A confusing cartoon

I think the point of this cartoon is to poke fun at those who denounce government-run health care as socialism while they are perfectly happy to embrace socialism when the benefit is one they like. But maybe I'm wrong, because it really doesn't make that point very well. Let's break it down:

1) Government-run health care does smack of socialism. It's an intrusion into the affairs of private companies and private citizens. It attempts to force economic outcomes by managing an entire industry through centrally planned government. That's why it's called socialized medicine.

2) Regulation of the airwaves is not socialistic. Governments of all types regulate all sorts of things. True, regulations can, and often do, become too restrictive. But free market advocates challenge such overreaching when it occurs; they don't embrace it, as the cartoon suggests.

3) The automotive bailouts are an example of socialism, as the government came in took control of private companies. But far from celebrating this, the majority of Americans opposed the bailouts, and still do. The cartoon suggests that the passengers are fine with it, but in reality they would be as apt to object to government-run car companies as to government-run health care.

4) The Interstate Highway System was constructed with the aid of the Army for the purpose of national defense, so that equipment and personel could be mobilized efficiently throughout the country. National defense is universally acknowledged as one of the right and proper responsibilities of government and has nothing to do with socialism.

5) Our public education system does smack of socialism, and the public generally embraces this, so the cartoon's creator got that one right. Unfortunately, the government monopoly on our schools ensures that millions of kids, especially minorities, aren't receiving a good education and are condemned to remain in lives of poverty. The good news is that this is changing, and parents are increasingly demanding free market reforms like school choice, charter schools, and vouchers.

6) A municipal water system isn't a hallmark of socialism. The word municipal refers to a city or town, not a centrally planned government. This simply makes no sense.

7) The National Park System has a tinge of socialism to it. There's no reason why the federal government needs to own or run our parks, and it could probably be done more efficiently by the states or by private companies. Still, this doesn't represent a huge intrusion into our lives the way socialized medicine does, so most people don't think about it much. I suppose this technically makes the artist's point, but it seems like a very weak argument to me.

If I'm understanding at all the artist's intent, I'd have to say that he fails miserably at making his point. His examples are very hit and miss -- mostly miss -- and, on net, undermine his argument more than suport it.

Capitalism can't fund Socialism

Best thing I read today:

Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect....

[T]he myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Read the whole thing.

Socialism, coming soon to a country near you

President Obama, while villifying [sic] Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back. “I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

 Several points here...

First, of course the auto industry came "roaring back." You gave them 85 billion dollars!

What company isn't going to come "roaring back" if you slip them a cool 85 billion? Hell, even Solyndra would be "roaring back" if we'd given them 85 billion tax payer dollars instead of a measly half a billion.

Second:

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses.

Note that this report comes from "the Obama administration." So Obama is out touting the "success" of a project that his own people are saying is costing tax payers $25 billion and counting. Worse, he's vowing to do the same thing "in every industry." I'm thinking this could get expensive.

And finally, can we finally stop pretending that Obama is not a socialist?

“Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

Recall that Obama didn't just give GM and Chrysler a boat load of our money. He also went in and took over operations. He fired managers, closed down plants, forced mergers, and illegally took money from share holders and gave it to the unions. He literally put a private company under government control. And now he wants to do this in every industry.

I'm increasingly convinced the guy is a Marxist at heart, who has been forced to give capitalism a nod because he knows hard core Marxism won't fly in America. But that aside, can there be any doubt, based on his own words, that he is a socialist?

I recently came across a great G.K. Chesterton quote: "Liberalism is communism in slow motion."

That so describes what we are seeing unfold before our very eyes.

Update:  "a taxpayer loss of $25 billion on the auto bailout isn't so much an estimate as a wish." (Senator Blutarsky via Instapundit)