On rare occasions, our government-loving friends let their guard down and say things that reveal the true nature of leftism as a punitive philosophy that subjugates the individual to the state.
An English leftist named Richard Murphy, for instance, actually argued that private income is the “rightful property” of government.
An American statist named Matt Yglesias openly expressed a desire for ultra-high tax rates solely for reasons of spite rather than to finance bigger government.
We now have another leftist who deserves recognition for openly embracing the notion that people should be pawns of government. The Governor of California, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, has bragged that coercion is the core of modern leftism.
Here are some excerpts from a recent Los Angeles Times story.
Gov. Jerry Brown has been…been making an explicit case for the power of government. …Brown said politicians need to be willing to use the blunt force of government intervention… “You need the coercive power of government to say, do this,” the governor said during a panel discussion… “Never underestimate the coercive power of a central state…,” he said.
Kudos to Gov. Brown. He didn’t use fatuous rhetoric about “government is just a word for things we do together.”
He openly acknowledges that statism is force, backed up by men with guns, based on what politicians want other people to do.
Now let’s look at another politician who deserves credit for honesty.
Though, rather ironically, we’re talking in this case about a politician who generally is known for mendacity and prevarication, so this belongs in the stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day category.
That’s because the Daily Caller reports that Hillary Clinton accidentally stumbled into a bit of honesty when discussing the economic impact of Obamacare.
Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton inadvertently slammed President Barack Obama’s signature piece of domestic legislation, the Affordable Care Act, as a full-time job killer. …a women stood up and asked, “I just want to know why there’s like discrimination against the part-time workers… Clinton said. “That…Affordable Care Act.” …Clinton continued, “…we have built in some unfortunate incentives that discourage full-time employment.”
But these excerpts from the story don’t fully capture what Hillary said.
Watch this short video and it will be very clear that she’s admitting that Obamacare has undermined full-time work.
Wow, this sounds like she’s actually aware that Obama’s failed policy is pushing people into part-time work.
And maybe she’s even familiar with the research, from both private scholars and the Congressional Budget Office, on Obamacare having a negative impact on employment.
In any event, I think you’ll agree with me that Hillary deserves recognition for recognizing that there are real-world consequences to statist policy.
Sort of like these other leftists who have admitted that big-government policies backfire.
Nicholas Kristof wrote on the problem of government-caused dependency.
Jeffrey Goldberg admits gun ownership reduces crime.
Justin Cronin explains how he became a left-wing supporter of gun rights.
Jamelle Bouie pours cold water on Obama’s gun control agenda.
Though we shouldn’t be overly impressed that Hillary recognize a problem since it’s quite possible – indeed, probably nearly certain – that her solution will be to expand the size and scope of government and make the situation even worse.
In other words, she’ll probably combine the sentiments in this poster with the sad reality of Mitchell’s Law.
[…] The other group is much more dogmatic. They get credit for honesty only because they are publicly willing to admit views that most leftists try to keep hidden (such as thinking that all our income belongs to government or celebrating the role of coercion). […]
The production of an employee is what he adds to the sales of a company. That production is what supports the employee’s salary and benefits. The company is a way to take the employee’s specialized contribution, add it to the products produced, sell those products, and then pay the employee in cash and benefits from product sales.
The first effect of a minimum wage is to raise the price of products. In effect, it is the customers who are pressured to pay more to support the required higher wages. If the customers will not pay enough, then profits will decline and businesses will shrink or fail. People will not be employed for long when their personal contribution is not enough to support their pay.
ObamaCare applies pressure similar to a minimum wage because it requires a minimum benefit or cost, depending on the detailed rules. ObamaCare demands an expensive benefit of about $12,000 – $20,000 per full time worker, depending on family size, or about $3,000 as a tax penalty for a part-time worker who is not provided a medical plan. The public thinks that it is the employer who pays for employment benefits and taxes. Actually, all costs of employment (employment taxes, benefits, and cash salary) are paid out of the production of the employee, or the employee loses his job.
A full-time employee must be able to afford paying for his $12K-$20K benefit. Restated, he must be productive enough to pay for his ObamaCare insurance and have enough left over to provide him with a sufficient cash income. If his production is low, he can’t afford to work full-time, or equivalently, the employer cannot afford to offer him full-time work.
An employee might be able exist on part-time work (less than 30 hours/week). He may afford the $3,000 tax penalty, hidden from him, paid by his employer, and resulting in a lower cash salary. He will then pay for his his own insurance on the government website with possible subsidies.
If an employee was part-time and remains part-time, then he will see his salary fall by about $3,000 for the amount his employer must pay in health care tax penalties, and he will have to pay personal tax penalties if he can’t afford the cost of personal health insurance. He may find that he has more income by going on welfare, getting almost free insurance, and avoiding the personal health care tax penalty.
ObamaCare is pushing full-time workers to part-time, and part-time workers to welfare. This produces a large loss of cash income from fewer hours worked and the costs of health care plans and penalties.
One might think “Require companies to provide the same health benefits to everyone. Remove the separate treaatment of part-time work.” That separate treatment is the respect that ideology gives to reality. If all employees had to receive (buy) full health benefits from employers, then many more people would be fired. There isn’t enough production available for lower paid employees to purchase the health care that the government thinks is proper.
Just like the minimum wage, the wish is that all employees would be paid more according to government desires. But, many employees do not produce enough to do this. One cannot pass a law which ends poverty or even relative poverty. Most people would do much better without government meddling in employment and health insurance.