I heard repeatedly from progressives, in the run-up to the bankruptcy case, that the holdouts were unreasonably holding out for a trivial improvement--about 500 million dollars. But if it was so trivial, why didn't the government just put the extra money in, rather than jeopardizing confidence in the bankruptcy system--and the creditworthiness of a large swathe of unionized firms? $500 million is about the price of one cup of coffee per American, a trivial sum relative to the overall budget. This move has shown potential partners that government funds are dangerous, and potential lenders that union firms are risky bets; both have probably cost American citizens more than they saved. So why did the government risk so much for so little gain?So what's the payoff? Business will be forced to buy influence from the current political power brokers. Here's the change you voted for.
You know the answer, don't you? Because they're planning to do it again.
It's now clear that the only principle at the core of the "progressive" movement is the naked exercise of power.
2 comments:
It's now clear that the only principle at the core of the "progressive" movement is the naked exercise of power. That's always been clear, from the first days of the "progressive" movement more than a hundred years ago. They claim to want to reform the system, and they do: they want to re-form it with the old power structure in jail and themselves on top as the new power structure. About the great mass of common workers and businessmen, they do not care and never have.
This nightmare gets worse every day and we still can't wake up from it.
Post a Comment