It's a Brave New World, where brilliant elites micromanage the economy, take all your money to spend it for you, and are praised for their vision as unemployment rates skyrocket. Is the problem liberalism? Sorta. But I think it's micromanagement.Get 100 Medline Translucent Standard Speci-Pans from DME Supply Group
Sometimes, leadership is confused with top down micromanagement, and that's what I think we have now.
Not that we haven't had it, at some level, before. Most folks in government seem to think the world can't survive without them regulating it in some way, so the philosophy of micromanaging human existence is plentiful and bi-partisan in Washington, D.C. The problem is, it never works.
It doesn't always make a total, incomprehensible mess out of everything--but that isn't exactly working.
The old Command Economy model of the Soviet Union was an obvious failure, so the suggestion isn't made that we're going to go that route--where the government assigns you a job, decides where factories will be, decides what you will buy and when. Not exactly.
But with things like Cap and Trade on the horizon, and the millions of little regulations and stipulations that are being written into current legislation, they might as well be.
Why does Cap and Trade mean that you will have to have an environmental inspection of your house, and if you're using old fashioned light bulbs or old appliances, you cannot sell your house--period, not even to the "we buy ugly houses" people, until everything is upgraded and fixed? And has anybody even stopped to think about what a huge drag that's going to put on the housing market?
Why does Cap and Trade mean that billions of our tax dollars should go to people who own a great deal of land, most of it for the purpose of bilking the government out of our tax dollars, rather than for development or cultivation? In that case, it's probably to buy off senators and congressmen in agricultural states, so that they can pass the legislation designed to increase our dependence on foreign oil (because it will be cheaper without the new taxes imposed by Cap and Trade on domestic oil), and help to kill the housing market, but increase government bureaucracy and sell a lot of green appliances for General Electric . . . hmmm.
While there are aspects of such legislation that our political leaders are fully aware of that restrict our liberty and hamper our lifestyles--and market innovation--there are drags on the economy that they do not want to acknowledge. And if they get what they want, they will torpedo the economy in a way it hasn't been torpedoed since the days of Nixon (wage and price controls) and Carter (energy crisis, "malaise"). And they will get voted out of office. The reality is, despite all the "hope and change", people prefer a stagnant status quo or a moderately growing economy to skyrocketing unemployment, inflation, national debt, and a shrinking GDP--as well as radically shrinking personal purchasing power, as taxes are taken out of their paychecks and drive the prices of goods and services higher.
However, Roosevelt's "New Deal" (especially aspects of it we don't think of any more, since they have long since been abandoned, such as forcing farmers to slaughter livestock and burn crops) had very negative impacts on the economy, yet he was popular, charismatic, and kept getting elected. So, even as the Democrats and Obama work to ruin our economy, I'm not sure it's going to cost them politically. But, I can hope. I can hope for change. Preferably before the American economy is a wreck.
Seriously, they are. Which is a good thing. Using a modern secular myth to justify looting the private sector and punishing the tax payer is reprehensible, and the more people who wake up to the same, the better.
The Jawa Report has a breakdown on how Axelrod and the Obama campaign are trying to make fake grassroots campaigns to smear Sarah Palin, while, at the same time, leaving a trail of smoking guns everywhere. No wonder the left like's to tell us they are the smartest and most ethical folks out there!
The Journal of Feminist Insight blog has a breakdown of softballs Charlie Gibson tossed Obama vs. the prosecutorial nature of his questions for Palin. Pretty damning stuff, indeed. For Obama: How does it feel to win? For Palin: Do you have enough qualifications for the job your seeking? And on and on and on.
Not classy, Charlie.
Apparently to folks of the left, the ends will always justify the means. Ruin people, lie, cheat, steal, anything short of murder (and, hmm, who knows, maybe that, too) is okay if it means you get universal healthcare and progressive taxation. Learning that, on the left, the end always justifies the means is why I'm not a liberal today.
