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.