Monday, May 26, 2014

And THIS Might Be The Type Of Conservatism I Can't Stand The Most

Critiquing progressive ideas and then going through the back door to adopt them, that is.

You may have seen this type of politicking with regard to the "safety net," as that well-know former Democrat, Ronald Reagan, referred to it.  After all, that's why there were "Reagan Democrats" in the first place, blue-collar white ethics who were convinced that ol' Dutch was on their side not only when it came to the counter-culture, but also Social Security and Medicare.  In fairness to Reagan, however, even he couldn't quite stoop to the level of George W. Bush and, today, Paul Ryan, by arguing with something close to a straight face that we need to "save" social programs by "privatizing" them--in other words, destroying the rational for such programs in the first place, as hedges against the ups and downs of market economics.

That level of subterfuge, however, tacitly concedes an inconvenient truth for conservatives, one that explains the subterfuge in the first place.  Social programs designed for what the Gipper himself called the "truly needy"--children, single parents, the sick and elderly, the long-term unemployed--are popular because even working-class Americans can hate high taxes and admit that there are cases where tax dollars are needed.  Those working-class Americans are voters, as well as taxpayers.  And that is why conservatives can only go so far in attacking the so-called "welfare state,"  before effectively admitting that some degree of welfare state is inevitable and even necessary.

Which brings me to this Carl Cannon piece from RealClearPolitics.com.   I am not a regular reader of his work but, from the little that I've seen, he tends to lean to the right.  He certainly does so in this article, which seems to be a protracted argument against raising the minimum wage but, after he finishes arguing for a floor to compensation, he argues for a ceiling--by going after executive compensation, and arguing for a cap on CEO payments.

I take a back seat to no one in agreeing with such an idea.  There isn't a CEO on the planet Earth that is worth the compensation packages doled out today in corporate America.  And no one should be paid so much that it not only threatens the finances of the paying organization, but also gives the recipient no incentive to do his or her best work.  Why should they?  They're effectively already set for life.  They can screw over their benefactor with complete impunity.  And, all too often, that's exactly what they do.  How many times have you read about a bankrupt corporation whose senior management was allowed to keep their executive compensation packages--or most of it, at any rate?  Combine that reality with incestuous, interlocking corporate boards, and there is no reason whatsoever to "trust" corporate America.  Corporate America has the goldmine, and the power to give the rest of America the shaft.

I have believed for a long time that there needs to be some sort of "soft cap" on corporate compensation, tied to some sort of market standard, either macroeconomic (e.g., the state of the stock market) or microeconomic (e.g., the amount of debt a given corporation is carrying)--and that, in any event, when a company goes belly-up, the first people to pay the price are the folks at the time who put it there in the first place.  But, when it comes to compensation, why shouldn't there be a floor as well as a ceiling, Mr. Cannon.  Having a living minimum wage is one way to insure against an economic collapse, by ensuring the consumer purchasing power that supports so many jobs.

Above all, Mr. Cannon, stop pretending that the left has no good ideas, then adopting those ideas as your own.  The cliché that a conservative is a worshiper of dead radicals is true for a reason.  You want our ideas?  Admit they're good ones.  And admit they're ours.

No comments: