• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Progressive Corporatism Is Here

    There was no bigger media cheerleader for Barack Obama over the past year than MSDNC. Hardball host Chris Matthews famously admitted that Obama sent “a thrill going up my leg” and Keith Olbermann’s over the top boosterism was even recently parodied by Saturday Night Live. MSDNC could have tried to relegate these two to their respective hour long opinion shows, but instead they chose to make them hard news anchors for MSDNC’s election coverage.

    Now that MSDNC has gotten its wish, and Obama is president, their parent company General Electric is set for a big payoff. The Wall Street Journal reports:

    The Treasury Department is considering using more of its $700 billion rescue fund to buy stakes in a broad range of financial companies, not just banks and insurers, after tentative signs of the program’s success, according to people familiar with the matter.

    In focus are companies that provide financing to the broad economy, including bond insurers and specialty finance firms such as General Electric Co.’s GE Capital unit, CIT Group Inc. and others, these people said.

    The Cable Game connects the dots to Obama:

    The Politico adds some telling new detail about the dealings: The U.S. Treasury Department, nominally controlled by George W. Bush but in reality controlled by Wall Streeters who lean Democrat (at least now) is throwing itself open to input from the incoming team of President-elect Barack Obama. So the Obamans will not have to wait even two months before getting control of the money spigot.

    As The Politico’s Victoria McGrane and Eamon Javers explain, not only are Obamans moving in before they officially take power, but they are planning on keeping tight control of the bailout: “Financial observers expect the incoming Obama administration to make the bailout effort their own.” Well of course they do! Why wouldn’t the Obamans want to get control of disbursing $700 billion, even before their man is inaugurated on January 20? Why wait?

    Expect to see paybacks like this repeated early and often in Obama’s administration. It is pure myth that liberals/progressives are enemies of big business. The left LOVES big business. Who else could possibly afford exorbitant big labor contracts? As Amity Shlaes details in her book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, the New Deal was not about big government punishing big business. It was about big business, big labor, and big government getting together in one room to screw over small businesses and tax payers. That is why the New Deal extended the Depression a decade longer it had to be.

    From the auto industry to ethanol agribusiness to broadband hogs like Google, expect a steady stream of corporate giants lining up in front of the Obama White House for bailouts, tax breaks, loans, and subsidies. Progressive corporatism is back with a vengeance.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Progressive Corporatism Is Here

    1. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      Socialism that is aligned with the selected businesses is called Fascism. It is not any better than the Soviet Union brand socialism where the government owns everything. Fascism will reward those that support the perpetuation of its power. Italy and Germany during the WWII represent the Fascism. That is what the US is following. Obama and the Democrats will accelerate it. They are acting as though they are planning to nationalize 401K. Withdrawing that enormous capital from capital market will allow them to reward those companies that they favor for capital increase. By investing in GE, they get their radio and television network for propaganda purposes. Many people in the US may think that our government won't do things like that. Just ask Joe Wurzelbacher (Joe the plumber). His private and confidential personal data was given to the select news media for discrediting him for asking Obama who was in his yard in front of his house a simple question. Isn't that worse than what we were told the dangers of the Patriot Act? The new administration is not even sworn in yet! I will not be far off the mark by suggesting that our last election with a semblance of a two-party system has taken place in this country.

    2. Pingback: » Progressive Corporatism Is Here

    3. Barb - mn says:

      He is threatening to those that dare to live independently and sacrificing wages to high government greed of taxation. How dare Joe show his integrity and will of pursuing a prosperous life without imposing dependency on taxpayers! Which everybody had an equal opportunity to do for themselves.

      Obama "we all have to sacrifice!" What does he think the taxpayers have been doing since the influx of immigrants legal and illegal have been taking up residency with no will to take on their independence.

      I won't trust a dishonest man, that calls anybody selfish when he spent over $600,000,000 on himself. Only to conduct a dishonest, hostile election when he could have spent that money on those he shows pity for. When he accepts donations from governments around the world where those monies could have gone to the people under those governments which he has stated are living in poverty. And an illegal act on his part. He states "I am my brothers keeper" While he and his family are living in luxury as his brother lives in poverty! Under what definition is "selfish" in your world obama? He took part in the housing collapse, he took part in the economic down fall and he will take this country down as his plans indicate. That seems to be his expedient will.

    4. Denise, MN says:

      The left is selling the aguement to lower income people that there are still only a select few who are rich and they just keep getting richer of the sweat of the labor of the "poor." Here's what I think is really the cause of the "gap": I think that the number of what the left calls rich ($120,000 +) made their money by taking advantage of the unique opportunities our capatilist system offers. They started businesses, made lots of sacrifices, worked hard (something the left wants people to think they shouldn't have to do to get money) and are starting to reap the rewards. That's why I think there are few "middle class" families. Yes, some people fell from the "middle class" into being "poor," but I think a vast majority of that increase is only temporary. Divorce, job loss, medical bills, etc. can temporarily pull people down, but a vast majority of these will be back on their feed in 2-5 years. The number of "permanent poor" probably stays fairly stagnant. You will always have a section of society who would rather sit and complain and receive welfare (an attitude passed down to future generations) and what they think is owed them because they have a rotten life. Now, Obama and his cronies would have everyone believe that their policies will spread the money around to bring more people "up" but their real goal is to stifle entrepreneurship, force many of these "rich" business owners back into the "middle class", working for big corporations again, and expand the middle class not from raising up, but by tearing down. Then you're left with super-rich elites who want to continue making their big bucks, dodging taxes and buying the government, etc. Call it what you want: socialism, communism, fascism. Obama says he'll change America and the world. He'll change it alright. American will no longer be the shining example, it will be just one of many socialist countries where dreams are discourages.

    5. Dan, Arlington, VA says:

      My concern is that Americans will not immediately recognize the more toward public-private/goverment-corporate matrimony as a bad thing. They are likely to view CEOs like Wagoner holding hands with Obama and concluding that the support from big business means that maybe he isn't so anti-capitalist after all, when in fact these actions go against the very core of capitalism.

    6. Pingback: Conservatives DO NOT Oblige Republican Corporatism| Wilkow Majority | Media Splatters.net

    7. Pingback: Morning Bell: Global Warming – Is There Anything It Can’t Do? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    8. Pingback: Global warming - the universal cause agent (and money-maker) - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

    9. FollowFacts, Dixie says:

      "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism."

      Richman, Sheldon. “Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.” In Library of Economics and Liberty. Encyclopedia. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html.

      p728 Fascist Economy. No hard-and-fast boundary between economic "systems". Differs by country adopting it: Germany (Hitler), Italy (Mussolini), Spain (Franco), Portugal (Salazar), Argentina (Peron).

      Italy (Mussolini): "Syndicalist" or "Corporate" state. Organizes industry and workers as a syndicate, planning the economy.

      "Almost all … against free and militant trade unionism".

      "Government has great regulatory powers over the entire economy."

      "May involve organized religion, may oppose such."

      "Opposition to Communism as (an external) threat; an excuse to squash democracy."

      Samuelson, Paul Anthony. Economics, an Introductory Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×