Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor

Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.

The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.

Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.

What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.

Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.

But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.

In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?

Rich from Paso Wrote: Sep 04, 2010 9:45 PM

Here is what Republicans need to push for in the next congress:

1) Shrink the government. Do this by actually closing HUD; merging depts of Labor and Commerce; merging Interior and Agriculture; merging Energy and Transportation; splitting Health and Human Services; merge Education into Human Services; divide VA between dept of Health (VA medical centers) and Human Services (veterans' benefits). This would shrink the size of the Federal government down to 10 departments.

2) Repeal ObamaCare

3) Repeal the financial reform bill

4) Lift the drilling mortitorium

5) replace the tax code with a flat/fair tax. I prefer both. A 10% flat income tax with a 10% national sales tax (except food). Repeal all other taxes. Set a corporate tax rate...

Flag as Offensive

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 03, 2010 9:38 AM

re:

President Roosevelt began GROWING the GDP by double digits starting in 1933 and REDUCED unemployment from 24% in 1933 to 14% in 1937

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I teach college econ--

This is an arrant fabrication...FDR's own Treasury Secretary Morganthau noted ruefully that in 1940 unemployment remained UNCHANGED despite 8 years of the New Deal.

Many of FDR's policies caused LASTING damage, and any benefits were mainly psychological (some hope) for which he deserved some credit.

His creation of S.S. would in reality prove to be a massive taxation scheme...when set up, the average life expectancy was 60, but you had to be 65 to receive it...there were 40 workers for each retiree initially...it created a big...

Steven H of WA Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 11:39 PM

OBAMA TURNED A BANKING CRISIS INTO THE GREAT RECESSION!

The meltdown of 2008 was entirely a banking crisis caused by overleveraging on mortgages. The TARP bailout did succeed in stabilizing the banks, all of whom are now in fine shape earning huge profits on the Fedgov carry trade (borrow from the Fed at 0%, load to the Treasury at what 3%).

If 2008 was a banking crisis and the banks are now doing fine, why are we still in a recession? The answer is in who was elected in 2008! Like in 1932, a banking crisis has been turned into a recession/depression by bungling government policies.

If the Democrats retain power, we may see a depression for 10 years or more, just like in the 1930s.

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 03, 2010 1:08 AM

Why don't you read some history books?

Hoover was the Republican President from 1929 to 1933. During his 4 your reign of Republican terror Hoover destroyed 30% of the U.S. GDP and 20% of all jobs in the U.S.

President Roosevelt began GROWING the GDP by double digits starting in 1933 and REDUCED unemployment from 24% in 1933 to 14% in 1937.

The mistake that Roosevelt made was to cut spending in 1937 and balance the Federal budget. Roosevelt believed that the economy was in recovery and foolishly listened to the Republican calls for cutting spending to balance the budget.

The result of cutting spending too soon before the economy fully recovered led to a double dip recession and a rise in unemployment in 1938.

Republicans again are...

/ Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 9:10 PM

Roy, the US has been a corporatist country for most of the last century. Corporatism a/k/a Fascism originated in the US with Wilson's War Industries Board, his fascisti goon squad - American Protective League, and the very first propaganda ministry - Committee on Public Information. Mussolini didn't dream up Fascism on his own.

/ Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 7:18 PM

Congress is considering an extremely destructive “double tax,” through repealing a widely available credit that offsets taxes paid to other countries. However, this new “double tax” would apply only to energy providers here in the U.S. – meaning state-owned companies in countries like Venezuela and China will effectively receive a competitive edge over American firms. Ironically, even BP – the target of Congress’s ire over the Gulf spill – will gain a tax advantage. Also under consideration in the U.S. Senate is a repeal of Section 199 of the U.S. tax code, a manufacturers’ deduction, for only the oil and gas industry. The deduction allows companies to reinvest revenue into creating jobs and domestic economic growth.

The two...

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 9:22 PM

"Why are Democrats for bailing out BP?" you ask? Because doing so helps them bury domestic oil companies and the general public won't realize how they are doing it.

/ Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 9:40 PM

I know. I am rubbing it in the faces of all of those libs that were looking to execute Tony Heyward and everyone else at BP.

/ Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 6:22 PM

"The worst financial collapse we have ever seen. Thanks to Bush."

Wrong. Brooksley Born warned Clinton about derivatives in the mid 90s. Instead of listening to
her, he followed the advice of Rubin, Summers and Greenspan.

"The events surrounding the financial difficulties of Long-Term Capital Management L.P. ("LTCM") raise a number of important issues relating to hedge funds and to the increasing use of OTC derivatives by those funds and other institutions in the world financial markets. The issues most directly posed by LTCM include lack of transparency, excessive leverage, insufficient prudential controls, and the need for coordination and cooperation among international regulators. I welcome the heightened awareness of these...

Illinois Roy Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 6:56 PM

Well Mo i think this just goes to show ya that if this has gone through 3 presidents (at least) it tells you who is really running the show. It ain't Democrats, it ain't Republicans and it won't be the tea baggers either. Wall Street has been calling the shots for a long time. And thats not going to change.

Idaho Rich Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 5:08 PM

The problem with America is Obama.

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 9:27 PM

The problem with America is that there exists enough fools to elect someone as dangerous and misguided as Obama.

Ike22 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 5:07 PM

"Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor", the article title says. Amen, says I!! But I doubt that one could find a minyan of Congresscritters - let alone a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress - who genuinely believe that is what we ought to do. To reduce the power of the federal, state and local governments to the bounds of Constitutional limits would end more than 5 generations of legalized pillage of the American people and shrivel the power of politicians to a teensy-weensy stub of what they have now. That isn't going to happen, even if the Republican Party captures all the seats in the federal House and Senate between the two elections of 2010 and 2012. Not a chance. They will no more give up that power,...

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 4:30 PM

re:
"We'll never know, but I suspect the housing market for one would be well on its way to recovery by now as it would have bottomed out a while ago."

.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See the GREAT 2-hour documentary "House Of Cards" which explains the various culprits in the housing, financial and lender crash there is multiple blame to go around.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719/

EXCERPT:
"The Federal Reserve
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan defends decisions he made that critics say laid the groundwork for the crisis. Greenspan also admits that he was puzzled by the more complex mortgage-backed securities on the market."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One fact is irrefutable-- the Left in Congress...

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 5:30 PM

Yes, the left in Congress "FORCED" those banks to make those PROFITABLE loans to the lower classes.

The left in Congress "FORCED" those banks to charge RIDICULOUS FEES to the lower classes.

The left in Congress "FORCED" those banks to make money.

The TRUTH is that the banks made a LOT of money off of these lower class borrowers, some of whom could not even read what they were signing.

The TRUTH is that the banks didn't care whether these lower class borrowers defaulted since housing prices were still going up when the loans were made.

Show me the law that Congress enacted that FORCED the banks to make profitable loans to lower class borrowers.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 5:44 PM

Fred, you are so naive...

Here is how it works. Congress and the Fed REQUIRE CRA lending. more to the point, when banks want to acquire/merge, the Feds control that also and DEMAND that they prove X amount of lending to the less creditworthy, a/k/a CRA lending.

As for profitability, the loans were very low interest rate loans typically, which was ANOTHER guvment-spawned problem-- the cost of $ was too low.

Default rates on loans to "poor people" are always hideous...but required sub-prime lending said up front were loans to those with bad credit and/or uncertain income.

And what gets missed, it was not banks that made many $ billions of the sub-prime loans, but instead alternative mortgage lenders, BUT it was often the quasi-guvment...

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

willibeaux from the beautiful Rockies Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 6:07 PM

Oracle! Thank you for your excellent explanation of the housing market problems.

Illinois Roy Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 6:49 PM

Fred, Oracle always spouts this nonsense when this topic comes up. He knows, or at least he should know that the real problem was the side bets(credit default swaps) that were taken out. It didn't matter to the bankers whether people defaulted on these loans or not since they were bundled together, rated triple a by the ratings agencies and sold. It was already out of their hands. The more loans they made the more money they made. All risk free.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 7:32 PM

roy ol' boy--

I said earlier that there were MANY parties to blame in the sub-prime crisis, but at its heart was the agenda of various parties in Washington (Fannie, the Fed, the Left in Congress).

You have cherry-picked one small aspect in citing a culprit...Countrywide Mortgage, the largest lender, was no bank!

There is a modicum of truth to the point that selling off loans meant a short-range perspective, BUT originating lenders have ALWAYS sold off loans...what was VERY different this time is that the underlying loans were bad when closed!

Anyone who wants to better understand the whole mess should watch the "House Of Cards" on CNBC or public television.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719/

From the standpoint of traditional...

Liberalism Suxx Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 8:58 PM

The Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton was precisely such an act. Janet Reno, when she was his AG, threatned to sue banks who did not loan and underqualified minority applicants. There's lots more, but that proves the point.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 03, 2010 11:10 AM

whoops! I accidentally flagged myself! ;>)

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 4:14 PM

a prior cogent post here--

**********************************************************

Paleocon:

The worst blunder John Kennedy made -- worse even than the Bay of Pigs -- was issuing Executive Order 10988, which allowed federal employees to engage in collective bargaining. This created the vast, entrenched, growing partisan network of public-employee unions impeding progress, destroying efficiency, and skewing electoral politics at all levels of government.

Unions have only three sources of power:

* Limiting workers' opportunities. Join the union, or you'll be harassed, denied a good job, or not hired at all. Follow the rules, or you'll get lousy assignments or be fired.

* Mandatory dues, with which they do whatever they please.

*...

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 4:09 PM

dispelling a myth--

re:
"Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail."

We'll never know, but I suspect the housing market for one would be well on its way to recovery by now as it would have bottomed out a while ago.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Speaking as a former senior level banker with major banks, once again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The VAST majority of all bank bailouts have ALREADY been repaid in full-- with interest. The guvment will MAKE some $16 billion on those TARP...

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 4:00 PM

per Fred:
"Why are you disrespecting the firemen and women and the police officers who sacrifice for us everyday.

After all they are government employees too."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOBODY is showing a lack of respect for cops and firefighters.

HOWEVER, there are now myriad examples of union-driven public employee abuses.

We CANNOT pay active firefighters $200k, or cops $160k+ in California. There are over 9,000 RETIRED California employees pulling down over $100k a year plus benefits.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/driven-by-pay-scandal-in-bell-california-city-managers-advocate-salary-reform.html

Oakland's average cop is making $160k a...

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 5:16 PM

Oh, the horrors of middle class workers getting paid halfway decent salaries!!!

Tony Hayward ex-CEO of BP was paid $1.6 MILLION per year and is getting $17 MILLION in severance after destroying the Gulf of Mexico!!

Are you saying that a police officer who puts his LIFE on the line every day is worth 10% of Tony Hayward?

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 7:47 PM

So it is OK for the taxpayers to bear $200,000+(counting benefits) a year for one cop in Oakland?! With his H.S. degree?

Talking about what some exec of BP made is irrelevant to what 800,000 cops should reasonably expect to receive on the taxpayer $. I was underwhelmed with Tony Hayward based on what I saw of him, but many thousands of others and $ billions in assets were under his auspices and responsibility-- not exactly beat cop duty and responsibility.

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:57 PM

We need a government strong enough to enforce laws that prevent big business from colluding to rip us off and from using non-free market tactics to drive competitors out of business.

Read the history of Standard Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:46 PM

lastman wrote: "The unshackled, free market moves fast. Innovation is rampant."

At least initially. Then one company begins to dominate the industry. As that company gets bigger and more powerful they force out competitors using non-free market policies.

Eventually only one or a small group of companies control 90% of a given market and can dictate pricing without competition.

This is exactly why we need effective government that is NOT controlled by big business.

Before the U.S. had antitrust laws Standard Oil RULED the oil industry:
"In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55% was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out...

ted in ma Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:29 PM

"Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail."

We'll never know, but I suspect the housing market for one would be well on its way to recovery by now as it would have bottomed out a while ago.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:27 PM

re:
"Most union members today are public employees." Not quite. Currently, a little more than half are public employees, but the trend is clear."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Unions peaked when they represented about 1 in 3 potential workers in the 1950's, but they kept destroying the industries they preyed upon and exsanguinated (sucked the lifeblood from). now they are down to only 7% of private employees.

They are now permeating public employees as their only source of new members because those excessive costs can be foisted upon the taxpayers...they have herded in about 385 of all public employees.

The Obamasiah is incestuously linked to SEIU, the NEA, etc.

Speaking of the NEA, there are 3 million public...

lastman Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:48 PM

Good post. We must outlaw public unions again.

lastman Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:07 PM

The unshackled, free market moves fast. Innovation is rampant. To bring it under control, the collectivists have to slow it down, institute control systems, and keep change to a 'manageable' level. Thus, stagnation replaces innovation. And because more resources are allocated for political reasons, for counter productive purposes, to the political and other parasitic classes, retrogression replaces progression.

CompCon Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 2:57 PM

"Most union members today are public employees." Not quite. Currently, a little more than half are public employees, but the trend is clear.

machoman2 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:00 PM

Isn't more than half, most?

CompCon Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:05 PM

Not in my book. Obviously, what constitutes "most" is a matter of opinion, but to me it means maybe 80 - 90%. I'd characterize just over half as a "majority." Anyway, as I said, the trend is clear, and it won't be too long before "most" union members, by anyone's definition, are public employees.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 2:43 PM

Federal workers now earning double their private counterparts all-in

Oracle's analysis:
A real key to this---> note that federal employees get an astounding 4 TIMES the benefits of private employees DESPITE bullet-proof job security AND higher base pay-- 20% higher for comparable jobs. The source of the data is the guvment itself (BLS).

Another key distinction is that federal workers do not have to wait until 65 to start drawing their generous retirement pay, and worse still, some check out on "disability retirement," then go right back to work, collecting both incomes.

At the state level, there are high level bureaucrats such as university presidents who resign in December, take a big pension, then start back in January-- it...

jim#1 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:03 PM

You said, "Federal workers now earning double their private counterparts all-in
… … !

But they need it. You can not sit in the coffee shop all day without spending a lot of money. What did you expect, that they would take the coffee to their desk and make believe they are working?

Fred1014 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:27 PM

Why are you disrespecting the firemen and women and the police officers who sacrifice for us everyday.

After all they are government employees too.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:40 PM

There will likely be reflexive angry protests here from federal bureaucrats who say that they are better educated on average than your typical private employee, or that they do different jobs that are not comparable...but I was a fairly high level banker with top, major banks so I got to converse with federal bank examiners-- I cannot recall one we would have hired, yet today they are ALL 6-figure package folks.

Also, the guvment's OWN DATA say that the base pay is a good 20% higher for COMPARABLE jobs, BUT IN ADDITION, the benefits are 4 TIMES as great, for life, and often payable at FAR EARLIER retirement points/ages...and then there are the "double dippers" who draw "retirement" (sometimes for alleged disability) even as they work...

lastman Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:44 PM

We could get the job done for less money. Fire and police workers have no right to beggar society. We need to outlaw public unions (again).

John3549 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:45 PM

Ah the Fred Fail comment. The very first thing a liberal always cries about is police, fire, and teachers ( I added it for you) Fred, can you please name a federal fireman agency and a federal police officer agency. Federal, State, County, City... those are government jobs, but this is about federal agencies dude.

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 9:56 PM

That's the same old f'ing straw man that is always used when there are threats of budget cuts - or more frequently threats to make cuts in proposed budget increases.

Those who provide the core and most critical civil services are always trotted out by the unions and lined up before the public as the ones who will be facing the budget cut firing squads. The sole purpose for these theatrics is to prevent or diminish the cuts for the rest of the dead wood superfluous union members that make up the bulk of government overhead.

oracle1 in Atlanta Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 2:40 PM

we can no longer afford our unionized (why, pay tell?!) guvment employees--

*************************************************************

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers...

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:40 PM

Thanks Oracle1! This is great and valuable information in an excellent post. The red flags should be waving much more frantically than they are given Greece, Spain, my state of CA. This administration is bent on destroying us.

machoman2 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:51 PM

wolfgang- That is a basic sentence, take your baby cucumber and tell your boyfriend to get out of the way and stick it up your asz you commie packer.

Chries Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:40 PM

Glenn Beck has the answer.

Q: "...will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?"

A: We need to pray to God that Republicans have an effective alternative.

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 2:40 PM

We need to pray for our salvation first & foremost. It should be obvious that our salvation is not within ourselves or any political body. Any true good only comes from God. The best we mere mortals can do is, out of the joy of our salvation, serve others and in so doing be a dim reflection of our creator.

Chries Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:38 PM

"I urge, then, first of all, that... prayers... be made for... all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."

I Tim. 2:1-2

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 10:09 PM

A worthy prayer!

None1257 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:25 PM

The answer to the final question is, what evidence do we have that the republican party is much different than the democratic party? Maybe we are left with two choices, really really bad, and just bad. Does anyone really believe that even if republicans are in the majority, that they would put us on a path of reducing the National Debt? Does anyone really believe that inspite of their complaints about entitlement spending, that they have any solutions to solve the cost problem with these entitlement programs? Does anyone really believe that the growth in government spending will decrease year by year, even if they are the majority?

rmt5 in MA Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:39 PM

During the Bush years GDP, Unemployment rates, and the deficit were all very good numbers, despite Bush inheriting the dot.com fallout, and being hit with 9/11. Things started downhill AFTER the Dems took over Congress. Even though Bush was NEVER a Reagan conservative, he understood how business works. So even a moderate Repub is preferable to letting ANY of the Democrats be in charge, either in the WH or in Congress. Yes, we are often disappointed with the Repubs, but I would rather be "disappointed", than be totally trampled on by statists.

As for the this year, there seems to be some solid conservatives running plus the Repubs will have a clear mandate: Shape up or else!

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:59 PM

Republicans are far from perfect, but I'll take bad over really really bad any day. It's our job as citizens to hold their feet to the fire and to replace them when they're not upholding their oath. At the end of the day it's our responsibility and we have the government we chose to have.

jim#1 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 3:01 PM

Which ever party is in power, still the officers and the graduates from the major colleges are the ones in power.

They have never heard, "If you see something, say something," except when it involves a terrorists.

I wonder, if one of those college presidents or professors saw one of their graduates parking his car with a bomb in it, would they say anything?

Shrug Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 10:19 PM

That's only the case if we the people allow it to be the case.

Ruth131 Wrote: Sep 02, 2010 1:22 PM

Cloward and Piven strategy right from the start ...thanks to the "progressives" and the rinos... and the masses of ignorant & idiots who voted in 2008 for a "slogan" which has only served in the destruction of this great nation BY DESIGN !!!!

Allahpundit	NYT: Obama personally overseeing U.S. intel’s Al Qaeda “kill list”
Ed Morrissey	New Walker ad attacks Barrett on crime-data scandal
Ed Morrissey	Hayes apologizes for “heroes” comments
Ed Morrissey	Planned Parenthood fires staffer in Live Action video
Ed Morrissey	The Ed Morrissey Show: Andrew Malcolm
Ed Morrissey	Video: How’s the Public Equity President performing, part II

Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor

Michael Barone

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Political Cartoon of the Day

Henry Payne

Video

FACEBOOK ACTIVITY

Townhall Regular Contributors