Union thug Jimmy Hoffa Jr., and President Obama.
On Monday, Teamsters union President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., described the Tea Party and congressional Republicans as “sons of bitches” and called for a war against them.
Hoffa, a thuggish demagogue, worked up the crowd for Obama by saying:
“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where we belong … We gotta keep an eye on the battle that we face, a war on workers, and you see it everywhere in the tea party.”
Of course, Obama had only nice things to say about Hoffa. Obama’s recent call for civil discourse has been, Soviet style, conveniently dropped down the memory hole.
This call for war against the Tea Party has been conceived and orchestrated by the Obama administration. It’s the tried and true Alinsky tactic of isolating and demonizing a political opponent.
Obama is right to attack the Tea Party.
This grassroots movement is an existential threat to the liberal/leftist/progressive ideology to which Obama and his supporters subscribe.
More than ever, the Tea Party has clarified the fault lines in American society.
Once upon a time Americans elected governments whose job it was to protect the natural rights of the citizen. But now, under the relentless onslaught of the elite classes—deeply influenced by Marxist theory—Americans have been downgraded to supplicants, begging and bargaining with an all-consuming government over endless faux rights and fiscally unsustainable benefits that have become a cancer on the body politic.
As orthodox Jews, Seraphic Secret looks to the Torah for wisdom.
And the Torah does not talk about rights.
In fact, the Torah emphasizes responsibilities. Study the Ten Commandments. They are divided into individual and communal responsibilities.
Those pious British Christians who came to these shores to escape big government and religious persecution saw themselves as the new Children of Israel. So close was their identification with ancient Israel they seriously considered instituting Hebrew as the official language of the new world.
Our founders viewed government with a wary eye. They understood that government can, all too easily, evolve into an army of bureaucrats, isolated from the citizenry, seeking mainly to extend their power and influence.
Big labor has morphed into a government franchise, an ideological plantation working in lock-step with a centralized government. Thus Hoffa’s call for hatred and violence.
Let us be clear: Big government advocates seeking to build a welfare state.
Yet we only have to look at Western Europe to witness the fruits of the modern welfare state: streets of fire and financial ruin.
The Tea Party has awakened America to the dangers of progressive ideology. And that is why Obama and Hoffa have declared war on their fellow Americans, good and patriotic people who yearn for the freedom and prosperity that only arises from limited government
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
15 Comments
Barruch, as a threshold matter, let me wish the best for your wife’s recovery. I am writing because you make several explicit and implicit arguments in favor of big government that I think are demonstrably false.
Perhaps the easiest way to do the analysis is to compare and contrast Reagan and Obama. Interestingly, the number of non-defense civil servants is about today as it was under Reagan. Reagan was dedicated to decreasing the federal payroll, though he ultimately did not accomplish it under his tenure. It was the Republican Congress carrying on the Reagan revolution that ultimately lowered the number of civil service employees below 2 million under Clinton. Conversely, Obama is increasing the size of the federal workforce by several hundred thousand, breaking the two million threshold in 2010.
That said, ultimately, what defines “big government” is not the size of the federal payroll, but the impact of government on our daily lives, through taxation and regulation. And in that respect, Obama and Reagan are polar opposites. And, as one would suspect, they have achieved polar opposite results. In terms of regulatory impact, Reagan and Obama went in vastly different directions. Reagan wanted to deregulate America, and indeed, the federal register under Reagan contained an average of about 32,000 pages. Under Obama, who has set us on the path of a regulatory hurricane, the Federal Register is now topping 45,000 pages. Those are all of the new regulations being written under Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, the EPA, and the many other entities Obama has unleashed on America as an end around Congress.
Let me add as an aside that this massive push of regulations with the force and effect of law may not be unconstitutional, it is certainly extra-constitutional. Art. I of the Constitution provides that the sole legislative authority in our country shall be Congress. Yet in the last two years, we have Obama’s regulatory agencies take positions that could not even pass a government wholly controlled by Democrats. The EPA is a casebook study. The Democratic Congress in 2009 and 2010 refused to pass a law giving authority to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Nonetheless, the EPA has assumed that authority unilaterally and has unleased a bevy of regulations designed to punish businesses and industries who emit carbon dioxide. None of those regulations will have ever been voted upon by Congress, yet all have the full force and effect of law. It is an existential systemic problem that must be fixed if ever we are to retain our national character as envisioned by the Founders. Simply put, no regulation should ever pass into force and effect until it has been voted upon by people who are directly subject to the ballot box.
But to look at that through the rubric of “big government,” it is beyond doubt that every one of these new regulations ultimately insinuate themselves into our daily lives. The EPA rules will drastically increase the cost of energy, and in some cases, actually threaten the energy supply. And that is only the first round of EPA rules. Future rules are set to reach to every building and carbon emitter in our country. That actually goes beyond Big Government and crosses the line into an Orwellian Big Brother.
As to government taxation and its impact both on government coffers and the economic health of our nation, Reagan believed in the Laffer Curve. Obama believes in increasing taxes in the interests of “fairness,” class warfare and increasing the share of the wealth government has to spend. Obama has it exactly wrong.
The Laffer Curve holds that there exists a point of taxation at which both the ability and desire to make taxable income is uneffected by government policy, and thus taxing at that level will maximize government coffers. Taxing higher than that level will reduce the economy and thus, reduce the amount of money taken in by the government. It is a dynamic system – it is not static. Thus, for example, increasing the taxes on those earning over 250,000 annually might well result in a decrease in tax revenues. Historical examples of precisely this effect abound, as do examples of the opposite. Just look at the tax cuts proposed by JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. In all three cases, lowering the tax rates, including capital gains, ended in a sharp increase in government revenues.
To be specific, let’s look at the Bush example. Between 2001 and 2003, he cut individual tax rates and he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each
In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms. The 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts – and the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
At any rate, to continue on, more government spending of the ilk proposed by Obama and, apparently, supported by you is completely the solution for our economy. In the 30th month of his presidency, Reagan’s economy posted a net job gain of 278,000. In the 30th month of Obama’s presidency, following trillions in increased spending and a near trillion dollar stand alone stimulus package of government spending, the economy produced precisely 0 jobs. You speak of government spending as the key to preventing lay-offs at the local government level, but that is only a very short term fix. The only key to preventing local lay-offs is a robust local economy that produces sufficient tax revenues. And you don’t get there by spending.
Reagan’s answer to massive unemployment and double digit inflation was to cut taxes, deregulate, and adopt a sound money strategy. Obama’s has been precisely the opposite – massive spending, a hurricane of new regulations, and printing money at record speed. The total initial cost of Reagan’s stimulus of the economy clocked in, in today’s dollars, at 1.86 trillion, basically all a give back to individuals and businesses. Obama’s has all been spent to support government (union) employees and he is punishing businesses.
NRO did a recent comparison between Reagan and Obama, using today’s dollars, that paints a stunning comparison:
Confirming Reagan’s commitment to reliable currency and monetary restraint, gold’s price fell 33 percent — from $1,396.79 per ounce during Reagan’s Jan. 20, 1981, inauguration to $937.37 on Sept. 7, 1983. By converting the Bureau of Engraving and Printing into a veritable currency copy shop, Obama helped gold climb 201.4 percent through Wednesday, from $898.53 to $1,810.00.
Reagan accelerated Carter’s deregulation of oil prices and encouraged domestic production, as underscored by gasoline’s 6.75 percent fall from $3.11 per gallon on inauguration day to $2.90 in late August 1983. Obama’s domestic drilling limits and anti-carbon fetish helped gasoline climb 87 percent — from $1.93 when he arrived to $3.60 on August 29.
At the two-and-a half-year mark (Jul. 20, 1983), Gross Domestic Product under Reagan grew at 9.3 percent. Under Obama, GDP crawled forward last July 20 at 1 percent. At that stage in Reagan’s presidency, non-farm productivity blossomed at 9.6 percent. Under Obama, it shriveled at negative 0.7 percent.
After Reagan’s first 30 months, unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, down from a 10.8 percent recessionary peak. Under Obama, top joblessness of 10.1 percent has dropped to 9.1 percent, but seems stuck there. And the fact that America yielded zero net jobs last month (versus 278,000 in August 1983) confirms the bankruptcy of Obamanomics.
These respective developments swayed America’s mood. In August 1983, under Reagan, the Consumer Confidence Index sparkled at 90.2. Last month, under Obama, it flickered at 44.5.
At any rate, Barruch, you speak glowingly of “government research” and what might happen in America to it should government spending not be kept at current levels. On a personal level, you tie this in with your wife’s treatment at Bethesda. One, I am hard pressed to name any particular advance that has come wholly at the hands of government funded research – sans the atomic bomb of course, and other defense related improvements. And indeed, I find that government funding of research has taken a very faustian turn, particularly as regards massive funding of research in an attempt to prove the truth of global warming. Indeed, particularly in that respect, government funding has totally bastardized the scientific community and irreparably skewed the “science,” – a term I use very loosely in that area.
As to drugs and the treatment of rare disorders, you ask what would happen if the government did not fund work in that area. Well, the answer is that private companies would do it if they could do so profitably. And indeed, that is what is happening. Under current laws, if a company undertakes drug research and development for rare disorders, the government gives them a break on how long they can maintain the patent, and thus, how long they can monopolize the drug. That is not the government directing the research, nor funding it, but merely altering the rules so private enterprises can have a reasonable expectation of profits for their risks. And it works.
You can be glad that your wife is at Bethesda Naval Hospital. It is a top flight institution run by the government. However, do note that the finest hospital in the country is universally recognized as Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Indeed, Johns Hopkins has been ranked as the best overall hospital in America for 21 consecutive years. Johns Hopkins is a private institution that was established not with a government grant, but with private donations.
And lastly, you seem to believe that government spending is an efficient way to direct the economy. That is, I think, ridiculous. You would have to point me to examples. Direct government spending, as well spending of the crony capitalism variety by picking winners and losers, hurt, not help our economy. For but one example, take Obama’s massive push into green subsidies. Obama gave $20 million to Seattle to weatherize homes. That netted a total of 14 new jobs and the weatherization of three homes. Or take Obama’s icon, Solyandra, a boon doggle that is going to cost our nation over half a billion dollars and a net loss of over 1,000 jobs. And I won’t even touch on Obama’s close relationship with GE, a corportation that is shipping jobs and major technology to China by the planeload and, last year, paid, I think it was, zero dollars in taxes.
Barruch, I appreciate the fact that you serve our nation in the civil service. That said, history has shown beyond doubt that “the government that governs best governs least.” I would take the tea party vision of America over Obama’s any day of the week. Indeed, the truth of the left is that they end up putting the screws to everybody, including those they claim to be representing. Do you think, for one minute, that minorities are better off under Obama than they would be under a robust, tea party economy where jobs were available. The only thing growing under Obama is the number of Americans falling below the poverty line – a number standing today at 1 in 6 – and that is hitting blacks and hispanics the hardest. No sir. Capitalism may be messy, but history teaches with clarity that it is far more efficient and generous than the crony capitalism and statism of the “big government” variety.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I wish I’d written that. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I take it the results of the House election in Brooklyn and Queens were greeted chez Avrech.
I especially liked the Democrat candidate going around claiming never to have met the President and party leader. As a former local candidate myself, I can think of no more desperate ploy than to deny my own ticket, and think that’ll work.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Baruch:
The long standing debate in Neveim and later in the Gemorrah texts I am about to quote below deal with the issue of Kingship… which was problematic and I think the embodiment of added government that G-D didn’t want the people to ask for:
On Sanderin 20b the Rabbis deal with the problem of what was wrong with the people demanding of God (via Samuel) a king. After all, doesn’t the Torah allow the people to request a king (Deut. 17:14-15)? (Interestingly enough, Abravanel, who had served under both the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies and hated all monarchy because of that, argued that the permission of the people to request a king was only a concession to the yetser ha-ra, like the permission to marry the gentile warbride — see Kiddushin 21b-22a re Deut. 21:10-13; in other words, it would be better if they hadn’t done so at all.) So, R. Eliezer notes that there are two versions of the request for a king: (1) “Appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations” (I Sam. 8:5); (2) “Give us a king to judge us” (8:6). The first version, based on the people wanting to be like the goyyim is considered to be the bad request of the ammei ha’arets; the second version is considered to be the good request of the elders (meaning, for the Rabbis, Torah scholars; see Kiddushin 32b). What all this indicates is great rabbinic ambivalence about kingship, whether Jewish or gentile. On the one hand, kingship is integral to the messianic hope for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, of which even gentile kingship is a sort of preview (see Berakhot 19b). On the other hand, Jewish experience with their own kings was usually awful (just read Kings I & II), and with gentile kings from Pharaoh to Hadrian even worse.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Chicago politician shakes hands with ‘labor’ organiser. How much recent history do people have to ignore to NOT get this? Chicago is the most notoriously politically corrupt city in the democratic world, Illinois now has – I may be one or two out – eight straight governors who’ve been convicted on corruption charges. Jimmy Jr’s dad was a legend for all the wrong reasons.
I wonder if James Ellroy has one more novel in him, cos I’d love to read his crazy truth-thru-kaliedoscope take on Barry Dunham’s govt.
What really burns me is that my grandfather was a unionist when it meant something. He stood up for the rights of the working man. He was beat up by communist thugs, he was beat up by business thugs. Everything he fought for has been co-opted by smarmy, shallow creeps like these two, using the blood and struggle of others for their own cheap self-interest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I would argue that, while Egypt pre-Joseph was large and Joseph made it more “responsible” and efficient, the later Pharaohs used the greater efficiency and concentration of power to enslave the Jews. These should teach us the dangers of concentrated and unrestrained power. Also remember the warning we were given when the Jews asked Samuel for a King.
With regards to the production of the lechem hapanim and ma’aleh asham one might consider this a lesson in how state run industries can be unproductive .
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Joe:
Probably the best argument against the mortal dangers of big government is Jewish history. Centralized government has never been good for Jews because all power is concentrated to be used against Jews at the whim of the rulers.
Only in America, where limited government has been our tradition, have Jews prospered and found unprecedented safety.
That’s why, except for a small minority, orthodox Jews are politically Conservative. They understand Jewish tradition and Jewish history in a way in which secular Jews cannot even begin to fathom. Thus, most secular American Jews are Democrats—their defacto religion.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The best comment against big government was said by Dennis Prager – and so succinctly:
“The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I think it is impossible to study Torah and Talmud and come to the conclusion that the Torah favors the kind of small government sought by the Tea Party. Indeed, Yosef created the first Big Government by helping Pharaoh create a tax system that (a) allowed the country to keep strategic reserves to prepare for a disaster, and (b) allowed Pharaoh to consolidate control over all of Egypt. Also, you might consider the unsuccessful attempt of the 2nd Temple-era rabbis to grab power and cut administrative costs by legislating that the families of Beis Garmu, who made the lechem hapanim (shoo bread) with the quality that it would stay fresh for an entire week, and Beis Avtinas, who made the Temple insense so that it plumed in a desireable cloud, give up their intellectual property. Babyl. Talmud Yoma 38a. In one of history’s first recorded strikes, both families withheld services. The rabbis brought in strike-breakers who were unable to duplicate the key qualities of the lechem hapanim and ma’aleh asham that Beis Garmu and Beis Avtinas had perfected. In the end, the rabbis were forced to bring back both families at double the cost. The lesson, I think, is that one should consider the possible consequences before taking action.
Already, nation-wide cuts in state- and local-level public sector spending (both for government positions and government contracts) has continued to fuel the current economic downturn. If a budget-cuts only strategy is carried out further, you’ll see, for example, cuts in government-funded scientific research which would further reduce our nation’s ability to compete in the world marketplace — that would pretty much be like burning the seed corn.
A little more than 10 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting that by now the Government would have no net deficit and would be overly flush with cash. Right and left in Congress responded by drastically cutting taxes AND increasing spending. Then we got two wars and, because of financial irregularities on Wall Street, we nearly saw a financial collapse. And we have big business sitting on a trillion of cash, refusing to invest it in the economy. What we need is pragmatic leaders in Government and the Private Sector who can use Government spending and tax policy to encourage investment in the US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Baruch:
I make the case that the Torah talks not about individual rights but private and communal—not collective—responsibility.
I don’t make the case that the Torah advocates a Tea Party style government. It is silly to say the Torah is either Democrat or Republican.
By the way, Egypt during Joseph’s time was already a big government, obviously. A typical for the time theocracy where the ruling family were seen and treated as Gods. In fact, Joseph turned the ancient Egyptian kingdom into a more responsible government in time of famine, a national calamity.
As for funding for govt. science research etc., I can only remind our readers that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and thousands of other free market entrepreneurs have created more jobs and pioneered more science than all the dopey govt., research programs that are burning our tax money.
It’s funny, in Hollywood, my business, government has very little control. That’s why America dominates the global movie scene. And that’s why talent flees socialist Europe to come to Hollywood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This past month, I have been fortunate to visit and experience the facilities and staff at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. My wife is a patient in a study there. Incredible research is going on there by a very devoted staff. Lives are being saved and research is being advanced. As much as Gates, Jobs, Warren Buffet, and others give, it is not enough, especially to cover exotic diseases that have less commercial potential for drug manufacturers, but nevertheless cause far-reaching anguish around the world. Can the private sector really take up the slack for their work, or that at the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute, or even the amazing work at Walter Reed (which in the past 10 years has put America in the lead in the treatment of mass casualties — a role formelrly held by Israeli hospitals)? And if charitable contributions have to be diverted to these government-supported institutions, what do you tell the other charities who will suffer lost donations?
BTW, you might want to look at the long-term trend of transferring more Governmental work to contractors. The size of the Federal work force today is about the same as when I joined up 26 years ago (around 2 million). But for last year’s census, I think the number of Federal employees in the current administration is less than under either Bush. However, the number of contractors has skyrocketed. Estimates are that there are at least 8 contractors for every Fed. The average contract employee makes less, but, as the Washington Post recently reported, many top executives doing contract work are getting very rich on tax dollars. Contracting out jobs also leads to the type of corruption that President Arthur tried to weed out when he created the Civil Service. But I can tell you, its just gotten worse over the years. It is hard, often, to say that the contractors are doing the job as efficiently as Feds could, or as cheaply. Can’t say for sure, because once a job gets contracted out, Feds never again compete for it. I can tell you I’ve spent many long hours working to fix contractor mistakes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Baruch:
I have a feeling that the NIH are a far better govt. agency than say, the useless Dept. of Education or the job murdering EPA.
Obamacare places 1/6 of the American economy under govermental controls. This will not be good for anyone, especially those unfortunate enough to be afflicted with exotic diseases. Already, a majority of my friends who are physicians are rearranging their business models in order to escape the nasty centralized web that is being erected by Obama’s confused new regulations.
Contractors make mistakes. The Fed makes mistakes. Who has a better record and in what areas? I don’t have the answer.
But I’m quite sure that the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I can tell you from personal experience and from talking to colleagues who have served on review panels–the big government research agencies (NIH included) are ossified, risk-averse bureaucracies that award grants largely based on name recognition and institutional reputation. While there are a few transformational ideas that get funded, the really novel research–the stuff that makes a difference to society–is coming from industry and not from academia (and the gatekeepers at the big research universities–who also serve on review panels–look on industry with disdain). The academic peer review process is compounding this problem by blocking publication of otherwise good papers through overly harsh reviews and miniscule acceptance rates. No papers? No grant. So it’s a vicious circle, and the very viciousness of reviews is a reason many graduate students never finish their PhDs or leave the academy for industry.
Google Jeffrey Naughton and ICDE keynote for a captivating talk on the state of academic research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m certainly no expert on Torah and Talmud but when Egypt was building the pyramids they had a tax system and bureaucracy that would have every paper pusher in D.C. drool. The pyramids were not built by slaves so they had to be supported by taxes across a vast area. All they needed were missing were some public employee unions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see little point in citing stories from Tanach & Gemara as though they apply directly to questions of governance in the US. (Although I will point out that the family of Beis Garmu is vilified for their actions; the lesson is not one of ill governance, but of the evils of those who turn Godly service to their own profit.) As Robert remarked, the Torah is neither Democrat nor Republican. There are obligations that fit quite well into a liberal mindset, such as those which allow confiscatory taxation for purposes of charity, and others that fit best into a conservative mindset, such as those guarding the sanctity of life and property. But in my opinion, such comparisons are a fool’s game, for the Torah espouses a Divine and thus perfect in theory system of government, which by definition transcends the imperfect attempts of Man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0