"Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared," Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, a group that aided her husband Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency in 1992 but has clashed in recent years with the party's more liberal wing.
"A lot of Americans can't work any harder, borrow any more or save any less," she said in unveiling the group's "American Dream Initiative," a package of proposals to make college and home ownership more affordable, help small businesses, improve retirement savings and expand health insurance coverage.
Clinton said President George W. Bush and Republicans had "made a mess out of the country's finances." Rewriting her husband's famous 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid," she declared: "It's the American dream, stupid."
Snide comments aside, Americans are, in fact, earning less; but I do not think Mrs. Clinton would be overly enthusiastic with my solution to reverse this trend. A return of illegal immigrants to their port of origin, and an increase in the number of middle class women who remain at home would ensure scarcity within the job market. As per the golden rule of economics, an decrease in supply warrants an increase in demand; ergo, wages will also increase. You're welcome.
It is interesting to note that the solution to the trouble created by King George as to be implemented by the fair Queen is, in point of fact, identical to the source of the trouble itself. Goverment spending has gotten us into this mess as sure as the nose on my face; but we are to believe that if only the government were run by Democrats, the spending would produce beneficient results. It is as if a change in the foreman, would now see a factory producing twinkies, wherein the labor of twenty minutes prior resulted in naught but toy cars. As a Catholic, I do believe in miracles; but I do not make a habit of expecting them upon command.
Again we must discuss the rule of supply and demand. If an apple costs twenty-five cents as dictated by both the producers and consumers in the, admittedly theoretical, free market, Mother Government will step in so that poor people can afford apples. It is too much, I suppose, to return to a feudal system in which they would simply grow their own apples so as to feed themselves; but anyway, the poor people must have apples, and, lacking sufficient faith in people and having far too much of the same within themselves, those that represent us will subsidize apples so that the poor can, at long last, eat.
The effects are twofold: first, those that can already afford the apples will be forced to pay for apples which they will not be able to consume; second, the price of apples will increase. As more money is introduced to the market place the price of apples increases as per the aforementioned law of economics. If corporations were able to price apples reasonably, we would never be tempted to coerce them to do so; and while I would hardly suggest that corporations should be allowed to gouge on apples, it is interesting to note that all the regulation in the world has been unable to force men to act rightly. Instead, we find that once enough money is taken from those who could afford the apples, coupled with the increase in the price thereof, a whole new group of people must be issued subsidizes so that those who were once able to afford to eat, must now be ever so mercifully saved from starvation. Troutsky will probably think it unkind, but this is my understanding of applied socialism; it is also why I do not consider myself a socialist.
Now the Chesterton applies to what I consider to be an application of socialism, and what the good Troutsky would profess to be a bastardization thereof. He is probably right, but I am not particularily concerned by the particular brand name we use to refer to slavery. Any system in which men are not free to do as they please, so long as it does not directly cause harm to another, will be opposed by those who love liberty. I fancy that there are, perhaps, several dozen of us, and I am guilty of pride by even suggesting that I belong within their noble ranks. Anyway, the quotation applies to a great many things, and it is for precisely this reason that it merits mentioning.
A battle, like every human work, is at once designed in its beginning and doubtful in its end. Now the Comrades of the Dawn already annoyed me; because their revolution was widely undesigned in its beginning, but had no doubt about its end. Just like Imperialism; and the South African War.
This may not seem like the best of quotes because it visits upon issues which appear to be quite irrelevant to the reader. Yet Imperialism is still with us. It answers to different names, many of them ironic, some contradictory; but it takes the form of various wars to force people to govern themselves in the manner they wish so long as it the way we choose--or is it the other way around? The neo-conservative crusade--if we may insult such a glorious, if misunderstood thing by attaching its name to such an ignoble idealogy--was firmly convicted of its victorious end; but as we all know, we were not greeted as liberators, and what was once so sure appears shaky. The problem with inevitable things is that they so often fail.
This application can be made in reference to many things. I hardly need bring Hillary into the mix again, because the connection is so obvious. During my short lifetime, I've not had the privilege to hear a politician explain how on earth we will get out of the mess that his predecessor created; but I have heard any number of exclamations that the problem will be solved. We need not worry, though we are not to be given specifics. Kerry would bring peace to the Middle East, though we know not how; Hillary would have no trouble ushering in era of exuberant wealth, if only she may gain the throne.
Nixon wasn't the only one with a secret plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment