Newt Gingrich’s lowest, cheapest, most immoral blow yet.
(Page 2 of 2)
——— End Intermission ———
Third, Gingrich’s question has no objective answer — exactly the kind of question we therefore expect from the left whose haters of capitalism see its “creative destruction” but can’t see or think past the second word because when in the realm of entrepreneurship or even basic economics, they have no grasp of the first. Who is to judge whether we are better off “on balance” due to any particular business decision? Surely the Obama Administration would like the answer to be government; by his anti-capitalist attack on Romney’s former business Newt is playing right into Democrats’ hands, not just giving them electoral ammunition but erroneously implying that Obama’s own intense anti-capitalism has even a shred of moral or logical foundation.
Fourth, what is Gingrich’s implication for public policy? Nobody disputes that Bain Capital’s intention when firing people was to preserve an operating company so that profits could be generated — without which 100 percent of that company’s employees instead of some much smaller fraction would have lost their jobs. If Gingrich says that approach is wrong, then is he suggesting that the work force of the federal government should also not be shrunk regardless of the possible efficiency gains and benefit to taxpayers (the analogues to investors when it comes to government except that we always operate at a loss)?
After all, when a government worker loses his job, he is (at least in the short run) worse off, even though the thousands or millions of people paying his salary are, at least financially, better off. But the worker is losing thousands of dollars while each of the rest of us may be losing a penny. Would Newt then claim that we are not better off “on balance” and thus argue for never firing anybody? If he would claim it, he would be wrong — not just economically but morally, since forcing a person to spend his money on something he doesn’t want to buy (whether an employee’s services or health insurance) is one baby step away from slavery and zero steps away from economic fascism. But even if he were right, what “solution” could Mr. Gingrich plausibly suggest other than one that would make Il Duce smile?
Gingrich and the casino-funded Super PAC supporting him are less attacking Romney than attacking free enterprise. It is a shameful, petty gambit by the former Speaker, a man who constantly claims to be running on “big ideas” and “big solutions.” Newt Gingrich’s involvement in the assault on Romney’s business career may prove to be illegal and politically unwise. But worst of all, it’s immoral.