Democrat Primary Shaping Up As Donnybrook

And then there were 21.  Former Vice President Joe Biden has officially joined the mushrooming list of Democratic Party candidates for president after months of speculation.  His announcement means Democrats will square off in one of the most hotly contested primary races in decades.

Democratic Party candidates who have announced they are running, includes governors, mayors, congressmen, senators, a former tech executive and a best-selling author.  Among the eclectic gaggle are six people of color, six women and one self-proclaimed member of the LGBT community. 

A least four other Democrats sitting on the sidelines are contemplating a run which would swell the ranks to 25, far eclipsing the 16 GOP candidates in the 2016 primary.  No one predicted Mr. Trump's primary victory and the Democrat winner may also be an improbable underdog.

At the outset, there are some trends developing that suggest an early winnowing of the field.  The latest Monmouth University poll shows Biden and Sanders garner support of nearly 50 percent of Democrat primary voters.  All the other candidates are lagging far behind in single digits.

Name recognition artificially inflates early poll data, reducing the numbers to fool's gold.  Anyone remember Hillary Clinton's double-digit lead over Barrack Obama in 2007?  It is nearly 10 months until the first primary on February 3 in Iowa.  Events can cripple or catapult a candidate's chances.

In sizing up the race, there are a couple of political wind vanes that are pointing to the likelihood that a dark horse might emerge from the pact.  One obvious sign is that former President Obama has remained on the sideline up until now.  That is a significant development for Biden.

Many assumed that Biden, a loyal sidekick during eight years of the Obama presidency, would nab an early endorsement.  But there are indications it may never happen.  After four women accused Biden of sexual misconduct, the former president never rose to defend his vice president.

The timing of the accusations is suspect, too.  In the run-up to Biden's expected announcement, allegations of inappropriate touching suddenly burst into the news.  This is not coincidental.  Likely someone in the Democratic Party or a candidate orchestrated the leaking of the allegations.

The suspicion here is that powerful donors and party insiders cannot abide the idea of Biden as the nominee.  His baggage includes two unsuccessful presidential campaigns (1988-2008). He is 76 years old, gaff prone and carries scars from his days in the Senate, including the Anita Hill episode.

The other front-runner Bernie Sanders was rejected in the last Democratic Party presidential primary.  He is older than Biden at 77.  Sanders, while popular with young voters, is not considered a "real" Democrat since he campaigns in Vermont as an Independent.  Labels matter to party kingmakers.

Party operatives working behind the scenes sabotaged Sanders in 2016.  Many remain in power.  Sanders is viewed by some party leaders as too strident, too much of an ideologue. His age, image as a party outsider and anti-business tone are non-starters for a clique of mega money moguls. 

Some media outlets and Democratic strategists are already asking aloud: "Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?"  For many, the answer is a resounding "NO!"  Fervent purists in the party are demanding a fresh face, preferably a woman, African-American or Hispanic.

The problem for Democratic Party pundits is that none of the other candidates, except South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gained traction with voters, but his fund raising efforts pale in comparison to other candidates.  The mayor has taken in $7.09 million, far behind Sanders $18.2 million.

Mayor Pete, a military veteran, has attributes that swept Obama to victory in 2008.  He is youthful at age 37.  He has served in obscurity as a mayor since 2012.  He is eloquent, intelligent and confident.  He is openly gay, which earns extra credit with Democrats insisting on diversity.

As a bonus, Buttigieg is not a Washington insider.  Being part of the established Beltway political class is no longer seen as a plus as President Trump proved.  Buttigieg can attack the mess in Washington instead of having to defend Democrats' obsession with impeachment.

Outside of Buttigieg, the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party is fond of Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker.  However, the triumvirate has not penetrated the news cycles to increase their profile.  The trio are searching for a lightning bolt to ignite their campaigns.

Their low standing in the polls is certainly not for lack of money.  Warren is second to Sanders with $17 million banked, but has raised just $6 million. Harris has a $12 million campaign war chest. Booker trails in fund raising in the first quarter with $5 million, damaging his chances.

Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rouke, who lost a senate race to Ted Cruz, entered the campaign with enthusiastic fanfare.  He has Bobby Kennedy looks but lacks the gravitas for the glare of a presidential run.  However, he has raised $9.4 million in campaign funds giving him staying power.

By the end of March, the race will crystallize.  Democrats have front-loaded the primaries in key states such as California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Illinois with big delegate counts.  Twenty-nine states will have voted in primaries before April.  Expect a clear front runner to emerge by then.

The big unknown for Democrats is the influence of the socialist wing of the party as exemplified by Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, the first-term representative from New York.  Although small in number, they have been very vocal about demanding the party embrace a socialist agenda. 

Thus the battle for the soul of the party could turn raucous, roiling the process all the way to the convention in Milwaukee in 2020.  Both parties in the past have suffered chaotic primaries that left wounds that failed to heal before the general election.  That is a legitimate concern for Democrats.

The other political booby trap is overconfidence.  Listening to Democrats, beating President Trump will only require a warm body.  They are sounding like it's 2016 again.  Expect a drapery designer to show up in the Oval Office any day to choose colors for the new Democrat occupant.

General elections are not won in the primaries.  But the presidential race can be lost in a tumultuous primary.  Especially if a candidate enters the national contest with his/her reputation bruised and saddled with a divided party.

Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up To Be Wealthy

They are the tiniest minority in America, numbering 585.  Most people don't know one.  And yet they are shamelessly pilloried by politicians.  They blame this group for every calamity in America from economic inequality to climate change.  Unlike other minorities, no one rises to their defense.

This diminutive faction is the nation's billionaires. The class has a total net worth of $2.399 trillion.  The exclusive club includes some members as young as 32 and two as old as 88.  Amazon chief Jeff Bezos tops the elite list with total wealth of $112 billion. Bill Gates is distant second at $90 billion.

Once upon a time, it was the American dream to become successful and prosperous.  Average citizens looked in admiration upon self-made millionaires who grew up with little and rose to stirring heights of capitalism.  Not any more.  Today billionaires are villains to be mercilessly disparaged.

Politicians have cast the wealthy as the new boogieman.  Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has made attacking the "billionaire class" a cornerstone of his 2020 presidential run.  To listen to Sanders on the campaign trail, billionaires should be shackled in a stockade on the public square. 

"We live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact of the fabric of the entire country," Sanders ranted in an interview.  Sanders must be jealous that he is only a millionaire.

To underscore his disgust, Sanders took the social media to post the following Tweet: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need?  Give us a break.  You can't have it all."  Spoken like a man who owns three homes with his spouse Jane.

Another Democratic Party presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has made deriding the wealthy a staple of her stump speech.  "America's middle class is under attack," she grumbles.  "How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie."

To punish the rich, Warren has proposed levying a 2 percent additional tax on families with total assets of more than $50 billion and three percent on those with wealth that exceeds $1 billion. These duties would be in addition to her plan to hike taxes on the income of the richest Americans.

The future for billionaires looks gloomy with political newcomers such as New York's Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez bursting on the scene with even more draconian tax plans.  The 29-year-old politician has floated the idea of a 70 percent marginal top rate on incomes above $10 million.

That sounds more like confiscation than taxation.  Not surprising coming from a self-avowed Democratic Socialist.  Only one presidential candidate seems to be bucking the trend of bashing billionaires.  Perhaps, that's because he is one: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.

"I'm self-made," Schultz declared when he was deplored for self-funding his campaign.  "I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York.  I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America."  Polling from Pew Research suggests Schultz may be out of touch with today's generation.

In a nationwide survey in 2017, Pew found the dream for most Americans is "freedom of choice on how to live."  Having a "good family life" ranks second.  Third is "a comfortable retirement."  At the bottom of the list is "wealth."  However, prosperity makes the first three easier to achieve.

Still that doesn't explain the current visceral hatred toward the wealthy.  Nothing stirs up a crowd, especially of young people, like a verbal spanking of the rich.   Without delving into group psychoanalysis, the explanation might be envy and resentment of those with money. Who knows?

Even politicians are conflicted.  On the one hand they thrash the mega-rich, but use the other hand to take millions in contributions from billionaires, their surrogates and political shell organizations.  Would a sane person hand over money for the privilege of being verbally sprayed by a skunk?

Take Bernie Sanders as an example of this dichotomy.  Sanders made a big show out of the fact his 2016 campaign was largely funded by small donations under $200. However, OpenSecrets reveals that his largest donors were Alphabet, Inc. (Google), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Boeing and IBM.

The CEO's of each one of those organizations are either multi-millionaires or billionaires. Apparently, they enjoy being lambasted as filthy rich jerks.  These heads of mammoth corporations are either daffy or sadistic.  Makes you wonder about their motive for funding rhetorical flagellation.

In the current political climate, counsel your children and grandchildren to strive to be middle class.  Politicians pander to this economic group.  No one can define the middle class any more, but that matters little.  Middle class is the safe haven from politicians' verbal hostilities.

There is only one problem with having every American pursuing middle economic nirvana.  Who will pay for all those grand schemes, such as Medicare For All and the Green Deal, unless the nation continues to churn out more billionaires?  Now that's a conundrum for Sanders, et al. to ponder.

Medicare For All: Surest Way To Bankrupt America

Democrats, egged on by the party's rising socialist wing, are recycling a free health care idea with a shiny new label.  They are advocating "Medicare for All" with the lure of no co-pays, no deductibles and no-cost sharing.  Free healthcare for everyone.  It's political seduction.

A similar idea was first trotted out in 2016 by former presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. The 77-year old independent won over swooning young people with his Utopian idea of free healthcare.  But the scheme faded along with Sanders' presidential aspirations.

Then 29-year-old first-term Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez burst onto the political scene in January, resuscitating the concept with a catchy twist, "Medicare for All."  When the idea fueled flattering media coverage, many Democratic presidential candidates leaped on the bandwagon.

Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a fervent disciple of a single-payer system.  Under her plan, all healthcare financing is provided by one entity, in this case the federal government.  Everyone receives coverage, regardless of income, occupation or health status.

With single-payer, about 156.1 million people covered by employer health insurance would be forced to give up their plans.  Private insurance firms would cease operations leaving every American solely dependent on the federal government for primary health coverage.  There would be no other choice.

Despite the allure of a government freebie, healthcare would not magically become free.  People may not pay the doctor, however, Americans will be on the hook for a steep bill for healthcare in the form of higher taxes and budget deficits.  The tab for the plan worries economists and financial experts.

Bloomberg News, a liberal media voice, unveiled an analysis of "Medicare for All" prepared by the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.  Assuming the program was launched in 2022, the price tag for the first ten years ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.

All those zeroes are difficult to grasp without some perspective.  For instance, the total federal spending for providing Medicare coverage in fiscal year 2018 was $712 billion.  Expanding the plan to cover all Americans would append an estimated $3.7 trillion annually to the cost of the program.

The government can barely afford its existing healthcare obligations.  The latest Medicare Trustees report released in 2017 calculated that the Part A Trust Fund, which covers payments for hospital care, will be exhausted in 2026.  That's three years earlier than the previous year's estimate. 

Consider in fiscal year 2018 total federal government spending stood at $4.1 trillion. Adding another $3.7 trillion would increase the nation's debt while triggering catastrophic tax hikes. America's debt has already crept past $22 trillion, double the amount at the end of 2008.  More debt is not free.

In the last fiscal year, taxpayers ponied up $364 billion in interest payments for the nation's ballooning debt.  That represented 8.3 percent of the federal government's total budget.  With interest rates rising, each new dollar of debt will be more costly to finance, hiking future interest payments.

Democrats' solution is to raise taxes on billionaires.  That always polls well with voters.  However, even if the Internal Revenue Service confiscated the current entire wealth of American billionaires--$2.39 trillion-- the figure would not even cover one year's worth of costs for "Medicare for All."

The economics of "Medicare for All" have already discouraged a several states from enacting their own ambitious single-payer healthcare programs. Last month North Carolina deep-sixed its plan after the costs were estimated at $101 billion a year.

Even that liberal bastion of free, California, pulled the plug on single-payer legislation even after it was approved in the state senate because questions cropped up about the source of funding $400 billion in annual costs.  Vermont also abandoned a copycat plan over the bloated expenditure.

For the sake of argument, let's assume "Medicare for All" becomes a reality.  The plan will exacerbate a problem no proponent ever talks about while plugging the virtues of Medicare, a program originally designed to cover seniors 65-years old and up.

Medicare coverage is no panacea.  It pays for substantially less services than private insurance plans offered by companies to their employees.  For example, it will not bear the expense for long-term care, most dental care, eye exams for prescription glasses, hospice care or routine foot care.

Ocasio-Cortez counters her plan will tack on vision and dental care under "Medicare for All." A grandiose gesture but Medicare reimburses doctors anywhere from five-to-40 percent less than private insurers for the same services. As a result, thousands of doctors no longer accept Medicare.

It is inconceivable dentists and ophthalmologists would agree to reduced reimbursement schedules after never having to take such a haircut for fees.  Physicians have operated under the Medicare burden for years and they are bailing.  Why would these specialists accept Medicare patients?

In 2013, an annual report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, found that nearly one-third (28%) of its beneficiaries had trouble finding a primary care physician willing to treat patients with Medicare coverage.

Every year more doctors are hanging out signs in their lobbies that read: "Not Accepting New Medicare Patients." According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9,539 doctors quit serving patients with Medicare in 2012 because of lower payments for fees.

If millions of Americans are added to the rolls of Medicare, there is the looming threat more doctors will follow suit.  What good will Medicare coverage be if your primary care physician no longer accepts the plan?  "Medicare for All" advocates appear unconcerned about this prospect.

Even if doctors are coerced into taking patients with Medicare, there will be an insufficient number of primary care physicians to handle the anticipated increase in office visits.   According to national projections, there will be a shortage of 200,000 primary care physicians by 2025.

Before Americans fall in love with "free" healthcare, they would be advised study the consequences of such a plan. However, don't expect politicians to enlighten the populace.  They believe they can dupe naive American voters by just repeating the word "free" over-and-over-and-over.

Socialism: Make America Venezuela

A shocking new poll by the non-partisan Gallup organization should vex all Americans.  In a nationwide survey, the firm reported that Democrats are more positive about socialism than capitalism. While the results are astounding, the findings help explain the party's leftward surge.

The research, which included a sample of 1,505 adults aged 18 and older, signals a sharp turn in attitudes about socialism. Fully 57 percent of self-identified Democrats and independents who lean Democratic hold a positive view of a system once considered anathema to most Americans.

By comparison, 48 percent of Democrats and leaners approve of capitalism.  Looking at the demographics, older Americans from both parties have a dim view of socialism.  Young people, aged 18-29, are the most ardent supporters with a majority (55%) approving of socialism. 

For decades, Americans associated socialism with Marxist Communism, a Utopian theory of a collectivist society characterized by the equal distribution of wealth, property housing and other goods.  While the theory captivates the naive, in actual practice socialism has a record of utter failure.

But many who should know better, including politicians, Hollywood glitterati and economists, now are openly embracing socialism.  Perhaps that has swayed Democrats' opinions on the allure of a thoroughly discredited system.  Fortunately, their views do not reflect the majority of Americans.

In the Gallup poll, about 37 percent of all Americans have a rosy view of socialism.  By an overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent of Republicans favor capitalism.  Only 13 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican are in favor of socialism. 

Those who believe socialism will make America great need to look to Venezuela, once one of the world's richest countries now wallowing in despair. The South American nation is on the brink of collapse after jettisoning capitalism two decades ago, replacing it with socialism.

The country, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, has squandered its wealth by heavily spending on government subsidies for residents, including 'free' health care. Experts believe the nation's inflation rate may hit one million percent by year's end.  (One million is not a typo.)

The Venezuelan Central Bank has stopped issuing economic data in an effort to hide the country's chronic decline.  Before it halted the practice, the bank's statistics showed that in a single year (2015) the per capita income plunged from $15,929 to $6,042.  People are suffering in extreme poverty.

Venezuela's currency is in shambles, tumbling to an all time low.  At the end of July, country's currency, the bolivar, was practically worthless. It took 115,000 bolivars to equal one U.S. dollar.  Venezuelans lug pallets full of currency to the grocery store just to buy essentials.

As a result of hyperinflation, there are dire food and medical shortages.  The country ran out of toilet paper and was forced to dispatch army troops to a paper manufacturing company occupied by angry residents.  Recurring electricity blackouts and growing thug violence are a common occurrence.

Food riots erupt with alarming regularity.  Hospitals have no running water.  Thousands of Venezuelans are fleeing the country, escaping into neighboring Columbia.  In response, the government has cracked down on dissent, jailing opponents and ratcheting up propaganda.

Dunderhead Hollywood nabobs like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore once pointed to Venezuela as a shining example of the benefits of socialism.  They have been strangely silent as Venezuela plunges into economic and societal oblivion.  The media has been mum too. 

In the face of his nation's crisis, President Nicolas Maduro is continuing the practice of his mentor Hugo Chavez, looting the private sector, seizing companies and taking over farms, while fattening his personal fortune at the expense of his poverty-stricken people. This is what socialism looks like.

Democrat Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic Socialist who enchants young people with his message of free college and free health care, has been the standard bearer for socialist policies.  Now Democrats candidates for elective office are openly endorsing the same ideals.

Those Americans who shill for socialism should be exposed as charlatans.  They are peddling an economic and social solution that ruins the lives of people and bankrupts countries.  The only equality socialism guarantees is shared misery.  That's reason enough to soundly reject socialism.