Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 806)
Politics, Video

Bill O’Reilly, during his Talking Points Memo on May 4, 2015, railed against politicians for not telling the truth about the poverty situation in Baltimore.

“For the past 48 years, Democrats have controlled the city of Baltimore,” O’Reilly pointed out. “During that time, the city’s population has fallen 30% and the poverty situation has grown more intense.”

“During the last five years, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into the poor areas of Baltimore … stimulus money. Total taxpayer money given: $1.8 billion. One poor neighborhood, Mid-Town Belvedere, got a whopping $838 million. That includes $467 million to education, $206 million to the environment, $24 million to “the family,” and $15 million to transportation. The result: Not much improvement.”

Bill O'Reilly, during his Talking Points Memo

Policy

federal_reserve

The Federal Reserve (Photo: REUTERS)

The standard argument against an easy-money policy is that it creates distortions in an economy that lead to either rapid increases in the price level, like we endured in the 1970s, or unsustainable asset bubbles, like we experienced last decade.

Those arguments are completely valid, but they only tell part of the story.

Central banks also should be criticized because “quantitative easing” and “zero interest rate policies” create major imbalances in capital markets.

A major new study from Swiss Re quantifies the damage to savers. Here are some excerpts from a CNBC report.

The Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the U.S. economy after the financial crisis ended up costing savers nearly half a trillion dollars in interest income, according to report released Thursday. Since the central bank dropped interest rates to near zero at the end of 2008, savers have labored under plain-vanilla bank accounts and money market funds that have yielded close to nothing. …In a landmark report, Swiss Re quantifies just how much savers and others have languished… The reinsurance firm put the number at $470 billion in the 2008-13 period studied, so the number is likely even higher now. …”the impact of foregone interest income for households and long-term investors has become substantial.” …Swiss Re said the “financial repression” has taken its toll not only on savers but also on some areas of investing.

Here’s a chart from the Swiss Re report. As you can see, an easy-money policy is a massive tool for redistribution, with savers being hurt and government being subsidized.

Indeed, Swiss Re actually calculates a “financial repression index.”

Financial repression reflects the ability of policymakers to direct funds to themselves that would otherwise go elsewhere.

And the level of this repression has been at record highs in recent years.

It is true that some households benefit from easy money and artificially low interest rates. Their debt expenses have been reduced and they also are enjoying higher asset values.

But those benefits may be fleeting if the end result is a bubble that bursts, as happened in 2008.

Writing for the Washington Times, my Cato colleague Richard Rahn agrees that central banks are hurting savers, but he augments this analysis by making the very important point that easy-money policies simply don’t work.

Government economic policymakers have been trying to solve a problem of too much government spending, taxing and regulation by inappropriately using monetary policy, which has not and cannot solve the fundamental problems (it is like using a hammer rather than a shovel to dig a hole). The major central banks have been holding down interest rates, which is actually a massive indirect tax levied on the world’s savers. Historically, savers would receive about 3 percent interest above the rate of inflation on their safest investments, but now interest rates often do not cover even the low inflation that is occurring in the developed countries. …Many economists expected savers to save less and consume more as a result of low or even negative interest rates… When businesses and individuals look at the world debt situation and the increased chances of another financial collapse, their rational response is to increase “precautionary” savings, even though they are not receiving interest on them.

So the bottom line is that central banks are engaging in “financial repression” today and creating risks of price instability and/or asset bubbles tomorrow.

But there’s no compensating benefit to make all these costs (and future risks) worthwhile.

That’s not a good deal.

So what’s the alternative?

In the short run, the best hope is that central bankers, including the ones at the Federal Reserve, will take their feet off the figurative gas pedal and follow some sort of monetary rule that precludes destructive intervention.

In the long run, the ideal answer would be a return to market-provided private currencies. This isn’t just silly libertarian fantasy. There actually have been countries that successfully used this “free banking” approach.

Professor Larry White has a must-read historical review of what happened before governments monopolized currency issue.

When we look into these episodes, we find a record of innovation, improvement, and success at serving money-users. As in other goods and services, competition provided the public with improved products at better prices. The least regulated systems were not only the most competitive but also by and large the least crisis-prone. …the record of these historical free banking systems, “most if not all can be considered as reasonably successful, sometimes quite remarkably so.”…Those systems of plural note issue that were panic prone, like those of pre-1913 United States and pre-1832 England, were not so because of competition but because of legal restrictions that significantly weakened banks. Where free banking was given a reasonable trial, for example in Scotland and Canada, it functioned well for the typical user of money and banking services.

The history of central banking, by contrast, is not nearly as successful. There’s been massive erosion in the value of money and central banks are largely responsible for the boom-bust cycle that has afflicted many economies.

At this point, you may be wondering why central banking triumphed over free banking if the latter is so superior.

The answer is simple. As Professor White explains, look at what’s in the best interest of the political elite.

Free banking often ended because the imposition of heavy legal restrictions or creation of a privileged central bank offered revenue advantages to politically influential interests. The legislature or the Treasury can tap a central bank for cheap credit, or (under a fiat standard) simply have the central bank pay the government’s bills by issuing new money. …Central banks primarily arose, directly or indirectly, from legislation that created privileges to promote the fiscal interests of the state or the rent-seeking interests of privileged bankers, not from market forces.

In other words, a system of competitive currencies is perfectly plausible, but it’s not in the interest of politicians (just as having no income tax is plausible, but also not in the interest of politicians).

For more information on free banking, here’s a video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

[brid video=”7813″ player=”1929″ title=”Time to End the Fed The Origin of Central Banking and Possible Alternatives”]

Professor White also has a good video explaining why a central bank isn’t needed.

P.S. For those of you who like the gold standard, Professor George Selgin (now head of Cato’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives) has some major concerns (at least if the government is in charge of it).

P.P.S. Don’t forget that the Federal Reserve also imposes a lot of costly regulationon the financial sector.

P.P.P.S. Thomas Sowell has some wise observations on why we shouldn’t grant more power to the Fed and John Stossel explains why monetary competition would be good.

P.P.P.P.S. To end with some humor, here’s the famous “Ben Bernank” video. And if that doesn’t exhaust your interest in the topic, here’s a snarky cartoon video mocking the Fed and another video with 10 reasons to dislike the Fed.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The standard argument against an easy-money policy

Opinion

baltimore-mayor-al-sharpton

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, left, walks past the Rev. Al Sharpton. (Photo: AP)

Among the many painful ironies in the current racial turmoil is that communities scattered across the country were disrupted by riots and looting because of the demonstrable lie that Michael Brown was shot in the back by a white policeman in Missouri — but there was not nearly as much turmoil created by the demonstrable fact that a fleeing black man was shot dead by a white policeman in South Carolina.

Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

In a world where the truth means so little, and headstrong preconceptions seem to be all that matter, what hope is there for rational words or rational behavior, much less mutual understanding across racial lines?

When the recorded fatal shooting of a fleeing man in South Carolina brought instant condemnation by whites and blacks alike, and by the most conservative as well as the most liberal commentators, that moment of mutual understanding was very fleeting, as if mutual understanding were something to be avoided, as a threat to a vision of “us against them” that was more popular.

That vision is nowhere more clearly expressed than in attempts to automatically depict whatever social problems exist in ghetto communities as being caused by the sins or negligence of whites, whether racism in general or a “legacy of slavery” in particular. Like most emotionally powerful visions, it is seldom, if ever, subjected to the test of evidence.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.
We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, DOWN — during the much lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read “Life at the Bottom,” by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. 

In a world where the truth means

Politics

ben-carson-announcement-detroit

Ben Carson announces his candidacy for president during an official announcement in Detroit, Monday, May 4, 2015. Carson, 63, a retired neurosurgeon, begins the Republican primary as an underdog in a campaign expected to feature several seasoned politicians. (Photo/Paul Sancya)

Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon from humble beginnings, announced in Detroit Monday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

“I’m Ben Carson and I’m a candidate for president of the United States,” he declared almost immediately to supporters.

Carson rose to national political prominence at the end of his 29-year careet leading the pediatric neurosurgery unit of Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore. He directed the first surgery to separate twins connected at the back of the head during a career that inspired the 2009 movie, “Gifted Hands,” with actor Cuba Gooding Jr. depicting Carson.

But, as impressive as the doctor’s career has been, he is not a politician. And, though critics say that makes him untested and unpredictable, he is proud of it.

“I’m not a politician,” he said. “I don’t want to be a politician. Because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what’s right.”

Carson also addressed the charge leveled by some in the media that claimed he wanted to eliminate social welfare programs that his family must have taken advantage of while Dr. Carson was growing up in abject poverty.

“This is a blatant lie,” he declared. “I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.”

Speaking without notes, Dr. Carson told his moving personal story that so often includes his hardworking, yet illiterate mother, who used to make him and his brother write book reports weekly. He praised her work ethic, commitment to educating her children, and her value and appreciation for hard-earned money and its proper management.

“I’m fond of saying that if my mom were secretary of treasury, we wouldn’t be in a deficit situation,” he joked.

Now, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reportedly raising as much as $100 million if not more, and Sen. Ted Cruz raising more than $30 million in the few weeks following his announcement, it remains unclear whether Carson can also raise the funds necessary to be competitive.

Following his retirement in 2013, supporters led by John Philip Sousa IV, the great-grandson of the famous composer, formed a super PAC called the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee. That group blew away political analysts’ expectations by raising $13.5 million in 2014. That was more than a super PAC set up to draft Hillary Clinton, which raised just $12.9 million. There are also at least three other political action groups now affiliated with Carson, including USA First, One Nation and American Legacy. Though they raised much less than the Draft Carson group, they’ll likely see those numbers increase now that he’s officially in the race.

Yet, from Carson’s speech, it is clear he will run a very different campaign, one that is far more blunt and far less politically correct than those Americans are used to. His speech covered warnings about the left’s “Saul Alinsky 101″ tactics to shame and silence the majority, to economic lessons involving GDP. Dr. Carson said he isn’t asking everyone to vote for him, just to listen to the message.

“I’m not politically correct, and I am never going to be politically correct,” Carson said. “Stop being loyal to a party or to a man, and use your brain to think for yourself. That is really the key to us as a nation becoming successful again.”

r. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon from

Politics, Video

pamela-geller

Pamela Geller, the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Manhattan. (Photo Credit: Mariela Lombard/ZUMA Press)

During his weekly phone call on “Fox & Friends,” Donald Trump questioned the decision by Pamela Geller to host the Muhammad art exhibit that was attacked on Sunday. Geller, the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, organized the event that offered $10,000 for first prize in a Muhammad cartoon-drawing contest in Garland, Texas.

“Isn’t there something else they could draw?” Trump, a potential Republican president candidate asked.“What in the hell is she doing?”

On Sunday, two heavily-armed men carrying explosives were killed by police after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at approximately 7:00 P.M. (local time) during an event depicting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, an act many muslims deem to be blasphemy. Bruce Joiner, a security guard who was shot in the ankle, was taken to the hospital in stable condition and has since been released.

Geller’s organization had beefed up security in anticipation of the event, which the group claimed was to celebrate free speech and respond to past events held by CAIR, the controversial Council for American Islamic Relations.

[brid video=”7787″ player=”1929″ title=”Donald Trump On Pamela Geller What In The Hell Is She Doing”]

“She’s taunting them,” he added. “What is the purpose of it?”

In January, 12 people were massacred by two gunmen in an attack against the Paris office of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoon depictions of Muhammad and other religious figures multiple times. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, claimed responsibility for the attack. A month later, another attack at a free speech event in Copenhagen featuring artist Lars Vilks, who had caricatured the prophet, resulted in 30-some bullets riddling the front of the cafe.

A Twitter account belonging to a known Islamic State fighter claimed responsibility for the attack.

On his Monday "Fox & Friends" call,

Polls

protests over illegal immigrants

Border patrol officers during a immigration demonstration outside the Border Patrol facility Friday, July 4, 2014 in Murrieta, California. (Photo: AP)

The number of voters supporting more border security — to include the use of the U.S. military — hit a 4-year high, as concern over illegal immigration grows.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 77 percent of likely voters consider illegal immigration a serious problem in America, with 51 percent saying it is a “Very Serious” problem. While concern over illegal immigration is unchanged from January, overall, the number who think it is a “Very Serious” problem is up from 47 percent.

Only 19 percent of likely voters say they don’t believe illegal immigration is a serious problem, including just 3 percent who say it’s “Not At All Serious.”

Meanwhile, most voters — 63 percent — continue to say that border security is more important than legalizing or providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States, up two points from January and the highest level measured since December 2011. The 30 percent of likely voters who disagree is at it’s lowest level in two years. The number of Americans supporting the use of the military to secure the border is also up to 63 percent from 57 percent in January, the highest number measured since December 2012.

We have examined and explained the data on this topic in great detail in the past, but most voters still oppose President Obama’s executive order to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. In fact, according to Rasmussen tracking, more voters than ever say he doesn’t have the legal authority to take such action, which is precisely the question presently making its way through federal courts.

PPD recently covered the latest polls and oral arguments regarding President Obama’s executive amnesty, which indicate the policy is losing in the courts of public and legal opinion. Unsurprisingly, most voters still have a favorable opinion of those who move to this country “to work hard, support their family and pursue the American Dream,” only half believe that is the motivation for most immigrants today.

The number of voters supporting more border

US

texas-terror-attack

An FBI agent looks at debris of a car blown up by police as a precaution, near the Curtis Culwell Center, on Monday morning. (Photo: AFP/Getty)

A Twitter account belonging to a known Islamic State fighter Abu Hussain Al Britani, who sources have identified as British-born Islamist Junaid Hussain, claimed responsibility for the attack on the Muhammad art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

In a series of tweets, Al Britani, who PPD has learned is also known by another name, which we will not release to protect law enforcement efforts, claimed that “2 of our brothers just opened fire” at an exhibition in Texas.

“They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,” the tweet also read.

On Sunday, two heavily-armed men carrying explosives were killed by police after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at approximately 7:00 P.M. (local time) during an event depicting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, an act many muslims deem to be blasphemy. Bruce Joiner, a security guard who was shot in the ankle, was taken to the hospital in stable condition and has since been released.

A senior FBI official has identified one of the men as Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, according to ABC News.

Simpson, an American-born Muslim convert, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago. However, he was placed on probation when a judge ruled the government could not prove that he was definitively planning to join a known terror group, and released. Early Monday, an FBI bomb squad served a search warrant at Simpson’s apartment in north Phoenix, Arizona. The second gunman’s identity is not yet known, but is believed to be Simpson’s roommate.

Other ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the now-suspended account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said “the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack”.

texas-terrorist-twitter

The event, which was hosted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, offered a $10,000 prize for the best caricature of the Prophet Muhammad. The event featured speeches by Pamela Geller, president of the AFDI, and Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker known for his outspoken criticism of Islam. Wilders received several standing ovations from the 200 attendees as he quoted former President Ronald Reagan and Texas founding father Sam Houston.

“Muhammad fought and terrorized people with the swords. Today, here in Garland, we fight Muhammad and his followers with the pen. And the pen, the drawings, will prove mightier than the sword,” Wilders said during his speech.

In January, 12 people were massacred by two gunmen in an attack against the Paris office of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoon depictions of Muhammad and other religious figures multiple times. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, claimed responsibility for the attack. A month later, another attack at a free speech event in Copenhagen featuring artist Lars Vilks, who had caricatured the prophet, resulted in 30-some bullets riddling the front of the cafe.

Meanwhile, police confirmed Monday afternoon that they did not find any explosive ordinance inside of the car that was swept by the bomb squad earlier.

A Twitter account belonging to a known

Politics, Video

[brid video=”7783″ player=”1929″ title=”Bernie Sanders We Need A Revolution In This Country”]
Self-professed socialist and 2016 Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a political revolution, and offered no praise for Hillary Clinton.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I am the only candidate who is prepared to take on the billionaire class which now controls our economy and increasingly controls the political life of this country. We need a political revolution in this country involving millions of people who are prepared to stand up and say enough is enough. I want to help lead that effort.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULIS: Does that mean Hillary Clinton is part of the billionaire class?

SANDERS: It means that Hillary Clinton has been part of the political establishment for many many years

I have known Hilary for 25 years. I respect her and I like her. But I think what the American people are saying is that at a time when 99% of all new income is going to the 1%, and when the top one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, maybe it’s time for real political shake-up, and go beyond establishment politics.

Self-professed socialist and 2016 Democratic candidate Sen.

Policy

IMF Global Economy Chamber IMF

October 12, 2013: The IMFC meeting begins during the World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings at IMF headquarters Saturday in Washington. World finance officials prepared to wrap up three days of meetings in Washington, where fretting about the risk of an unprecedented U.S. debt default overshadowed myriad worries about a shaky global economic recovery. ( AP Photo)

Even small differences in economic growth make a big difference to living standards over time.

I frequently share this chart, which highlights how long it takes to double economic output based on different growth rates.

I also use real-world examples to show how some nations become much richer than other nations within just a few decades because of better policy and faster growth.

Here’s another way to approach the issue. Let’s use a hypothetical example to reinforce the importance of growth. If we went back to 1870 and assumed our economy’s nominal growth rate was one percentage point slower than it actually was (in other words, averaging 4.76 percent each year rather than 5.76 percent), our living standards today would be only 1/4th of current levels.

That’s a huge difference in national prosperity. We’d be about the level of Kazakhstan today!

In a column for the Wall Street Journal last week, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and businessman Louis Woodhill used the same approach to make a similar point about the incredible importance of long-run growth. They go back even further in time and come up with an even more sobering example.

The recovery that began in 2009 is the weakest in postwar history. Millions have dropped out the labor force, frustrated by lack of opportunity. Lower-income workers are underemployed, middle-incomes have not advanced as in the past, and government dependency has increased. …ignored is what really matters: rapid, sustained economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the U.S. economy will grow by a meager 2.3% over the next decade… At this growth rate, Americans face a future of stagnation, inequality and despair. Here’s why: From 1790 to 2014, U.S. GDP in real dollars grew at an average annual rate of 3.73%. Had America grown at the CBO’s “economic speed limit” of 2.3% for its entire history, GDP would be $780 billion today instead of more than $17 trillion. And GDP per capita would be $2,433, lower than Papua New Guinea’s.

This is why (good) economists are so fixated on economic growth. It’s vital for our long-run living standards.

Which means, of course, that we’re also fixated on the importance of free markets and small government. We understand that an economy will grow much faster if the burden of government is constrained (think Hong Kong or Singapore).

But if the public sector is bloated, with high levels of spending, taxation, regulation, cronyism, and protectionism, then it’s very difficult for the productive sector of the economy to flourish.

Let’s augment our understanding by comparing two nations, Estonia and Croatia, that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Estonia has been a role model for pro-growth reform. According to Economic Freedom of the World, the small Baltic nation quickly moved to reduce the burden of government (including a flat tax) and Estonia consistently has been in the top 20 of all nations.

Croatia, by contrast, has lagged. While its economic freedom score has improved, the progress has been modest and Croatia has never been ranked higher than #70.

So what are the real-world results of what happened in these two nations?

The simple answer is that good policy yields good results. Here’s a chart, based on IMF data, showing per-capita GDP in both Estonia and Croatia.

The most relevant lesson, which I highlighted, is that Croatia was much richer at the beginning of the post-Soviet period.

But Estonia quickly caught up because of its reforms. And over the past 10 years, Croatia has fallen significantly behind.

The key takeaway is that growth matters. And if you want growth, you need economic freedom.

Which brings us back to the aforementioned Wall Street Journal column. Cassidy and Woodhill are totally correct to worry about the “new normal” of anemic growth.

Fortunately, we know the policies that will rejuvenate the economy. And maybe we’ll get a chance to implement those policies after the 2016 election.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Real-world examples to show how some nations

Opinion

democrat senators and bernie sanders

Democrat Sens. Harry Reid, Al Franken and Richard Blumenthal, with Democrat-socialist Bernie Sanders.

It’s not often that I disagree with the folks who put together the Wall Street Journal editorial page. For instance, they just published a great editorial on that cesspool of cronyism and corruption that is otherwise known as the Export-Import Bank.

Isn’t it great that the voice of capitalism actually supports genuine free markets!

That being said, a recent editorial rubs me the wrong way.

It’s about the presumably quixotic presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. These excerpts will give you a flavor of what the WSJ wrote.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed independent Socialist, has decided to run for the Democratic presidential nomination… He thinks the American economy is fundamentally unfair, and that government must tax and spend even more heavily… He thinks Social Security should increase benefits, no matter that it is heading toward insolvency. Higher taxes can make up the difference. …He wants single-payer health care, though his own state gave up the experiment as too expensive.

So what’s my disagreement?

I realize I’m being a nit-picker, but I don’t like the fact that the WSJ editorial is entitled “An Honest Socialist.”

My gripe is that Sanders isn’t honest. A genuine socialist believes in government ownership of the means of production. In other words, nationalized factories, government-run businesses, and collective farms. If Sanders believes in these policies, he’s remarkably reluctant to share his perspective.

In reality, Sanders is like Obama. You can call him a statist, a corporatist, or even (as Tom Sowell correctly notes) a fascist.

In other words, lots of redistribution and lots of back-door government control of the private sector, but not a lot of People’s Factory #58 or People’s Farm #91.

Though it is true that Sanders wants the government to directly run the healthcare system (akin to the horrifying U.K. approach), but at most that means he’s a “partial socialist” (or, to modify the WSJ‘s title, a “mostly dishonest socialist”).

Moreover, he doesn’t bring anything new to the presidential race, at least from a policy perspective.

There’s only a trivially small difference, for instance, between Hillary Clinton’s lifetime rating of 10.6 from the National Taxpayers Union and Bernie Sanders’ lifetime rating of 9.4. They both earned their failing grades by spending other people’s money with reckless abandon.

Though it’s worth noting that both Clinton and Sanders are “more frugal” than Barack Obama, who earned a lifetime rating of 9.0. I guess this is why the phrase “damning with faint praise” was invented.

The only difference between Hillary, Obama, and Sanders is tone. Here’s some of what Charles Cooke wrote for National Review.

Sanders does not play games with words…he steadfastly refuses to pretend that he represents moderation. …Sanders is to public policy and professional politicking what Joe Biden is to personality. He is open, blunt, unapologetic, compelling, ready to debate.

Which is in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton’s pabulum.

…the Democratic primary is being dominated by a corrupt, controlling, soulless, cynical, entitled, and mostly synthetic avatar named Hillary Clinton, and, in consequence, it is almost entirely devoid of ideas. …Hillary and her team stick to meaningless and saccharine banalities, almost all of which, one presumes, have been poll-tested within a fraction of an inch. …At no time does she stake out a vision. At no time does she adopt a controversial or momentous position. Instead, she hides behind corporately assembled strings of mawkish, semi-literate tosh.

So the difference between Clinton and Sanders is that he’s proud of his statism and she wants to hide her radical agenda.

But it doesn’t matter what they say or what they call themselves, the bottom line is that their policies are destructive, both economically and morally.

P.S. Since Senator Sanders is from Vermont, it’s both amusing and ironic that the Green Mountain State’s government-run healthcare system self destructed.

P.P.S. Since we’re on the topic of socialism, it’s worth pointing out that Jesus wasn’t in that camp. Though I’m not sure we can say the same thing about the Pope.

P.P.P.S. Heck, Jesus may have been a libertarian.

P.P.P.P.S. If you like socialism humor, click here, here, and here.

P.P.P.P.P.S. Switching to another topic (and one where there’s zero humor), you may remember that I wrote a few days ago about the horror of so-called civil asset forfeiture.

This happens when the government arbitrarily seizes your money and/or propertywithout convicting you of a crime. Or even without charging you with a crime.

Well, here’s a video from the Institute for Justice about a new tragic example of theft by government.

[youtube id=”uGtFWC-12-w” responsive=”true” width=”660″ height=”354″ showinfo=”true” branding=”false” hd=”true” autoplay=”false” controls=”true” theme=”light”]

If this doesn’t get you angry, you probably need counseling. This story reminds me of the Michigan family that was similarly victimized.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Self-proclaimed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Democrat

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe