Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Smothered in Quasi-Socialism

Bernie Sanders Rally in Los Angeles

from Mona Charen at National Review, How Bernie Sanders Became the Conscience of the Democratic Party

The idea that “the rich” sit permanently atop a pyramid of worker drones is false. Consider the companies that were once ubiquitous but are now ailing or gone: The Sharper Image, Borders, Circuit City, Polaroid, Yahoo!, Sears, and Toys-R-Us. Creative new competitors take their places. A U.S. Treasury study in 2006 found that among taxpayers in the highest brackets in 1996, 30 percent had dropped below that ten years later, with 2.6 percent dropping all the way to the bottom. Among those in the lowest income quintile in 1996, more than half had moved up ten years later.

A dynamic economy grows out of respect for free markets, willingness to take risks (which includes tolerance for failure), reliable protection of property rights, future focus, light regulation, and openness to ideas. These traits traditionally made the American economy the most innovative in the world. From aeronautics to computers to medical equipment to energy to retailing to entertainment, U.S. creativity has produced the world’s most prosperous middle class. We still lead the world in patents, and we’re still inventing new business models like Uber and AirBnB. But we’ve layered so many stones onto the shoulders of businesses that the engine of innovation is slowing. For the first time since the 1970s, more businesses are dying than being born. In 2000, the U.S. ranked second in the world in economic freedom according to the CATO Institute. Now, we’ve dropped to 16th.

Contra Sanders, we’ve been smothered in quasi-socialism for the past six years. The U.S. economy desperately needs a shot of capitalism and growth. The middle class stagnates and poverty increases. The rich, as in Venezuela, Cuba, and Sweden, are making out fine in Obama’s America. It’s the middle class and the poor who need capitalism to lift them.

Print This Post Print This Post

Foundation Fraud


How Do You Spell Apparent Fraud? The Clinton Foundation, Shady Accounting and Aids

However, the problems appear set to catch up with the foundation (now formally known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), which has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings. According to Charles Ortel, a financial whistleblower, it will be difficult if not impossible for the foundation to amend its financial returns without acknowledging accounting fraud and admitting that it generated substantial private gain for directors, insiders and Clinton cronies, all of which is against the law under an IRS rule called inurement.

“It’s illegal to set up a foundation whose primary purpose is to create financial gain,” said Ortel – who helped expose massive financial fraud by GE, GM and AIG, thereby helping trigger the 2009 financial collapse. “That’s bright line illegal.” (Ortel wrote an article at earlier which showed how “associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton may have attempted to monetize their participation in Clinton family philanthropic activities.”)

When Massachusetts shut down the HIV/AIDS Initiative unit, the Clinton Foundation simply folded its operations into its own and pretended nothing had happened. All of this was flatly illegal, but the IRS, whose tax-exempt wing was led during most of the relevant period by Lois Lerner, did zero. Obama’s Justice Department investigated Lerner on unrelated charges, but never filed charges.

The general shadiness of the whole Clinton Foundations AIDS initiative may well explain why Sir Elton John turned down without explanation an award for fighting AIDS from Bill Clinton during the recent Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting in New York.

Print This Post Print This Post

The Anti-Math Party


from Mona Charen at National Review, How Bernie Sanders Became the Conscience of the Democratic Party

No problem, the self-described socialist counters, he will raise the money by taxing the “greedy one percent.” The problem is — arithmetic. The top one percent already pays 45.7 percent of all income taxes. The federal government brings in about $1.5 trillion a year in tax revenue. Even if you confiscated 100 percent of the earnings of those making $1 million or above, you’d only net $616 billion, not nearly enough for Bernie’s wish list (to say nothing of the depressing effect on productivity such taxes would have).

Without Elizabeth Warren in the race, Sanders has become the conscience of the Democratic party. They fulminate about the rich, promise the moon, and flunk math.

Print This Post Print This Post

How FDR Deformed Liberalism


From Never Enough by William Voegeli

“According to Sidney Milkis, “FDR’s deft reinterpretation of the American constitutional tradition” gave “legitimacy to progressive principles by embedding them in the language of constitutionalism and interpreting them as an expansion rather than a subversion of the natural rights tradition.” Significantly, FDR conveyed this orientation by enthusiastically embracing “liberalism” as the designation for the New Deal’s philosophy, sending the term “progressivism,” with its clearly implied critique of the American founding, into a long exile. To do so he wrested “liberalism” away from the defenders of limited government, who acceded unhappily to calling themselves “conservatives.”


Excerpt From: William Voegeli. “Never Enough.” iBooks.




Print This Post Print This Post

Democrats Shift a Hard Left


Bernie Sanders has opened a wound for the soul of the Democratic Party. Instead of socialism being an extreme wing of the Democratic Party it has become the center and the players have to define themselves based on that belief.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairperson of the Democrats was either unable or unwilling to distinguish the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.  Hillary just refused to criticize the socialists, dismissing the distinction as semantics or how others want to define it.  She thoroughly embraced the old school progressivism which defines the Democratic party.  Even Schultz’s dance around the issue with Chris Matthews thoroughly embraced Sanders in the Democratic tent.  The Democratic party has moved far left.

The Progressivism of Woodrow Wilson was magnified under FDR, and extended by LBJ.  Obama’s progressivism is a further extension, but the previous successes of progressivism has left fewer battles to be fought.  We are now in a third stage of progressivism and it is being challenged in ways the first two periods were not.  Progressivism is a form of socialism ‘lite’, seeking to redistribute wealth and control capital through policies and regulations.

Progressivism suffers from pragmatism- seeking what works and refusing to be encumbered by a set of principles that would require any clarity on their governing philosophy.  In the absence of any clear vision there is never a point where the government is restricted, where more government is not needed, where any desire cannot be deemed a right, where any economic problem can not be resolved by political means.   Rather than be a resource to facilitate our lives, politics becomes embroiled in every facet of our lives.

The goals of progressivism requires straw dogs like the 1% or the Koch brothers, but rarely seeks an adult view of how the economy really works or an accurate analysis of the economic environment, and is void of any mathematical reality,  In their political semantics, the Democrats have been reduced to weak distinctions between socialism and progressivism.  They like words like equality and justice, without either defining or limiting them.  Other words like individual rights, liberty, freedom, entrepreneurs, personal responsibility and achievement rarely enter into the conversation.