SO - what's the ultimate progressive, former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, doing these days since he got the boot from the voters of New Jersey?
Surprisingly, our little neo-Marxist returned to the private sector, and was appointed CEO and Chairman of MF Global, a multinational futures broker and bond dealer in March of 2010. Corzine also serves simultaneously as a partner at J.C. Flowers & Co., a private equity firm founded by his personal friend J. Christopher Flowers. Incidentally, Flowers owns a 10 percent stake in MF Global, and is a former Goldman Sachs' partner (Corzine's employer prior to his entering of "public service". Lucky us).
But here's an interesting question - is Jon Corzine, now back on "the Street", applying the same progressive policies that he championed as governor to his current position and current employees?
Shockingly, the answer is...no. Via Bob Ingle:
Corzine is making dramatic moves to cut staff, reports the Wall Street Journal. He plans to cut 10 to 15 percent of the work force. He will focus on compensation and benefits which accounted for more than 75 percent of revenue in the last quarter. Gosh, what happened to that “we’re with you workers” speech? Now he says people who don’t like the changes can go elsewhere...
But...but....when he was governor of New Jersey, he said those benefits were "untouchable"! Despite a worsening economy, not only did he refuse to lay off any state workers, he actually added thousands to the state payroll! Why has he forsaken the very philosophy he adopted as governor? Why is he abandoning the benefits that he forced upon both the public and private sector of New Jersey, to the ruination of us all?
Could it be that Corzine knew all along his policies were destructive, but thought he could escape responsibility by conning and bribing enough New Jersey voters? Or are there simply two sets of rules: One you play by when you are already wealthy and simply spending "other people's money", and another set for when you are in the private sector, and held responsible for bottom-line results on a daily basis?
Maybe that's the standard we should hold our politicians to. "Could they get away with this in a management position of a private-sector company?" If the answer is "no", then you can be assured that you're being sold on a Ponzi scheme, funded with someone else's money (probably your own), and that you are on the absolute bottom of the repayment pyramid.
If a proposal fails the private-sector test, chuck it. And for good measure, throw out the politician who is proposing it, too...