I happened to look at the British Financial Times newspaper today (always a mistake) and read an article by their resident “moderate” Mr Clive Crook (actually he is a moderate by the standards of the history of the Financial Times - which has included many leftists, indeed even Marxists, on its staff over the years).
Mr Crook was arguing that President Barack Obama should stop trying to please the left - as these people want to turn America into a Scandinavian style Welfare State, accept with less free trade and stronger unions added on.
This was a double mistake by Mr Crook - the left (for example the people who have so much influence in American universities - and, via this influence in higher education, have influence in the schools and the “mainstream” media) do not want to turn the United States into another Denmark or even another Sweden. They name their children after Communist revolutionaries (and wear their image on their clothing) - not after Scandinavian Social Democrats. “Critical theory” (and so on) in such fields as diverse as English literature and law is based on the “insights” of Marxism.
Even in their fiction the American left do not outline a future of a private enterprise dominated economy that also has a lot of taxes and welfare schemes. From Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” way back in 1887 to “Star Trek: New Generation” the vision is of a time when goods and services just appear (free) from the state (or “the people” 0r whatever you want to call it), and greedy business is a thing of the past - or of ugly looking aliens. So, again, Denmark (and so on) is not what the left are aiming to turn America into.
The second mistake by Mr Crook was to imply that Barack Obama was somehow apart from the collectivist left - trying to please them. Actually Barack Obama has been part of the collectivist (indeed Marxist) left his whole life. Both his parents were pro Soviet, his maternal grandparents were “little Red Church” people (and no the nickname did not refer to a paint job on the building they went to in Seattle, Washington State), his childhood mentor was Frank Marshall Davis (the Marxist), Obama went to Marxist conference after Marxist conference whilst a post grad at Columbia, he went to Chicago for the express purpose of working with other comrades such as Bill Ayers (the idea was not to “help the poor” in any charitable sense, Barack Obama was not in the habit of giving much of his income or wealth to help poor people, but rather to “organize” the poor - i.e. to use them as expendible political cannon fodder). And, of course, Barack Obama for twenty years was a leading member of the Marxist “black Liberation Theology” Chicago establishment of J. “Audacity of Hope” Wright. “My individual salvation depends on collective salvation” as Comrade Barack has said so many times (a Marxist perversion of, and insult to, Christianity).
“But Barack has never carried a Communist Party card” - for Pete’s sake (or for Paul’s sake) most American Communists have not done that for more than half a century, even since the “evil” Joe McCarthy showed what a P.R. problem it could be if a so called “liberal” or “progressive” could be shown to have been a formal member of the Communist party. Not having carried a Communist Party card does not mean that Barack Obama is not a life long Marxist, using nonCommunist Keynesians in the way that such people as Maurice Dobb and Pierro Straffa outlined before Barack was even born, spend-capitalist-America-to-destruction was an old idea even before Cloward and Piven taught it to Barack back in his days going to Marxist conferences in New York City.
Like the rest of the “moderates” in the MSM Mr Crook’s response to any evidence of Barack Obama’s life long Marxism (his hatred of the West in general and the United States in particular) is to put his fingers in his ears and chant “La, La, La”.
However, this is not the reason that the words that form the title of this post occured to me. In fact the following line was the reason.
“everyone’s taxes are going to have to go up over the next few years - the alternative is fiscal collapse”.
So that is the response of the “moderates” to the ever growing burden of government spending and debt - put taxes up. Put them up on small business owners (”the rich”, for it is small business enterprises, not the likes of George Soros, who would be hit by increasing the higher rates of income tax - small business owners tend to file under income tax) and on “everyone” else. This is supposed to prevent fiscal collapse. “But Denmark and Sweden have higher taxes than the United States” - so it is Mr Clive Crook (not the American left) who wants to turn the United States into a Scandinavian coutry. Sorry it will not work - what a (up till recently anyway) homogenious community can tolerate (at least for some years) would cause chaos and collapse in a country as diverse and fractured as the United States (and NO leftists - this does not mean race, culture is NOT racially dependent - and it is the fractured culture that is the problem not the skin tone of the people in the culture, vast numbers of black and hispanic people are loyal Americans and some white people whose ancestors came over the the Mayflower have less in common with, or loyality to, the United States, or any part of the West, than they do with North Korea).
Also the capital structure of the United States is utterly distorted - distored by the vast credit money expansion by the Federal Reserve, and by the demented backing of home loans (and other such) by the Federal government via such government backed entities as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (at a level that even Sweden would think insane).
Of course over “the next few years” an increase in tax rates would lead to a decline in government revenue - the wild spending would not be financed, the collapse would simply be brought forward. It would be very much like what has happened in health care - Barack Obama inherited a mess (he really did) government subsidy schemes (such as Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP - which have a similar effect on costs as government subsidy of higher education has on tuition fees) and the vast web of regulations (such as the State level mandates on insuance companies, and the Federal 1980’s, yes Reagan era, regulation than any private hospital with an ER had to treat anyone who turns up and claims “emergency” treatment - private property rights? what are they?) have led to vast expansion in the costs of health cover.
So how did Barack Obama and Congress respond? They responded by vastly increasing the subsidies and regulations - costs will now go so high (by design) that over time private insurers will be driven out of health care for ordinary people - who will drop into the lap of the government (employers are already dropping people as the costs are made to rise - and some private insurers are already withdrawing from the general market). “We did not want to take control, but we had to - over time most people had no health cover”.
Tax rises would have a similar effect for the economy as a whole - whether they are done in January 2011 or a year later. “All of a sudden there were vast numbers of people without any jobs - we had to……”
Mr Clive Crook did not fight against the “Stimulus” government spending orgy, or against the disgusting “Affordable Care” Act (although he made just enough reservations to preserve his reputation as a “moderate” who does not always keep to the leftist line), his only response to the crises of entitlement spending (or any other crises of government spending) is to demand that “taxes for everyone” be put up - as if he did not know that such action would create the very “fiscal collapse” he talks of.
This is why I was put in mind of Vlad the Impaler’s way of dealing with traitors (people who claim to serve one cause when they in fact serve the enemy - such as Mr Clive Crook with his claim to support free enterprise, whilst in fact supporting ever more collectivism) and other enemies. I can claim a legitimate excuse - I had seen an entertainment show on Vlad the Impaler only the previous day.
I do not agree with a lot of what Vlad the Impaler did (I believe a lot of his line of policy both undermined the economy, with his taxes and regulations, and undermined the nobles, the people he needed the support of to make an effective long term fight against the Ottoman Empire), but there is no denying the impact of haveing one’s enemies have sharpened wooden posts stuck up their backsides and then having them slowing raised so that the stake goes through their bodies and comes out via their necks. People would think twice over proposed treachery or wars of aggression (such as tax rate increases) if they knew this was the likely consequence for them.
“If I was not a libertarian I would….” (which is what a libertarian always says when we are about to suggest something that violates the nonaggression principle) think it nice to see Mr Clive Crook impaled - and left to rot as a warning to other scum.
Before the complaints start…. I am, of course, just joking.
As “Jon Stewart” (the socialist comic - who hero worshipped Norman Thomas even as a child, when other children were more interested in astronauts) says when, for example, he is attacked for laughing along with guests who say that the Pope raped children, “it is just humour”.
You believe that “Jon Stewart” is “only joking” - so why will you not beileve me? Is it because I am not smileing? Impale Clive Crook and I will smile - again just joking, of course.