COLUMN: "Alex, I'll Take Socialism For $400, Please…"

Jul 12, 2009 No Comments by
Jess Jones

Jess Jones

Have you ever watched one of those VH1 specials that highlights a child actor who grew up into a dismal failure that has a preferred customer card at the local Malibu rehab? (I’m sure you have, there’s been quite a few.) I’m talking about the programs where you watch and ask yourself, “What the heck happened?” Lately, I feel like CNN and The Post have began running the same sort of programming, only we’re highlighting our beloved Commander-in-Chief and the brainiacs on Capitol Hill.

Doesn’t it make you proud to see that the biggest success of the G8 summit was the priceless moment in which our dear president stood gazing at the hind quarters of a Brazilian intern while other world leaders looked on in amusement? Sure, Obama has been soaring from Kremlin to the Coliseum, but the best thing he could discuss was the reduction of nuclear weapons? Sure, the middle east is still in shambles and the world is facing mass depression, but let’s all step back a decade or two and pretend we’re Gorbachev and Reagan.  My guess is that President Obama was catching up on reruns of 24 and felt he needed to give Jack Bauer a helping hand by trying to reduce the amount of nukes available to those bad guy terrorists.

If that isn’t enough, there seems to be a disconnect between Capitol Hill and the rest of the nation. According to a recent Gallup poll:

  • 47 percent of Republicans consider themselves to be more conservative, while only nine percent feel they are more liberal.
  • 37 percent of independents consider themselves to be more conservative, while only 19 percent feel they are more liberal.



And this is the kicker:

  • 34 percent of Democrats say they have become more conservative over the last few years, while only 23 percent have shifted to a more liberal viewpoint.



So there is a general exodus towards the Right. Hmmm. Sounds to me like we had better be listening up to the masses then? But no-can-do, we’ve got to rescue the economy. Apparently, the answer is spend more money, tax the so-called “rich” and basically blow it on ivory policies anyway. According to The New York Times, House Democrats are going to be knocking on the doors of the wealthiest Americans, asking for a extra tax burden amounting to the whopping sum of $550 billion.

Now, for those of you keeping score at home, let’s take a look at the board: so far, the House has tried to push through a health care bill that was aimed at requiring small business owners to provide health care compensation for both their part- and full-time employees.  Democrats were dancing and singing that the new plan would cost $52 billion over 10 years, but in 2007 alone we spent $2.6 trillion dollars for the same type of health care. How can we cover the price tag for socialized health care if the program will only kick back $52 billion per year? I imagine Newt Gingrich almost fainted when he heard the U.S. was going to make a genius investment like that.

So what are we going to do? How about a new tax! That always works, right?  Like daddy always said, “You don’t spend what you don’t have, unless it’s someone else’s money!” If you’d like to see people receive health care, provide larger tax breaks for the “Ma and Pop’ businesses of America that are already struggling to get by . We need to create incentive for these small businesses to grow and expand, not penalize them for the good jobs that they’re doing; and should this new tax pass, you may see money circulate to the public for a while, but you’ll most likely see an overall rise in unemployment and a continued barrage of small businesses closing their doors. It seems as if we’re all stuck in a bad episode of Saturday Night Live’s version of “Celebrity Jeopardy” and we’re losing more and more with each bad decision. Who knew socialism would be so pricey?

Jess Jones is a conservative political columnist for Rhombus. He always roots for Sean Connery when watching “Celebrity Jeopardy.”

Politics

About the author

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet
  • McKay Coppins

    Nice article. Lately, I’ve been getting kind of tired of snooty democrats whining whenever someone associates their policies with socialism. Nobody is saying that our country is an entirely socialist nation, but a lot of Obama’s policies are socialistic, and if the demos support him, then they should own the s-word, not try to avoid it.

    • Steve Pierce

      The issue here is that people are overly alarmist. Obama’s policies are “socialistic” in relation to what? Those of George Bush or Ronald Reagan? Sure. But on a world scale, these are normal, common sense moves. As per basic macroeconomics, these moves to “rescue the economy,” as Jess so glibly put it (because that’s not important), are absolutely essential. All in all, 2009 is an almost identical political situation to that of 1933. The new president (FDR) was “using the economic crisis to lead us into socialism, yadda yadda yadda.” Hindsight is 20/20 and we can now look back and see that FDR didn’t destroy the country; conversely, he created a strong middle class that would stand for almost 50 years and become the economic engine that propelled the U.S. to the top of the world.

      So it all depends on your view of the role of government: if you think that government is evil and laissez-faire should define every aspect of our beings and any substantive governmental role constitutes overbearing socialism, then sure, we’re all going to hell in a handbasket yesterday. But if you understand that there has to be a role for government (especially in times of crisis), that government can often do things that no one else can, and that government can help bridge the gap and move society forward, then Obama is simply making decisions that are long overdue. He is re-introducing government regulation and oversight to protect society from the wild west excesses and market failures inherent in capitalism. Just basic Econ 110 stuff.

      In fact, he’s probably been overly cautious to avoid being “socialistic”: he didn’t nationalize the big failing banks, though he probably should have, as per Sweden in the 1990s; he didn’t push for a big enough stimulus package, which he will now be hard pressed to pass a second if he needs it; he caved into conservative demands for tax cuts in the stimulus in the “spirit of bipartisanship” (which garnered him only three R votes, one of which is now a Democrat. He’s gone out of his way to not be “socialistic”. But that doesn’t change the fact that the current situation calls for certain actions and he needs to make them. And if you come from that sordid little worldview that everything is big bad government’s fault, you undoubtedly think we’re all going to be living in France West within the year. But that’s just simply not true.

      This isn’t me being a “snooty Democrat”; this is me asking fair-minded, rational individuals to take a step back and look at the big picture. We wouldn’t want to get all upset over nothing again like 1933. Don’t want to waste our incredibly productive “outrage” unnecessarily.

  • Randal

    I really liked your jab at Obama looking at the Brazilian’s butt, but that was nothinig more than a still-frame photo lie by Drudge. It was reported on CNN as such.

  • McKay Coppins

    Steve, go read Fareed Zakariah’s “The Capitalist Manifesto” on Newsweek.com, and come back to have a relevant discussion.

    • Steve Pierce

      After sitting through all of that, I have realized that it took Zakaria six pages to really say nothing of substance at all. I’m normally a big Zakaria fan, but he wasted 15 minutes of my life waffling on whether or not this is a crisis of capitalism, describing markets as “not about morality” and then saying we need a big dose of morality, and generally saying nothing that will produce change. Sure, he says we should all be better, more ethical people, and I respect that. It’s a good plan. But that is not policy and cannot be enacted. Thus, it’s unlikely that it will happen just because it showed up in the pages of Newsweek. That’s really all Zakaria offers. His big solution is we need stronger personal ethics. That’s great, but it ain’t solving our problems now. He seems concerned about the deficit, which is a legitimate long-term problem, but it’s also the only thing keeping us afloat in the short-term, because it is offsetting the decrease in private borrowing and preventing a depression. It’s easy for Zakaria to throw feces at the work of past and current economists and policy-makers when they have been wrong, simply because he isn’t proposing any tangible, workable solution to the current problem. To say that this article provides material for a relevant discussion is puzzling to me. It seems Zakaria doesn’t even know what he wants to discuss: he titles his article “Greed Is Good” and goes on to tell us exactly how it hasn’t been and how we all need to change our priorities. I don’t know how this article was supposed to alter my belief in counter-cyclical government intervention or my belief that capitalism, while still the best option on the table, is flawed and should be overseen carefully. Zakaria basically argues for all these things – before flip-flopping and contradicting himself multiple times. Not his best work. Fareed should stick to his expert analysis of foreign policy and leave the economics to those who are willing to actually propose tangible, policy-based solutions.

  • Rob

    FDR’s policies did not pull the nation out of the depression–a war did. America’s economic strength in the early- to mid- 1900s was primarily based on production: farms and factories. Social security, medicare, and medicaid are a very expensive attempt to legislate morality (ie charity to the poor), something that has never worked better than leaving it to the individuals, and has always cost more. These programs, like most others, are just another way for corrupt government workers to grease their pockets.

    • Steve Pierce

      Also, to Rob, if you look at the Great Depression and America’s GDP, you’ll see that GDP rose exponentially during the early years of the New Deal, from 1933-1936. In 1937, certain advisers convinced FDR to scale back his program and try to balance the budget. As a result, GDP sank exponentially during ’37 and only began to rise again when the New Deal was re-instituted in full in 1938. And while the convenient argument for conservatives is that World War II ended the Depression and government spending just made it worse, it is completely disingenuous. Let’s take a moment and consider what World War II actually represented economically: MASSIVE government spending. MASSIVE government job creation. The Depression didn’t end just because, hey, we’re at war! It ended because the U.S. government spent huge amounts of money and created huge numbers of jobs to try and win the war. So really, your argument for World War II ending the Depression is actually an argument for large-scale government spending in the face of an economic crisis. (P.S. Your argument against social programs and for individual charity is commendable – except that it doesn’t happen in real life. You should know that. It’s basic Adam Smith: individuals are always self-interested.)

  • McKay Coppins

    I don’t know how Steve find the time to write these responses. I would respond to each point he made, but instead I’ll invite readers to read the article he just bashed and see if you find it equally flawed.

    • Steve Pierce

      In a word or two: I’m bored. Haha. Thanks for the good discussion as always, my friend.

  • Sue Imbler

    Steve Pierce, you are the most intelligent, level-headed, clear thinking Conservative I have read for quite awhile! Very very good commentary! I a just beginning to read Rhombus, due to my nephews’ involvement. I was somewhat concerned about some of the far right views, and ‘fear’ instilling going on until I read these comments by you. Thank you so much for speaking up and out so very well! You have done due diligence in studying it all out! (Possibly a West Wing fan as well?) I will keep reading. Thank you!