The Big Liberal Lie part 3

In Wisconsin, emotional appeals for the rights of workers and the salvation of the middle class have revealed a great deal of ugliness beneath the slogans and chants. One aspect of the right to collectively bargain that doesn't get much play is the fear from unions and Democrats that campaign funding might be affected, especially if unions lose their coercive ability to force public workers into unions and also force the payment of union dues.

There is serious battle in America between political forces to gain control of a powerful State, from the individual states to Washington DC at the national level. Local, state and federal governance controls more resources than ever before and the stakes are higher than ever before. Unions are now the sine qua non of the Democrat Party, the source of Democrat Party financing and on-the-ground operations to get Democrats elected. Unions know that their financial survival depends on an interventionist government which favors their goals. If unions are reduced to voluntary membership and unforced negotiations, they will wither away, and Democrats will be forced to find other funding. Democrats have been working on co-opting business to get more funding through promises of green energy contracts, and Boeing just landed a billion dollar government contract in Washington state, a blue state, that was killed in Alabama, a red state. Democrats see the writing on the wall.

The public still has a traditional soft spot for unions, because at one time unions were seen by workers as fighters for better conditions and better pay. So many laws have been passed through the years to protect worker rights, though, that unions are now seen by a growing number in the public as strong-arm groups favored by government who are exploiting tax payers and businesses at the expense of private sector non-union workers. The battle lines are being drawn because states are in financial trouble, taxpayers are worried about the recession and private businesses are not hiring over concerns regarding a regulatory flurry at the national level by a union-friendly government which can add huge costs to doing business.  

It remains to be seen if the New Republican Party is serious about limiting the power of government, or if this battle is the same old battle for statist power. If Republicans are serious about limiting government's intervention into the economy, this will be good for all workers, but not so good for unions. Unions are faced with a decision to fight Republicans, businesses and non-union, private sector workers or to innovate and find a way to work with private companies to increase their value in the private sector.

With the mounting national debt, government jobs will likely be reduced as more government services are either scrapped because of redundancy or turned over to the private sector. Reducing the size and scope of government power is the only way to address the debt problems, because taxing the rich is insufficient. I'm sure that government will tax the rich anyway, but it won't be enough, and as companies find more opportunities overseas, capital will shift from America to growing economies elsewhere. The US is faced with either lowering the cost of doing business in America or losing business. So there are limits to how much the rich can offset the unfunded liabilites of our government from promises made through entitlements -- and Americans are retiring in record numbers, so the entitlment problem is growing.

Since taxing the rich will not be enough, the private sector is the only legitimate answer to economic growth, because we can't tax and spend or cut our way out of debt and unemployment. Eventually it will become clear that we have to grow our way out by creating new wealth. Businesses have created a great deal of new wealth through productivity gains and efficiency, but so far there has been a lack of investment back into the economy and the unemployment rate remains high. Democrats and unions see this new wealth created and they want to grab it to pay down the debt and protect the statist, status quo. Many on the Right want to create a more business-friendly, low-cost, free market environment so that companies will increase investment, growth and hiring. The Left views the wealth created by businesses as part of a national pot to be redistributed by government.

We can continue down this statist path, and I've written about this for years, but it's a deadend. If the public falls for the emotional populist message pushed by the unions and the Democrat Party, the wealth will be squandered or pushed overseas or hidden or diverted into non-productive activities. The only way out of this is by limiting government power and creating a free market, and the beginning of this transition should entail an end to all corporate welfare, and end to the wars, and the beginning of turning everything possible over to the private sector that we can as soon as we can, especially education. The State has had its chance and the State has failed. Unions and Democrats are fighting for a dead past -- and this is no way to win the future.

Why spending can't be cut

Just look at the reactions in Wisconsin and the current Democrat Party repetition that the Republicans are going to "shut down" government over the budget disagreements. As Republicans push harder to cut spending, Democrats will go ballistic, and the media will support them until the public is bombarded with the idea that Republicans are going to cut something that is vital to everyone.

Plus, nothing is being done to limit government, so if cuts are made in one area, another area of spending will grow. In order to sufficiently cut spending and deal with entitlements in ways that will prevent a collapse, there needs to be full agreement across the board that government will be prevented from exceeding the powers given to it in the Constitution, but this isn't going to happen any time soon. The sad fact is that we're headed for financial collapse -- the only question is how long it will take, and what deaparate measures will be taken in the meantime.

The global economy is speeding up everything financial, and eastern countries which are using their States to control economic growth will be successful long enough to hurt us, so we'll follow their lead by relying more and more on State actions to spur the economy. But in America there will be resistance to State Capitalism, and uless our government becomes authoritarian like China, State involvement in our economy will only further harm enterprise, innovation and wealth creation. This will put pressure on the development of an authoritarian form of government in America that has more freedom to coerce certain economic activity.

The Left is pushing for something it claims to abhor, authoritarianism, but of course they see it as enlightened technocratic management in the service of social justice. Despite the association of authoritarianism to Rightwing regimes, the authoritarianism we'll likely experience is neither Right nor Left, just controlling and anti-social. The State's last stand is not going to please anyone but those on the inside of the power circle. Social justice means nothing to power-mongers, except a ruse to subjugate free minds through emotional appeal.

The further we get from the free market, the closer we get to a State Capitalist system like China's.

Republicans fold on spending cuts

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/18/crumble-gop-effort-to-cut-100-billion-fails-thanks-to-massive-republican-defections/

This is disappointing but not surprising. Republicans have a history of folding before Democrat pressure to maintain the status quo. It looks like some more Republicans need to lose their jobs before we can make progress.

Morning Joe 2/16/2011 -- Cynical arrogance

The reason I report on the Morning Joe show is because, as I've said before, it's a microcosm of the sorry nature of our political culture. Morning Joe is not revealing the sorry nature -- they represent in many ways what's wrong with the political class, the State, the media and our statist two party system.

For some reason, many political thought leaders come on the show, and how they view current political events is revealing, plus, how Joe Scarborough, Mika and the regulars respond reveals the media's views. This morning they started out with Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University. Joe S. briefly acknowledged that Paul Ryan has said Republicans will tackle entitlements, then when on to imply that it was Morning Joe's "goading" that brought the Republicans around, which is ridiculous. It's true that Scarborough has talked about the problem of entitlements and blamed the Republicans for punting, and Joe S. criticized Obama for punting, but let's look at what Joe S. has supported. Just like Jeffrey Sachs, a progressive, Joe S. supported raising taxes on the rich, and Joe S. thought it was good political strategy a little while back for Obama to force the Republicans to make the first move on spending cuts and entitlements, and Joe S., like Jeffrey Sachs, supports spending on education, infrastructure and green energy. So Joe S.'s integrity on this is less than sterling. Sachs believes all we need to do is raise taxes on the rich, cut military spending and depend on Obamacare. I agree with cutting military spending, as does Joe S., but not just willy nilly cuts -- we need a non-intervention doctrine that deals with the problem of militarism and the establishment of a strong national defense at home -- miltarism, no, defense, yes.

The big story today that the Morning Joe crew and their guests brushed over is that the Republicans have committed to tackling entitlements. Joe S. still made the claim several times that the Republicans are "punting" on entitlements. The other Left-leaning commentators said Obama is being politically smart by not putting entitlement reform in his budget, and that the Republicans will be hammered for making cuts that hurt people in a recession. The Democrat strategy is unfolding, but so far the Republicans are being brave. Again, I'm not a Republican, just an objective observer who refuses to play the political game -- the game played by Dems is cynically arrogant and it will backfire on them. The centrist game played, playing both sides, by Joe S. will also backfire. The Democrats are also praising Obama for starting the conversation regarding spending and entitlements and suggest that Obama is forcing the Republicans to the table. The truth is that refreshmen Repubs have been eager to cut, and they waited on the budget in order to respond with their budget -- plus, experienced Repubs like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan have also been eager to cut and address entitlements. The truth is that Obama and his backers want to spend more money which will add to the debt and create a boondoggle in green energy production. The Dems want to paint the Repubs as enemies of the poor, sick and elderly. This cynically arrogant ploy will not work. 

Raising taxes is always a bad idea, but especially so when spending is out of control. Obamacare will destroy the quality of healthcare and raise the cost of healthcare for decades to come. "Investing" in education, infrastructure and green energy is just another wasteful stimulus effort like the almost trillion dollar stimulus before. Not touching SS, Medicaid and Medicare will lead the nation to bankruptcy, This is what Democrats are pushing while they frame Republicans as destroyers of the public safety net. There can be no safety net if there is no money to fund it.

Republican opportunity

I'm not a Republican, but playing off a post I wrote yesterday (by the way, I was a day off on the post titles I dated yesterday and didn't notice it until today, so you might want to take what I write with a grain of salt -- I could be losing my mind) I believe Republicans have a great opportunity to be honest with the American people and follow up on what they promised to do -- limit government and return to free market principles. Both Republicans and Democrats are playing a political game of chicken regarding spending cuts and debt reduction.

The only solution to our debt problem, however, is to limit government. The Republicans could propose a budget that addresses current spending and entitlements, but what they should do is start a national conversation that addresses our fundamental problem which is that government is no longer limited, then begin exploring possible amendments to clarify the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. This will not happen, no doubt, but if it did, it could be transformative. There would be great resistance to clarify these clauses because they are the gateways to industry regulation and the welfare state.

Clarifying the clauses wouldn't be enough, though, without something to replace regulation and welfare, so the American people would have to be challenged to work within their states to find commitments in the private sector to deal with the perceived problems that would be caused if government didn't regulate industry and didn't offer entitlements. This would be a philosophical conservation, but the replacement solutions would be practical -- such as private insurance plans to address unemployment, health and retirement, and industry responsibility and self-imposed guidelines to not destroy the environment. The conversation needs to at least start so that innvoative ideas can surface and people begin thinking about possibilities. This would place Republicans in the role of thinking creatively and including the private sector in the solution finding process. It might turn out that the country wants to be dependent on the government, but at least the alternative ought to be explored.

It would also help clarify the difference between statism and a free market, so that people no longer mistakenly think that what we have now is a free market.