The case against Bernie Sanders.
By Dan DeFreest
In Republican circles, the term “RINO”
means; “Republican-in-name–only”, and is used to label moderate Republicans who
don’t express the conservative, right-wing views of the party mainstream. So,
it seems appropriate, that the term “DINO” could be attached to Senator Bernie
Sanders who, until he declared his Democratic candidacy for the Presidency, has
been registered as an Independent for his entire political career.
To me, there are two primary reasons
that Sanders isn’t qualified to be president, a long easy reason…and a short
hard one. I’ll address each of them in that order.
First, the long easy one. Bernie
Sanders is a one-dimensional candidate. Ask him a question on any issue from
race relations to North Korea, and he will inevitably steer the conversation to
his favorite target of his feinted rage -”The billionaire on Wall Street.” It
doesn’t seem to matter what the subject is, Bernie will bring the conversation
back to what he sees as the biggest problem facing American…and the World,
income inequality. There’s one major problem with Bernie’s analysis of income
inequality; it’s not a problem, it’s a symptom of a problem. The problem, as I
explained in my book – Jesus Was a Democrat, is that income
inequality, or as I prefer to call it, income disparity, is the byproduct of a
repressive Republican ideology that glorifies Supply-side economics and
inherently usurps opportunity and income from the middle class. Simply taxing
the wealthy doesn’t fix the problem, it only exacerbates it. This is what
Bernie doesn’t get, and never will, that legislation that has been enacted at
the state and federal level since the Reagan administration, has essentially
traded the middle class way of life away for corporate profits. We can’t tax it
back.
Still, Sander’s primary appeal is
rooted in dreams and promises for a socialistic world where the government
takes away profits and wealth from the upper classes and redistributes it among
the lower classes. This redistribution is realized, in Sander’s view, through
his two primary campaign promises; free public education and free health
insurance. Since the debate continues to wage in Congress about the Affordable
Care Act after more than sixty votes to defund or overturn it, I’ll concentrate
on Bernie’s biggest promise, free education.
What Sanders has proposed is free
education at public colleges and universities. Sounds doable, right? Well,
perhaps it does on the surface, but beneath the veneer, it’s an empty promise.
First of all, the Federal government doesn’t own these institutions, for the
most part, the states do. And, therein lies the problem. How do we make the
states give away free education? Do we federalize these schools like we do with
the National Guard during emergencies? If we could do that, what possible
rationalization would we use? If Bernie wants a revolution…this would be a real
good way to start one. So the only other way would be to subsidize public
tuition, which sounds like what he’s talking about. So, how would that work,
and what would it costs. The gross tuition for public universities and colleges
in 2014 was approximately $78 billion. That’s a starting point. We then have to
consider that since about 65% of high school grades currently go on to higher
education, we can assume that those numbers with both grow substantially if
education, as Bernie is saying, becomes free. Therefore, $78 billion could
easily escalate to more than $100 billion with no end in sight. Would the
government then institute a system of cost control like they do with Medicare
and Social Security? Then the next question is who would the government be
subsidizing, the institution, the state or the student? Clearly, every state
would want their seat at the negotiation table and it would seem that it would
evolve into a convoluted mess.
Then, of course, none of this can
happen unless our conservative Congress, who is focused on entitlement cuts and
repeal of Obama Care could even be talked into the idea. So the easy reason is
that it’s all pie-in-the-sky.
Now the hard-simple reason
is…he’s too old.
If elected, Sanders would take
the oath of office at the age of 75 ½ years old. Those of us who were around
during the 1980’s will recall that President Reagan was 73 when he was
re-elected and during much of his second term he often appeared disinterested
and un-involved. Many questioned who was actually calling the shots in the White
House; Reagan…VP George Bush, Chief of Staff James Baker or Nancy Reagan, who
had become the gate-keeper to the Oval Office.
Presidents such as JFK, Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama often drew accolades for their ability to keep multiple
conversations going and handle a crisis behind the scenes while meeting with a
head of state. These men were all in the forties and at the top of their games
when elected, it’s hard to visualize Sanders, who gets flustered in press
conferences, performing with the same dexterity, grace and style. Perhaps no
CEO in the last fifty years has garnered more respect or personified what a
chief executive officer should look like than former GE head Jack Welch. As
dynamic and successful as Welch was, he was retired at the age of 65. Being
President of the United States is a demanding pressurized job that can suck the
life out of the person occupying that position. Sanders has done nothing
throughout his career that would indicate that he is somehow poised to rise to
the occasion.
Our world today is a smoldering
powder keg of terrorism, nuclear proliferation and financial uncertainty that
threatens the freedoms that we hold so dear. We need, and deserve a president
that is ready now to take control and negotiate these troubled waters. Hillary
Clinton is the only candidate on either side who has the appropriate experience
to qualify her for the job of President. Her eight years as first lady and four
years as Secretary of State, gave her invaluable insight and experience at
dealing with the incredible challenges of the office.
No comments:
Post a Comment