Who’s Afraid of Socialism?

Wall Street Journal ^ | 2/6/19 | WSJ Editorial Board

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Democrats and the media are protesting that the socialist label doesn’t apply to them...what are they afraid of—the label or their own ideas?

...consider the Democratic agenda that is emerging from Congress and the party’s presidential contenders.

• Medicare for All. Sanders’ plan, endorsed by 16 Senators, would replace all private health insurance in the U.S. with a federally administered single-payer health-care program. Government would decide what care to deliver, which drugs to pay for, and how much to pay doctors and hospitals. Private insurance would be banned.

• Green New Deal. ...this would mean a complete remake of American electric power, transportation and manufacturing. ...as imagined by AOC, all of this would be planned by a Select Committee For a Green New Deal. Soviet five-year plans were more modest.

• guaranteed government job. ...no longer a fringe idea. Obama's Center for American Progres, supports a government job for everyone “to counter the effects of reduced bargaining power, technical change, globalization,”

• new system for corporate control. Warren wants a federal charter for businesses with >$1 B revenue that would make companies answer to more than shareholders. Employees would elect 40% of directors...radical redesign of corporate governance would give politicians and their interest groups new influence over private business decisions and assets.

• Vastly higher taxes. Sanders wants top death tax rate of 77%. AOC wants 70% tax rate on high incomes. Warren wants 2% “wealth tax” on assets >$50 million and 3% >$1 billion

Some readers might think this is all so extreme it could never happen. The leftward lurch of Democratic voters, especially the young, means the party could nominate the most left-wing presidential candidate in U.S. history. If other Democratic candidates oppose any or all of this, we’d like to hear them.

[elcid1970]

“Then Red Riding Hood took an automatic out of her basket and shot the wolf dead.”

Wish it were that simple.

[right way right]

Credit it to truth.

[JGPhila]

A predictable consequence of Medicare for All will be a dumbing down of physicians. Because the prospective income for doctors, already in decline, will plunge in a Medicare for All scenario, the best and brightest young people will compare the years of hard work needed to become a doctor with the greatly reduced financial rewards and will take a different career path. With some exceptions for those genuinely committed to medicine, our doctors will be chosen from those who normally would be rejected by medical schools. As interest in a medical career declines, the schools will take a financial hit and will be forced to reduce the education and training in order to operate at a profit. The impact on the health and well being of our country will be profound and long lasting. Lastly, because the doctors will be part of a nationalized system, shoddy care will proliferate and recourse to malpractice will be curtailed by the same government that will be deciding the level of care to which each patient is entitled.

[FamiliarFace]

The left worries about ripping children apart from their families when they’re here illegally, but have no problems ripping children from the homes of their mothers’ wombs before or after birth.

[JesusIsLord]

How is the use of a 529 plan considered "embracing socialism?"

As you know, 529 plans avoid taxes for a select group, i.e., for those saving for their children's education. Government 'distributing' or 'controlling' how goods or services are used or not used is a tenant socialism. I agree that 529s may be a stretch but the fact is that government is controlling/distributing a service (education) when it benefits 529 savers over conventional non-529 savers.

The point I was trying to make is that our system is not purely capitalistic. We have many social programs. The question we are facing is whether: we will continue paying/supporting current social programs; eliminate some or all of them; or create even more social programs?

[itsahoot]

We are probably past the point of no return.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like where men were free. ~ Ronald Reagan

[jmaroneps37]

Socialism: You can get it with your vote; but you must use a gun to get ride of it. Any questions?

[Lou L]

The point I was trying to make is that our system is not purely capitalistic. We have many social programs.

I will agree with you that our tax system favors some, over others. We offer tax deductions frequently, in order to encourage certain behaviors. Tax deductions reduce the amount of tax that an individual may pay the government, in trade for doing some behavior. In the case of a 529 plan sponsored by a certain state, we reduce our state taxes, up to a certain amount of income.

The federal and state governments also offer tax credits. These are direct payments or rebates, also given for certain behaviors, or being in certain classes. Tax credits are typically seen in "wealth redistribution" schemes, and are more akin to some of the welfare programs that you listed.

The point I'm making is that 529 plans are nothing like a welfare program. If you want to get picky about it, home owners claiming mortgage interest write-offs, deductions for dependents, and even a personal deduction is considered "socialistic," by your definition.