Business to government: You are the problem
You’ve no doubt hear people, probably free-market conservatives and libertarians, talk about getting government out of the way so that business can flourish. Here’s a graphical representation of what we mean:
Source: Harvard Business School
The scores were given based on surveys completed in October by almost 10,000 alumni of Harvard Business School. While HBS is not exactly renowned as a bastion of right-wingers, note that every single thing considered a weakness — anything in the two left-hand boxes — is solely or largely the purview of government. And every one of those factors is considered by these respondents to be getting worse, not better.
Note also that the factors on which the U.S. is least competitive are, in order (as described more fully on page 13 of the above-linked PDF):
1. Complexity of the national tax code
2. Effectiveness of the political system: ability of the government to pass effective laws
3. K-12 education system: universal access to high-quality education; curricula that prepare students for productive work
4. Macroeconomic policy: soundness of government budgetary, interest rate and monetary policies
5. Efficiency of legal framework: modest legal costs; swift adjudication
6. Regulation: Effective and predictable regulations without unnecessary burden on firms
This reads like the basis for the to-do list of every conservative I know: Simplify the tax code. Make government more effective by forcing it to do less. End the monopoly on education by entrenched bureaucratic interests. Balance the budget, in large part by reforming the entitlements that drive most of the spending growth, and restore sound money. Reform the tort system. Cut red tape and end the ceaseless “do something” mentality of government do-gooders.
And from the left? Raise taxes by targeting unfavored groups (i.e., making the tax code more complex). Grow government beyond what it reasonably can be expected to do well. “Fix” education not by changing the system but by pouring more money into it. Avoid substantive entitlement reform, increase spending faster than revenues, and keep monetary policy loose. Put the trial bar’s interests above those of job creators. Increase regulation always, at all costs.
Now, which vision do you think it more likely to convince business decision-makers that this country and its people are a good investment?
(H/t: James Pethokoukis)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
95 comments Add your comment
getalife
January 20th, 2012
12:50 pm
The people did not show up to engage in the class war.
They showed up to end the class war.
No more government for the 1 % only.
Enough of this corruption.
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
12:55 pm
And from the left? Raise taxes by targeting unfavored groups (i.e., making the tax code more complex). Grow government beyond what it reasonably can be expected to do well. “Fix” education not by changing the system but by pouring more money into it. Avoid substantive entitlement reform, increase spending faster than revenues, and keep monetary policy loose. Put the trial bar’s interests above those of job creators. Increase regulation always, at all costs.
Wow. This is an astounding characterization of the values and positions of the left. I can’t figure out if Kyle is a liar or if he’s just hopelessly confused.
(By the way, that list factors on which the U.S. is least competitive actually reads like the basis for the to-do list of every progressive I know.)
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
12:56 pm
I meant to say “astounding mischaracterization.”
Sarah Coulter
January 20th, 2012
12:58 pm
Let’s go through this checklist, shall we? M
ake government more effective by forcing it to do less: unless it means female reproduction and same-sex marriage. Government must be entrenched in people’s lives according to conservatives.
End the monopoly on education by entrenched bureaucratic interests. And give it to Kaplan, etc. companies that make the test, design the curriculum, and design the test prep. Teachers can become robots stifling creativity, reasoning, and critical thinking.
Balance the budget, in large part by reforming the entitlements that drive most of the spending growth: Does that include corporate welfare? Or farm subsidies?
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
12:59 pm
getalife
How much does Bookman pay you to live on the AJC blogs?
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
12:59 pm
Kyle, most on the left don’t understand basic economics.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
1:01 pm
Proof that Democrats hate freedom.
Reid postpones vote on anti-piracy bill
http://news.yahoo.com/reid-postpones-vote-anti-piracy-bill-144213479.html
scrappy
January 20th, 2012
1:02 pm
“based on surveys completed in October by almost 10,000 alumni of Harvard Business School”
A list based on surverys means a list based on opinion, not facts.
JF McNamara
January 20th, 2012
1:16 pm
If you took a survey of monkeys, I’ll bet it would say they all like bananas…
Sarah Coulter
January 20th, 2012
1:17 pm
You are not a true conservative, Somewhere Over There, or you wouldn’t want more government intrusion. 01/20/11 1:01 p.m. proves it.
From henceforth, you are part of the left.
ghp_fan
January 20th, 2012
1:24 pm
Isn’t it amazing how a bunch of elite intellectuals could come up with something like this?
Kyle Wingfield
January 20th, 2012
1:27 pm
ghp_fan: It would appear these elite intellectuals are not so enamored of the elite intellectuals running the government.
Kyle Wingfield
January 20th, 2012
1:28 pm
Maybe so, JF. But if I wanted something from the monkeys, I just might take their taste for bananas seriously.
Kyle Wingfield
January 20th, 2012
1:28 pm
scrappy: Who said otherwise?
Kyle Wingfield
January 20th, 2012
1:30 pm
Nope, Bart, you had it right the first time.
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
1:35 pm
I don’t follow Kyle. Is that to say that you’re lying or that you’re hopelessly confused?
ghp_fan
January 20th, 2012
1:38 pm
I agree with Bart. Everybody generally seems in agreement that those items in the list are problems that need remedying…. but there are differences of opinion regarding the strategies for remediation.
ghp_fan
January 20th, 2012
1:39 pm
Interestingly, no mention of health care being a problem? I guess Obamacare took that one off the list?
UGA 1999
January 20th, 2012
1:46 pm
Message from all businesses to the US govenment….GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
UGA 1999
January 20th, 2012
1:47 pm
Getalife….yep you are right the bottom feeders get absolutely nothing from the government.
I would recommend you look up the word “stealing” in the dictionary.
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
1:52 pm
If UGA actually attended the University of Georgia, then he would know that his education would have been subsidized by both Georgia taxpayers and, in part, federal taxpayers. But he didn’t and he doesn’t.
UGA 1999
January 20th, 2012
2:00 pm
Bart….You assume to much. Keep guessing.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:03 pm
“If you took a survey of monkeys”
Democrats?
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:04 pm
“You are not a true conservative, Somewhere Over There, or you wouldn’t want more government intrusion.”
You must be under some false impression that I care what you think, Sarah.
“From henceforth, you are part of the left.”
HAHAH!!!!! Sarah, you can kiss my butt.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:06 pm
“If UGA actually attended the University of Georgia, then he would know that his education would have been subsidized by both Georgia taxpayers ‘
If Bart had half a brain he’d know that there are actually parents who pay for their kids tuition. IF Bart had any sense at all he might know that some kids get scholarships.
Think before you post stupid comments, Bart.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:06 pm
” But he didn’t and he doesn’t.”
So Bart, a mindless blogger, knows who went to UGA and who did not?
get out much?
January 20th, 2012
2:07 pm
and small children want cake and cookies for dinner, without having to eat their vegetables. what else is new?
Ronnie Raygun
January 20th, 2012
2:09 pm
Funny how “government regulations” is the least detrimental to business according to the chart, even though cons try to claim it’s the most detrimental..
getalife
January 20th, 2012
2:19 pm
The gopee party deserve to lose.
And they will.
They mandate for you to pee in a cup and call that freedom.
Ronnie Raygun
January 20th, 2012
2:20 pm
Hey, I can play blame one side too…
1. Complexity of the national tax code – like all of the carve-out conservatives put in the tax code in exchange for bribes.
2. Effectiveness of the political system: ability of the government to pass effective laws – like the Teabags threatening not to pay on U.S. debts and causing America’s credit rating to be degraded.
3. K-12 education system: universal access to high-quality education; curricula that prepare students for productive work – like cons cutting funding for education and promoting for-profit schools that have the same outcomes.
4. Macroeconomic policy: soundness of government budgetary, interest rate and monetary policies – like maintaining low interest rates even in boom times (the 00s) and creating economic bubbles (see housing bubble)
5. Efficiency of legal framework: modest legal costs; swift adjudication – like having a conservative legal system where the party that can afford the best lawyers is most likely to win.
6. Regulation: Effective and predictable regulations without unnecessary burden on firms – like the con wet dream of repealing all regulations and having no accountability for Corporate boards and CEOs..
Linda
January 20th, 2012
2:21 pm
ghp@1:39, Read the report. Health care was indeed mentioned as being a problem.
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
2:23 pm
If Bart had half a brain he’d know that there are actually parents who pay for their kids tuition. IF Bart had any sense at all he might know that some kids get scholarships.
Parents, scholarship, or self-pay…it doesn’t matter. All public state universities are subsidized by state, and to a lesser extent, federal taxpayers . That’s why they charge out-of-state students, who aren’t eligible for state subsidies, a whole lot more.
It seems that I know more with my less than half a brain than Somewhere does when using the whole thing.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:28 pm
“Parents, scholarship, or self-pay…it doesn’t matter. ”
Ok, you’re not smart are you.
“It seems that I know more with my less than half a brain than Somewhere does when using the whole thing.”
You must be huge in fantasyland, Fart.
Somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
2:28 pm
“They mandate for you to pee in a cup and call that freedom.”
I knew getalife wasn’t smart but this just takes the cake.
ragnar danneskjold
January 20th, 2012
2:36 pm
The key is that the poll was of people who work in business, rather than those Harvardites who work for Leviathan. Any rational soul who works in the private sector knows the government has strangled the economy with regulations. “Government spending” has long been a synonym for waste. Only those who love Big Brother fail to see the obvious.
Aquagirl
January 20th, 2012
2:37 pm
Bart….You assume to much
And if UGA non-99 had actually attended a real school, they might have taught him the difference between “to” and “too.”
Or maybe he just partied and slept through classes, I have surely met some UGA grads who couldn’t tie their shoes without assistance. Some people have a remarkable ability to spend 16 years in school without the slightest bit of learning leaking into their brains.
Now Kyle’s free-form interpretation of this survey—that thar takes some book learnin’.
jconservative
January 20th, 2012
2:44 pm
“… increase spending faster than revenues…”
This is the base of the government problem. Starting with Reagan the federal government decided that it could cut government revenue, increase government spending, and end up with a larger government revenue and less government debt. 30 years and a $16 trillion national debt later way to many politicians still believe that plan will work.
The House (Republican) and Senate (Democratic) finished 2011 by increasing the national debt another trillion dollars. The Democratic president signed it into law. How did they do it? By decreasing government revenue and increasing government spending. Same ole same. So much for the Tea Party changing everything.
Now we will spend the election years of 2012 trying to destroy the opposing party and, as a result, the national debt will go up another $1 trillion.
Oh, and which party do we blame? See the chart:
Party in Power by Number of Years
………………..WH…..House……Senate
Republican…..20……..12…………16
Democratic….10………18…………14
Are there any apparent innocents? I see none.
Sarah Coulter
January 20th, 2012
2:51 pm
Somewhere over there, are you mad, little fella?
Ask for you not being a conservative, you are all for government starting another agency that investigates government privacy and intellectual property theft that will be rife with government inefficiency and waste.
Doesn’t sound like a true conservative to me.
Get rid of regulations. More fungicide in orange juice!
Bart Abel
January 20th, 2012
2:52 pm
jconservative,
I’d be interested to see that chart modified for trends that compare deficits when they were inherited with deficits over time. In other words, which presidents/parties took deficits they inherited and made them smaller and which took such deficits and made them bigger?
Linda
January 20th, 2012
3:01 pm
“The survey taps the perceptions & experiences of alumni of Harvard Business School’s MBA & longer executive education programs. These individuals comprise a diverse group of leaders & active participants in the front line of the global economy. They work in the full range of organizations…to global multinationals. These individuals decide whether to hire, where to locate businesses, what to export, when to outsource or offshore, how to cope with regulations, whether to innovate, & which markets to serve.”
These are some of the most brilliant minds in the global economy. They are the chief executives, presidents, chairpersons, founders & owners of US businesses.
As Kyle said, they are “not…a bastion of right-wingers…” Liberals bloggers will argue with anyone, even other liberals, even the most intelligent, educated & successful business men & women on the globe. Progressives are not interested in prosperity, only destruction.
ByteMe
January 20th, 2012
3:05 pm
I’d be interested to see that chart modified for trends that compare deficits when they were inherited with deficits over time.
I’ve seen attempts at this and it doesn’t work out well. The problem is that there are things inside of Congress’ control that the President agrees to — structural deficits for programs that aren’t being paid for (like making war) — and things outside anyone’s control, like recessions and their high unemployment costs + lower revenue.
For example, in about 10 years, whoever is President is going to have a very expensive Medicare bump as more people get past 65 and live even longer. Whose fault was it? Both parties for not dealing with it for the previous 10 years.
So it’s hard to pin blame on any one party unless someone wants to be partisan about it. Some politicians get it, many do not or don’t want to.
that's goofy
January 20th, 2012
3:11 pm
my 5 year old would be happier if I let him do what he wants too.
carlosgvv
January 20th, 2012
3:17 pm
This is nothing more than a smoke screen to fool the sheep into not realizing what Big Business really wants. They want an end to the following:
1. 8 hour work day
2. 5 day work week
3. overtime pay
4. sick pay
5. paid vacations
6. paid holidays
7. unions
8. child labor laws
They long for the laissez-faire days of the late 1800’s when predatory Big Business moguls ruled and raked in the riches at the expense of the American worker. Republican politicians are doing everything in their power to restore these glorious days to their corporate sponsors.
jconservative
January 20th, 2012
3:20 pm
Bart Abel-
” In other words, which presidents/parties took deficits they inherited and made them smaller and which took such deficits and made them bigger?”
The last 3 years of Clinton with a Republican congress reduced the deficit. Other than that, all other administrations and congresses have been the same, reduce revenue and increase spending and increase the national debt.
One can make the argument that the last two fiscal presidents were Bill Clinton and Herbert Hoover.
But I choose not to do so.
Kyle Wingfield
January 20th, 2012
3:22 pm
Yep, carlosgvv, slavery is juuuuuuuuuust around the corner.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
3:25 pm
The report is entitled “Prosperity at Risk: Findings of Harvard Business School’s Survey on US Competitiveness.”
How does fungicides in orange juice pertain to our prosperity or competitiveness?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 20th, 2012
3:26 pm
More government, crappier schools, more poverty, more illegitimacy, fewer real jobs…just as I’ve said here for years.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 20th, 2012
3:32 pm
Nice job the government did in preventing those peanut deaths.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
3:36 pm
carlosgvv@3:17, You actually have a point, but you are mixed up on the players. It’s the progressives who want to replace American law with the fundamentals of European-style socialism, which you have openly advocated. It means circumventing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights & the Declaration of Independence. The elite will rule their minions & everyone will live in a utopia. There will be equal outcomes, not equal opportunities, until the money runs out, exactly like what is happening today all over Europe.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 20th, 2012
3:38 pm
Guess who found and reported the fungicide in the orange juice? The government? No, the eeeeeevil corporation that imported it.
Libtard talking point go bye-bye.
carlosgvv
January 20th, 2012
3:40 pm
Linda
Your ignorance is showing. European-style socialism is nothing like predatory capitalism. You are a perfect example of the brainwashed, propaganda-fed person who believes everything her Republican politicians tell her.
carlosgvv
January 20th, 2012
3:42 pm
Kyle – if the best you can do is attempt to refute my post with middle-school sarcasm, it only adds weight to my comments.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 20th, 2012
3:44 pm
No, Carlos, you comment was dumb and deserved ridicule.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
3:53 pm
carlosgvv@3:40, See there! You said it again! You prefer European-style socialism to capitalism. Do you even know what is happening in Europe today? No one is feeding me propaganda. I have LIVED the free enterprise system for decades & happen to love our country.
Sarah Coulter
January 20th, 2012
3:57 pm
“below federal safety concerns and did not pose a health risk.” according to Pepisco
notice “federal safety concerns”. Without regulation, there would be no concerns.
Contard Lil’ Barry go bye-bye.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
4:01 pm
I don’t think carlos’ comment was as dumb as what the progressives are actually trying to do. The 1st convener & the 1st chairman of the congressional progressive caucus was Bernie Sanders, the self-admitted socialist. It is politically incorrect to say this & you never hear it from the media, even by Fox News, but it quite clear that the progressives’ intent is to destroy our economy. The only way to replace capitalism & our form of govt. is to destroy our economy.
MarkV
January 20th, 2012
4:02 pm
Kyle,
There are several points that you have conveniently avoided in your rendition of the report. One is that, as is explained, the survey gathers “not only opinions but also actual experience…” In other words, opinions play an important part, which points to the role of bias in the results.
The possible bias can be recognized in the information presented. One of the obstacles to competitiveness, as the Republican candidates do not fail to mention every time as the major issue, is indeed mentioned one of the “most commonly mentioned impediments for investing and creating jobs in the US”(Figure 13). There is no secret that businesses do not like regulations, period. Businessmen would always mention regulations as impediments, but they do not seem to consider them such an important reason in moving business abroad. Regulations represent only the third reason from the bottom of the 10 leading reasons for moving existing activities out of the US (Figure 12).
Finally, while you use this report you argue that businesses say to the government “You are the problem,” you have not felt important to mention one of the conclusions of the report: “But it would be wrong to place either the US competitiveness problem or its solution at the feet of the government. Business plays a role in creating even those problems that seem to stem from public policy.”
rightwing troll
January 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
“The only way to replace capitalism & our form of govt. is to destroy our economy.”
And W almost succeeded, thank god Obama came along and got things back on track.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
Oh “they” – the Marxist – know exactly what we mean by the “liberated market” of Capitalism, Kyle. They just hate it, that’s all.
Since Woodrow Wilson they’ve tried to bury Capitalism under fascist government controls in order to propagate their “Social Democracy”. Unarguably they’ve had a great deal of success, as not one thing can be cited in everyday life as we know it that is not touched in some way by a Federal regulation.
Mary Elizabeth
January 20th, 2012
4:05 pm
I would like to have a third choice, from the combinging of both the progressive and conservative vantage points, because I see elements within in both “boxes” that I would support, if they were combined.
Take education. I do not want a public education system that is not working for students or that is not responsive to the public’s interest, but, on the other hand, I do not want to dismantle the public education system for a private enterprise educational system whereby students could be used for profit by special interests, or whereby more class stratification would be created in society than with a public school system.
Or take the budget. I want to balance the budget but I do not want to change, fundamentally, the structure of government programs, i.e. entitlements, because I believe that they make the population more secure, while, also, making the nation as a whole more kind-in-spirit. Here’s why, shown in the words below that I posted on Jay Bookman’s blog, at 2:43 pm:
“There needs to be a spiritual transformation in Georgia (and in the nation) of the first order, but that change will not be found in Georgia’s institutions, including many of its churches.
It must come from a transformation in the human heart to caring about those who are without power and wealth, in a significant way. . .like, at least, trying to eradicate poverty, to improving public schools instead of trying to dismantle them, to allowing healthcare for all citizens, as in the President’s plan, to supporting Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid instead of trying to privatize these programs in order to fundamentally change their impact.
But, then, that emphasis would take a transformational change not only in the hearts of Georgia’s politicians, but also in the hearts of those who support these politicians. . .
In other words, I urged a (spiritual) refocus from “How can I keep the government from getting my money?” to “How can we uplift all of America’s citizens, especially the working poor, and especially those who wish, even, to rise to the level of the working poor?”
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
4:09 pm
There is no secret that businesses do not like regulations, period.
To the contrary, some businesses love regulations. Particularly the ones that kill competition. Fascist socialist government always love any regulation because it gives government more power & control.
carlosgvv
January 20th, 2012
4:10 pm
Linda, try to understand. It’s really not that hard. A Socialist party in our country would be uniquely American. Socialist politicians would be elected, same as Democrats and Republicans. We would still have a House, Senate, Supreme Court, President, Vice-President and the same Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our Constitution does not mandate Capitalism as it it practiced today. If you believe otherwise, you’re just showing how Corporate owned politicians have twisted facts to suit their Big Business sponsors.
carlosgvv
January 20th, 2012
4:11 pm
Barry – 3:44
You bring a whole new meaning to the phrase “give it all the attention it deserves”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 20th, 2012
4:15 pm
Well, thanks for the attention!
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
4:15 pm
Mary Elizabeth
January 20th, 2012
4:05 pm
You need to understand what is mean by terms progressive and conservative. What you are saying simply cannot work because the progressives act outside of the constitution whereas the conservatives work with in the bounds of the constitution. Progressives demand centralized powers Conservatives demand de-centralization of powers. And so on and so forth.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
4:17 pm
Be back later…
Hillbilly D
January 20th, 2012
4:26 pm
The Chamber of Commerce types in my county, are all for getting government out of the way, yet a large portion of their funding (the Chamber’s) comes from the local hotel/motel tax. Methinks it’s all about whose ox is getting gored.
MarkV
January 20th, 2012
4:29 pm
Mary Elizabeth @4:05 pm
Mary Elizabeth, you do not seem to belong on this blog (not that I would want you to leave). You make too much sense.
Mary Elizabeth
January 20th, 2012
4:29 pm
Michael H. Smith @ 4:15
“What you are saying simply cannot work because the progressives act outside of the constitution whereas the conservatives work with in the bounds of the constitution. Progressives demand centralized powers Conservatives demand de-centralization of powers.”
—————————————————————–
I disagree with your contention that “progressives act outside of the Constitution.” That point-of-view is only erroneous propaganda, which has been perpetuated by ideologues in recent years.
Remember, our founding fathers had first established the Articles of Confederation and that document did not work in uniting the states because it contained too little centralized power for the union, thus our founding fathers created the U. S. Constitution, which has more balance of power, from many vantage points.
Mary Elizabeth
January 20th, 2012
4:33 pm
Mark V @ 4:29 pm
Thank you. I like the ideas discussed on this blog, as well as the gracious manner of the host toward those of differing points-of-view. I’ll continue to “visit,” from time to time. Have a nice weekend.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
4:44 pm
Mary Elizabeth @ 4:29 pm
You may disagree with me all you want but history and the Constitution says you are wrong.
Article one Section eight list the powers Congress was given/grant by the Constitution to regulate the economy. That list is very short for a intentional reason, as the federal powers were meant to be limited and only very few. Citing Federalist papers #41 and #45.
Unless a law has constitutional bases found in that specific list called the enumerated powers Congress does not have the authority to pass a law or impose a regulation.
Only by the amendment process can Congress obtain from WE THE PEOPLE the more authority to legislate beyond the enumerated powers.
Now the Progressive did exactly the opposite of what I’ve just presented in many areas from Wilson to Obama. Housing is one that comes to mind and Obamacare is another.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 20th, 2012
5:03 pm
The biggest problem is that liberals enjoy being enslaved by their government. 600 bucks a month and they’re set. No thinking, no labor, no responsibility, just lay around and get wasted.
Well, I guess you could call whining all the time “hard work.”
Linda
January 20th, 2012
5:07 pm
carlosgvv@4:10, There’s been a socialist party & socialist politicians in America for decades. The progressives are trying to steer the country into European-style socialism at this very moment, but the polls show that the great majority of the American people think the US is headed into the wrong direction. The commerce clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8. clause 3), the contract clause (Art. 1, Sec. 10, clause 1), the takings clause (5th amendment) & the due process clause (14th amendment) make us a free people.
saywhat?
January 20th, 2012
5:16 pm
Well Kyle, according to your chart, the biggest problem they seem to have is with our political system. Did they mention what they want to change it to?
Dusty
January 20th, 2012
5:19 pm
Well, so much here to consider.
Seems the Harvard intellectuals came up with what most of us already knew. Some things are the fault of government and some are the fault of business. They closed with that judgment as MarkV noted.
Then Carlos wants us to be a communist country which he will call somethng else. No way!
Then Mary Elizabeth comes with the fine idea of a spiritual awakening. Always a good initiative for individuals. She wants to get rid of all the “unpleasantries” such as poverty, poor health, bad business and sorry education that plague the human element. Good idea except for one thing. The government would have to be in total charge of every facet of every citizen’s life. And that cuts out freedom. It is also financially impossible to do in a grand and comforting style. But we need our dreamers, impractical as some are.
So it goes. The practical and the impractical. It is so fine to live in America. We have the opportunity to ‘cuss & discuss in one big happy squabble. Aren’t we lucky???
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
5:32 pm
Oh they have been mentioning for some time now that they want to change it back by amendment process to a small government in size, with very limited powers that must function on the bases of a balanced budget consistent with a Representative Republic (which is not a Democracy) as mandated in the Constitution by Article four Section four.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Don't Tread
January 20th, 2012
5:37 pm
“Effective and predictable regulations without unnecessary burden on firms – like the con wet dream of repealing all regulations”
I was going to say that liberals equate “unnecessary burden” with “repealing all regulations”, but hey, we got it straight from the source.
Road Scholar
January 20th, 2012
5:41 pm
Wow! I never knew so many experts existed in the conservative world right here on this blog! And how many have shown the leadership to run for public office and lead this nation to the promised land? No, not the promised land alluded to by MLK Jr….But the promised land of facists and hypocrits. You rale about elitist judges and politicians when you don’t agree with their opinion, but embrace the alledge opinion of elitist who attended HBS.
You paint Progressives with a broad paint brush of derision and insults, but when your inconsistencies are pointed out, you lament that conservatives aren’t like that or that Progresives are in error.
Why don’t all parties work together to find the high ground instead of the sewer many continue to languish in?
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
5:44 pm
Ah c’mon Dusty, where’s your faith in the Marxist Utopia. Of course all these pipe-dreams will work. Old Karl had wealth and income redistribution all figured out just how it would work and make everyone pay their fair share to the welfare state:
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
Mary Elizabeth
January 20th, 2012
5:44 pm
Michael H. Smith @ 4:44 pm
“Only by the amendment process can Congress obtain from WE THE PEOPLE the more authority to legislate beyond the enumerated powers.”
————————————————————————
And, that is why we have a Supreme Court (whose members do not always agree), whose purpose is to intrepret the Constitution as to which legislative decisions are lawful. (See the link to my personal blog below, for an example of how the Courts were called upon to decide an economic/social crisis involving private choice vs. the “common good” – in the 1960s, in Georgia.)
I would, also, point out that your vantage point is from a very strict intrepretation of the Consitution, whereas the Constitution’s Preamble, which sets the overall intent of the Consittution, states that “the government is to “promote the general welfare” of the people in order to “form a more perfect union.”
——————————————————————
Preamble to the U. S. Constitution:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
From my personal blog, “Mary Elizabeth Sings,” I posted, on December 8, 2011, an entry entitled, “Egalitarianism and Capitalism” (See, especially, that paragraph which begins, “One example of how the free market failed to promote an egalitarian spirit among all people. . .”):
http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/egalitarianism-and-capitalism/
Linda
January 20th, 2012
5:45 pm
The majority of Americans are already spiritual & the 5th most generous people on the globe. Some of us give in small ways. Those 1%ers give in big ways, such as building entire structures at colleges, universities, hospitals, etc. We selfishly prefer to give to the needy INSTEAD of to the fed. govt. 70% of Americans trust nonprofits more than they trust the govt. We prefer volunteers to feed, cloth & shelter the needy rather than bureaucrats.
Obama’s 2012 budget will actually cut donations to charities by up to $5.6 BILLION! He wants to cut tax incentives for donations to the 1.5 million nonprofit organizations. He wants more people to depend more on the govt. than their fellowman. That’s about as low down as one can get.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700189124/Obama-Congress-consider-cutting-deductions-for-donations-to-charities-churches.html
That’s the way progressives think & it ain’t spiritual.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
5:59 pm
And, that is why we have a Supreme Court (whose members do not always agree), whose purpose is to intrepret the Constitution as to which legislative decisions are lawful. (See the link to my personal blog below, for an example of how the Courts were called upon to decide an economic/social crisis involving private choice vs. the “common good” – in the 1960s, in Georgia.)
I would, also, point out that your vantage point is from a very strict intrepretation of the Consitution, whereas the Constitution’s Preamble, which sets the overall intent of the Consittution, states that “the government is to “promote the general welfare” of the people in order to “form a more perfect union.”
——————————————————————
That is your interpretations or opinions which I’m really not all that interested in. However it is not for the court to rewrite the meaning of the Constitution by expanding the powers of the federal government that are not granted to it written in the Constitution. Those must come from we the people and not from the Supreme Court if there is to be a legitimate constitutional expansion of Federal powers.
If you want the federal government to have more powers than the Constitution granted it, then use the process put in place to do exactly that: Amend the document before passing laws that fall outside its bounds.
Note: Federal papers #41 and #45 made the founders meaning of the enumerated powers very clear as to need no interpretations from the court or anyone else.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
6:02 pm
Excuse the error “Federalist”
Don't Tread
January 20th, 2012
6:05 pm
Progressives can’t stand it when someone else controls how much of (their own) money is donated, and to whom. They want to be in control of the money and decide who is a “worthy” recipient (a small fee is skimmed off the top, of course).
Somehow it’s not surprising that Obama wants to cut tax incentives for donations.
Michael H. Smith
January 20th, 2012
6:12 pm
For-Profit College Regulations: Obama Administration Issues Rules
The Obama administration on Thursday issued a series of highly anticipated regulations aimed at cracking down on for-profit colleges and other career training programs that leave students saddled with unmanageable debts and contribute to an unequal share of federal student loan defaults
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/for-profit-college-regulations-obama-administration_n_870085.html
It’s kind of funny because this College profit regulation thing is happening to mostly the liberals but really it goes against capitalism. So even though it probably couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch greedy socialist professors IMHO there is a better way of controlling prices.
MarkV
January 20th, 2012
6:26 pm
Dusty @5:19 pm
Dusty,
I am sure Mary Elizabeth can and hopefully will speak for herself, but let me address one point of your post: “The government would have to be in total charge of every facet of every citizen’s life.” That was in response to what you imply she wrote. “She wants to get rid of all the “unpleasantries” such as poverty, poor health, bad business and sorry education that plague the human element.” I think that is a stretch to say the least. First of all, I doubt that you disagree with that goal. Therefore, it is certainly worth an effort to approach that goal. The question then is how, and with respect to the issues discussed here it is about the role of the government.
I doubt seriously that YOU would argue that the government has no role in that effort. So again, it becomes a question of how big a role. I think that nobody with a common sense wants the government “in total charge of every facet of every citizen’s life.” And in spite of many bold pronouncements, few people would really accept a very minimal role of the government.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
7:04 pm
Dusty@5:19, You are right. We’ve been trying to get rid of all these “unpleasantries” for decades. It was during Johnson in 1964 that the War on Poverty began. It was during Carter in 1979 that both the Dept. of Education & the Dept. of Health & Human Services began. It was during Obama that the Wars on Business, Capitalism & the Rich began (beginning with those making $200,000 per yr.).
Conservatives believe that Obama’s wars are without merit & that the fed. govt. has failed in its attempts to manage the other 3 (not to mention the Dept. of Energy also begun under Carter). Billions of dollars later & $15 T in debt, we still have progressives who have light bulbs in their heads, but not in their pantries.
Hillbilly D
January 20th, 2012
7:11 pm
Just a little historical note on the Federalist Papers. They were most probably written by 3 people, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Ther Federalist Papers were their opinon on the Constitution and were written to try to get votes for ratification. There were 55 members of the Constitutional Convention, only 39 of whom signed the document. Hamilton was the only signer from NY because the other NY delegates had walked out because they didn’t agree with his vision of things. It’s impossible to say what the Founding Fathers’ intent was because each of those people had their own opinions and views. They weren’t a homogenous group, all walking in lockstep.
somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
7:38 pm
“Somewhere over there, are you mad, little fella?
Ok name changer, you’re not fooling anyone. Several “posters” have used that line so I’m calling you out as a name changer.
“Ask for you not being a conservative, you are all for government starting another agency that investigates government privacy and intellectual property theft that will be rife with government inefficiency and waste.”
No, I’m actually for you kissing my hairy white butt.
somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
7:40 pm
“Contard Lil’ Barry go bye-bye.”
Sarah aka God hates trash aka Bytme, your schtick is up. You gave yourself away you little half-witted bed wetter.
somewhere over there
January 20th, 2012
7:40 pm
Mary Elizabeth
Don’t you have a church to burn down or a baby to kill?
Dusty
January 20th, 2012
9:17 pm
Well, Kyle has another subject going but I will add my rwo cents here.
Mark V,
Yes, I wish there were no poverty, homelessness, etc.etc. But even Jesus recognized the state of human affairs and said that the poor would be with us always. He then admonished his followers to do all they could even for those in prison. He said giving to others was the same as giving to him. OK!
Never once did he suggest giving all your money to Caesar (the government) to take care of others. It was an instruction on personal compassion and love for all people. That is the standard I try to reach. Trying is the best I can do. I am NOT trying to see how much I can get the government to do.
Yes, the government must have a hand in the welfare of its citizens.
If we are realistic we know that government cannot be the personal babysitter and private provider for every citizen. We have to set up “lines” for those in serious need that are within reach..
The present administration is erasing “lines”, increasing benefits, and showing little or no financial integrity. That is why I cannot support many of the present policies and desire new direction.
Linda
January 20th, 2012
9:34 pm
Most liberal blogs are nothing more than an exchange of ignorance.
When ignorant liberals condemn the most intelligent, most highest educated, equally liberal movers & shakers in the global economy, that’s what you call malfunction junction, the epitome of ignorance.
Mary Elizabeth
January 21st, 2012
9:59 am
MarKV @6:26 pm, 1/20/12
” I am sure Mary Elizabeth can and hopefully will speak for herself. . .”
“So again, it becomes a question of how big a role. I think that nobody with a common sense wants the government ‘in total charge of every facet of every citizen’s life.’
—————————————————————-
I agree with your comment, MarkV. I should, also, state that, if we have the national will, we can improve the lives of those less fortunately born than we, as most Americans chose to do during the 1960s and part of the 1970s. We, simply, should recognize that there can exist balance between private sector business interests and social interests, supported through our government.
Dr. Paul Krugman, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics, describes why we, as American citizens, should strive for more income equality in our nation.
“Last week Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, gave an important speech about income inequality, presenting a relationship he dubbed the ‘Great Gatsby Curve.’ Highly unequal countries, he showed, have low mobility: the more unequal a society is, the greater the extent to which an individual’s economic status is determined by his or her parents’ status. And as Mr. Krueger pointed out, this relationship suggests that America in the year 2035 will have even less mobility than it has now, that it will be a place in which the economic prospects of children largely reflect the class into which they were born. . .
For the fact is that rising inequality threatens to make America a different and worse place — and we need to reverse that trend to preserve both our values and our dreams.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/krugman-how-fares-the-dream.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Dumb and Dumber
January 23rd, 2012
7:41 am
Hey AJC, dump Kyle and hire jconservative as your conservative opinion writer. He writes better, his logic is clear and he’s not snarky, thin-skinned partisan. I may not agree with social conservatives, but jconservative is worth reading and listening too…..somehow I doubt that s/he is a actually a Republican though.