Robert Reich on the benefits of Progressivism

In his most recent screed, Robert Reich tries to make the argument that Democrats are "progressives" who "push us forward," while Republicans are "regressives" who "pull us back."

The problem with this argument is that it does not comport with reality. Only a brazenly shameless Democrat would maintain that the nation has been moved "forward" over the last three years. As even Mr. Obama himself has admitted, if voters were asked the famous question Ronald Reagan put to them in 1980: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" the answer would be a resounding "No!" Yet, according to Mr Reich, Democrats are somehow supposed to have moved us forward over this period of time. Forward into higher unemployment? Forward into greater national debt? Forward into a lower standard of living? This is progress?

Mr Reich opines:

Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity and tolerance.

Openness? President Obama promised several times that the deliberations over health care legislation would be conducted on C-SPAN. Instead, these deliberations were held behind closed doors with Republicans excluded. It seemed at times that the only parties given a place at the table were Mr. Obama's union cronies.

Equal opportunity? Democrats believe in equality of results, not equality of opportunity. That is why Democrats continue to support affirmative action. Ask Frank Ricci whether Progressivism fosters equality of opportunity. Mr Ricci, a white, dyslexic fireman from New Haven Connecticut, studied hard and took a test required for promotion to lieutenant. There was no question that the test, which incorporated both written and oral components, had been administered fairly. In the competition for eight positions, the top 10 exam scorers, including Mr Ricci, were all white. The top African-American candidate scored 14th, and the top Hispanic candidate scored 27th. The city decided not to promote anyone because they feared a discrimination lawsuit if they only promoted white firefighters. Is this the kind of equality of opportunity that Progressivism promotes?

Tolerance? Progressives believe in tolerance except when it comes to tolerating those with opposing opinions.

Mr Reich continues:

Progressives assume we're all in it together: ... [W]e all do better with ... a truly progressive tax system.

Yes, this is the heart of Progressivism: We are all in it together, just so long as our togetherness is funded by someone else's money. It always amazes me how willing Progressives are to spend other people's money, how confident they are that they know better how to spend it, and how truly awful the results of their spending often are. Mr. Obama continues to make the argument that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share" in spite of the fact that the tax burden of the top 1% is greater than the tax burden of the bottom 95%. Apparently, this tax system is not progressive enough for Messrs Reich and Obama and they would like to seize even more money from top income earners to spend on such green boondoggles as Solyndra.

Mr Reich rises to his crescendo:

[Regressives would] like to return to the 1920s - before Social Security ... In truth, if they had their way, we'd be back in the late 19th century - before the federal income tax ... and the Federal Reserve.

Well, yes. And I have no apologies for wishing it so. Let's consider Social Security for a moment. Social Security is sold to us as a "social insurance" program. Under an insurance program, what we get back out is supposed to be a function of what we put in. But, in the future it is quite likely that any Social Security payments to me will also be "means-tested," so that, if my income is above a certain level, the government will not pay me. I have been paying into Social Security all my working life. And now the government will tell me that they will renege on their payments because, in the government's opinion, I don't need it. Imagine if I were treated by a regular insurance company in a similar manner. Progressives would be passing 1000 page long bills to prevent such malfeasance. But, if the government does it, somehow it is ok. Why would I not want to go back to a time before Social Security when I alone was responsible for saving for my own retirement and would reap the benefits (or losses) of my investment?

As for Mr Reich's implication that a life with the federal income tax is better, well, maybe then we should impose the wonderful benefits of paying this tax on the 50 percent of Americans who currently do not pay any federal income tax whatsoever.

As for the wonderful benefits of the Federal Reserve, on the contrary, its loose monetary policy has not only been undermining the value of the dollar for decades now, but it was also a major contributing factor to the recent financial crisis.

I note that not even Mr Reich is foolish enough to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his litany of the many wonderful governmental agencies that have rained the benefits of Progressivism on us over the last 100 years.

In reality, the history of Progressivism has been that of a nation stumbling from one disaster to the next, all caused by the well-intentioned, but ill-informed central planning of the federal government and its distortion of market forces in the private sector. Hopefully, the disaster that has been the Obama presidency will result in the permanent discrediting of the Progressive/Keynesian program and America will return to the Classical Liberalism of the late 19th century that made America so great and that Mr Reich seems so utterly to abhor, wishing upon us instead the grey, dismal, dreary world that Progressivism has led us "forward" into.