Crosstalk: Are Dems embracing socialism?

Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes and that model is not sustainable. Once the government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost and inflation spikes. The government has only the assets it confiscates from citizens, so the wealthy have to foot the bill for everyone, which discourages innovation and saps motivation.

Even worse, once citizens become accustomed to this cradle-to-grave concept, they are no longer self-reliant so they essentially become wards of the state who rebel against any reduction of services. When money runs out to keep the gravy train rolling, government attempts to reduce services, which brings rebellion from citizens, and that forces state repression to begin.

That is the socialist cycle that has played out with abysmal failure over and over again in history. Yet, Democrats think we’ve arrived at some new place in our humanity where a failed experiment will finally work.

A prime example of this thinking is the call by the left for “Medicare for all,”  or universal health coverage, paid for by the government.

Popularized by socialist Bernie Sanders, more and more Democrats are demanding that the government pick up the tab for health care. Who cares that the Mercatus Center at George Mason Univeristy has tabulated federal spending would increase by almost $33 trillion during the first 10 years of that program?

Supporters of the idea criticized that number based on the fact that Mercatus is a libertarian policy center, as if that undermines the merits of its argument. However, the centrist Urban Institute found exactly the same thing in 2016, as did Kenneth Thorpe, a former health policy adviser in the Clinton administration and current professor at Emory University.

It should be noted that Vermont, the home of Sanders, abandoned a single-payer proposal because it wasn’t fiscally sustainable. Even California, which leans left of left, gave up on a single-pay proposal because the projected cost was twice as much as the state budget.

If insurance premiums were eliminated and health care provided free of charge, there would be an incentive for more usage, which would lead to brute-force price controls and rationing as costs skyrocketed.

As Thomas Gallatin said in a recent column, “A free lunch is all fun and games until someone gets the bill.”

Democrats need to be forced to address the actual costs of the socialist ideology they are wrapping their party platform around. They can’t simply make the wealthy and corporations the boogey man that government must protect us from without doing the math and explaining how their policy proposals can be sustained.

As it stands now, it appears the left is suffering so greatly from Trump Derangement Syndrome that they have left the reality reservation and are intent on destroying the heart and soul of this nation —liberty — and the tremendous prosperity of its free market system.

It is a strong sign of moral decay that Americans are abandoning their strong independent and enterprising spirits to vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff.

Conversely, capitalism, at its core, is an expression of altruism because it is about giving. An entrepreneur can only succeed by satisfying a customer's need. This is why capitalism, and only capitalism, can create the prosperity that all societies crave. American was not founded to be a socialist nation, it is contrary to our values.

— RaeLynn Ricarte

I remember when Obama defeated John McCain in 2008, I heard various political pundits expound on the “death of the Republican Party.”

Even at the time, it seemed to me the postmortem was a little premature. And sure enough, like Mark Twain, who took great joy in saying, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated” following reports of his death, the Republican Party resurfaced after a time of introspection, reorganization and wound licking to continue as a dominant force in American politics.

In doing so, the Republican party swung to the right, as seen in the Tea Party Movement.

A similar shift to the left, previewed by the rise of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries and gathering steam today with the defeat of 20-year democratic incumbent Representative Joseph Crowley to 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York appears to be underway in the Democratic Party.

In a New York Times article titled “As Trump consolidates power, Democrats confront a rebellion in their ranks,” authors Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns suggest “Mr. Trump’s divisive and at times demagogic presidency has ignited much of the liberal upheaval, driving many left-of-center voters on to a kind of ideological war footing. That has translated into a surge in outsider candidates in the midterms who are pressuring Democratic leaders to support an ambitious liberal platform that includes single-payer health care, free college tuition and the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.”

Driven by weakness in the middle, the political winds eddy about the corners. But does that wind blow good or ill?

It’s hard to say, of course, but the “ambitious liberal platform” of universal healthcare, free college and abolition of ICE is certainly not designed to find common ground — and workable solutions — to the very real problems we are currently experiencing in America.

Yes, college is ridiculously expensive and student loan sharks are patrolling the waters. But the growth of “off campus” instruction made possible by the World Wide Web is reducing the real costs associated with earning a college degree, and the free market will be driving down costs. We need leaders who can pass bipartisan legislation to stop the “loan sharks,” not partisans out to build a new publicly-funded bureaucracy.

I’m not impressed with the “free healthcare” idea, either: Oregon has been a Democratic leader in that arena, and the money wasted has been truly astonishing. The healthcare provided, not so much.

The push to “abolish ICE” has more recently been a dominant liberal theme in Oregon, the result of which was praised by one liberal leader for bringing national attention to the “movement.” My own attention was captured by the filth and trash left in the wake of protesters: How does that square with the liberal chant to “save the earth?”

What we need is not new chants of opposition or Christmas lists to entice voters, but reasoned, thoughtful leadership that recognizes the importance of setting real goals to accomplish real change — change that doesn’t end with the next election because it is based on a single party majority.

But when is the last time you heard from a politician you can admire? I can think of three (not without reservations), and not all are from the same party.

If I were a Democrat, I would be looking for someone who can see beyond the hashtag of the day, who has worked for real change in their community — and has earned the respect of their peers and opponents.

And I would argue for a platform that recognized and acknowledged the real problems and needs of our country, and the equally real divisions, and laid out a path between and among the two. In short, a platform that looked not for political dominance, but workable solutions.

— Mark Gibson