'Crazy Bernie' Is At It Again

There he goes again. Despite the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years, including declining rates for minorities, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), affectionately called "crazy Bernie" by some conservative talk show hosts, is again flirting with the idea that the federal government should guarantee every American a job, paying a minimum of $15 an hour and health care benefits.

The Washington Post reports the plan would "...fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, health care, the environment, education and other goals. ... every American would be entitled to a job under one of these projects or receive job training to be able to do so, according to an early draft of the proposal."

The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), ran on a similar platform and lost 49 states. Go, Bernie, go!

Are we not already spending plenty on these "priorities"? Just on education, record spending hasn't helped improve the knowledge of students. They still lag behind students in other countries when it comes to science and math, and, apparently, even English, as the overuse of the words "like" and "you know" have dumbed down our common language.

What is it about socialism that remains so attractive to many liberals? In most communist countries, it is a form of mutually-shared poverty. At a minimum it starves incentive.

A thriving economy is the best guarantee of a job. The American economy is now thriving, expanding at an annual rate of 2.9 percent, which many economists said just a few years ago was impossible to expect. According to Tradingeconomics.com, the "unemployment rate is expected to be 4 percent by the end of this quarter" (it is now 4.1 percent). Going forward, it says, "We estimate the unemployment rate in the United States to stand at 3.80 in 12 months."

The goal of Sanders and others in the guaranteed-income crowd, according to Darrick Hamilton, an economist at the New School and Stony Brook University's Stephanie Kahn, who are quoted by The Washington Post, is to "eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether."

Wait, hasn't that already been tried? The Great Society programs launched more than 50 years ago by President Lyndon Johnson had similar goals. They have so far cost a collective $22 trillion. While those programs include Medicare and Medicaid, which are long overdue for reform, the poverty rate in America is roughly the same as it was in the mid-1960s.

According to the Library of Economics and Liberty, "The United States produces more per capita than any other industrialized country, and in recent years governments at various levels have spent about $350 billion per year, or about 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, on programs serving low-income families. Despite this, measured poverty is more prevalent in the United States than in most of the rest of the industrialized world."

If government spending is the solution, wouldn't the problem of poverty and the dwindling number of unemployed be solved by now? How will more spending (and the inevitable higher taxes and increased debt) improve their lot?

Sanders' proposal is as likely to win approval as McGovern's failed to do in 1972, but it taps into a growing feeling, particularly among many young Americans, for whom feelings, not results, are ultimately what liberalism relies on. Many liberals feel corporations are evil, that some people are paid "too much," "income inequality" is something that should be addressed by government and, because some people make more money than others, America is an unfair nation.

This worldview appears to be increasingly taught in public schools and at the higher level by tenured college professors. This worldview did not build America, and if it ever takes over, it will never sustain us. Consider where it has been tried.

“...stupid enough to allow Bernie to run as a RAT for 2020?”

They would be as stupid as a fox since Bernie, given the current socialism-loving part of the population, would probably win.

(The “press” would do the propaganda end that would probably put him over the top.)

IMHO

thanks. I don’t think they can afford to have Bernie as their standard bearer, with all the potential younger RATs waiting to jump in.
My guess is, if he tries to run, the DNC blocks him.

I always thought the RATs let Bernie in as they needed someone to run v. Hillary, otherwise, there would be no primaries, no T.V. no news no nothing.
I think they would have paid someone to run vs. Hillary,( maybe they did pay Bernie) just to get all that noise.

The socialists are sure making a lot of noise. I just wonder if that equates to votes.

Should be interesting.

“The socialists are sure making a lot of noise. I just wonder if that equates to votes.”

There are lots of die-hard Democrats around who don’t care how far left the party goes.

The irony is that many work hard every day, pay their own bills, struggle to do the best for their children, and then vote for people who want to tax them to death, indoctrinate their children and promise them salvation through the worship of humans.

It’s insidious, disheartening, and absolutely amazing to watch.

IMHO

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.