism/fascism/anti-global marketism is confusing when Obama has also talked about the changing nature of globalism and our responsibility as a global partner cooperating with other nations.

Globalization is ultimately good for emerging countries who have suffered for centuries, and I thought modern liberals promoted the rise of Third World countries. I thought the idea was that if Third World nations rise and become prosperous, it will be good for America in the end, but, more than that, good for equality and justice and the advancement of humankind globally. Dictatorships will be overthrown if the people begin to work and advance and realize the fruits of their labor. Workers of the world unite, and all that. So, why would Democrats now frame economic advancement and job growth in Asia as a threat to America?

The Democratic Party is full of contradictions. Just about all Democratic representatives and members of the administration have praised the virtues of democracy, yet, as time goes on, and as new media emerges which isn't beholden to the Democratic Party, America sees a different version of the Democratic Party than the one MSM portrayed before. When the Tea Party emerged, it was obvious that "democracy" doesn't include all voices. No, the voices on the Right, when they become loud and influential, are illegitimate, even dangerous, a threat to civility and safety. When a majority of Americans disapproved of Obamacare, they just didn't understand the bill. When the people's representatives did not act fast enough on immigration, Obama unilaterally bypassed the people's representatives and made his own law regarding immigrants. Democrats talk a lot of about equality, but, because they think many Americans are incapable of success through their own efforts, so government is necessary to level the playing field, surely these people aren't capable of making good decsions for the collective. Only an elite few can know what's good for the collective. This anti-democratic mindset is at odds with the democratic rhetoric. Democrats believe that politically-correct Americans have a legitimate voice, but that voice is controlled through the power elite with political control. To release this power in the economic realm, limited by the rule of law, and trust the decisions of consumers and producers leads to injustice and suffering -- so the Democrats say. Democrats are not that democratic, modern liberals not that liberal, and progressivism has little to do with progress.

It's confusing.