By Henry Lamb
Monday, February 12, 2007
Hugo Chavez is in the final stages of transforming Venezuela into his vision of a perfect system of governance, in which government holds all power, and grants to its citizens those privileges which the government chooses to extend. The Chavez system of governance is the opposite from the American system, in which all power resides with the people, who grant limited powers to government. This power is limited by the U.S. Constitution, and by the ultimate power to remove any lawmaker at the ballot box.
Chavez was re-elected by a landslide in December, and has now to gain the legal power to rule by decree for 18 months, and is working to remove term limits on his office so his position will be that of a dictator for life. The Venezuelan people seem to love the idea, because Chavez has promised to impose new taxes on the rich and redistribute the wealth to the poor, and to essentially replace local governments with "community councils," to advise the dictator on public policy. Incidentally, each community council will get $56,000 this year for "spending money."
If asked, most Americans would say they would deplore a similar transformation of government if it were to happen in the United States. But it is happening in the United States; it is happening differently, and not because of the leadership of a single aspiring dictator, but at the direction of folks who subscribe to the same political ideology advanced by Chavez.
Chavez's agenda includes: taxing the rich to give to the poor; reorientation of schools to teach socialist values; empowering (and funding) community councils to supersede local governments; nationalizing major companies; and creating an egalitarian society.
Even a casual examination of the agenda of the new Democrat majority in Congress reveals striking similarities to the Chavez agenda. Since the November election, the mantra has been to eliminate the tax cuts granted to rich people by the previous Congress. This "tax the rich" idea is a fundamental tenet of both Chavez and the Democrats. Hilary Clinton said that she would "take" Exxon's profits and put it into a government-operated strategic energy program.
At the same time, Democrats promote the idea of taxing behavior they want to end, such as smoking tobacco, using fossil fuels, and driving in congested areas, and giving tax breaks for behavior to be encouraged, such as using alternative fuel, purchasing hybrid cars, and the like.
The accumulation of wealth is a sure sign of industry, productivity, and success - all values that should be encouraged. So why impose a tax on success? This behavior should be encouraged, not penalized. Democrats are quick to reward the unsuccessful, with all sorts of entitlements.
The education system in America has already been transformed from teaching basic facts and skills, to teaching values and attitudes. The No Child Left Behind Act establishes a federal curriculum, and provides funding for a private institution to develop textbooks and curriculum content that stresses "global values" and minimizes the principles of freedom that underlie the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps the greatest similarity to the Chavez form of governance is the creation of "community councils" whose power supersedes the local elected government. This transformation began under the Clinton regime, with the implementation of Agenda 21. Chavez calls these councils "community councils," and deliberately describes them as being similar to the "soviets" that emerged in the former Soviet Union. In the United States, they are called "visioning councils," or "stakeholder's councils," or "leadership councils," as in the newly proposed legislation for the Puget Sound Partnership.
The Republican administration did little to reverse this trend. In fact, the pressure to override local government intensified behind the banner of eliciting stakeholder input into the development of policies that would affect all the citizens of a community. Like the soviets in Russia, these councils consist of selected people, not representatives from the entire community. Like the soviets, decisions made by these councils are imposed upon all the people. And like the soviets, the people who make the policy are not directly accountable to the people who are governed by their policies. The people who are selected to serve on these soviets, or councils, owe their allegiance to the person who appointed them. To ensure that allegiance, the person who does the appointing often awards benefits, such as Chavez's $56,000 per year, or in the U.S., it's called challenge grants, or economic incentives.
Chavez makes no bones about nationalizing companies; Democrats are not that brazen. They, accompanied by many socialist-leaning Republicans, simply create legislation to force companies to pay a minimum wage, to provide employment benefits, to limit executives' pay, to force car makers to achieve government-imposed mileage standards, to limit smoke-stack emissions, to build where, and how, government says to build. The regulatory burden of government on business is nearing fascism, en route to nationalization.
Democrats are brazen enough to call for universal health care, en route to an egalitarian system. They seem completely unaware that the problems with the health care system now are the direct result of past government interference. The further the United States gets away from the fundamental principle that government power is limited by the consent of the governed, the closer the nation gets to the system of government being created by Hugo Chavez.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement