“Change To Win”: The New “WTF” Battlecry!

Wow! The left is on a rampage today regarding our economy. From the NYT we get this

This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality.

Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses

From the Daily Beast we get this

On economic policy, the Democratic Party is a party of the center, not the left. If it were a party of the left, labor unionists would have a larger voice in its economic policy than investment bankers, which has not been the case for decades now. When it comes to economics, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, is to the right of midcentury Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Walter Mondale, precisely because labor has lost influence and America’s campaign-finance system has pushed Democrats into Wall Street’s arms. Today’s Republicans, by contrast, are substantially to the right of Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes, but also repeatedly raised them. And were Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon alive today, their economic policies would get them instantly labeled RINOs, if not socialists.

But it is the Huffington Post that wins the day!!

As unemployment keeps rising and the economy faces a period of prolonged stagnation, political elites of both parties can only yammer about debts and deficits. But reducing the deficit before we get a recovery going will only worsen joblessness, cut back essential public services, and deny government the needed tools to produce an economic recovery.

What’s needed is a mass movement to shake the dominance of the austerity lobby. Here’s a start: the Change to Win labor federation has begun a 12-city organizing tour, working with the House Progressive Caucus, to throw a spotlight on continuing joblessness combined with the failure of government to clean up banking abuses.

While the US Chamber of Commerce prepares for another “Jobs Summit” this afternoon, featuring GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who heads President Obama’s competitiveness initiative, and emphasizing tax and budget cutting and more deregulation, Change to Win is partnering with the AFL-CIO, Demos, and the Economic Policy Institute on a pre-emptive Monday morning summit on the jobs crisis and the future of the middle class. This counter-event, moderated by former New York Timescolumnist Bob Herbert, will try to break through the austerity storyline.

“Change to Win”? Sounds a lot like “Hope and Change” and “Winning the Future”, doesn’t it?

So, let’s follow it all through a logical, rational line of thought, and consider exactly what kind of “Change to Win” they are talking about, shall we? We are currently facing a mild demand-side crisis, i.e. the amount of disposable income for consumers is limited which is driving down demand for products and services. So they propose to increase taxes for the purpose of generating jobs, seeing this as a way to stimulate demand for goods and services. But the increased taxes would take more money away from individual consumers, meaning that their disposable income decreases, moving this from a mild demand-side crisis to a moderate demand-side crisis, causing unemployment to increase rather than decrease.

If you were to ask folks on the left exactly what kinds of jobs they propose to generate with the revenues raised by this increase in taxes, they’ll probably doing a bit of hemming and hawing, trying to avoid the subject a bit, because what it comes down to is that they want to set up a modern-day Works Progress Administration (WPA), just like what existed in the “good old days” when socialistic policies were considered to be “new”, “fresh”, “creative” and “innovative”. We’d end up with yet another massive governmental bureaucracy to deal with, and it would definitely increase the rate of dependency on government across our society as a whole.

They would take the “demand” for services that are dictated by government and spread this out amongst more people. In other words, forget “shovel ready”. Forget “spoon ready”. We’re heading for tweezer-style jobs here! Chunk computers. Chunk technology. Let’s go back to pad and pen. And heaven help you if you actually use email as a means of communication when you could use a “government documentation transport service employee” (i.e. runner) to get the job done!!!

Would it even come close to accounting for the unemployment rate we already have plus the increase in unemployment we’d be likely to see if this moves from a mild demand-side crisis to a moderate demand-side crisis? No chance of that, because the definition of “fair wage” in eyes of the government and of members of the left usually means a pay scale at least 150% higher than what would be determined by free-market wage drivers!  In other words, they would hire a lower number people at what they consider a “fair wage”.

Summing it all up…taxes would increase, disposable incomes across the scope of consumers would decrease, demand for products would still be low, unemployment would be higher than what it is now, and productivity and efficiency in government would drop to even lower standards than we already have (if that is possible).

“Change to Win”, huh? That’s a change we can do without!!!

Get Alerts