http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/obamas-favorite-union-goes-full-communist/
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Liberal Perspective: Capitalism is inherently flawed because the workers, the true creators of wealth, are not being appropriately compensated.  Big business (the Financial and Corporate sectors) keep the workers’ wages low while the corporations amass huge profits.  The multimillion dollar salaries, stock options, and retirement packages given to corporate CEOs is an obvious testimony to the corporate theft of wealth from the workers.  

In our current struggle toward recovery, the workers’ wages are inadequate.  Returning wealth to the worker is important to recovery from the 2008 crash.  Prosperity will only return when wages return.  Labor and government must unite to resist the influence of Big Business to overcome their unfair retention of profits.  They need to spread the wealth around.  The Corporations and Big Money (the so-called FIRE industries – comprised of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) have manipulated the system to keep wages artificially low.  This alliance of capitalists spends billions of dollars each year lobbying legislators to give them unfair tax and regulatory advantage.  

The crash of 2008 was due to greedy and corrupt Wall Street brokers who knew they were selling bad paper.  Government regulation was necessary to stop this unbridled avarice.  The recovery required spending billions of dollars to repair the damage left by the previous administration.  The cost of recovery is high, and the deficit is rising because the corporations are not paying their fair share.

Thomas: The crash of 2008 was caused by government regulations requiring banks to loan money to persons only marginally qualified, and with little or no down payment.  The Community Redevelopment Act (CRA) signed into law by Jimmy Carter was eventually enforced by the Clinton Administration, wasn’t reversed by George W. Bush, and resulted in Trillions of dollars of “bad paper”.  This contagion was spread throughout the world by the Wall Street brokers who bundled good and bad paper together, and passed it off as AAA, as rated by Moody’s.  

The CRA was a misguided attempt by liberal government ideology at social engineering, believing that poor neighborhoods could effect their own urban renewal if the residents were given the pride of ownership.  When oil prices spiked, and the Fed raised interest rates, and the economy slowed, those on the margins of the economy were unable to maintain their contracts, and the CDO’s, MBS’s bought by countries throughout the world defaulted.  Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, and others were caught in this maelstrom of collapse in trust, and the government came in to keep the large banking entities afloat.  The world economy slowed as banks refused to loan money even to committed and qualified borrowers because of requirements to hold cash to meet margin regulations.  

The recovery has been delayed by government imposing a regulatory burden on the business.  The new rules (loans to banks but restrictions on lending, prevention of drilling, financial reform, and health care reform) have crippled business.  

The genesis and sequella of the crash is a classic illustration of the disastrous effect of government intervening in the marketplace.  Embracing government regulation is seductive because government promises a “desirable” social outcome by simply legislating societal-economic change.  But, the Constitutional role of Federal government was not intended to be an agent of social and economic regulation.  In fact, the 9th, 10th, and 11th Amendments prohibit such intervention.

The Unions are not the saviors of the workers, in fact, the unions are plausibly the cause of de-industrializing America, and causing the downward slide of America’s wealth, power, prestige, and standard of living.  The inordinate and economically unjustified rise in wages and benefits have made America an unprofitable place to engage in manufacturing for some corporations.  Jobs and corporations have relocated to Economic Environments more amenable to profitable production.

The Federal Government is not evil.  It plays an important role at the highest level of organizing the nation in terms of defense, money, and relationships with other nations.  The Constitutionally authorized powers of the Federal government are entirely appropriate, but beyond the few powers given by the Founders, the Federal government is limited in its scope of social-economic action.

Government by its very nature is capable of modifying social and economic behaviors by legislation and enforcing compliance by taxes, fines, and imprisonment.  Certainly, government could mandate wages, and that would certainly solve the surface problem of wage inequity.  But, the Federal government is not the proper agent to engineer the ideal society.  In the Founders’ day, the County government was the focus of power, with the State and Federal governments being given secondary powers.  Switzerland adopted this same Constitutional hierarchy, and to this day retains the County government as the point of governmental responsibility.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2011/05/13/silver-and-gold-have-we-none-transcribed/

Regarding the issue of Unions and adequate compensation, I submit that the problem with the inequality of pay is not power and greed, but a complex of societal structures that include: transparency, mobility, productivity, and morality.  The problem of wage inequity cannot be solved by mandate without creating unintended consequences such as: the reduction in entry level opportunity, innovation, motivation, and full employment.  As long as there is variety in geography, people, resources, climate, and culture, there will be inequality in the local milieu of business, prices, competition, and compensation.

With the availability of independent economic environments, the business entity may move to another location to maximize profit.  The movement to the point of lowest cost to maximize profit motivates the Business Entity’s move.  Thus, if profit can be increased by moving to a different Economic Environment where the Economic Variables allow for realizing a sufficiently greater profit, the Business Entity may relocate.  If there is little resistance to trade provided by transportation or communication, then business can take advantage of the cost differential.  All this to say, business and jobs are motivated to relocate away from the USA if the government and culture creates an unfavorable economic environment.  And, in short, the Unions have raised the cost of labor artificially, demanding more than the world market would support.  This in combination with the Economic Environment created by a government which has taken on the role of insuring disease care, unemployment benefits and pensions for the entire nation, the resultant tax burden has become so great that Business Entities may find it more profitable to operate off shore.

Besides the obvious negative consequences of government mandating pay and working conditions, the underlying question is, “Does our Federal government have the Constitutional authority to engage in the social mandates it currently exercises?

We all want a good life, with safe and comfortable working conditions, pleasant homes, congenial families, good roads, honest government, and prosperous business.  But, the Federal government is not the proper agent to confront and mandate this idealized level of equality and happiness.  Government’s job is to provide the framework for men to create a fulfilled life within the space of its protection.

The good life is best implemented through creating an Economic Environment favorable to productivity and profit.  In the balance of Economic Variables, there is a place for a voice for all the major players: Organized Labor, Government, Corporations, and the Investing Class.  But, the problem with inequity in pay will not be solved by Labor demanding a non-negotiable wage or government mandating behavior

Each of the major forces must contribute an appropriate voice.  But, the bottom line is that each man should be free to make a contract, obligating himself to provide service and receive compensation that he is willing to receive in return.

There is no final authority, no ultimate standard of fairness to which we may appeal.  The same men populate the halls and seats of government, Wall Street, and Main Street.  Thus, there is no class of people (government, labor, finance, industry, small business, professionals, military...) who can stand in right judgment over all others.  Every segment of society seeks to maximize its own benefit, which is why we are best governed as a nation “of the people”.  But, self-government, allowing for choice of contract and object of pursuit, is best.  And this favorable social/business climate is best established in a culture of moral, wise, and industrious people.

Government cannot effectively mandate equality of wealth, power, and happiness, since its tools of legislation, judgement, and enforcement are incapable of regulating the innumerable variables that must come to balance to produce a society which must optimize on many variables.  Individual contract is the foundational transaction of economy and relationship, and the contract must be moral, wise, and profitable.  A people unschooled in the fundamental principles of equality and moral tone will be pulled by the base hungers and drives of the soul, and seek excessive benefits from others.

Every segment of society seeks to enroll the arm of government to enforce its particular agenda.  The Left has railed against the influence of corporate and moneyed interests, and it has embraced unions, which is an entity no more righteous nor objective than the social/economic forces they oppose.  

The alliance of Unions and Government is pernicious because the demands of unions prevent the basic principles of capitalism (free market) from operating.

As a result of demanding pay far in excess of that which could be competitively provided in the economic environment, the unions have been one of the principle agents of destruction of the profitability of American industry.  When Unions enforce their demands via the power of government, the national competitiveness is diminished in favor of foreign environments that allow increased profitability.  

The principle being violated here is “idolatry”.  When a single principle, such as improving “wages or working conditions” is elevated above all others (such as: employment, profitability, etc...) the system can become imbalanced.  Adding the force of government to single issues can push a single economic variable far out of appropriate valuation, and in turn distort the entire economic system.  Emphasizing only one factor out of the full spectrum of social-economic needs, results in a solution poorly optimized to meet the requirements of the economic and social variables.

Consider the issue of unions and their alliance with and influence on government.  Government is the agent which makes it possible for the Unions to enforce their solution upon all aspects of society, and thus change the entire national tone.  Government has morphed from the Founders’ image of a limited government to a regulatory leviathan that has inserted itself into every aspect of our lives.  Such spread of influence was to the largest part forbidden by the Constitution.  Without question, the Founders would have rejected the current implementation of government as the agent of judgment and force in all areas of  and society.

The States were given the charter and authority to legislate morality, (which includes legislating all aspects of economy and personal behavior).  The Federal government was prohibited from entering into that arena of social-economic regulation.  But, through the wormhole of the Commerce Clause, the statists have clothed themselves with the color of Constitutional authority to regulate all aspects of life (environment, transportation, waterways, abortion, education...).

Reading the debates of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it is implausible to imagine that the Constitutional language embraced by the Founders intended a provision that would allow the Federal Government to expand to regulate all aspects of life.  Such expansion of Federal power, to encroach upon and regulate all State commerce, was the greatest issue and concern of the Antifederalists.    

But, the current breed of men argue for a living Constitution – one that adapts to changing circumstances, and thus justifies any mapping of the old words onto current desires.  Such men give any desired Federal action the color of Constitutional fidelity and justify this perversion in the name of necessity, safety, justice, expediency, modern times, unforeseen circumstances, and outdated notions.

Equal pay for equal work is a notion of fairness that makes sense, and on its surface government enforcement of fairness seems justified.  But, legislated and enforced equality will probably lead to imbalances in satisfaction by one or more of the parties involved in the economic transaction.  There is a dynamic tension between the needs of the owner-employer, employees, and the consuming public.  The balance of the forces between these parties creates a compromise point of agreement for price, wages, and profits.  The equation that governs fairness is far too complex for government to determine and dictate, and the resultant imposed solution will probably produce problems more serious than the ones that were solved.

The socialist/communist, authoritarian, “omniscient and all-wise” observer enters the scene and declares that wages are unfair, and/or the investor, banker, owner class are excessively compensated, and/or are not paying their fair share to support the unemployed, infirm, or elderly.  Thus, the welfare state and culture of equality are instituted by the force of government.  The socialist/communist feels justified in such demands because they are “right” and “fair”.   Under the guise of good intentions, the Federal Government has acquired the duty of enforcer of equality.  The role of government as benign and beneficent protector gradually morphs into the de facto role of authoritarian ruler.

And while it is good for the elderly, sick, and unemployed to maintain life and limb, there is a cost to this forced charity.  Government has inadvertently (or purposefully – depending upon how cynical or conspiratorial we wish to be) been the agent of nurturing a culture of dependency and victimization.  

Certainly those who are rescued from hunger, homelessness, and disease are supporters of the forced charity of the transfer payments they receive.  But, depersonalization of relationship is the collateral damage.  The recipients of government charity bond to the impersonal breast of agencies, and cast their loyalty and affection to them.  A vast army of dependents vote, campaign, and demonstrate for the maintenance of the agency, politician, and system that sustains their life.   But, family, neighbors, friends, and community should be the source of the succor the dependent class should call upon for help.  But, having given all to the government in taxes, few have resources left for substantial charity.  The dependent class develops an identity, lifestyle, and a sense of entitlement.  When dependents realize their lifestyle is second class, the recipients of this forced charity become contemptuous of the “selfish” corporations and “rich” people who are not giving their “fair share”.

The government has thus been elevated to the level of savior, defender, and provider.  We have given it our trust to protect us from the evils of the greed and power that motivate corporations and the super rich.  But government is composed of the same men who fail in their struggle with women, gold, and power.  The regulators and the regulated both have flawed characters, and neither can judge with certainty, or moral superiority, the behaviors of the other.

If we are to appeal to the highest standards of human behavior, it would be the actual eternal principles of the Judeo Christian ethic.  And while it may not be possible for any one man, church, or group to accurately judge as God judges, I believe this system does reflect heart and plan of God for men’s relationship with self, others, and Himself.  That moral-cultural system ha been the basis of our law, ethics, values, and culture for centuries.  

We are the beneficiaries of that legal-cultural heritage, and the character of the people of our society reflects the discipline and restraint associated with generations of men who have resisted temptation, passed that character to their children, lived inside the guidelines of Right morality, and codified that behavior as law.  Thus, our culture is blessed by having a population that habitually embrace Godliness to a large extent.  To the extent we fall short of perfection, we automatically diminish in our productivity and opposition of economic efficiency and productivity.

But, the courts have ruled against the penetration of Godliness into the public realm.  The very government which now wishes to impose its morality on the people is simultaneously preventing the generalized propagation and inculcation of individually-carried morality.  We note the sad irony of a government enforcing morality on a people, while preventing its general adoption from the source.  Sadly, that morality they impose exalts another god, one foreign to our forefathers.

We were established as a Christian nation, and now we find ourselves bound to honor every other religion, while the religion of our foundation and moral essence is placed under the boot of contempt by the courts, agencies, and legislation of a nation given over to the false gods of multiculturalism, diversity, and equality.  Such turning away from Truth will result in a self imposed curse as we turn from the protection of the God of Heaven.  Our wandering from the source of our blessing could result in dismantling the edifice of our great nation.  

The Federal Government is not the proper agent to define and enforce morality.  As per the 9th/10th/11th Amendments, it does not have the Constitutional authority to do so.  In fact, its actions in outlawing the Judeo-Christian ethic have shown itself incapable of setting a right moral tone for the entire nation.  The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to judge the specifics of right behavior for the masses, but in its own sphere, it should govern its domain by the standards of Godliness.

And while the State governments are agents of force, they are smaller and more amenable to appeal by the people.  And, as long as we have freedom of movement, every man has the option of moving away from the oppressive, immoral, or foolish spirit of a state; he can move to a new domestic Business Environment.  

If the states are independent, and free to make their best judgment of implementing a moral state with a favorable business environment, a man can freely emigrate within the states, to join a community of men of like mind, heart, and spirit.  And, while protest, relocation, and reestablishing a new base are difficult, freedom necessarily includes the full gamut of life experiences.  To shield a man from the full spectrum of life possibilities condemns him to a childlike state.  The entire country should be struggling to implement the laws of heaven on earth, and ideally, the only distinction between the states would be in laws that reflected the peculiarities of geography, weather, and culture.

In short, the Federal Government is not the appropriate agent to regulate wages, healthcare, living conditions, education, or any other right and responsibility retained by the people and the States.  The 9th Amendment makes it clear that the Federal government has no additional rights, other than those specifically elaborated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  The unbridled expansion of authority by the Federal government is not justified by charges of corruption, incompetence, or danger by any real or corporate person.  Issues of morality and safety within are the jurisdiction and authority of the States and the people.

Those such as the SEIU, and other neo-Bolshevicks, have enrolled the assistance of the Federal Government in fighting their battle for wages and working conditions.  Such an appeal should not even be considered.  The Federal Government has no authority to ally with and enforce a solution favorable to the union demands and their relief of grievances.  The argument is not about morality or the justice of their cause.  Rather, the argument for Federal regulation should stop upon considering its Constitutional authority of being the forceful ally of labor – there is none.  

The communists have as their goal, overthrow of the oppressors, spreading the wealth around, and normalization of work and pay around a legislated standard, etc.  Such solutions, while seductive, produce the collateral damage of de-motivating invention and entrepreneurial spirit.  The complex of individual drive sets the climate of productivity, industry, invention, and risk for a culture.  

The level of regulation should be no more than that which would be expressed by a moral man.  And while we all desire a government capable of such moral rectitude, we will more likely get a government that regulates according the pressures placed upon its members.  In other words, we cannot rely on government to know and legislate a morality significantly better than the moral tone of the general populace.  Thus, the call for communism by the SEIU, and others advocating a similar collectivist/governmental solution, is misguided at best, self serving at middle, and ultimately oppressive for all at the worst.

T.