One of the new two-bit Democrat dictators, Congressman Barney Frank, has come up with some new Orwellian double speak.
(CNSNews.com) - American companies can expect proposals mandating increased wages and health care, a boost in union membership and greater scrutiny of trade agreements, a key Democrat promised Wednesday.It's all part of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda to reduce what Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calls "inequality" that inhibits economic growth.
How does inequality inhibit economic growth? As I understand it, economic growth depends on capital saving for future investment. If you take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor, you get more consumption and less saving and investment. So inequality helps economic growth, doesn’t it?
"Inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It's necessary in the capitalist system, and I'm a capitalist," Frank said during a speech to the National Press Club. "But we do not have to have a government that reinforces it."
(If Barney Frank is a capitalist, then the word has no meaning.)
What does he mean by the government reinforcing inequality? He wants to use the government to force corporations to redistribute wealth to workers, so what he is saying here is: if the government does nothing, it reinforces inequality. It’s a nice linguistic trick. If freedom leads to an undesirable result, then the government is reinforcing that result by doing nothing. He turns inaction by the state into a form of action. If doing nothing is the same as doing something, then the government might as well intervene in the economy.
Let me spell this out for any socialists who are accidentally reading this blog. There is a fundamental difference between the government doing something and doing nothing in the economy. When the government intervenes, it violates individual rights. Laissez-faire capitalism means the government does nothing. This inaction has other old-fashioned, politically incorrect names, such as freedom or liberty. To call this lack of intervention “reinforcing” whatever economic results might happen is nonsense. It evades the fundamental distinction between freedom and government control.
Frank said members of the working class would not care about economic growth if they did not see any benefit for themselves. This created "gridlock" that prevents pro-business legislation from passing, and therefore bridging the income gap was in the best interest of business, he argued.
More verbal legerdemain from Congressman Frank. What is pro-business legislation? That would be deregulation or laws that keep the government off the back of business so that people can make money in freedom. Anti-business legislation is laws that restrict freedom. His term “gridlock” implies that pro-business legislation (freedom) and anti-business legislation (control) are just two separate but equal forms of lawmaking. Congressman Frank is actually blackmailing business, saying they must redistribute profits to the workers in exchange for the government allowing them to exist with a little more freedom.
Frank was not specific on every proposal, but he said he intends to hold hearings into income disparity and what the government can do about it. He is also proposing a "grand bargain" that will tie trade bills, regulatory relief and other business-friendly legislation to mandates on increased wages, union empowerment and health care coverage.
“Grand bargain” is more fancy talk from Congressman Frank. You can only have a bargain among traders who have something of value to trade. Congressman Frank's "bargain" amounts to the government allowing more freedom in certain areas if the corporations become little welfare states that redistribute income to the workers. This “bargain” is equivalent to the Godfather’s line, “Make him a deal he can’t refuse.”
And if regulations were so important in the first place, how is it that they can now be used as bargaining chips? The cynicism of power lies beneath the facade of Congressman Frank's words. The real purpose of regulations is not to protect the environment or workers or anything else; it is to give the state power over individuals. All the justifications for regulations are just window dressing for power.
"Government doesn't have to interfere with the free enterprise system, but we can work along with it to reduce inequality," Frank said.
More BS. The only way the government can "work along" with the free enterprise system is to interfere with it. The government has no value to offer business, it has only a gun. Offering to let business have a little more freedom if it redistributes income is not “working along with it.”
Unfortunately, business is intellectually unarmed and helpless before strutting caesars such as Congressman Frank:
Hank Cox, spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, said that with the new Democratic majority in Congress, the business community would face the need to compromise.
"It's a new world we're going to be in," Cox said. "It's safe to say we'll be playing more defense than offense. That does not mean we're going to fold our tents and go home. More deal making will go on."
The battle is already lost. The corporations will cut “deals” with the Democrats, hoping to get a little freedom in other areas in exchange for becoming little nanny states that take care of workers. It’s a nice deal for the government, because it expands the welfare state at the same time it clouds the issue of who is in power. Workers will complain about their employers not doling out enough health care, profit-sharing, benefits and so on, not understanding that government guns are behind the whole set-up. This already happens with health care benefits, to give one example. Corporations began giving health care benefits in the 1940's as a way to get around income tax, since wages were taxed but money that went to health care was not. 60 years later, people think of corporations giving health care benefits as just the way things are, a metaphysical fact like the air we breath, when actually the practice came about because of government intervention in the economy. In a free economy workers would be responsible for their own health care, which they would buy with their wages like they buy everything else. (And health care would cost a fraction of what it now costs under massive government intervention.)
Come the next crisis, the corporations will get the blame while politicians shout indignantly about greed and preen about their compassion. This is why American politicians prefer the fascist style of socialism to the communist, in which the government owns the means of production. By allowing the means of production to stay nominally in private hands, the state evades responsibility and blame. (This is why Congressman Frank calls himself a capitalist.)
"Ultimately the thing we've got to work on is becoming more competitive and surviving in the global market place," Cox said. "We can't do that if we have to go it alone with all these new requirements. The answer is not arbitrary rules that drive the cost of doing business even higher."
One way to stay competitive in the global market place, Frank said, is to use the U.S. leverage to push other countries to adopt similar workplace standards. Ultimately, he said, countries will bow to U.S. demands for their own economic survival.
So part of the deal is that the US will force other countries to hamper their economy as much as ours is hampered, which will help US companies compete in the global market place. Instead of being the world’s last best hope, the Democrats are turning America into a force that makes the whole world less free.
Frank is the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission and sets policies for the banking, securities and housing industries. As such, he will be among the most powerful members of Congress in setting economic policy.