I’ve always rejected coercive redistribution, particularly when imposed by the federal government.
But some types of redistribution are worse than others, and when big business and big government get in bed together, ordinary people are the ones who get screwed.
This is why Obama’s supposed “move to the center” is a bunch of nonsense.
Tim Carney is the go-to guy on this issue, and his column this morning in the Washington Examiner exposes the real meaning of Obama’s recent appointments of a “banker” and a “CEO.”
Let’s start with Bill Daley, the supposed banker who will be Obama’s new Chief of Staff. Does this signal a move to the right, as some left-wingers fear? That might be the case if Obama had appointed a real banker like John Allison of BB&T, who wants government to get out of the way and believes banks should sink or swim without bailouts or subsidies. But, as Tim explains, that is not the attitude of Bill Daley, who is more akin to Jim Taggart, the rent-seeking businessman in Atlas Shrugged.
Check out Daley’s resume. In the 1990s, he ran Amalgamated Bank, owned by a union and described by the Chicago Sun-Times as “one of the city’s most politically connected financial institutions.” Bill’s brother, Mayor Richard Daley, kept the city’s money on deposit at Amalgamated. Later, Bill held a seat on Fannie Mae’s board, pocketing six-figure compensation from the government-sponsored enterprise that used a housing bubble and an implicit government guarantee to fill a slush fund for well-connected Democrats — until taxpayers bailed it out in 2008. This is Obama’s kind of businessman: a banker who leverages his political connections for profit.
Or what about Obama’s appointment of Jeff Immelt of General Electric? Does this mean Obama wants to unleash the power of free enterprise? That would be welcome news, but GE has morphed into a corrupt company that specializes in fleecing taxpayers (a very sad development since GE once sponsored Ronald Reagan). Once again, Tim hits the nail on the head with a devastating indictment.
GE, which marches in sync with government, pocketing subsidies, profiting from regulation, and lobbying for more of both. …Obama bragged GE would be selling to a power plant in Samalkot, India. That sale is no triumph of free trade — Obama’s Export-Import Bank is providing at least $400 million in subsidized financing to grease the skids. Subsidies are GE’s lifeblood, and Immelt’s own words make that clear. In his op-ed announcing his appointment, Immelt called for a “coordinated commitment among business, labor and government…” He also advocated “partnership between business and government…” This is Immelt’s style. …wherever Obama has led, GE has followed. Obama has championed cap and trade in greenhouse gasses, and GE has started a business dedicated to creating and trading greenhouse gas credits. As Obama expanded subsidies on embryonic stem cells, GE opened an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama pushed rail subsidies, and GE hired Linda Daschle — wife of Obama confidant Tom Daschle — as a rail lobbyist. GE, with its windmills, its high-tech batteries, its health care equipment, and its smart meters, was the biggest beneficiary of Obama’s stimulus. To get these gears in sync isn’t cheap: The company has spent $65.7 million on lobbying during the Obama administration — more than any other company by far. So much for Obama’s war on lobbyists.
In other words, appointing Daley and Immelt does not mean a change in policy. These are people who want a bigger government because these are people who have learned to line their pockets when government has more power. They may have different motives than traditional leftists, but the result is the same. As I’ve noted before, my former Cato colleague Will Wilkinson said it best when he wrote that, “…the more power the government has to pick winners and losers, the more power rich people will have relative to poor people.”
[…] figure out ways of ripping off taxpayers. Redistribution from rich to poor is not a good idea, but it is far more offensive when the coercive power of government is used to transfer money from ordinary people to the […]
[…] feeding frenzy of well-connected special interests at the expense of ordinary taxpayers, which would be very […]
[…] feeding frenzy of well-connected special interests at the expense of ordinary taxpayers, which would be very […]
[…] taxpayers, this is a lose-lose situation. They pay to line the pockets of green donors, and they also suffer as government intervention diverts resources in ways that reduce jobs and […]
[…] think that I represent the interests of the rich. I try to explain that big government is all about an elite class figuring out ways to rape and pillage ordinary people, but I wonder whether that message sinks […]
[…] think that I represent the interests of the rich. I try to explain that big government is all about an elite class figuring out ways to rape and pillage ordinary people, but I wonder whether that message sinks […]
[…] been a relentless critic of Obama’s policies of redistributionism, class warfare, and cronyism, so I didn’t feel I had anything new to say after Obama gave what’s being called his […]
[…] shareholders of company working on an electric car. That’s not too surprising. After all, politicians have been bilking taxpayers for the benefit of well-connected campaign contributors for […]
[…] But I’m actually happy with this appearance on Fox Business News because I (hopefully) explained the difference between wealth that is honestly accumulated and loot that is obtained through government coercion. […]
[…] I loathe crony capitalism that gives well-connected rich people an advantage in the […]
[…] Indeed, I’m very sympathetic to their outrage about corrupt bailouts and crony capitalism. […]
[…] to redistribute from poor to rich is far worse – a combination of bad economic policy and complete moral depravity. LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
[…] But there are degrees of wrong. Taking from rich people to give to poor people is wrong. But as I’ve noted before, taking from poor people to line the pockets of rich people is utterly reprehensible. Rate this: […]
[…] I’ve explained before, I hate when rich people use big government to screw poor people. Advertisement […]
[…] most reprehensible thing that government does, “asset forfeiture” might be in second place (hurting poor people to benefit rich people is at the top of my […]
[…] most reprehensible thing that government does, “asset forfeiture” might be in second place (hurting poor people to benefit rich people is at the top of my […]
[…] most reprehensible thing that government does, “asset forfeiture” might be in second place (hurting poor people to benefit rich people is at the top of my […]
[…] thing that government does, “asset forfeiture” might be in second place (hurting poor people to benefit rich people is at the top of my […]
[…] figure out ways of ripping off taxpayers. Redistribution from rich to poor is not a good idea, but it is far more offensive when the coercive power of government is used to transfer money from ordinary people to the […]
[…] I’ve already commented on how I don’t like redistribution from rich to poor, but I really, really hate redistribution from poor to rich. And that’s exactly what happens when taxpayers subsidize the presidential nominating […]
[…] International Liberty « Portal 2 user-generated content will work on console versions Lil Wayne tour dates: I Am Music II tour » […]
[…] Comments RSS […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JJBOOGIE, Tim Quinn. Tim Quinn said: Obama’s Crony Capitalism Means the Poor Subsidize the Rich: I’ve always rejected coercive redistribution, partic… http://bit.ly/gWgj25 […]