Home > Perspective
In the Huffington Post, Robert Creamer wrote an op-ed. After reading it, I am wondering if Mr. Creamer is attempting to re-enact Doc Ellisí June 12, 1970 feat of pitching a no-hitter while on LSD. Why would I say that? Well, frankly, Mr. Creamer appears to be delusional. Donít believe me, read the post here. The premise(s) of Mr. Creamerís article are: (i) The media are pressuring Democrats to go "moderate" with their plans; (ii) The people are clamoring for the agenda of the Left; and (iii) Because of this, the Democrats should push a "populist" agenda. Creamer further argues that the Democrats "need to forcefully rein in the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks -- we need to frame the political dialogue in decidedly populist terms," among other things.
I could write 20,000 words to dissect the baloney in this ridiculous post. For example:
"Moderating" our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then -- and still know now -- the kind of change they wanted. They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness -- or one layoff -- away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future -- and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall -- and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.
Huh? This statement flies into the face of every single honest public opinion poll taken in the last year. Lenin said that "A lie told often enough becomes truth." Well, letís slap down the lies in here. The people are terrified of the spectre of government-run health care, where people will be denied not merely coverage, but care itself, on the grounds of excessive expense to maintain quality of life. The compromise health care destruction -- oops, reform -- bill in Congress enjoys 50% opposition, with four-fifths of that opposition labeled as "strong." Is this a poll of Senate Republicans? No; it is a leftist-leaning poll by ABC and the Washington Post from December 15, 2009. In the same poll, the people realize that Medicare will be weakened, costs will rise and the quality of health care will be better if nothing is done to the present system.
As for the insurance companies putting Americans "a single illness -- or one layoff -- away from financial catastrophe," how is that the doing of the insurers? The present COBRA laws permit a laid-off or fired person to continue his or her insurance coverage, and if they get a job within 90 days, the new employerís group plan must not exclude pre-existing conditions. When my x-wifeís mother died of cancer, she was covered fully even after she could no longer work, without COBRA payments, because of the employerís disability plan.
Is the insurance industry engaged in rapine of the public? Their 6%-or-lower profit margins testify that such is untrue.
About leaving a "healthy thriving planet to our children," I assume, since Mr. Creamer is ambiguous, that he is referring to the aggressive cap/trade/tax legislation to combat the myth of man-made global warming. Interestingly, even the leftists are rebelling against anthropogenic global warming. Alexander Cockburn wrote an interesting article for The Nation
-- definitely not any publication that the Left would say is a mouthpiece for the right -- in which he viciously derided Climategate and its "statistical chicanery," and the "farce" of man being able to change this planetís climate. Unlike some full-on laissez-faire types, I do support sound environmental laws as part of governmentís highly-limited role to protect the people from being harmed by others. However I draw the line far, far away from such nonsense as declaring carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant!
As for the war, the Americans polled in the ABC/Post poll mentioned earlier declared Afghanistan a "must win" war by a solid majority, and supported the troop surge that every leftist hates. One does not gain respect in a world of thugs (see Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela) by being effete. You do so by inspiring the fear and respect of those thugs. September 11, 2001 was a test of George Bushís mettle. Was he a wimp like Clinton, or was he a lover of America. Mr. Bush proved his mettle. Did the war take too long? Yes, because Mr. Bush listened too closely to the screams of protest from the "ashamed of America" crowd and did not go into both Iraq and Afghanistan full-bore, with his commanders given free reign. Had that occurred, the war might have been years shorter.
As for the assertion that "huge Wall Street banks" pushed the economy into free-fall, that is nonsensical. Government policies did that. People who should not have been considered for mortgage loans were given them because of Democrat policies that allowed people to lie about their incomes and hide their inadequacy to pay mortgage loans. People with bad credit were extended loans at higher interest because Congress leaned on the banks to do so. How sensible is it to take a person who cannot pay a loan and make that person pay more for that loan?
Regulation is to be used to prevent swindles, not profits. Should we regulate whether financially unstable instruments could be sold, or should we regulate the salaries of executives. The former protects the people; the later is designed to incite and then sate covetous class envy. Further, if we remove the incentive to excel, we end up with the Soviet Unionís managed economy. I refer people to 1991 for the result of such things.
Mr Creamer is delusional.