The Looters of Big Government

What big government can't get through one door, it will try to achieve through another.

Progressives have, for years, hated successful big businesses, for a variety of reasons and for no reason in particular other than that they are big and successful. Especially the successful part.

A business that earns steady profits by providing products that -- gasp! -- people actually want, while providing jobs to others is an automatic target of the Left. It is depriving government of its evolutionary mandate, its historical imperative as some might say, to equalize the ups and downs for The People.

President Obama and his fellow Looters in Congress believe they have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change America by co-opting and controlling big business. Some, as we discussed in the previous post, are running happily like lap dogs to become part of the new lobotomized federal economy.

Others, however, will resist, and so alternative methods of persuasion are being readied.

One of these has met with swift resistance: the "card check" proposal to make it easy for union organizers to establish unions in previously non-union companies. This frontal assault was quickly seen for what it is, and you haven't heard a lot about it in recent weeks as the political cost of its passage was deemed unacceptable.

Another, however, has the advantage of stealth since few Americans understand the language being used, or its potential for harm. That is the "financial regulatory reform bill" that Congress is being asked to pass.

On its face it is bad enough as it would give vast new powers to the Federal Reserve and to the Department of the Treasury. The former is a private corporation that should instead be de-fanged, if not completely eliminated. The latter, run currently by a noted tax evader, should not be in the business of controlling private enterprise.

But the real devil is in the details. The wording of the proposal is broad enough to allow the government to step in to dictate terms to any large corporation if, in the decision of someone at the Fed or Treasury (or the proposed unelected Systemic Risk Council) a company's actions or inaction could affect the economy.

Who is large enough to affect the economy? Talk show host Tom Sullivan today suggested that under the proposed new rules of "too big to fail" the largest private company in America would meet that definition on any given day, simply because it employs 1.8 million people, not including off-site contractors. The name of that firm?

Wal Mart.

Gee, is this the same Wal Mart that the union bosses of America have excoriated over the years for successful resisting Big Labor's amorous advances? Yup. And it's the same successful company that the Progressives love to hate, for it represents everything about America that they cannot stand.

So if you can't "card check" Wal Mart into oblivion, maybe you can regulate them to death, if the economy tanks a bit more and Wal Mart begins to suffer like GM and Chrysler.

Think about it. Do you want Uncle Sam to determine prices, merchandising and advertising policy for Wal Mart? You may not, but you can bet what's left of your 401(k) that there is about 15 percent of America that is hot and lathered over the idea. Unfortunately, these bozos are in charge of Congress and the White House right now.

Jonah Goldberg, whom I quoted in the previous post, worries about the "systemic risk plan" encouraging other companies to give up capitalism and leap into the arms of Big Brother.

The basic idea is that big firms — giant banks, insurance companies, etc. — cannot be allowed to fail if their failure threatens something called “stability.” The Obama administration is confident that with its new organizational flow charts and enhanced job description for the Federal Reserve, bureaucrats will suddenly see clearly what they couldn’t see before. These regulators will know exactly when bubbles get too big, when booms last too long, and when tens of thousands of managers, investors, actuaries, and bankers make bad or sub-optimal decisions.

The problem, other than the shortage of Jedis and shamans to fill these posts, is that big companies will understand the surest way to attain immortality is to become too big to fail. Once they’ve achieved that privileged status, these companies will become de facto wards of the state, insured for life at taxpayer expense like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and in exchange they will do whatever Uncle Sam asks.

To be sure, America is not the same as when I was a lad. There' s a lot about that America that I miss. I liked the smallness of Main Street and the friendliness of those who worked there. But most of what is missing is what was taken away through "progressive ideas" since that time, not because of Wal Mart or other successful companies that have resisted the siren call to get on the federal money teat.

Under the guise of eliminating risk -- which can't be done, risk can only be avoided to some extent and tolerated the rest of the time -- this government wants to eliminate innovation, entrepreneurship and independent operators, the essential building blocks of successful businesses that may, in time, become big.

What kind of America do you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?

Do you want to see Wal Mart go the way of GM and Chrysler? How about McDonald's, the nation's No.4 employer? (The Left despises them too). Are you ready for the nationalization of Exxon Mobil? Chevron-Texaco? Blue Cross/Blue Shield? Proctor & Gamble?

Are you willing to sit back while the Looters run wild in Washington?

What about all the small businesses that will be still-born or never created as a result of an economy choked of private capital? The innovative firms of the future that will never exist as the federal government weeds out competitors to its own power and control?

What kind of America do you want to live in?