THE NEW AND IMPROVED "MODERN PROGRESSIVES"

This Op Ed piece from the New York Times last November, Right vs. Left in the Midwest,  "contrasts" Conservatism and Progressivism by showing the successes of (my native) Minnesota's current "Modern Progressive" governor and Democratic Legislature against the "failures" Wisconsin's more conservative Republican governor and legislators.

NYT, I'd say, is already an overtly liberal, left - leaning publication, so, of course, this particular writer favors the Liberal side of things freely gets a predominate spot.  (Lawrence R. Jacobs is a professor of political science at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and the author, with Theda Skocpol, of “Health Care Reform and American Politics.”).

Professor Jacobs poses the question, "Which side of the experiment — the new right or modern progressivism — has been most effective in increasing jobs and improving business opportunities, not to mention living conditions?"

Professor Jacobs, in this Op Ed,  essentially paints a picture of Utopian paradise unfolding in Minnesota under a Modern Progressivism while the neighboring Wisconsin withers under the New Conservatism.

He does point out a couple of things that I think are key to, maybe, a more accurate analysis:

"... Wisconsin ranks 34th for job growth. Mr. Walker’s defenders blame the higher spending and taxes of his Democratic predecessor... "

"The lion’s share of Minnesota’s new tax revenue was sunk into human capital... "

" Minnesota raised taxes by $2.1 billion, the largest increase in recent state history... "

" Higher taxes and economic growth in Minnesota have attracted a surprisingly broad coalition. Businesses complain about taxes, but many cheered Mr. Dayton’s investments in the Mayo Clinic, the new Vikings stadium, the Mall of America and 3M headquarters."

These simply say to me:  Yes, it's natural for the current political apparatus to blame it's predecessor  for its current problems, but I suspect there is some truth in Wisconsin's present case (coupled, of course, with the bad economy).

I also suspect that Minnesota's economic growth is probably the fruit of former fiscally conservative policies. 

And while the good professor seems to point to these things as proof of how the New Progressivism and taxing the rich works, I think it's actually an illusion (and I believe history bears this out) and it will ultimately fail.

While raising taxes on whatever is currently prospering  almost always initially will produce a high revenue it puts a drag on whatever (whoever) is producing the wealth and begins to choke it out.

However good-hearted the programs that are funded by these new government gains, these are more like appeasement to sooth and pacify us and we, who are too busy struggling to survive and /or too caught up in our recreation and hedonism, can say,  "ooh,  my Governor (or whichever leader) IS good,  he gave me a new stadium and fixed the Mall of America and gave me stuff. "

[Remember when all of us poor citizens got a couple hundred bucks under George W's administration to simulate our economy?  Well, that sure came in handy, but I remained unemployed for a long time after the jobs disappeared forever -  I would have preferred that my job opportunities still existed and that the government would have just butted out long ago and let us prosper and pull each other up rather than "helping" us by providing the so-called "safety net" that we've been taxed to death to have (and the NON-PRODUCERS have always had as incentive to remain non-producers as many seem to have come to the understanding that they are entitled to it).!]

Then later, I guess, when things fall apart, we'll have already forgotten - more likely, never paid much attention to in the first place - what really happened and we can blame the other guy and look to our government to bail us out again.

Meanwhile the government continues its unprecedented immense expansion with out of control spending and deficits as it bails out the banking institutions that failed us (and they failed to regulate) so that they can keep on helping us.

And "everything will be okay" as long as we "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" while our big friendly government tells us that "we have nothing to fear as long as we're doing nothing wrong! "

- yeesh!

 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html?pagewanted=all  

~Magnus ~ Posted via Blogaway

Anarchy - Not A Cuss Word

Anarchy in the USA!

(my comment from this discussion:  Libertarians on Google+  )

I used to be completely opposed to anarchy, knowing that we humans need some sort of rules to live by and something in place to protect and enforce it.

Now I understand that our (U.S.) government was originally established to do just the minimum to try to protect individual freedoms and provide for the common defense - leaning as close to anarchy as possible and as far away from tyranny as possible.

From what I'm observing, government (throughout history) always gravitates toward tyranny.

Whether by accident, design or some combination.... The US government has grown out of its britches and seems to be rampaging like an unsupervised teenager that continues to get more out of control because the parents are absent, indifferent, and too busy to be bothered with disciplining their child.

We, the people, are the "parents" to this big spoiled child that we never say no to.

The government is our servant, not the other way around.

I now understand anarchy to be an ideal that we should strive for. Anarchy would be perfect if we individuals could be perfectly responsible for ourselves; perfectly resolve every dispute; and perfectly hold each other accountable.

Knowing absolute perfection is not achievable, I believe our form of government is the most ingenious one conceived so far in human history.

We the people (the parents) need to get our spoiled child (the government) back in line before it's too big and simply doesn't have to listen to us at all any more.

I highly and definitely recommend writing to your representatives, get involved with your local government, join an organization or two that works toward this end - just start doing something, no matter how small!

I know we're all busy surviving, etc, but just start with something small. The Internet is a great way - this discussion is a fine example.

For example: I pick one issue and I email, fax, call and let my representatives know my stance and (usually) my disagreement. I continue to stick to it even though all I seem to get is the generic (and nauseating) response form-letter stating how so-and-so representative is "working hard" for "all" their constituents. (when they seem to vote in a way that is contrary to what's good for their constituents (let alone, the USA.!) - I wonder who they're actually representing or if they've just completely lost their mind!).

So, in this light I say: Yes, the government has to raise revenue and, yes, the government that prints a currency owns that currency...

However, taxation without representation IS theft. And, at least under the US government, it's We the People that GOVERNMENT is suppose to act for and, in turn, "We the People" that own what the government owns (so that money is ultimately ours).

The whole "loan" thing is a product of the Federal Reserve that is at the same time a fine indicator of the unconstitutionality of it!

....

Thank God for the First Amendment and debate.

On a side note, it's interesting to me that our (US) Government is based on the same one from which we "threw the yoke off!" (Of course, minus the hereditary entitlements and with emphasis on individual sovereignty and all that). 
  

~Magnus ~ Posted via Blogaway