Let’s Raise a Hand against Socialism

This past Friday a question was asked to the debating Democrat candidates for the presidency. George Stephanopoulos said, “Let me just ask, is anyone else on the stage concerned about having a democratic socialist at the top of the Democratic ticket?” 

No hands were raised. Then Amy Klobuchar briefly raised her hand, but peer pressure pushed her hand back down. Then, when called on, she points out that socialism is divisive. So she doesn’t call herself that, but many of her policies do.

Amy Klobuchar, second from right, raises hand
screenshot from here

So let me translate for you: Whoever the Democrats nominate favors a radical shift to socialism, which is incompatible with our US Constitution. The Democrat Party will support socialism—and are cavalier about a simple majority overthrowing our Constitution.

That means that they do not understand our Constitution.

Last September I mentioned a list of questions I use to reveal whether a candidate understands and supports the Constitution, or has something else—namely, tyranny—in mind. I’m using this list as I work on my choices in local Republican Primary races. I wish Democrats were using this list as well.

Socialism would affect all three spheres: political, economic, and social. But in its simplicity, socialism is the replacement of a free market with a government centrally controlled economy. So I’m going to look at just the economic questions today.

And, while all the Democrat candidates lean socialist, Bernie Sanders, the most openly avowed socialist, claims to have held the same beliefs for many decades, and he has a website proclaiming his plans. So we’ll use him to answer our questions today. Maybe this exercise will help us see whether socialism leads to prosperity or to poverty.

Bernie Sanders during last Friday's debate
AP Photo by Patrick Semansky found here

First question.

What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes? And for the sake of discussion, let’s add, for what purposes should these taxes be spent? 

Here’s the short answer from Frank Sammartino, TaxPolicyCenter.com, concerning Bernie Sanders (2016 campaign): 

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US.

I didn’t get an actual answer, other than, no matter who you are, you need to pay more. Upper rates could reach beyond historic—which means confiscatory (at which levels, no one willingly pays, so tax revenue actually goes down). And that money will be spent for non-governmental powers, such as a non-choice healthcare system takeover, federal government controlled education, forcing businesses to pay family leave or avoid hiring parents. Plus, incidentally, paying for infrastructure projects that might qualify as of interstate interest.

I went to Bernie Sanders’ campaign site. It didn’t help getting my specific questions answered. There is, however, an overall sense that, no matter how much government takes, it’s not enough—and we’ll just keep taking from the evil rich until we run out of spending ideas. So, how much should be taken in taxes? Probably upwards of 80% of GDP. 

Next question.

What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

Let’s look at those 2008-2009 bailouts. Bernie Sanders was against them before he voted for them. His reasons for originally disapproving (besides their starting under a Bush administration) strike me as convoluted. But there’s a timeline from four years ago following debates against Hillary Clinton. You can see the FactCheck.org (not necessarily unbiased) analysis here. It looks to me as if, when he thinks about people being unemployed, maybe he’ll vote for a bailout, but if he thinks in terms of an evil large corporation or industry, he’s against helping them.

What about stimulating the economy? I think he thinks socialism will magically do that, even though it never has, and even though estimates are that his plans would decrease real income for wage-earners who happen to keep their jobs.

If you read the Constitution, however, you learn that government’s only role is safeguarding wealth; i.e., minting money, prosecuting theft and fraud, etc. As we’ve seen the last three years, the more government gets out of the way, the better the country’s economic health.

Next question.

What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

This is a good question for Bernie Sanders. He has an ad in which people redefine freedom in terms of having all their worries taken away, paid for by magic, or by some enslaved taxpayer—he doesn’t say. No mention of government’s control over their lives when that happens, so that’s pretty disingenuous. But there’s more on his website:

Here’s what he says on "Taxes on Extreme Wealth":

·         Establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.

·         Only apply to net worth of over $32 million and anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million, would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

·         Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

·         Ensure that the wealthy are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies.

Even though he says he’s raising taxes only on those with accumulated wealth over $32 million, elsewhere he admits that everyone, even low-income earners, will pay higher taxes (that’s under his single-payer healthcare plan). So, let me translate. Tax on wealth means confiscation of wealth that taxes have been paid on in previous years.

Dr. Zhivago arrives home
screenshot from here

Remember that scene in Dr. Zhivago when he comes home to find his family mansion has been parceled out to multiple families, and he has been apportioned maybe a single room to use out of his whole house? That is socialism confiscating wealth. Government takes title if it deems you “own” too much. Bernie thinks he should be the one to decide whether you have earned more than you deserve—which goes against the Constitution’s mandate to protect wealth. He plans to steal it.

For a lesson in what this means today, try this PragerU video: “Does Bill Gates Pay His Fair Share?” 

Also, Bernie’s in favor of re-lowering the estate tax to affect estates over $3.5 million. In other words, a small-to-medium-sized business cannot be passed down from one generation to the next, even if the next generation has been working in that business for years to make it successful—because Bernie says that would be unfair.

Again, instead of protecting wealth, he plans to take it and use it as he sees fit, because he thinks that’s more fair than having the person who earned the wealth decide what to do with it.

Next question.

What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

Bernie believes some other taxpayer should pay for your healthcare, and that he should be able to decide what healthcare you’re allowed to buy, or what you must buy. And this would be $40 trillion added to the backs of working taxpayers.

He also believes some other taxpayer should be enslaved to work to pay for your education, whether that taxpayer has a college degree or not, because he thinks that’s fair. Plus, spending this $3 trillion will buy him younger voters. (My commentary, but his policy.)

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to put government in the business of real estate, building housing that will be guaranteed at a low rate—because “the projects” have been such nice neighborhoods wherever they’ve already been tried.

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to provide high-speed internet to every citizen, because (based on the history of the communications industry) he doesn’t see how a free market could ever innovate enough to provide those “needs.”

Government isn’t capable of charity. But Bernie feels very charitable with your hard-earned money. And you’re supposed to feel charitable when he demands that money from you.

Did we mention the $1.8 trillion Social Security expansion? Or the $16.3 trillion on a climate plan that will shut down the economy? Or the $30.1 trillion to guarantee every American a job paying $15 an hour plus benefits, working for the government if no one else hires them.  Remember, government doesn't create wealth, only spends it, so that money comes out of enslaved working taxpayers' pockets.

Next question.

What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

I don’t see an answer to this on his website. He seems to believe the federal government has the right—even the calling—to step in wherever he, the great dictator, has the urge to. Under “Revitalizing Rural America” this includes farmers, foresteers (does he mean foresters?), and ranchers in whichever state they may reside. And he plans to enslave working taxpayers to “reinvest” in rural areas where entrepreneurs have not been willing to invest.

The commerce clause in the Constitution is to make sure commerce can flow state-to-state. To make sure South Carolina wouldn’t embargo against North Carolina goods, for example. That is all that was granted. Anything else is usurping ungranted power.

Next question.

What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Bernie is in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve. So am I. But he doesn’t want to limit Federal Reserve power. He just wants to stick it to Wall Street (where most Americans have retirement investments). He plans to use executive orders to adjust ATM fees, and grant banking powers to post offices. While he’s at it, he’ll add a per-transaction tax to “restrict rapid-fire financial speculation.” I think he doesn’t like day traders? He certainly doesn’t like investors using their capital—their surplus wealth—to invest in projects that could produce more wealth.

Whether the Federal Reserve is constitutional or not—that’s irrelevant to him, since he intends to ignore the Constitution anyway.

Should we be afraid to have a socialist at the top of the ticket in a presidential election? Yes. Not because he can’t be defeated—he will be. But because the debate shouldn’t even include throwing out our Constitution. A party that would put forth such a candidate should be denounced as treasonous against our United States.

At least we will be able to clearly see the contrast between those who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and the entire other party who love tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

South on the Sphere

On Tuesday of this week, James O’Keefe, with Project Veritas, released a recording of a Bernie Sanders campaign Iowa field organizer, Kyle Jurek. The paid employee may or may not directly reflect Sanders’ opinions, but he does reveal pretty clearly how tyrannists think.

And it gives us an opportunity to point out how much more useful the Spherical Model is to this “if you’re not a socialist who believes everything I believe, you must be a Nazi” model.

I’m transcribing a fair amount of the video, with profanity “bleeped,” and linking (here) so you can watch the whole two-minute video. But be warned, the language does not qualify as civilized. 

screen shot from here

Q: So, if Trump gets reelected, what...?

KJ: F*-ing cities burn.

Q: Do you even think that some of these, like, MAGA people could even be re-educated?

KJ: [laughter] I mean, we got to try. I mean, so, like, in Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi Party, there was a s*-ton of the populous that was f*-ing nazified. And, like, Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating the f*-ing people to not be Nazis. Like, we’re probably going to have to do the same f*-ing thing here. That’s kind of what Bernie’s whole f*-ing like, “Hey, free education for everybody.” Because we’re going to have to teach you not to be a f*-ing Nazi.

There’s a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right? And, actually, gulags were a lot better than, like, what, like, the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags. They had conjugal visits in gulags. Gulags were actually meant for, like, re-education.

The greatest way to break a billionaire of their, like, privilege, and their idea that they’re superior? Go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working-class person, and you’re going to f*-ing learn what that means, right?

Q: If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention…

KJ: F*-ing Milwaukee will burn.

It’ll start in Milwaukee, and when they f*-ing—and when the police push back on that, other cities will just f*-ing [explosion sound].

And if your speech is calling for the elimination of people based on race or gender or religious, like, for whatever reason, like, things that people can’t change, then you should expect a f*-ing violent reaction. And you deserve a violent reaction.

Be ready to be in Milwaukee for the DNC convention. We’re gonna make 1978 [1968] look like a f*-ing girl scout f*-ing cookout. The cops are gonna be the ones that are gonna be f*-ing beaten in Milwaukee.

screen shot from here

As of this morning, this guy is still a paid employee of the Bernie Sanders campaign, which means the Sanders Campaign does not categorically disavow his statements.

Much of the attention has been on the apparent call for violence. Yes, that’s bad. But I’m going to look at the worldview this guy has. It’s a tyrannist worldview. He believes that, by his own definition, he is in the right, so you need to either go along with him or be coerced to go along with him.

He’s seeing it as a difference between correct (him) and Nazi (everyone else). And he’s also using the rather typical left-right model of political ideas. He’s left—which he defines as moral—and anything “right” of him is therefore immoral right-wing extremist, or Nazi.

That is wrong in so many ways. All ways. The Spherical Model can help straighten this out.

Instead of a left-right line spectrum, the Spherical Model uses a three-dimensional view. Political ideas have polar opposites. Not leftist/rightist. Not communist/fascist. Instead it’s tyranny/freedom. We can put them on a sphere, with tyranny at the south pole and freedom at the north pole.

The Political Sphere of the Spherical Model

The lateral direction, east or west, is mostly neutral, depending on what level an issue belongs to: from local as furthest west, to state, region, nation, continent, to global as furthest east. It’s only a negative if too high a level tries to take control of what should be handled more locally, because that leads to lack of freedom.

The southern hemisphere can be divided, then, into chaotic tyranny in the west and statist tyranny in the east. Other differences in the southern hemisphere have to do with depth into tyranny—the control of other people. The more coercion, the further south, regardless of whether the coercion is done more locally or from a central government.

This guy, Kyle Jurek, is very deep south on the sphere. How do we know? There’s enough in this short video to tell.

He’s paid by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Bernie is an avowed socialist, who happily spent his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union and praised it. Socialism is far south on the Sphere. Examples: USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, and everywhere else communism/socialism has been imposed. Bernie puts the word “democratic” in front of socialism to make it seem somehow different or better than the real-life examples. But, remember, Hitler was duly elected in Nazi Germany, where Nazi meant the national German socialist party. Fascism is a flavor of tyranny not essentially different from any other totalitarian statist tyranny.

Jurek is very much into coercion. Re-education is—and has been used historically to mean—imprisonment, brainwashing, and physical and mental force to cow people into submissive behavior that looks like it does not disagree and fears expressing a dissenting thought. He says that’s what Bernie means by “free education for all.” Digest that.

image found here

Jurek downplays actual historical attempts at re-education—i.e., forced submission to the will of the tyranny—such as the gulags of Stalin, which he says were not so bad. He omits the fact that people were rounded up and imprisoned there without due process, without breaking actual laws. He brushes off the horrors that took place there, claiming that’s all simply CIA propaganda that we fell for, ignoring actual stories of people imprisoned in them, such as Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.  Eighteen million people (far more than the billionaires, or even millionaires) were imprisoned in them, and 1.6 million died directly from their imprisonment. But people in gulags shouldn’t feel bad because, he says, they were “paid a living wage”—something they had been earning before their freedom was taken. And the government was generous enough to offer them conjugal visits—but would not permit them live their lives with spouse and family.

He repeats actual Bernie talking points—that equality is the goal, so money earned by successful people should be confiscated and given to unsuccessful people. He embellishes that idea with the fantasy of sticking-it-to-the-rich-guy by forcing him to break rocks for twelve hours a day, to take away his “privilege” and “sense of superiority”—an evil he is attributing to the person simply for having more money than others. Make that guy into a working-class man—because the assumption is that having money means the guy didn’t work for it.

This isn’t actually different from the approach of every other socialist takeover in history.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism
are overlapping forms of tyranny.

There’s an interesting thing about being very deep south on the sphere: east and west are very close. So when he suggests using violence—a chaotic tyranny approach—that’s natural. It’s what revolutionary tyrants do. They create so much chaos, so much insecurity, that the populous will be desperate for stability and safety, and then the tyrants step in and say, “Let us solve that for you. All you have to do is give up your freedom and do everything we say.”

He’ll say he’s fighting for the underdog, because he says all the bad comes down on you only if “your speech is calling for the elimination of people based on race or gender or religio[n].” But here’s what I can guarantee you: any speech that disagrees with him is what he labels “calling for the elimination of people.” He lies about your hatred, while he despises you and works for your demise—comforting himself that you deserve the violence.

Socialism has never been about compassion for the downtrodden. It has always been about power.

In a country that was founded on principles that would prevent power-mongering—as much as adhering to a document could do—we need to make sure that people who believe what this Bernie Sanders campaign spokesperson believes never get anywhere near the reins of power. Their power can only lead to our rights—and actual people—being trampled.

And while this guy speaks pretty radically, and even Bernie wouldn’t say all of it out loud, I’d say every single one of the Democrat candidates for president is so used to thinking only as a southern hemisphere tyrannist that they don’t even know there’s a northern hemisphere where we find freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

What Equality Means

Andrew Klavan was on Glenn Beck Wednesday morning, talking about socialism, which he’d talked about the day before on his podcast. So I went to listen to the Tuesday podcast to hear what got Glenn Beck’s attention.

He talks about the death of Europe—after so many problems have been solved by capitalism. He has a better long way of saying it, but socialism essentially comes in and eats the bread produced by the freedom of capitalism. It takes about 70 years. So the instigators—who might not have known the future—don’t see it play out in its full disastrous tyranny. They maybe should have followed the logic through, but they don’t. The next generation has to suffer.

There’s not much of a pass you can give to those who can see world history and should know better from that, even if they don’t follow the full logic through to its conclusion.

For example, Bernie Sanders was alive to know of the millions murdered by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. In fact, Klavan talks quite a bit about Nicaragua 

Klavan reminds us of a clip of Bernie Sanders in 1985 where he said, “Yeah, some people say it’s bad when they have bread lines in communist countries. They say it’s bad, but it’s good, because other places they’re starving. They’re starving, but only rich people eat.” As Klavan says, “That was after his trip to Nicaragua. That was in praise of Daniel Ortega, this clown who is now murdering his own people as they protest his communist tyranny,” which Klavan spends a chunk of his broadcast recounting, since Ortega has been shooting up Catholic churches to stop protesters from finding sanctuary for speaking out against his regime, which was always and ever supported by America’s Democrats).(praising both CBS's and Fox News's Brett Baier, who have been covering events there. 

Klavan points out more about Bernie:

At no point did Bernie Sanders, who, as I say “honeymooned” in the Soviet Union, which is a gesture of support for a country that murdered tens of millions of its own people, starved its own people in the street in order to bring about the perfect socialist utopia...—at no point has he ever said, “Something is wrong with my philosophy.”

He shares clips of both Bernie Sanders and, the young socialist candidate whom he calls Bernie’s “mini-me,” Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez, talking about all the things that are “rights” that ought to be paid for by the top 1% of earners. Because, while the “right-wing” goal is to beat them, so they don’t impose socialism on us and bring us to ruin—as has happened everywhere it’s ever tried, the “left-wing” goal is “equality.”

What does that mean? Well, that brings his to Klavan's latest episode of the "Leftese Dictionary: E Is For Equality," a short summary, with some rather fun visuals, which I found later on YouTube, so I could see it instead of just hear it. The summary is worth putting up on a poster where every old and newly minted socialist can read it over and over. So please enjoy this bit of education:

Tax Talk

A few days ago, October 19, there was a debate, unrelated to a candidate campaign, between Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on CNN. [Transcript here.]They had one a while back on Obamacare. This one was specifically about taxes, concurrent with a tax plan working through the legislative process right now.

screen shot from here

Ted Cruz started with this summary:

This debate is very, very simple. Bernie and the Democrats want every one of you watching today to pay more taxes. And Republicans want to lower the taxes for each and every person watching this debate.

Now, tonight I'm going to make a prediction. Bernie is going to suggest in just a few seconds that this is not really about you, this is about, "taxing the rich." That's what the Democrats always say. But here's what you need to know. Every time Bernie says the rich, what he means is taxpayers. And so if you pay taxes, he's talking about you.

And Bernie Sanders begins with, wouldn’t you know, coveting the rich and hating on those evil Koch brothers:

Let me make a prediction:

In two minutes, Senator Cruz is going to tell you that if we give tax breaks to the billionaires like George W. Bush did, like Ronald Reagan did, we're going to create zillions of jobs and you're all going to become very, very rich, that we have a trickle-down economic theory, tax breaks for the wealthiest people, the largest corporations, and, whoa, everything is good.

That is a totally fraudulent theory. Here is the reality of American society today. For 40 years, the middle class of this country, the great middle class has been shrinking. And what we have seen is a massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 0.1 percent, trillions of dollars because of cooperate greed and an unfair tax system.

Now, the Trump Republican tax proposal that's before us today, this proposal is being pushed by Senator Cruz's campaign contributors, some of the wealthiest people in this country, by the Koch brothers, who are worth $90 billion. Why are they pushing this agenda? Because 80 percent of the tax breaks in this proposal will go to the top 1 percent.

In fact, 30 percent of the middle class will end up paying more in taxes. Forty percent of the tax benefits will go to the top 0.1 percent. This is massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

So it took one minute, just 163 words, to get to the Koch brothers, who are virtually never mentioned at Republican meetings (I attend many), or at tea party meetings (I attend even more of those), or on conservative radio, or in conservative articles. In fact, the first time I ever heard of them, it was in a left-wing pro-socialist article, claiming they had a stranglehold over all conservative thought—so I, a conservative thinker, looked them up just to know who they were. I wrote about them in May 2011.

There are, of course, exaggerations in Sanders’ prediction about what Cruz would claim: “zillions of jobs,” everybody becomes “very, very rich,” etc. So that even saying “more than zero jobs will be created” would sound like something to be flippantly dismissed. But I thought I’d look at some of the data. 

Sanders says the middle class has been shrinking for 40 years. Not sure that’s essential knowledge, but it seems measurable. So I looked it up. I think the data probably comes from a Pew Research Study. 

Screen shot from here

Today the middle class is about 49.9%. That means that’s the percentage earning a middle income. Pew Research defines that as “two-thirds to two times the national median income for your household size” or about $46,000 to $141,000 for a 4-person household. Roughly 29% make a lower-class income, which includes entry-level workers, full-time students, retirees—not simply full-time workers who can’t make ends meet, although they are among this level. Another 21% make upper incomes.

The change has been happening over 40 years. But Bernie would have you believe this is all bad news. There has been a slight growth in lower-income households: from 25.2% in 1971 to 29% in 2015, so, over about 4 ½ decades—coinciding, incidentally, with the “War on Poverty.” Hmm.

But, most of the dwindling middle class has come at the upper end: from 14% in 1971 to 21.1% in 2015. So the middle class lost 3.8% to the lower class, and 7.1% to the upper class. In other words, more people are moving up. That’s not a bad thing.

Here’s another detail: “Upper-class Americans have seen their incomes rise 47 percent, while lower-class families have gained only 28 percent.” This is not a bad thing either, if you realize the good stuff is happening to more people. Unless you’d rather see bad happen to everyone if good isn’t happening to you.

And here’s another thing to note: while lower income families aren’t gaining as fast as we’d like, it’s not mostly the same families staying in poverty over those decades. Mostly those are newcomers—new young adults, new students, new entry-level workers. Most of those people gain experience and move up.

But Bernie’s view is that those poor families are specific people losing out because specific rich people are getting their gains.

That’s what you call covetousness. And “Thou shalt not covet.”

If we needed to summarize the difference between Sander’s view and Cruz’s view, it would be that Sanders thinks it’s unfair for anyone to rise; anyone who succeeds should have their rise taken away and given to someone who didn’t rise. Regardless of difference in effort. Using the force of government.

There was a significant portion of the debate talking about Denmark. A man from Denmark posed a question:

And, you know, these are countries which—where the government spends—taxes and spends approximately twice the level of the United States. And while I am very sympathetic to many of your spending proposals, especially on the things you mention on early childhood and single-payer and the like, I also know that these are countries that heavily tax everybody, not just the rich people, middle classes. They have consumption taxes on everything of 20 percent.

So while I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, my sense is still that you would like to spend as a Scandinavian but not tax as one, is that right?

Since Bernie talked about how we need “free” health care and “free” child care—that these are “rights” we are born with and therefore the government is obligated to provide—let’s look at the cost of “free.” I wrote about Denmark a while ago. [  2-11-2016   ] Using data that a young Danish writer offered, an ordinary working class Dane who makes $25,000 DKK a month (about $4,000, which would be $48,000/year) ends up with 9,848.71 DKK before he can start making choices about how to spend it. Here’s what I said:

That is 39.39% of your original. You have paid 60.61% of your income. If you were wealthier, you would add 15% [in taxes] earlier in the process. Not far off from what Bernie Sanders thinks those terrible rich people ought to be paying here. But note that in Denmark everybody pays, no matter how little they make.

Socialism isn’t about getting free stuff; it’s about spending 60% or more of your income on those “free” things, without market choice. Everyone pays it. There’s no getting away from it. If you’re healthy and would rather pay for minimal health care, so you can save up for a down payment on a house, you don’t get that choice. If you want faster internet or more media options than the single media company offers, you don’t get that choice.

But for all the lack of choice, you work until mid-July or later for the government and can only use what you make the rest of the year to support your food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment choices.

Meanwhile, the government is telling you how happy you must be, because of the good way the government takes care of you.

To translate the numbers in our US experience, a single person makes $48,000 a year, which feels pretty good just out of college. But the government takes $29,092.80, leaving you $18,907.20.

But your healthcare is minimal; isn’t that worth it? If you’re a young, healthy person, do you think $2,424.40 is a good deal for you? Let’s throw in child care—not quite free; the Dane says it’s about $300 a month, depending on region. So, let’s take away $3,600 from your $18,907.20, which leaves you $15,307.20 for your discretionary spending like food, housing, transportation, or travel.

Do you feel better, earning $44,000, but getting to spend only $15,307.20 the way you choose, in exchange for “free” stuff?

Bernie made the false claim that the average Dane has a better standard of living than the average American. But 70% of Americans, according to the data he used, are middle class or above, so they can buy a home, one or two cars, high-speed internet, a big screen TV, and save up for vacations, open their own businesses, prepare for their retirement, and in every other way “pursue happiness.”

Meanwhile, their Danish counterpart is less likely to own a home, more likely to live in an urban setting (in an apartment, without land), and more likely to work for the government (1 in 4).

Ted Cruz brought in statistics about socialized medicine in Denmark:

If you look at socialized medicine, there are waiting periods. There's rationing. The government says, if you're an elderly person and you need a hip replacement, it says, well, you may not get a hip replacement. We were talking about Denmark. The average wait time in 2014 for cataract surgery was 83 days...

And the average time in Denmark, which he brought up, for hip replacement was 55 days, 59 days for knee replacement.

The man asking the question believed these statistics were more negative than the reality. Anecdotally, he reported that his mother was treated for cancer within a couple of days of her diagnosis. However, I don’t know exactly where Cruz got his statistics, but he’s not haphazard about gathering and memorizing that kind of thing. My own familiarity with socialized medicine, Canada’s, involves a former neighbor’s father. He was told they couldn’t do anything to treat his cancer, and he should plan to die soon. He studied, changed his diet, and came to the US for some necessary care. No thanks to Canada’s socialized health care system, he lived six more important years while his grandchildren were growing.

The health care discussion was a side issue for this debate. But what it did was clarify the two vastly different philosophies on taxation. Despite some early dissembling, Bernie Sanders was really in favor of raising everyone’s taxes, significantly—up to Denmark’s levels, which are the highest in the world.

Bernie finally admitted that, but he believed promising all the free stuff would persuade voters:

If we can explain to people, yeah, you're going to be paying more in taxes, it's going to be a progressive tax system. The wealthy are going to pay their fair share, not the middle class, not the working class, but everybody will pay some more.

Cruz pointed out that admission moments later, and Bernie interrupted to tell him not to put words in his mouth. He forgot (or maybe didn’t pay enough attention to know) that Cruz remembers what he’s heard verbatim; it’s his superpower. And he’s better at math:

Bernie's tax plan cost over $13 trillion. That's what he's proposed raising in new taxes. And who pays for it? Well, the Democrats always talk about the millionaires and billionaires, but here's a simple fact. We could take every single person making $1 million a year or more and confiscate 100 percent of their income, everything they make, every penny, and it would raise about $1 trillion, about 8 percent of the cost of Bernie's tax plan.

That means if you want tax revenue, you don't get it from the millionaires and billionaires. You get it from the middle class. You get it from the working men and women in this country.

One of Cruz’s better points was that higher taxes slow growth, and lower taxes lead to more growth. Cruz had charts. Growth is important, because we’ll never get Congress to cut enough spending to cut the deficit. Here’s Cruz’s summary:

Obama versus Reagan, under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 17 percent. How about African-Americans? Under Obama, median income increased 8 percent. Under Reagan, 12 percent. How about women? Under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 25 percent. Young people, under Obama, 9 percent, under Reagan, 55 percent. Young women, under Obama, 8 percent, under Reagan, 73 percent. And, finally, the bottom 20 percent, those struggling, under Obama, 12 percent, under Reagan, 40 percent.

What I don’t know is whether the current tax plan is as good as we need it. But what I do know is that we Americans make better decisions about how to spend the money we earn than the government does.

Defining Socialism

We spent some time recently defining conservatism, which is a path to freedom, prosperity, and thriving civilization. I thought it might be useful to define the opposite: socialism.

It goes by other names: liberalism, progressivism, communism. There may be some slight flavor differences among these, paid attention to by those who prefer a certain appellation over another. But in Spherical Model terms, they are all southern hemisphere: some far away authority decides how to spend the wealth created by individuals, and may decide what work individuals may do. In some varieties (USSR Communism, for example) private ownership and private means of production (business ownership) are eliminated.

The Soviet Union fell about 2 ½ decades ago. That means that young people have grown up unaware of what that enemy of the United States (and enemy of freedom around the globe) meant. Now, here we are with a democrat party choosing a nominee who will be either an Alinskyite covert socialist calling herself a progressive or a curmudgeonly old guy who boldly labels himself a socialist. And they are treated by media as if they are mainstream.

So maybe we need a lesson. Let’s be clear: socialism is incompatible with freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Socialism will—it always has and always must—lead to tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

And then this hypothetical conversation happens.

“No, no,” you say; “We just want to even things out, so the system is fair for everyone.”

You want freedom, you say, equality before the law?

“Well, but the way things are, there are people who game the system, and the little guy gets screwed. That’s why there’s such an income gap.”

And by income gap, you mean that’s a bad thing, that people should have the same amount of money?

“Yes, pretty much. The rich are only rich because they’ve exploited other people.”

And poor people are only poor because…?

“Because they haven’t had the same opportunities. Everybody should get the same education advantages, and good job opportunities, and health care so they don’t get wiped out by some accident or illness.”

OK, so, no poor people are poor because they do less valuable work than people who make more money?

“Are you trying to blame the poor?”

No, I’m just asking. So, what if you’re someone with a valuable skill, and you think up something really brilliant that everyone wants. Should you be allowed to profit from it, or share any profits equally with everyone else who didn’t think it up?

“You’re just not getting it.”

No, I’m not. Because I’m aware of how much misery a controlled economy has caused in the world.

“That’s just because it wasn’t done right. We would do it right.”

And how is it you can be sure of that?

“We just would. We’re smarter.”

Umm.

Among the current Berners (Bernie Sanders fans), they fail to think of forced labor camps, rationing toilet paper (happening in Venezuela currently), the millions starved to death, not to mention the millions killed outright for being unwilling to submit, or trying to escape. No, they think about northern European socialist countries, like Sweden or Denmark, which they think is a utopia we should emulate.

They seem unware that those countries are becoming less controlling—because they have run out of money. As Britain’s Margaret Thatcher accurately said, while opposing socialist in her own country, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

And how do you make money? Or build wealth? You create something of value beyond what is necessary for survival. Someone needs to do the wealth building, the work.

Recently I came across a piece written by a young man in Denmark, sharing what free stuff feels like there.

Denmark, photo from here

It starts out,

I have noticed a lot of well-meaning Americans praising Denmark for our happiness and our welfare system. We’re praised for our free education, free healthcare, free childcare, short workweek and all the other things that the goodness-industry is proclaiming to define us Danes.

Then he goes on to talk about what “free” means:

“Child- and healthcare is free and students are paid to study in Denmark!” That’s a line I’ve heard a lot. It’s a truth that needs a lot of modification. A lot!

If by ‘free’ you mean ‘paid for by someone else’ you are right in the assumption that healthcare, childcare and education are almost free of charge.

He spends the rest of the article talking about where the money comes from.

Denmark, he points out, built up original wealth from Viking plunder and slavery. So they had a wealth base to draw on. And the rest of the “free” stuff comes from taxes. It’s not a simple thing to just say everyone pays X% in taxes. It depends on a lot of variables. But the writer takes us through a basic example of an ordinary working class Dane who makes $25,000 DKK a month (about $4,000, which would be $48,000/year).

Income tax is deducted automatically, before you see your money (like our withholding). These include 8% Arbejdsmarkedsbidrag, loosely meaning “labor market.” You pay this amount because you’re in the labor market. That’s 2,000 DKK.

Then subtract bundfradrag, or “bottom deduction.” This is, if I’m understanding, a tax on the part of your income that isn’t taxed. This differs year to year, but in 2015 was 41,400, which is 3,433 monthly. You subtract this from the 23,000 DKK you have left to spend in the month, which is 19,567 DKK.

Now come the Communeskat, or county tax. Counties differ, but the average is 24.9%. Which means you take away 4,872.18 from 19,567, leaving you 14,694.81 DKK.

Then comes Topskat, or “top tax bracket.” This is on over 37,000 DKK per month, or an additional 15% on anything over 449,100 DKK per year. Our example doesn’t have to subtract this, since the gross is 25,000 DKK per month.

Next comes the Sundhedsskat, or “health tax.” It changes annually, but in 2015 was 4%. That’s 782.68 in our example, leaving 13,784.32 DKK.

That’s the total of the “income tax,” that is deducted before you see your money. Our example paid 11,215.68, or about 44%.

Then come the many other taxes from various places.

Every time you pay a bill, you pay the government 25%. That means, if you buy something for 100 DKK, it will cost you 125 DKK, for the government to allow you to make the transaction. But you don’t really notice, because the price would read 125, with the tax already included, and the vendor collects and pays the tax, paying quarterly.

In essence, sales taxes, direct and indirect, mean you pay 25% of your remaining income. That’s 3,446.08 in our example, leaving 10,338.24.

Utilities have an additional Afgift, or tax. The writer’s recent 3-month electric bill was 994.64 DKK. Of that bill, 111.96 was what the electric company charges for 358 kilowatt/hours, and 30 DKK for membership (membership?), and a sales tax of 176.33 DKK. There are sales taxes involved to make the exchange, and additional taxes for use of the state-owned network, which I think is the electrical grid. In the end, out of 994.64, 853.58 DKK goes to the government—divided by 3 for 284.53 per month.

We’ll subtract that, leaving us with 10,053.71 DKK.

If you buy a TV, phone, computer, or radio, you can do so—with the usual 20% tax. (The writer sometimes says 20% sales tax, and sometimes 25%, so I’m confused, and that will mess us our numbers. But we’ll plow ahead and try to get an estimate anyway.) But if you own a device that can access some kind of transmission, you pay a Licens, or license to use Dansmarks Radio, the government-controlled media. If you own a device and don’t use it, someone will come to your door and force you to register the device. The license is 205 DKK per month. (It’s unclear to me whether that’s an additional 205 DKK per device, or a single license for all devices in the household.)

The writer refuses to own anything that needs licensing; he uses his mother’s computer and his friend’s phone. But for our purposes, let’s say you pay the license fee. That leaves you 9,848.71 DKK.

That is 39.39% of your original. You have paid 60.61% of your income. If you were wealthier, you would add 15% earlier in the process. Not far off from what Bernie Sanders thinks those terrible rich people ought to be paying here. But note that in Denmark everybody pays, no matter how little they make.

Socialism isn’t about getting free stuff; it’s about spending 60%  or more of your income on those “free” things, without market choice. Everyone pays it. There’s no getting away from it. If you’re healthy and would rather pay for minimal health care, so you can save up for a down payment on a house, you don’t get that choice. If you want faster internet or more media options than the single media company offers, you don’t get that choice.

But for all the lack of choice, you work until mid-July or later for the government and can only use what you make the rest of the year to support your food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment choices.

Meanwhile, the government is telling you how happy you must be, because of the good way the government takes care of you.

That’s the utopia. It’s also the country where Islamists went on a rampage because someone drew some cartoons they didn’t like.

Sweden has similar stories, as I wrote about in January. The solution seems to be to turn away from overtaxing and turn toward free market. Otherwise these utopian economies will collapse.

The real way to avoid tyranny, corruption, unfairness, and other aspects of oppression is to go in the exact opposite direction from socialism. Like we have in our US Constitution, guaranteed God-given rights, with free market economics, among a righteous people that take care of each other, rather than depending on government to do what charity should.

I had planned to write this piece on socialism for a couple of weeks. But this morning I found there are plenty of others who think it’s time we did some informing on the subject. One, linked today by Glenn Beck, is this 37-year-old video of economist Milton Friedman telling TV host Phil Donohue the difference between socialism and capitalism in under three minutes:

It includes this key point:

In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Another piece that showed up today is this post by United Families International, giving a primer on the difference between socialism and capitalism. It offers this summary:

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twenty-first century. While it promises prosperity, equality, and security, it delivers poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality is achieved only in the sense that everyone shares equal misery.

Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

All I can do here is skim the surface of the definitions. You might also read this post and this post, and it’s second part.

The deceived young people seem unaware that voting for socialism is voting to place yourself under tyranny of elected elites and their appointed bureaucrats. They need to be informed. Now. While there is time.

There’s growing data showing the failure of the so-called successes in northern Europe. There are books full of details about socialism. If you haven’t read Animal Farm since you were assigned it in school, it might be time for a reread, now that you’re old enough to understand it. And pass it along to someone who hasn’t read it yet.

No one should be allowed to vote for a socialist if they’re still so uninformed that they think it’s all about being social and about getting free stuff. The rest of us don't deserve to suffer because of their ignorance.