Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
The case against Microsoft has been analyzed from every possible angle by now.
Industry experts have predicted how a breakup of Microsoft will affect the computer industry.
Legal experts have talked about the parallels between Standard Oil and AT&T.
But does anybody else find it ironic that the Clinton Administration trumpets the merits of a free market while simultaneously going after specific companies that operate within the free market?
It's as if lots of Democrats these days - and a few Republicans, too, but mostly Democrats - have split personalities.
On the one hand they love to talk about the free market and expound upon its virtues. The Clinton administration - probably more so than any other Democrat administration - has enthusiastically touted markets and claimed political credit for market success.
So why, then, is that same administration taking aim at the most productive company in the most productive industry in the free market?
But it goes beyond that.
It's the whole mindset that seems to pervade the administration.
The mindset that it's good for the economy to be strong but it's not good for any specific company to make too much money.
Democrats love to talk about how great the economy is. But they also love to disparage companies for things like stratospheric CEO salaries and corporate welfare.
Profits are driving this very robust economy of ours, but if a company makes money, it is accused of exploiting workers or customers.
Sometimes it must be tough to be a Democrat.
Labor unions contribute a lot of money to the Democrats. But it must drive labor unions nuts when they hear the president talk about things like free trade and free markets.
It must be particularly tough on Democrats like Tim Roemer, D-South Bend.
Roemer has always been a friend of labor. But he's also a friend of the president.
So when the president wanted a vote on preferred trade status for China, Roemer voted for it. That had to make the union guys mad.
The president urged passage of the China trade bill because he said it would open up new markets for U.S. companies.
That made the unions mad because they said the trade bill would be an unfair disadvantage to U.S. workers.
What's a free market-promoting administration to do?
And we also have the federal and state governments targeting a couple industries - gun and tobacco - essentially seeking to run them out of business because they don't like their products.
I always wonder what product will be next?
Cars? Motorcycles? Roller skates? Soft drinks? Fast food?
Surely there are lots of free market companies out there selling manufacturing stuff that is either bad for us or downright dangerous.
Why doesn't the administration go after them, too? All the while claiming credit for the booming economy that these companies help generate.
How many times have you heard this administration complain about tax cuts being a sop to the wealthy?
Creating class distinction and class envy is good politics. For years we have been told the Democrats are the protectors of the working class and the Republicans are the protectors of the rich.
Just the other day when Congress was talking about eliminating the inheritance tax, the administration was talking about vetoing it because it applied only to the rich.
Seem it's OK to generate wealth, but it's not OK to be wealthy.
It's a bizarre, schizophrenic kind of ideology, but it must works pretty well because politicians use it all the time to get elected.
And most ironic of all is the fact that most of those politicians who decry the wealth and greed of the privileged class are themselves members of that very same class.
