One the one hand, he has the rigid ideologues. Some of these were "czars" like Donald Berwick (who wants to do whatever he can to provide us with socialized medicine) or Van Jones (the disgraced 9/11 truther/hard leftist), who was canned by the administration for the crime of being liberal in public. For the ideologue, their worldview trumps everything else, including reality. They are not as interested in equitable results for all, as the imposition of their worldview. It is a very power hungry nature.
As he heads into re-election, President Obama has tried hard to present himself as the one sensible adult in Washington and a pragmatist. Yet you cannot be what you cannot be. Obama is neither sensible or a pragmatist, and this is demonstrated by his advisors.
Take the National Labor Relations Board and their demonizing of Boeing. Boeing decided to build a new plant in South Carolina. In a struggling economy, a big company decides to give considerable investment. What's the problem? The problem is that South Carolina allows workers to decide for themselves if they should be in a labor union. Labor unions hate the complexities of giving workers the freedom to be represented by the union, or (more importantly) someone else, themself. The NLRB claims that since Boeing has a compulsory union plant in Washington State, it is wrong for them to build in one in a right to work state. Worse, it is engaging in "retaliation" against those Washington workers for joining a union. That the Washington plant is seeing its producitivty and employment increase is irrelevant.
What could be behind such a mindset? In a seemingly unrelated story, Energy Secretary Steven Chu. In an effort to promote the environmental movement, a Democratic Congress banned older light bulbs in exchange for new "energy efficient" lightbulbs that are costlier, give less light, and are a toxic hazard if they break. Mr. Chu justified this rationale as follows:
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,"In their mind, they can decide best if you are wasting your money. Ergo, they should be able to limit your choice so you do not waste your money. Despots normally do not speak in such naked terms of control. Traditionally, it has been understood that in America, you can use your money how you see fit, provided it is not for criminal means. Money is the fruit of private property. In order for it to be private, one must have discretion over it. What qualifications does Mr. Chu have to dictate how people can best spend their money?
When one looks at all the regulations President Obama has passed or favored, the same arrogance comes into play. People in distant places will be able to decide for you if you are wasting money on health care. If they think you are, they will simply take away the choice of that healthcare. Distant "enlightened" men in Washington will decide for your business if the location you are wanting to set up shop in is "wasteful." If they deem it so, they will do whatever they can to take away the choice of where to have your business located.
This is inherently dangerous. What if a certain state is key to a President's re-election campaign, and he decides to use regulation to prevent a business from relocating to a state that he is already going to lose? What if a company does a lobbying effort to promote their product as the most "efficient" and their competitor as "wasteful." Who is to decide? Some people might place a premium on safety. Therefore, the newer lightbulbs are not worth the cost. What criteria does Mr. Chu place on those competing factors to determine what is and isn't "wasteful?" Should companies be allowed to influence that decision with their money?
This is how corruption in government spreads. You get someone who thinks they know best, or at least that they should be in the position to know best and decide the most minute of matters for everyone else. There is nothing pragmatic or moderate about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment