Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Once More for Clarity

US Senator and presidential wanna-be Hillary Clinton has proposed some very broad and sweeping economics ideas in her vision of allowing the government to “once again work for all Americans”. One problem with her proposals is that this vision of “once again” is nothing short of socialism and is not a “return” to anything this government has done before. The other problem is that the proposals only seem to apply to those in the private sector who have enjoyed success at great risk and those who may have risked nothing and are currently enjoying nothing except maybe financial and economic mediocrity. Those in the middle keep getting honorable mention, but I fail to see the applicability.

Economic incentive is one thing; redistribution of earned rewards is another. The government can do much to encourage US investment in its own work force and offer programs to help finance worker training and education – such programs and government incentives already exist - but this is not the direction in which Sen. Clinton’s proposals seem to be headed. Reading the broad and rather vague statements made, they come across as nothing more than a massive welfare program that promises something for virtually nothing to those who may be contributing almost as much as “nothing”, but the welfare will be financed not from government funds but from the pockets of private enterprise. Her campaign is beginning to sound a lot like Al Gore’s 2000 campaign in which he promised something for virtually everyone, effectively attempting to buy votes at government expense.

Have we really become so lazy and complacent in our personal ambitions that such rhetoric from a political campaign can actually have traction? The fact is that we are NOT “in it together” because there will always be those who are willing to risk more than others. Senator Clinton suggests this country looks down on those who do not have a college degree, but this preparation is part of the total risk package. One is not guaranteed financial success by virtue of a college degree, but it is a very expensive – and calculated – risk that many are willing to take in an effort to pursue their own goals. Many others are not willing to go this route.

I will agree that not everyone is cut out for college, but student grants and loans are also available for those who have a desire to attend a trade school or junior college. There are also incredible opportunities in the US military for those who are willing to work hard and take sometimes extreme risks, all for a noble purpose and with great expectations that the rewards will at least equal the effort put forth to make the most of it just as with school or any other endeavor. It must be remembered, though, that when students pursue their own goals and work hard to achieve their own personal ambitions, they are necessarily focused on their own expectations with scant attention paid to social obligations. I dare say that even the noble Ms. Clinton was mindful of, and focused on, her own personal and professional ambitions while in school in pursuit of her own dreams and goals and perhaps still is.

This is not to find fault with Senator Clinton’s own ambitions and subsequent accomplishments as well as whatever the future may hold for her. The fact that she is as successful as she has become speaks volumes about what is so great about the free market system as it is, the same system she believes now needs a little government tweak. Nothing can be deemed perfect, of course, but she was in law school when a woman in advanced studies was not the norm. She made her own opportunities through her own determination and hard work, and she is now reaping the rewards that can come from such efforts. Why would she suggest that the system as it is, is not sufficient? Simple: she’s running for public office.

Beyond everything else, however, is the question that is uppermost in my mind: if these proposals are so important and are such good ideas, why would she choose to wait until after she is elected to the office she currently seeks rather than offer them now from the office she currently holds? Have none of these proposals been offered by her in the US Senate so far? Is this not presumably the reason voters of New York allowed her to serve them again? Surely she cannot believe that these ideas would only be good for the US if she were to be successful in her quest for the White House especially when she insists that the gap between rich and poor is so great now. Apparently the poor and disenfranchised will have to wait at least another couple of years.

If the good senator is serious about all this and that there truly will be “special privileges for none”, I would respectfully submit that she start with her own millions and her own salary which is well above that of the average American household. When the members of the Congress are willing to take pay cuts instead of allowing that despicable practice by which they are granted an automatic annual pay increase - without a for-the-record vote (read “special privilege”) - that the “average” American worker does not have and cannot count on, we can then take seriously such ridiculous proposals as these. When we can hear such rhetoric independent of a political campaign, we can begin to believe that politicians – especially this one – truly have the best interests of the population at heart and are absent an ulterior political motive.

No comments: