The Resistance To Socialism

Democrats are digging a deep hole that’s going to give Trump a real opportunity to win in 2020 assuming he does not resign or get impeached. Liberals are putting all their eggs in one basket. The movers and shakers in the party are betting on socialism.

The 2018 midterms would have been a non-event if Democrats had not won a bunch of seats in Congress and turned over the House of Representatives. It was easy for the firebrand political neophytes to make gains with low voter turnouts and before the country had a chance to appreciate the significance of the political tilt of the radical victors. The policies foisted on voters were easy to sell in individual congressional districts. This will not be the case in the general election.

The socialistic rage among young people and certain ethnic groups will not engage the vast majority of Americans. The abolishment of private insurance coverage as prescribed in Bernie Sanders’ plan for health care, over taxation espoused by every Democratic candidate for president that will destroy our vibrant economy and the New Green Deal are nothing more than a fairy tales told by misinformed snake oil salesmen. Our government is not going to outlaw airplanes or fossil fuel cars or coal fired utilities until things are invented to replace them.

Americans will recognize that the pie-in-the-sky horse poop being spread all over college campuses and in ghettos represent goals that are not achievable in the short or medium term. Long-term strategies that will stretch beyond the lives of Americans living today are where the real answers to pollution, global warming, poverty and conflict reside.

And what about the rest of the world? India and China account for about 1/3 of the carbon emissions in the world. If these countries don’t participate enthusiastically in Ocasio-Cortez’s plan (or any plan), the world will not become a less environmentally toxic place.

Radicals in the Democratic Party are denigrating centrists in their midst. No longer are compromise, capitalism, exceptionalism, innovation and plain old horse sense valued commodities. Liberals want to fight it out in the streets. The dreamers among us along with the downtrodden are not experienced or informed enough to lead America. And guess what? Most will eventually move towards the center, as they grow wiser.

The revolution taking pace in the Democratic Party is reminiscent of the 1960s with one important difference. Protestation of illegal wars and discrimination weren’t an attempt to change the values and dreams of Americans. Rather they forced our elected leaders to account for their blunders and disregard for all the things that have made this country great. Working with the system, long-term, is how America will be great again.

The impact of Trump in this dangerous imbroglio cannot be overstated. For a brief moment in history, a rebel convinced a lot of people that the establishment was detrimental to our nation. In many ways he was correct. Too long our allies were taking advantage of America’s generosity and altruism. Two bit terrorists and despots were given too much latitude. People are starving and dying. Trump got us back on the rails He exposed the underbelly of ineffective leadership. But now it’s time for him to move on.

The old perspective that you need to be radical in the primaries and centrist in the general election is a bad philosophy. We need leaders who are not looking to fight with other Americas. We need leaders who are more concerned about making America stronger, more empathetic, more innovative and more collaborative. We need to redirect our venom towards outsiders that want to kill us and destroy our way of life, not against our fellow Americans.

Call it what you like- centrism or moderation. We must elect a president who will make peace between Republicans and Democrats before he or she tries to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians or settle any other conflicts.

The New Socialist Party

It’s becoming increasingly difficult for the old-timers running the Democratic Party to control their caucus. Frankly it’s gratifying to see that politicians other than Trump are off the rails using social media. How long have Republicans dreamed of the day that Trump would forget to tweet some inane or insulting message?

In the old days new legislators sat in the back row, observed, learned, gave a couple of irrelevant speeches on uninteresting topics and voted along party lines. No more. Anybody can now speak to the entire world through a smart phone.

Two inexperienced congresswomen are controlling the Democratic dialog since they were elected last November. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is essentially leading the party’s move to the left. She’s an admitted socialist who clearly was asleep during math class in high school just a few years ago. We know this to be true because of her inane Green New Deal proposal that will cost trillions of dollars that the US doesn’t have, and a proposed tax increase that would allegedly conquer the income inequality problem in one election cycle. AOC has come a long way from the bar she tended in the Bronx a short time ago.

Now Ilhan Omar, another liberal congresswoman, is center stage. She’s on a crusade to expose the racist actions of Israel against the Palestinian people. Her objective is to convince her fellow legislators that the Israeli government is committing human rights violations against Arabs and should be sanctioned by the US.

Since the mid 20th Century Israeli Jews have fought with their Arab neighbors over self-determination, land rights and religious freedom. This woman actually believes she is capable of settling this half-century dispute by tweeting anti-Semitic vitriol.

Omar neglected to consider that three Jews, Eliot Engel, Jerrod Nadler and Nita Lowey, chair powerful committees in the House, and that they might deem her remarks inappropriate. Chuck Schumer, also Jewish, is the Democratic Leader of the Senate. This group will not sit by idly and allow a congressional newbie to hurl anti-Semitic epithets and upset Israel support in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, the House leadership, are very long in the tooth. They are not hip and do not appreciate the power of social media. The uprising by rookie congress people is indicative that changes are on the horizon for Democrats in the House.

In the meantime all of the Democratic initiatives to dump Trump, increase voting rights, fight against the wall, increase gun control and decrease prescription drug prices are not getting any face time. Even the Michael Cohen circus has left town.

What does all this mean politically? Well one must consider the individuals vying for the Democratic nomination for president to answer the question. Just about every one of the contenders is slowly morphing into a full-fledged socialist. They must move left to win the primary. The base consists of millions of millenials and underprivileged people who actually believe socialism will benefit them. But if moving left means avowing socialism, the Democratic Primary winner is going to lose in the general election because people in all parties are more than skeptical about dumping our nation’s capitalistic heritage.

The Democrats in Washington are being led by radical newbies in the House. They are usurping power from the old guard. Most of these people are calling for the impeachment of the president so that Democrats will continue to investigate and probably redo Mueller’s work (assuming he does not implicate the president). I think voters are getting tired of hearing the same accusations over and over, and no indictment of Trump.

The liberal presidential contenders are not focused on major geopolitical issues. The candidates are all-in regarding women’s rights and abuse issues. Some want the US to go all green even though it is unaffordable. All want to raise taxes to exorbitant levels regardless of that effect on the economy. So, the winner of the Democratic primary will be a socialist for all intents and purposes.

What about North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, human rights, starvation and disease worldwide, terrorism and the national deficit? If you want someone attuned to these issues you could be forced to vote for Trump, or better, Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney.

 

 

Do You Really Understand Socialism?

Declaring that you are a socialist is all the rage these days. Thirty plus Democratic candidates are saying they are influenced by it to some extent. Unfortunately most people and many politicians don’t understand the real goals of this ideology, and they use the terminology incorrectly.

Socialism has different connotations, some relatively bland and some extreme. The important thing to note is that socialist countries don’t have a sterling reputation for longevity or success. Voters should learn to appreciate the pros and cons of this type of government before the 2020 elections.

One definition of socialism follows. “Socialism is an economic theory of social organization that believes that the means of making, moving and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is a transitional . . . [a] social state between capitalism and communism.” The government is involved in every aspect of socialistic societies. Members of these societies are totally dependent upon the entitlements granted by political leadership.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism encourages innovation and individual achievement, while socialism promotes equality and fairness at the expense of exceptionalism.

In a communist society the working class owns everything, and everyone works towards the same communal goals. Supposedly there are no wealthy or poor people. Nothing is obtained by working overtime or more than what is required. Communism frequently results in low production, mass poverty and limited advancement. Typically communist regimes are totalitarian.

Capitalism is the opposite of communism and socialism, where limitations don’t exist and reward comes to those who perform. In capitalistic societies, owners are allowed to reap the benefits of excess production, and competition occurs naturally, which fosters advancement. Capitalism tends to create a sharp divide between the most ambitious and hard working citizens and everyone else. Usually this results in a divide between the wealthiest and poorest citizens.

The trend in the Democratic Party is leftward towards socialism. It’s a potentially dangerous phenomenon if it goes too far. Yet the minimization of the gap between the affluent and the middle class is a noble objective.

Problems arise when politicians cannot agree how to achieve income equality. Socialists have no qualms with burdensome taxation on the rich, which in effect transfers wealth from one group to another. This tactic is anathema to conservatives.

The populist approach has appeal to a growing number of Americans because raising taxes will not affect them personally even as it weighs heavily on the largest wage earners in the country.

Capitalists would say it’s good when ambitious and hard-working people move ahead of their peers. Who really wants to work in a society that doesn’t reward innovation and sweat? Socialists denigrate this perspective and say that inequality is inevitable with capitalism. It is evil, even if advancement is a function of job performance and effort.

As an example let’s consider health care. Liberals are clamoring for universal, one-payer (government) health care, a noble objective with certain provisos. The most important consideration is affordability. Can our nation afford to give every citizen free, efficient and quality health services? The simple answer is no.

The current system, which supports needy people, retired citizens and all others not covered by employer plans, is effectively bankrupting the country. So any proposal to expand this entitlement is not feasible without massive adjustments to tax rates and cut back of other government spending.

The most popular adjustment proposed by progressives is higher tax rates on the most wealthy among us. Keep in mind affluent people represent only about 1% of the population. But uninformed liberals think the answer to all questions of affordability can be resolved by overtaxing this small group. One percent citizens would not be able to fund extraordinarily large deficits even if taxes were 100%.

So how can the nation make strides in affording health care to those who cannot afford it? For one thing, those that are in a position to pay for health care should continue to do so, including American companies who are now paying all or part of their employees health care costs. Why take these plans away from so many insured people and put it into the hands of government bureaucrats thereby creating greater deficits?

Liberals say that everybody should have equal access to the best health care, and it’s not fair for affluent people to have preferred access just because they can pay for it.

Not only do liberals want coverage for all, they want services to be equal. So if someone is prepared to pay for better services and doctors, it is irrelevant and would not be permitted.

The real answers lie in costly bureaucracy, gouging by pharmaceutical companies, cheating by patients and doctors, etc. There is so much fat and waste in the system, but liberals ignore it and want to raise taxes instead. The amount of savings from just eliminating cheaters is monumental. The RAND Corporation estimates that about $100 billion is lost each year from health care cheaters.

Another simple solution is to enable everybody to have insurance, and not revamp the entire health care insurance infrastructure. Obamacare was an attempt to do this. Rather than expanding Medicaid to more needy people, Obamacare demanded that every American be insured, even if they did not want coverage, with one-size fits all plans. In essence the government wanted to pay for unhealthy Americans by forcing other Americans to buy expensive insurance.

It’s going to be a long road to income inequality. S

But socialism is not the answer. Our country is built upon creativity, innovation, risk-taking and grit. America will be stronger if all classes of people are more prosperous as one group.

 

Socialism Is Not Viable For America

America is at a political crossroads. Emboldened by a failed effort by Republicans to clean up the Washington swamp, Democrats are gearing up to experiment with an anti-Trump ideology. It’s known as socialism.

The left should give credit to Bernie Sanders for planting this seed during the 2016 Election. Against all odds Sanders convinced many young voters that the philosophies of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara and Trotsky were viable alternatives for America. Clinton operatives cheated Bernie, and Hillary was then shellacked by Trump.

In the end it was obvious that America wanted great change, but socialism was too extreme. Cooler heads prevailed as the American people realized that socialism has never been successful for an extended period of time. Every far-left leaning country has failed. Even China and Russia have moved towards western capitalism led by their despotic leaders.

It’s sad that so many younger Americans believe that economic prosperity and exceptionalism are not good for the country. The leaders of socialistic movements always target the affluent and the most successful members in society. Budding socialists in the US want to abscond the assets of the wealthy even though the vast numbers of prosperous individuals in this country were self-made. The belief that most 1%ers were gifted money from their mommies and daddies is total crap.

Have-nots lead the charge to over tax the haves. Why not? The problem with this philosophy is that over taxation dis-incentivizes entrepreneurship, innovation and leadership. Socialists cede their futures to a few leaders who eat like kings while their supplicants eat cake.

In the past, socialistic revolutions nobly and righteously brought down despotic monarchies that stole from the people. The Czars of Russia and the kings of France were noteworthy targets. They were corrupt and didn’t share economic prosperity with their people. Moreover the people were encouraged not to be great. They just followed or were punished.

France and Russia briefly, in historic terms, became socialistic countries. France went down the same path as the US and ultimately became a republic. Russia gave up its hard core socialistic ideals after Ronald Reagan effectively bankrupted America’s worst enemy. Now Russia pretends it is democratic, led by a man who dreams of returning Russia to its glory days. Although Putin leads with an iron hand, he is wary of the desire of his people to participate in the selection of its leaders, but it’s a sham.

In recent days a lengthy conga line of Democrats have been blathering about the benefits of socialism. They want to deconstruct the banking system, which is critical to any successful economy. They want to provide free health care to everyone and eviscerate medical coverage provided by corporations. They want to give students free college education. They want to have open borders and believe that illegal immigrants somehow will make America greater. They want to dismantle the immigration protection provided by ICE. They want police to have less power and authority to fight crime. They want convicted felons to serve less time for heinous crimes and to have the right to vote. They want to spend less on defense of our country.

The 64 thousand dollar question is— How the hell is the US going to pay for all these benefits, entitlements and giveaways? The left says they are going to tax affluent people up to 70% (now that’s a unique idea). If any of these politicians knew how to add, they would realize that there is no tax rate that can pay for the things they want to do.

The platitudes and false hopes being spread by liberals are intoxicating to many who suffer every day trying to make ends meet. But there is no elixir to fix the problems. Americans must work hard to become educated, find good jobs and take care of their families. Every person in the country should have a realistic shot at the American dream. Everyone should have a rewarding life filled with challenges and successes.

In the meantime Americans must be secure in the face of foreign and economic issues, illegal immigration, domestic crime and global pollution. Capitalism and hard work can make this happen.

In two years Americans will go to the polls to vote. I recommend leaders selected be experienced, pragmatic, empathetic and truthful. These four metrics will eliminate many of the current leaders we have and the new flock that is trying to bamboozle America.

Why Is Socialism Bad For America?

The results of the midterm elections should create a great deal of consternation for Americans. The proliferation of socialistic politicians and their ideology is a threat to our way of life.

Socialism means more government intrusion into our lives. It’s the only way to inhibit the creative and productive spirit of the people. The rules of a socialistic culture prevent the cream from rising to the top.

In a socialistic state, it’s not appropriate for any individuals to have more than others. It’s a society where everyone works the same number of hours, lives in cookie-cutter housing projects and takes public transportation to work. There are no heroes or role models.

It doesn’t matter how hard you work. You will receive the same compensation as others. Only a special few, who are close to leadership, receive special treatment.

Socialistic states have proven time and again that they do not work for extended periods of time. It may be an appropriate starting point for a new country, but the human spirit eventually overwhelms autocrats that manage socialistic states.

An examination of countries around the world should convince Americans that seguing from capitalism to socialism is a bad idea for our vibrant society.

China is the best example of a socialistic state in flux. Under Mao Tse Tung in the middle of the middle of the 20th Century, everyone shared equally. Today, just 50 years later, the Chinese people clamor for both capitalistic benefits and democracy.

Xi Jinping’s regime will not persevere if he can’t deliver more economic opportunity to his people. Xi is demanding more productivity and creativity from everyone. The best of the society now live more comfortably than the lower classes.

In China, students are ranked by potential. The best ones go to the most prestigious schools and ultimately fill the most important positions in the country. This is the essence of capitalism in which upper middle class lives are more rewarding than commoners.

Why would America choose to move in the opposite direction as China? Why would we abandon exceptionalism for a predetermined lifestyle?

You may ask what are the signs of increasing socialism in our country? Here are two.

A single source health care system is a prime example of socialism at its worst. For one thing, it’s axiomatic that universal care will never be a reality in the US unless all Americans are subjected to extreme taxation to pay for the extraordinary costs affiliated with it.

Supporters of this strategy ask why should some people have better health services than others? The reason is simple- they are prepared to pay more for it. Wealthy people overpay and this subsidizes the costs of other Americans.

Having well run hospitals manned by highly trained doctors is essentially funded by the affluent in this country. Without this subsidization, medical facilities and the personnel that operate them would deteriorate over time. Socialized medicine paid by the state results in inferior quality of service in too many cases. In the meantime, all citizens are subjected to very high tax rates.

Education is another area where the affluent subsidize so many others. For instance, wealthy alumni fund top colleges. College tuitions are not enough to pay for annual operating costs together with scholarships for high performing needy students. Most colleges have blind admissions, relating to financial need. If you score good grades, you can go to a top tier school at little or no cost.

The socialist would have us dumb down (a terrible, but descriptive term) the student bodies so that less qualified students can survive intellectually. Why would America agree to decrease educational standards for political correctness? Why would we hamper the brightest among us to be good socialists?

The remote ideal of income equality continues to depress our society. The so-called have-nots are troubled that others have bigger homes, fancier cars and take glamorous vacations. Not everyone can become a business tycoon, a professional athlete or an entertainer. But dedication and ambition will pay huge dividends over time.

The most important fact is that education can raise the lives of all Americans. The vast majority of baby boomers who are affluent made their fortunes by attending college and working hard. Their parents didn’t give them trust funds. They pushed them as children to get good grades and go to great schools.

Ultimately, a higher standard of living is something that is available to anyone in America who works diligently, has ambition and is trained. Socialism depresses people with a false sense of entitlement that will decrease their ability to live satisfying lives.