False Assumptions of Statism, 2008 version
posted at 10:20 am on April 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In June 2004, Hillary Clinton outlined the statist philosophy in a speech to a San Francisco audience when she explained that “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” In 2008, that task has fallen to Michelle Obama. In an appearance in Charlotte yesterday, Mrs. Obama made it just a little more specific (via Instapundit):
Should she become first lady, she said she’d focus on family issues.
“If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership…for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care,” she said.
“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
This statement should make clear exactly what either Democrat represents. Both Hillary and Obama want to extend the power of the federal government over choices that have nothing to do with their Constitutional mandate. Both want to spend more money and expand systems that already fail to operate efficiently and deliver on their promises. And both want Americans across the board to give up more of their income to pay for bigger bureaucracies.
Neither of these candidates are moderate, center-left politicians. They’re both statists, and they both make the same basic mistake of all statists.
First, it assumes a “pie” of static proportions. That’s only true in statist systems. In a free-market economy, real expansion of wealth can and does occur. The best way to lift the standard of living across all economic strata comes from private enterprise and not public bureaucracies. The latter saps investment capital by rerouting funds from the markets which generate wealth into government, which not only consumes wealth but offers unresponsive and inefficient services in return. Those services kill competition in those industries, since the government supplies the services for “free” — even though the actual costs skyrocket through massive inefficiencies.
Want an example? Look at the VA. For that matter, look at the education system Mrs. Obama wants to expand. We have increased federal spending on education by 58% since 2000 (after inflation), and no one in their right mind would argue that education has improved 5.8%, let alone 58%. We’ve increased VA spending by 59%, and few would argue that we have received our money’s worth from that.
In fact, American families will pay $4,000 more per household in taxes this year than in 2003, the highest level since the last year of the Clinton administration. We have already given more of the “pie” for government expansion. If that was the solution, then the Democrats should be arguing for a continuation of the Bush administration, which has expanded federal spending by 30% after inflation in just seven years.
We’re paying more and getting less. Obviously, the statist model doesn’t work very well — but the Obamas and the Clintons want to convince voters that the solution is even more government confiscation of capital for the purposes of redistributing it even less efficiently. Small wonder, with as little daylight as there is between the two Democrats, that the primary campaign has come down to which candidate is less honest about their intentions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Shut your damn PIE-hole, you filthy Communist.
OhEssYouCowboys on April 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I don’t think it really matters who wins in Nov, we’re all screwed.
jdawg on April 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I’m starting to hate the Obamas. They keep impoverished people down by telling them they can’t compete, that they are victims, that they have been cheated, CHEATED! by white america whose fault it is that their welfare checks aren’t big enough.
It is the Obamas fault, and all liberals like them, that are ROBBING impoverished people of their dignity and self-actualization by perpetuating a system of poverty guaranteed to keep poor people poor by supporting bad educational policies and telling them they can’t compete.
JustTruth101 on April 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM
“I’m starting to hate the Obamas.”
Join the club. I wanted to give the guy a chance, but every one he’s surrounded himself with seems to be either a communist, a “hate whitey” lunatic, or both.
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM
We have a winner!
doppelganglander on April 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I second that.
He does have away with words but when you snap out of the trace you say “are you kidding me?”
He is going to bring himself down with his own spin.
TroubledMonkey on April 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Michelle sure is giving the McCain campaign ample soundbites for ads. Although I’m sure that when BO is given evidence of all the things she’s said he will be SHOCKED that his wife, the mother of his children, his soulmate said these things or felt this way about America, socialism, etc. After all he only spent the last 20 years or so with her and he NEVER knew her to utter such things. But hey, what can we do about our crazy wives.
mrsmwp on April 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM
A tiresome, self-absorbed, domineering, hypocritical, shrill, whiny, pampered, arrogant, egomaniacal, corrupt, venal, vapid, ill-mannered, ungrateful @ss.
And she found someone to marry her. So what does that make BO?
PD Quig on April 9, 2008 at 4:08 PM
1) Fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
2) Reflexive opposition to the core ideas of capitalism.
3) Believes that theft is not only not immoral, but should be mandated.
4) Believes that people only have things that are given to them.
5) If she likes wrong and failed economic ideas, there are plenty of places in the world where she can experience them, like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
6) The farther she is from political power, the better off we are.
Merovign on April 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM
jill1066@1263
Sugar, I hope you are on the Fortune 500, if not, that bunch is gonna tax the your pie off.
L
letget on April 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM
And how much “pie” is Mickie O going to cough up so someone else can have more?
Last I checked, her and her dopey husband make a hell of a lot more “pie” than I’ve seen in my life…
SuperCool on April 9, 2008 at 5:01 PM
“I’ve never heard my wife espouse these ideas, and if she has, I wasn’t present when she did. And uh…I couldn’t disassociate myself from my wife’s Marxist views any more than I could disassociate myself from the rest of the Marxists in the Democratic Party.”
SuperCool on April 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Except he won’t use them, and he’ll excoriate anyone who does. That’s why I say it doesn’t matter who wins, we’re skrood. Maybe we need a couple years of BO’s style of socialism/marxism/communism to get REAL Republicans elected.
jdawg on April 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Doesn’t that look of hers just say it all.
Condescending, arrogant, hectoring, lecturing, aggrieved, complete pain in the ass.
If I have to see this woman’s ugly mug on my TV screen for four years, I may have to consider dumping the thing.
At least I won’t have to chance at seeing her, although I might be subjected to hearing her screeching at me.
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 5:15 PM
JustTruth and NoDonkey I’m with you. I am sick to death of these two whining, crying, bigots and their Communist, Left Wing, Black Separtist, anti American crap. I see that woman’s face and I want to slap it into next Tuesday. If that makes me a racist, so be it.
UnEasyRider on April 9, 2008 at 5:23 PM
UnEasyRider on April 9, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Why don’t you quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think? ;-}
jdawg on April 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM
A friend of mine lives in Hyde Park in Chicago and the word down there is that she’s the problem. Michelle has the problem with yer typical white person and she dragged the old boy to her church every Sunday. Keep her talking and we shouldn’t have any problems in November.
JAW on April 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Add me. I’d like to knock her right off her perch. Wouldn’t bother with him.
JiangxiDad on April 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM
jdawg, you are probably so right. Sad but true…
mrsmwp on April 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM
here comes the commies..
Chakra Hammer on April 9, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Ironic, isn’t it, that these so-called legal scholars Barack and Michelle Obama seem to have so little understanding of the Constitution?
AZCoyote on April 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Amen! I have been biting my tongue to say that, as well.
The Leftists/Dems see wealth as a zero-sum game. If somebody is a winner; then somebody else must be a loser. They have not the imagination (nor the energy) to promote the idea that everyone can be a winner. How achieving that winning is determined depends on how one plays the hand he is dealt in life. The Leftists want a game where everyone (except the State dealers) has the same cards, and everyone (except the State dealers)”wins” the same “prize”.
There is a reason why the Obamas spend so much time trolling for votes on college campuses: their potential constituency at these venues has not labored in the pie shop yet. The indulged youths can afford to be idealistic and dazzled by rhetoric because Mom and Pop are still providing the pie slices.
onlineanalyst on April 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM
And that someone is … the Obamas. Sell the ill-gotten real-estate, buy a broken-down bungalow on 103rd Street - because that’s all some poor folks have, Michelle! - and give away the book money and 75% of the pay at your no-show job.
This is about what’s right, Michelle.
Jaibones on April 9, 2008 at 7:09 PM
God bless Michelle Obama. Give that woman her own T.V channel and cut her loose 24 hours a day.
I was just thinking the other day I hadn’t heard anything from her in a while, was suprised that she could be muzzled, but no friends and neighbors, the woman who know’s what is best is back and in perfect form.
Hog Wild on April 9, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Maybe its me, but Michelle Obama doesn’t strike me as someone who’d be willing to give up a piece of her OWN pie. She seems like the type who would feel that she’s worked really hard to get to where she is now and you can go take a piece of someone else’s pie, girlfriend, thank you very much.
ctmom on April 9, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Ah! Someone has been reading Marx again
Gatordoug on April 9, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Hey Michele. Fsck you. Take my pie. I dare you.
Good job on motivating me to destroy your husband. I’m gonna have fun doing it, too.
spmat on April 9, 2008 at 10:34 PM
I better eat this pie faster.
2Tru2Tru on April 9, 2008 at 10:37 PM
universal healthcare = communism?
jeez, i guess i was living in a communist country called japan for 9 years and now i am living in one called thailand.
who knew?
america’s health care system is a joke and an embarrassment. there is no good reason why the U.S. can’t provide health care to all citizens. every other industrialized & rich nation (and lots of poor ones, like thailand) do it. why can’t we? we could do it better than those other countries if we set our minds to it.
i disagree with the dems on pretty much everything else, but not on this.
some things should be left to the market. health care isn’t one of them.
homesickamerican on April 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Michelle = Aunt Esther
BO = Lamont
Rev Wright = Fred
Grumpy Fred was always embarrassing “hip” Lamont, wasn’t he?
jgapinoy on April 9, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Yep. I’ll take a piece of their pie of combined salary and home. Perhaps we can split it three ways. You take a third, I’ll take a third and the Obamas can keep a third. That sounds fair.
I agree. I think she’d be in your face pretty quick if you tried to take some of her pie.
INC on April 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
God forbid that the mindless masses that have left us with these three candidates actually vote Obama into office. Many investors think that the markets are potentially at the bottom these days, but imagine what will happen to the markets if the Dems gain control of the White House. Total friggin’ financial chaos. Higher interest rates, increased debt, more government spending, less money actually entering the economy.
The thought of this keeps me up at night. While I disagree with McCain on about half of his opinions, I disagree with 100 of Hillary and Barack’s.
Michelle Obama simply scares me. She makes about $350k a year, yet she has the audacity to complain about finding it hard to make ends meet. She attended two fantastic colleges yet she sings the bitter black female victim anthem. Scary… just scary.
cannonball on April 10, 2008 at 12:15 AM
imagining her in the white house gives me the willies.
homesickamerican on April 10, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Hillary makes my skin crawl. Now I can add Michelle. And no, that skin crawling isn’t a shiver up my leg.
NNtrancer on April 10, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I know it’s tempting to label Hillary and Michelle Obama as Marxists–and a lot of you have–but Hillary and the Obamas are Third-Way Centrists, not Marxists. Note well: that does not mean that they’re centrist or moderate on the American political spectrum; they are in fact far to the left on that spectrum. In general, Third-Way Centrists want to use capitalism’s resources to fund a variety of social programs. That’s not the same thing as Marxism. Here’s Marx in a nutshell:
1. Once humans begin trading goods, division of labor increases and continues to increase, culminating in a capitalist economic system.
2. Capitalism is an improvement over feudalism, but it is riddled with internal contradictions.
3. Eventually the bourgeois capitalist class grows smaller and smaller and the proletarian class grows larger and larger.
4. The proletarian class is not just made up of the working poor or the poor in general; it is also made up of the middle class, ex-capitalists, intellectuals, and former members of the bourgeois class.
5. The proletariat is the “universal negating” class, i.e., it is the class that represents everyone’s interests and thus negates all other classes, which only seek to further their own interests.
6. Capitalism will collapse when nearly everyone is a member of the proletariat class and nearly everyone lives below a subsistence level.
7. The proletariat will overthrow what remains of the capitalist class and establish a dictatorship.
8. The interim period of this dictatorship will be quasi-capitalist, and there will still be division of labor.
9. Eventually, however, we will work in accordance with the dictum “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
10. The State will wither away and division of labor will cease. Each of us will be a Jack-of-all-trades, doing what we please when we please.
Hence there are important differences between Marxism and today’s liberal-left. First, Marx is an historical determinist. He thinks that the above is a description of how history will unfold, not how it ought to unfold. That is why he thought of socialism as a scientific theory. By contrast, most liberal-leftists are normative socialists, i.e., they believe that we’re obligated to provide universal health care and education, among other things, in order to secure a just society. This is much more John Rawls than Karl Marx.
Second, as we can see in point 10, Marx is something of a (naive) anarcho-utopian. He thinks that the State will wither way, and there are passages in his writings where he criticizes both bureaucracy and taxes. The liberal-left has no notion whatsoever of the State withering away, and it rarely meets a tax that it doesn’t like.
Third, according to Marx, capitalism will implode due to its internal contradictions. In other words, it will cease to exist. The liberal-left counts on capitalism to generate income for its agendas and counts on its success. Indeed, that’s why zoning laws tend to favor large corporations over small businesses; the former generate larger tax revenues, even as the liberal-left decries “corporate greed.” In general, the liberal-left has no philosophy of capitalism, but instead relies on ad hoc, populist denunciations of greed.
Frankly, I find Third Way Centrism to be more of a threat to freedom than Marxism. Traditional Marxism is all but dead, but TWC is all the rage. Bill Clinton is a TWC, but his administration was tempered by his pragmatism and triangulation. Hillary is more stridently ideological, and so is Obama. Each wants to be our Social-Worker-in-Chief, using capitalism’s resources and the State’s power to solve all social problems.
Bill Ramey on April 10, 2008 at 1:11 AM
I never favored the terms Marxist or even fascist, but for the sake of convenience, use them. I prefer the all-encompassing term, “Authoritarian Collectivists.” I think Bill Ramney’s description of “third way centrists” falls under that label. After all, if it’s the state’s perogative to dictate to us based on what they term the common good, and individuals count as nothing compared to some social ideal that requires our obedience from our self-annointed betters, then whatever else you want to call it, authoritarian collectivist fits the bill. And it’s just as reprehensible as socialism, marxism or fascism, if not more, because it purports to be for our own good and who can resist that? Certainly not those who believe that none of us are responsible for anything we do and that the world owes us a living.
NNtrancer on April 10, 2008 at 3:40 AM
I think “Authoritarian Collectivism” is a good term, with the caveat that Third Way Centrists mix individualism with collectivism just as they mix capitalism with socialism. But they certainly are authoritarian, favoring a top-down approach to solving economic and social problems.
Bill Ramey on April 10, 2008 at 4:49 AM
Ed, please, don’t bother these people with the facts. Since when has failure ever deterred a liberal.
I think we have finally crossed that threshold in this country where we now have more takers, than givers.
labrat on April 10, 2008 at 7:01 AM
I wanted to like Obama, but he’s so far left he goes off the charts. And I wonder about his real feelings. In my secret soul, I can’t help but think he is a racist.
Ellen on April 10, 2008 at 7:30 AM
As much as I want to see Shillary’s present campaign go down in flames, there is no way, absolutely no way I want to see the likes of B.O. and Mama Michelle gracing the White House for the next four years. The damage these two would do once place in that position of power should be enough to keep anyone awake at night.
pilamaye on April 10, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Sounds to me like the libs are setting the stage, getting everyone in the right frame of mind before the big bendover.
I haven’t had time to read all the comments yet, but I agree with the fact she and her husband scare the pants off me.
4shoes on April 10, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Congratulations. You have achieved caricature status.
Bill, of course that’s correct as far as it goes, and smartly presented at that, but I’m not sure about the “more of a threat to freedom” bit of your argument — except when it comes to the sheer difference in probabilities of meeting in the wild an actual Marxist versus a mere “compassion fascist.” The “naive” nature of Marxist expectations that the state will wither away are potentially as lethal as anything the more assertive collectivists have ginned up in the last 100 years. Those expectations will, in reality, always be frustrated because of the nature of human knowledge — and because incentives will always matter. And when those expectations are frustrated, the bodies will begin to pile up.
Marx ultimately copped out on the specifics — no “recipes for the cookshops of the future,” and all that. Much mischief occupies the space that left. He was also dead wrong on the transformation problem and the labor theory of value. A system with those kinds of flaws at its heart is not any less dangerous than milder-looking variants.
I take your point that MO doesn’t appear to be anything but a vulgar redistributionist, however.
DrSteve on April 10, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I’d like to stand up and say that Caesar will only get a piece of my already dwindling pie when he takes it at gunpoint. Then it occurred to me - that’s exactly what Caesar will do.
abcurtis on April 10, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Now that’s a thought. She could compete with the Church of Oprah. Either way the people get fleeced.
But it’s like an earlier poster said - She’s giving McCain all the ammunition he needs, but I doubt he’ll use it. We’ve really gotten ourselves into a mess havent we?
abcurtis on April 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM
There is a good reason why the government should not supply health care - it’s called the Constitution. The Constitution nowhere allows for such a thing. If you want government run health care, talk to your reps and get a Constitutional amendment movement started. That’s the only way the government can legally supply health care or any other social service. Basically, the government has no right to take it upon itself to provide those things for us that we are capable of providing for ourselves. And if our health care is an embarrassment and a joke why dont I see droves of people moving to Cuba, England or Thailand for their health care?
Our health care isnt perfect but it’s a sight better than what’s in second place. And if we’d ride the tort lawyers out of town tarred and feathered and on a rail it would get a whole lot less expensive.
abcurtis on April 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM
How about just plain ol’ socialists/communists? that’s pretty much how I’ve seen liberals, in particular liberal democrats my whole entire life. Socialism the government controls property and production. Communism the government OWNS property and means of production. Democrats are at best socialists at worst communists. That’s my opinion.
abcurtis on April 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
“I wanted to like Obama, but he’s so far left he goes off the charts. And I wonder about his real feelings. In my secret soul, I can’t help but think he is a racist.”
I don’t think he’s racist, but I do think he looks down on the vast majority of Americans. His condescension emerges occasionally and it flows like a river from wifey.
NoDonkey on April 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Hence, PC EMPOWERMENT takes away a right from the one who has the ability, and redistributes to someone else (whether that someone has ability or not, and whether that someone uses what the origin has been deprived of), not “sharing” but “redistributing” or absconding.
Hillary and Obama by nature are overt statists, each having converted their politics into their god of action. Bush qualifies as well with his economic banking investment regulations (requiring banks to loan to people with no means OR REQUIREMENT to pay responsibly month by month), and tax dollar federal theft empowering crooked institutions to benefit further, all the while crying “all is well” that way.
Romney’s economic development platform was overtly statist in the “best” sense that a century ago brought the USA into Wilson’s and FDR’s progressive fascistic pockets, Wilson literally trampling the Constitution, both imprisoning those who remained responsibly independent instead of succumbing to the progressive movement that has never stopped, though sometimes the current is strongest on top and sometimes below the surface. At least Romney defined secure borders, rule of law, citizen rights’ priority over illegal aliens criminal activity, remaining nationalist in the benevolent sense of taking care of our own business, not imperialistic.
McCain is a “global statist” in that he will not protect, preserve or secure our national borders; nor will McCain protect citizen’s rights and responsibilities, prefering the dissolution of our civilization and social fabric in order to rule the military business machine as Commander in Chief while POTUS, as CEO in “retirement”.
As a Constitutional Conservative, Fred Thompson gave us the opportunity to support a GOP candidate who was NOT a statist by any sense of the word. On Fox News Sunday, Bill Krystol gave Thompson parting advice to take his “cultural” government lessons to the entertainment industry, not to attempt serving in public office where the message was unwelcome. Then Michael Savage derided Thompson following his departure, saying that Thompson’s public service had only been for publicity towards his private interests. And of course, Allahpundit did his best to deride the age of Thompson as a disqualification for POTUS, politics aside, McCain’s age aside.
America has its chance to think ernestly but instead persists to choose facade.
There is no sense in “supporting” McCain until after he PROVES to accomplish the conservative citizen’s rights. To grant McCain ANY support right now, prior to his commitment to conservative rights, is to empower progressive statism.
maverick muse on April 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Pie…did someone say there was pie?
PatriotPete on April 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Make MORE ? Pie ? Impossible … Its a zero sum game … Our GDP has not gone up in 100 years …
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ….. YOU ARE ALL RACISTS …
GIVE ME MONEY NOW !!! I have summer camp payments to make …
jcarl4283 on April 10, 2008 at 6:00 PM
The “socialist/communist” left likes to refer to everyone they disagree with as fascists, as if there’s much of a difference between each form of authoritarian collectivism. I’ve argued with leftists who insist that fascism is just corporate control of the government. When I insist that the definition is actually quite soft and that socialism is just as pernicious as fascism and quite similar, they won’t hear of it. So I avoid arguing the terms and just describe what I see.
NNtrancer on April 10, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Good one: “Of Faith, Families, and Pie”
onlineanalyst on April 10, 2008 at 10:33 PM
hey, thanks doc, for that extremely substantive response to my comment. how can i argue with such a brilliantly constructed ad hominem? you win.
btw, are you really a doctor? if so, that would explain a lot…
homesickamerican on April 11, 2008 at 1:35 AM
the constitution doesn’t disallow it, either. just because it’s not specifically enumerated there doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. remember the phrase “promote the general welfare”?
maybe you are able to provide for yourself, but it’s crystal clear that many, many others aren’t able to. otherwise it wouldn’t have been such a big issue for so long, would it?
thailand has a huge “medical tourism” industry. so does cuba. high-quality care at affordable prices. people from all over the world (including LOTS of americans) come here for all kinds of treatments.
england obviously isn’t cheap enough to have that kind of industry, but quality-wise i have heard no complaints from friends (both native english and americans who have had babies there, had family members hospitalized, etc.) who live and work there.
japan has a good system and a pretty equitable way of paying for it. the care there is good and they have the world’s highest life expectancy as a nation even though they all smoke like chimneys and work too hard. go figure.
and the AMA, and the pharmaceutical monopolies, etc., etc…
the real problem in the states with health care is that it isn’t a free market. nor is it socialized. it has to be one or the other.
if it were truly socialized, everyone would be covered.
if it were truly a free market, there would (in theory, at least) be affordable options for everyone. right?
right now all the system does is make rich people (doctors, pharmaceuticals) richer while screwing everybody else.
homesickamerican on April 11, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]