How “Fair Shot” Becomes “No Shot”

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity CEO Mike Stenhouse has been playing off Rhode Island progressives’ slogan about a “fair shot” agenda, which consists mainly of policies that reduce economic freedom so progressives can buy support by forcing other people to hand over money.  Stenhouse’s riposte is that it’s a “no shot agenda for businesses.”  I’d suggest that he should drop the second part.  Progressive policies are harmful for everybody, business owners, employees, and people who aren’t working.   Stephen Moore makes the case succinctly in The American Spectator, listing a number of specific policies and concluding:

These examples merely scratch the surface of scores of governmental polices that are regressive. Could it be that the gridlock and polarization in Washington would be ended by a bipartisan reform movement to scout out and remove laws and rules that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most? One universal goal that we should all agree on and aspire to is equality of opportunity — which these laws squelch.

Where are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi and the class warfare warriors on reversing government policies that are stealing money and opportunities for low income and minority families? Do they care about protecting the poor? Or do they care more about protecting big government? It’s time to really find out.

No need for investigation.  As proven in Rhode Island, progressives want to help the poor and disadvantaged only inasmuch as that translates into more wealth and power for them, through government.  Progressives to whom that doesn’t apply aren’t progressives; they’re conservatives.



Quantcast