Washington
pundits and talking heads all seem to agree that former Senator and Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton is a shoo in as the Democrat presidential candidate in
2016. Of course, the political junkyard is littered with the careers of
politicians that the experts claimed were inevitable Democratic presidential
nominees—Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, Howard Dean, and the 2008 version of Hillary
Clinton. Either way, Hillary Clinton is much like her husband. The Clintons
are noted for their cynical and Machiavellian use of “triangulation” in order
to avoid appearing too extreme. Thus, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to ever truly
say what she believes while campaigning. Democratic Massachusetts Senator and
possible future presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren is the anti-Clinton in
terms of her willingness to clearly state her neo-progressive beliefs. Therefore,
even if Hillary Clinton does become the 2016 nominee of the Democrats, it is
still more useful to examine what Senator Warren states if one wants to have
his or her finger on the pulse of the Democrat Party.
Speaking recently at Netroots
Nation, Senator Warren outlined the “11 Commandments of Progressivism.” In many
ways, these are far more likely to explain what a Hillary Clinton presidency
might be like than anything Hillary Clinton will ever say on the campaign
trail.
1. “We believe that
Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to
fight for it.”
This kind of populist tough talk
has always been a trademark of progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow
Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. While the 2007–2008 financial
meltdown caused extreme damage to the global economy, scapegoating Wall Street
is disingenuous. The proximate cause of the meltdown was the bubble caused by
the Federal Reserve. However, progressives have been in bed with the rogue
private central bank from the beginning, so it is unlikely that Hillary
Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or any other Neo-Progressive Democrat will rein in
the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, any regulations on Wall Street will likely be
lobbied for and perhaps even written by large Wall Street firms. The dirty
corporatist secret of progressives—which is so blatant it should hardly be
considered a secret—is that they collaborate with large corporations. The cost
of regulations can easily be absorbed by large corporations, but they can be
detrimental to smaller businesses. Therefore, this regulation will only serve
to limit competition on Wall Street. It is also unlikely to prevent further
economic meltdowns. Why should one expect a regulator to notice a potential
problem when his or her money is not at stake if actual financial professionals
with their own money at stake could not? Finally, even if the heads of a few
token greedy Wall Street miscreants are chopped off, these scapegoats will
likely be middle-management flunkies. The top Wall Street movers and shakers
are politically protected by both political parties due to the campaign funds
that they can provide. After the any scapegoats get carted off to federal
prison after the next meltdown caused by the machinations of the Federal
Reserve, the big firms that get wiped out will likely have their losses
socialized with another bailout. Even if one subscribes to Keynesian insanity,
there is nothing involving stimulus deficit spending that entails bailing out
private entities that have gone belly up. Stimulus funds could have been
provided to Wall Street firms and corporations that had been fiscally prudent
or simply pumped into the economy by the government. It was the Democrats who
had no problem with the bailout.
2. “We believe in
science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
In other words, Al
Gore, Goldman
Sachs, and other crony capitalists will make billions of dollars in carbon
tax money. Despite the claims of neo-progressives, the science on climate
change is anything but settled. What is happening with the climate and what—if
anything can or should be done about it by the government—is no more settled
now than it was in the 1970s when environmentalists warned about “global
cooling” and suggested putting soot over the Arctic in
order to melt the polar ice. However, most importantly, there is nothing in Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution or in Article II of the
Constitution which grants Congress or the President any authority to “protect
the Earth.” Other than promoting science and useful arts through the protection
of patents and copyrights, there is nothing about science in the Constitution.
Perhaps politicians should leave science to the scientists and not to the crony
capitalists.
3. “We believe that
the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means
real net neutrality.”
Net neutrality. This is yet another
populist progressivist charade. Net neutrality means giving the federal
government the power to regulate the Internet. Government control is
antithetical to freedom. Robert Wenzel expresses
the truth about net neutrality:
Government should
keep its hands off ISPs and allow them to operate any way they want. The ISPs,
using their own equipment, are providing a service and should be allowed to use
their equipment and provide their service in any fashion they choose without
interference from the government.
If ISPs block content that users
want, then the free market is likely to punish those ISPs in the long run. If
ISPs do not provide the speed that users desire, then the free market is also
likely to punish those ISPs. The best regulator is always free market
competition. With the current corporatist system in place in the United
States, government regulation of the
Internet is simply regulation by the large corporations wealthy enough to buy
the government.
4. “We believe that
no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising
the minimum wage.”
The “raise the minimum wage” and
“living wage” arguments. Why will the fallacy that raising the minimum wage
will benefit the economy and help the poor not go away? Raising the minimum
wage will benefit a small group of workers at the expense of a large group of
workers. Yes, some will see their purchasing power increase. But many
businesses will simply not hire new workers. Others will lay off workers. Young
unskilled workers will have no chance of being hired. Poor minorities will be
greatly affected. What is the best way to raise the minimum wage? Create jobs.
Supply and demand. When the number of jobs increases relative to the number of
workers, wages will increase. How can the government create jobs? It cannot.
But what it can do is allow the private sector to create jobs by cutting taxes
and regulations. The neo-progressive idea of raising the minimum wage will
simply lead to more individuals becoming dependent on government assistance.
Perhaps that is their true motive.
5. “We believe that
fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to
the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
Is it any surprise that unions
have long been major supporters of progressive political candidates? While
Americans have a First Amendment right to unionize, the federal government has
long since stopped being an impartial referee when it comes to unionized labor.
The federal government has been an advocate for unions since the New Deal.
Ultimately, the federal government should remain neutral regarding unions.
There is nothing in the Constitution which grants Congress or the President the
power to force business management to accept unionization. Unionization also
typically benefits a small group of union members at the expense of all other
workers. In the case of the fast food industry, unionization will increase the
costs. This will be passed onto the working class families who often depend on
inexpensive fast food. In essence, fat cat union bosses and their allies in
organized crime will benefit while the majority of workers and fast food
consumers will suffer.
6. “We believe that
students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
Then perhaps the federal
government should get out of the student loan business. Guaranteeing student
loans simply makes the cost of a college education more expensive. Perhaps
Congress should amend bankruptcy laws so that student debt would be dischargeable
in bankruptcy. Despite all the government meddling in higher education, the United
States has one of the finest post-secondary
educational systems in the world. More progressive meddling with universities
and colleges is likely to have the same affect on higher education as
“Obamacare” is having on health care.
7. “We believe that
after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that
means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
What does retirement with dignity
have to do with protecting government Ponzi schemes? The Social Security System
is unsustainable and despite the insane holding in Helvering
v. Davis (1937)—which was likely the result of extortion
on the part of FDR—it is unconstitutional. Social Security needs to be
privatized in a manner similar to the Chilean
system. The current system is unfair to the poor because it prevents them
from building wealth over generations. It is also racist due to the fact black
workers tend to begin working at an earlier age than white workers and tend to
die at an earlier age. Social Security and Medicare do nothing but keep
Americans dependent on the government. The last thing any neo-progressive wants
is any citizen freed from the shackles of the federal government.
8. “We believe—I
can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal
work.”
Progressives and neo-progressives
have long fomented gender war by making dubious claims about the “gender gap”
in pay. Rachel Greszler and James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation succinctly summarize
the truth about gender-based wage differences:
This gender gap is not the result of rampant
discrimination. Rather, it exists because men and women often work in different
jobs, work different hours, and have different qualifications. When work
experience, education, occupation, and hours of work are taken into account,
the average woman makes 98 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Is there sexism in the world of business? Certainly. There is always
likely to be some. However, the free market will punish those businesses that
do not treat female workers fairly and pay them what they are worth. Businesses
which seek to hire the best employees will always thrive. What is keeping the
wages of all workers—women included—down is corporatism. Government regulation,
high taxes, and the Federal Reserve’s “inflation tax” is the greatest enemy in
the War on Women (and also on Men).
9. “We believe that equal means equal,
and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.”
Gay rights. The funny thing about gay rights is that
neo-progressives only champion them fully when it is politically expedient to
do so. When public opinion was against gays openly serving in the military, the
neo-progressives championed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Later, when the American
public became more tolerant, neo-progressives finally championed lifting the
prohibition against openly gay men and women serving in the military. When
public opinion was still against gay marriage, neo-progressives championed “civil
unions” for gay couples. As a majority of Americans is now beginning to favor
gay marriage, the neo-progressives are finally openly supporting gay marriage.
Neo-progressives have always been nothing but cynical pragmatists. They never
have and never will care about the natural rights of gays or anyone else.
10. “We believe that immigration has
made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
‘Immigration Reform’ has become a meaningless phrase.
Ultimately, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to change the law. And
usually neither party wants to enforce immigration law. Each party may complain
about it when they are not in power, but when they are in power, they never do
anything about immigration. Blah blah blah.
11. “And we believe that corporations
are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby
Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”
The Hobby
Lobby case should have never arisen because “Obamacare” is and always
has been unconstitutional
despite what Justice Roberts said in his incoherent majority opinion. Whether
corporations are persons is an important question. However, the Constitution
does not give Congress the power to force Americans to buy a product from a
private company. If neo-progressives wish to protect Americans from
unscrupulous businesses, then why are they collaborating with insurance
companies with “Obamacare?” That is more like fascism than freedom. If
neo-progressives want women to be able to afford contraceptives, why not allow
them to be available over the counter? Do they believe that women are not
intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding their health without a
paternalistic doctor?
No comments:
Post a Comment