Socialism on the March

Human Events Online ^ | September 15, 2005 | Chris Field

[hinterlander]

President Bush has just concluded his obligatory speech from New Orleans to tell us how we're all going to be heavily involved and invested in the rebuilding of the Crescent City.

Let's take a quick look at his laundry list -- a list for which he neglected to name a price tag.

• The federal government will "do what it takes" and will "stay as long as it takes" -- great, just what I wanted to hear.

• States will be reimbursed for their efforts in responding to Katrina. Does that include states like North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Montana where some of the victims/refugees might have gone?

• Contrary to the strong suggestions of Jack Kemp, there will be no attempt to employ the idea of capitalism and free enterprise in this "recovery."

• The Katrina aftermath proved to be a massive failure of government. So, Bush and his men think that the correct response to major federal government mess-ups is what -- more federal government?

• He, of course, had to pander to the Left and note that "poverty has its roots in racial discrimination." What a load of malarkey. Poverty has its roots in the current welfare state -- which is exactly what Bush is proposing.

How much is this thing going to cost? Who knows! Could be $200 billion or more.

Who's going to pay for it? You are. I am.

Forget about making the tax cuts permanent. You know, the tax cuts that turned the economy around, pulling us out of a recession.

Want AMT relief? Too bad.

Want to get rid of the Death Tax? Not likely.

Sounds a lot like Marx to me: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[nuffsenuff]

I agree.

We do need to cut back spending in other areas.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to whine about rebuilding a part of the country that was just demolished by a natural disaster.

[rob777]

Does anyone understand the term "Pragmatism"?







Quite well, actually. In the long tern, it results in the abandoning of principle for the sake of political expediency. That is what helped to morph "Classical Liberalism" into today's modern liberalism. It started out as an effort in pragmatism and has resulted in the destruction of a movement that once stood proudly for liberty and self government. The Democratic Party was once wedded to a limited federal government agenda until the Great Depression made it more "practical" to move leftwards. FDR's supporters assured his critics that this was temporary and was needed to prevent the nation from embracing out right communism. It was all done in the name of "pragmatism". The trend was furthered accelerated with LBJ and the Great Society.

Today, the GOP is following the same trend and critics are told that we must do so in the name of "pragmatism". Just as FDR's New Deal supposedly saved us from embracing out right communism, today's GOP leadership is saving us from the radical left. The problem is that such "pragmatism" provides no anchor to the slow drift toward socialism. As the Dems move farther to the left, the GOP moves leftward as well. This is called moving the political center leftward and is a strategy openly advocated by the Progressives here in Vermont. When the Dems or Progressives win, we move quickly to the left, when the GOP wins, we move a little slower to the left.

There is no way to reverse this trend unless someone puts a stake in the ground in the name of principle. The left was willing to lose elections in the early days as long as they succeeded in moving the political debate leftward. They understood that real victory was more a matter of which direction the political debate was moved in. Another example of this notion being put into practice is Eugene Debs. He ran 5 times for President as the American Socialist Party candidate. Though he never won a race, or even came very close, he considered himself and his party victorious. Just about every platform he ran on was picked up by the Democratic Party to keep from losing the urban population.

[tomahawk]

If we're going to spend $200 billion for this, we should cut it from other spending.

He's not even proposing to do that.

[syriacus]

We're watching the failures of europe and doing our very best to emulate them.

The Europeans didn't invent the Marshall plan....we did.

The Marshall Plan, it should be noted, benefited the American economy as well.

The money would be used to buy goods from the United States, and they had to be shipped across the Atlantic on American merchant vessels. But it worked. By 1953 the United States had pumped in $13 billion, and Europe was standing on its feet again. Moreover, the Plan included West Germany, which was thus reintegrated into the European community.

[Ignatz]

"If this is handled correctly, a lot of people are finally going to get the good Government education in citizenship, industrial arts, Socialist economics, America-hating and homosexual homemaking that they deserved chose not to take advantage of when they were teenagers."

Ok, now I agree with you, lol!

[syriacus]

Does anyone understand the term "Pragmatism"?

I do. Good point.

[nuffsenuff]

I understand, but there's still this region of the United States that was just flattened.

[syriacus]

You're correct...if you are describing the poor education most of the poor folks in New Orleans probably got.

[betsyross1776]

Presidnet Bush is offering a hand up not a hand out . Believe me when we do this we will get our money back. We have done this before , lots of times we can recover give the president a chance.

[syriacus]

If we're going to spend $200 billion for this, we should cut it from other spending.

Which spending do you propose cutting?

[syriacus]

The government sat by while my grandfather died of cancer. I didn't blame the government, or expect the government to somehow make him live forever.

Sorry for your loss.

[John Robertson]

"What's a gov't going to do, sit by and watch people die, lest it be called socialistic?"

Facts or feelings? is what I've been asking everyone lately. You want to talk facts, or you want to just run on feelings?

If my house is destroyed, and the government DOESN'T rebuild it, I will not die, believe me. All these tens of thousands of people who have been relocated, and are eating, and going to school, and being given clothes and household goods...that's not dying.

If the government comes in and rebuilds these crap neighborhoods with "quality" housing...that's only the latest version of public housing. In less than a generation, they will be irreparable, crime-ridden hellholes. Cabrini Green, near the Quarter.

I'll just stay with housing, as this subject is so big we could go back and forth on it for days.

If the government on the other hand builds nice, solid, brick housing in those crap neighborhoods...then has the people who used to live on those lots PAY FOR PART OF IT, even if it's a 2% 30-year mortgage, then they are invested. When they start moaning about how they can't earn their modest mortgage payments, the gov't should be ready to say, Here, there's a community college, or a trade school, and here's your slot. We're going to pay 75% of your tuition and costs...but you will BORROW 25% of the cost of making yourself far more valuable in the marketplace, and we'll defer the payback for three years after your graduation.

Well, I strayed off housing, didn't I? And I know there's a whole argument to be made about how they already OWN that property (even if they get a $125K house in place of a $9K house)...but those, frankly, are the details.

This all comes down to one immutable human truth, and it's been true for 99% of all history and in 99% of all cases (and I said human, not black): We appreciate what we have to earn more than what is handed to us. We discover an ownership interest in what we have invested our capital in. We are more protective and respectful of what we have had to spend our time (which is to say, our lives) earning. It was ever thus.

[syriacus]

If this is handled correctly, a lot of people are finally going to get the good Government education

Here's hoping that government vouchers send NOLA children to good schools. Bottoms up.

[syriacus]

We appreciate what we have to earn more than what is handed to us.

I think Bush was saying that last night...local people should be involved, homesteading, etc.

[valley_dave]

We have to rebuild in the face of a natural disaster.

However, there will be an appalling number of no-bid contracts - whatever happened to fiscal conservatism?

I hope we figure out how to build stronger levees with some of this $200B.

This will be borrowed money, no other way to do it.

[rob777]

I understand, but there's still this region of the United States that was just flattened.






I have no problem with helping those in distress. The problem I see here is that the left is using this as an excuse to move the nation leftward, just as they did with the Great Depression. FDR was not an ideological leftist, in fact, he campaigned for office on a limited government platform. In the name of political pragmatism, he moved leftward. A good case could be made, and has been, that the New Deal spending initiatives actually lengthened the Great Depression.

Fast forward to today. President Bush is making concessions based on political pragmatism. (I do not doubt that it is also out of sincere compassion) Without dropping an anchor of political principle, I fear that we are in danger of repeating the political dynamics of the New Deal. FDR started out professing a greater commitment to limited government than did President Bush. I would not be so cynical if there was any mention of the need for us to sacrifice and offset some of this spending with budget cuts elsewhere. In addition, this comes on the heels of the recently passed Transportation and Energy Bills. Couple this with the orgy of spending on prescription drugs, etc., in his first term and you do not have a track record of fiscal restraint. Add in the concession to the left that the poverty we have seen is rooted in racism and you have out and out pandering.

I agree with the President's supporters who say that we should trust his judgment on selecting judges. In that area, he has a good tract record. In the area of federal spending, he does not have a good tract record. I think that it is more than prudent for all concerned conservatives to scream bloody murder until we can be assured that the trend toward out of control spending is going to be addressed. This could very well be a historical turning point along the magnitude if the New Deal and we can not afford to rely on pure political pragmatism at this point.

[syriacus]

I have to confess that I had mixed feelings about Bush's "Marshall" plan.

Question to self:
What was that feeling?

Was it anger?
Was it envy?

I can't quite identify the not-so-nice feeling I was harboring.

I know I felt sympathy for the folks in Florida who have not gotten this kind of help.

I guess some Americans after WWII felt this way about helping W. Germany.

Why should we help people who have consistently made wrong, even dangerous, decisions?

Maybe instead of just 100% admiring or condeming Bush's idea, we should consider which parts of the plan need promotion and which need to be chucked. We should make our well-considered opinions known.

[nuffsenuff]

Okay... I can buy that.

The pressure needs to be put on our members of Congress to make sure they keep the purse strings tight.

I'm in.

[syriacus]

The problem I see here is that the left is using this as an excuse to move the nation leftward, just as they did with the Great Depression

I think Bush's announcement of this plan makes sure that the Left has less control over the money and the post-disaster activities than they would have had.

[oblomov]

Old joke-

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this! (holds arm at chest level, extends it)

Doctor: Then don't do that!


I question the wisdom of anyone building on low ground in a hurricane zone. That the government encourages the rebulding in these areas is a sign that it has become divorced from physical reality. It became divorced from economic reality many years ago.