The Progressive Contradiction

As defined by Dictionary.com:

Progressive – adjective, favoring or promoting political or social reform through government action, or even revolution, to improve the lot of the majority.

Obama has on numerous occasions been referred to as a progressive. Obama has even referred to himself as a progressive.

By definition, progressives are seeking governmental intervention to improve the lot of majority. So, case in point, Obamacare – the name given to his universal healthcare law. Part of Obama’s selling point was that it would provide insurance coverage to 32 million Americans who did not have insurance.

(Please note that they still do not have insurance as the bulk of the law will not go into effect until 2014.)

So, this benefits the majority?? What is the current population of the U.S.? According to the U.S. Census, the answer is 308,745,538 people. So, that is a little less than 1/10thof the total population that is benefiting from this law. So much for the majority, huh?

What makes this even worse is that it still leaves 23 million people still uninsured by 2019. (That would be 1/13th who would still not have insurance.) And what’s really sad is those people would have to pay a penalty for not having insurance. So we have almost equal parts of this country benefiting and not benefiting from this law that is supposed to improve the lot of the majority.

To improve the lot of the majority requires that someone give up something. Obamacare requires higher income Americans to pay more in taxes – despite the fact that it will not be enough to cover the costs. Even the New York Timeshas called Obamacare unsustainable.

Massachusetts has had universal healthcare for the longest time frame in this country – that is a known fact. How much debt does it currently have? 61.5 Billion Dollars! And that’s not even a huge state.

Let’s look at another part of Obama’s progressive agenda – education.

Obama hailed the Making College Affordable for Everyone Act as the means by which America would remain competitive in the 21st century. Sounds good – that definitely would benefit the majority, right?

How can everyone make it to college if the public education system is failing so many children and is in desperate need of reform? (Again, note in the article that they are also lowering expectations in laying out their education agenda.) What effect would that have on colleges if the students aren’t prepared to do the work that college requires? Maybe, it’s me; but, from a theoretical standpoint, Obama has it backwards.

Nevertheless, what happens to all of these college-educated people who don’t get decent to well-paying jobs because another college graduate got the job they wanted? Let’s not forget to mention that businesses would have to raise the qualifications for jobs to screen people out. What used to take a high-school diploma would then take a bachelor’s degree. A bachelor’s degree would then be replaced by a master’s degree and so on. Is making college affordable for everyone really going to improve the lot of the majority?  

This isn’t politics. This is the cold, harsh reality of the real world.