Obama and Langevin: Regressive, not Progressive

Congressman James Langevin (D-Warick) is a big fan of President Barack Obama and his progressive predecessor President Woodrow Wilson. As a proud sponsee of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, Langevin prizes any politician who espouses the Progressive doctrines of governance. According to Bob Plain of RI Future, Progressivism is on the rise in Rhode Island or at least as remain in high tide, so Langevin must be enabling the progress of the people's, right?

 

What is progressivism, anyway, and why should anyone care?

The Rhode Island Chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America offered

the following:

　

We remind Democrats who’ve lost their way that our party is the party that represents the people, not the corporate special interests and the 1%.

OK. Wikipedia offers the following definition:

Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress. . .

Progress is nice, right? The site continues:

American progressives tend to advocate

progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. . . they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

Do these "progressive policies" promote progress?

Progressive taxation means that the more money you make, the more money you pay to the government. Why should anyone be punished for making more money, and why should the government get the money? In Rhode Island, the GA spends taxpayer dollars on bad loans, bad leaders, and bad ideas which scare away workers and investors. As for the federal government, just consider the abuses inflicted by the IRS on political and religious groups and the massive bailouts of General Motors and Wall Street. One wonders how President Obama or Rep. Langevin can claim to be Progressive, at least when regarding corporations. (By the way, both

Obama and Langevin have received massive donations from corporate-union interests. How is this progressive?)

About trade unions, their number includes public sector unions, the very political force which is crippling reform and growth in states like Rhode Island and California. Despite their advocacy for workers, progressive policies have created regressive consequences for the same workers. Central Falls, Rhode Island declared bankruptcy and abandoned public safety retirees, who had relied on their collective bargaining unit (and an understood expectation of full faith and credit) in their city. What did they get? Severed pensions and doubtful retirement. How is this progress? (By the way, regarding debt and payback, campaign donation records indicated that Rep. Langevin was still paying off campaign debt from previous races. Yikes!)

 

Even though it sounds good, what does a living wage mean? Often, protestors (unions) who demand a living wage believe that if they pressure private industries or coerce legislators to raise the minimum wage, then workers will have more money. Although their paychecks will register higher numbers, their overall wealth will never increase. Minimum wage laws hurts entry-level workers, minorities, and other marginalized groups (like young people) because businesses have to shore up the costs of higher wages. Producers have to raise the price of goods or lay off workers, who then receive no wage at all.

How is this progress?

About universal health care, this phrase would make George Orwell weep because of its inherent contradictions and propaganda-like sway. Sounds nice to provide for everyone's health care, right? The government should be able to take money from taxpayers and divvy out the funds so that everyone has equal access right? Wrong. Canada's single-payer system sucks. Great Britain cannot deal with health care costs relating to its National Health Service. President Obama's attempt toward universal health care, Obamacare, is blowing up in his face as we speak (Langevin voted in favor of this regressive, 2,500 page law, of course). Rhode Islanders will remain uninsured following the implementation of health insurance exchanges. Premiums are rising, access is falling, and everyone (including unions!) will be hit with higher, or rather "progressive" taxes because of this law.

 

Rep. Langevin, the Progressive Democratic Congressman of Rhode Island, has in reality and based on record advocated and advanced regressive policies in a state which features the long-standing results of Progressive politics. More people are leaving Rhode Island than entering, and there is only billionaire in the entire state. Federal legislators spend more time debating climate change rather than limiting government to improve the economic climate. State legislators debate gay marriage instead of the not-so-gay fiscal crises crippling the state. Democratic city leaders shift the blame to businesses who do not pay "their fair share" or back to the General Assembly.

Progress?

Another tenet of Progressivism posits the perfectibility of man through government power. After five years of Obama, twelve years of Langevin, and eighty years of the anti-Democratic hypermajority in Providence, Rhode Island has regressed into last least, and lowest on any scale of economic viability, and even public sector workers who faithfully served their communities and paid into their retirement are not receiving their proper reimbursements.

For real progress, Rhode Island voters must reject "regressive progressive" Congressman James Langevin in 2014.