'Democrats achieve clean sweep in 2020'

By Ralph Wallace | Apr 11, 2019

All right, for the sake of argument, let us imagine a clean sweep by the Democrats in 2020 – White House, Senate and House. In the Bible (Ephesians 6:11-12), we are advised that, when entering battle, one should “know thy enemy.” So, as conservatives, it behooves us to fully examine the liberal/progressive plans for our country when they, for the sake of argument, control the country.

There are myriad possibilities for a Democratic president, so let us start with the five leading contenders who nicely represent the Dems’ insistence on identity politics – young, tech-savvy Beto; old white guy Bernie Sanders; latecomer, also-old white guy Joe Biden; mature, beer-drinking woman, Elizabeth Warren (who has relinquished her minority status); and real minority woman, Kamala Harris. In our scenario, Beto is eliminated because he is viewed as the ultimate participation-trophy candidate. In the spirit of “leave the Dems alone while they’re eating their own,” the politically correct on the left throw Biden on the Me-Too ash heap, and Warren is doomed because of a lack of billionaire support. The result is the presidential dream team of Sanders and Harris.

As he promised, on his first day in office President Sanders mandates “Medicare for all.” Democratic majorities in the House and Senate quickly pass legislation that makes private health insurance illegal. Two reactions are immediate – health insurers flood the courts with breach-of-contract lawsuits, and the Office of Management and Budget quickly issues an analysis showing that not only are there insufficient taxes to pay for the first year of the plan, but in eight years the resultant trillion-dollar cost will render the United States essentially bankrupt. Sanders disagrees. He persists that the new capitalist-socialist system will somehow prevail.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris is ardently pushing the Green New Deal, with proposed legislation championed by new House Speaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who easily defeated rival Jerrold Nadler, who is suffering from clinical exhaustion while attempting to beat Joseph McCarthy’s record for congressional investigations. The GND legislation stipulates that all coal mining and fracking operations cease immediately, federal gasoline taxes are tripled, a carbon tax on all non-electric vehicles is established and a 50 percent government subsidy on the consumer purchase of solar panels and windmills is introduced.

Now some blue-state backbenchers are in a tizzy. Many of them ran on promises of a guaranteed income and free college tuition. One congresswoman from California laments that a third of her constituents who are unemployed and unwilling to work are demanding their promised incomes. Another blue state liberal warns that, with the recent passage of legislation giving voting rights to 16-year-olds, she is fearful of a youthful uprising if free college tuition is not granted soon.

Amidst this socialist frenzy, a Republican from a fly-over state rises in the Senate to ask how all these new programs will be financially supported. He also references a Federalist Society analysis that reveals the GND alone would subject 30 percent of the nation's gross domestic product to direct government control and that the elimination of private health insurance would result in a further 18 percent of GDP run by the government. He also has the temerity to point out that the new tax rates extending to 70 percent on top earners is insufficient to fund these socialist programs. In fact, he cites Treasury Department officials who have calculated that even a 100 percent tax would fail to support the combination of Medicare for all, the GND, free college tuition and a guaranteed minimum income.

Now while some of this “future history” is treating a serious matter with humor, there are some grave insights here. For example, the 30 percent government control of GDP, which the Green New Deal would require, is based upon actual economic projections. Moreover, the interconnected policies of Medicare for all, free college tuition and a minimum guaranteed income would be ruinous to the financial viability of the country, to say nothing about the deleterious effects upon the cherished social condition which Americans currently enjoy.

While this conservative view begins with the underpinning of Biblical scripture, let us conclude with some homespun wisdom that could serve to warn us about the lure of socialism: “Be careful what you wish for.”

Comments (4)
Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Apr 15, 2019 23:46

The point I was trying to make was there are two sides to every pancake.  Both sides are corrupt, however it is the source you gather the information and how the news spins it.  There are other stories out there.

I wouldn't mind reading news about the LNG pipeline expansion in Searsport.  Was there PUC hearings on the pipeline expansion?



Posted by: Mary A McKeever | Apr 15, 2019 15:10

Well the good new is, without corruption in politics we would not have any news to read, perhaps....

Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Apr 13, 2019 10:22

Does it create corruption when one reads and quotes one sided publications?   Seems jilted to believe that only one side is right and the other is bad.


Your arguments would have much deeper meaning if your information was taken from right winged publications.  They are out there but when only obtaining information from a one sided forum how strong can your argument be?   It deepens opinions that create a corrupt mind set.  I have seen a completely different side of forums by watching both side of a news story.  I believe they call it spin to corrupt the view in which they believe.


Tape both Fox and MSNBC for the commentary.    Then watch a speech by any politician the hear it for yourself.  Write down notes of exactly what was said in the politicians speech.  Then tape both Fox and MSNBC for the commentary of that speech.   After six months eyes and views will open to the fact that the talking heads on both channels are lawyers.  Sort of like a trial of sorts.  Can the lawyer talking heads able to sway your way of thinking of what you have seen as the truth.  The facts omitted on purpose.


Take the Chicago case of hate crime Jesse Smollet for example.  The news has it both ways and so do the politicians for that matter.  Grand Jury votes one way and prosecutor decides a different way.  Obtaining facts from publications and reading only one parties opinion then shuts off the other side.  Shouldn't Democratic Socialism be reading both sides to form their own opinion of the truth?  When was the last time you watched nothing but Fox news for a month?  Would you start to believe the "fake news" narrative?

Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Apr 11, 2019 19:08

How about some present day comparisons, Ralph.  Turn's out the Republicans have little to offer.


"Four pharmaceutical companies — Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck and Abbott Laboratories — collectively kept $7 billion in tax savings in 2018 due to Republicans' 2017 corporate tax overhaul, according to a new Oxfam report."


"...  pharmaceutical companies in particular have benefited from bringing back billions of dollars in overseas profits that have sat untaxed. However, this report says the tax savings have not led to other social goods, like more research investment in new drugs or lower drug prices.



"As Democrats on the House Oversight Committee attempt to investigate soaring drug prices in the U.S., Republicans are warning the CEOs of some of America's largest pharmaceutical companies against cooperating with the probe.


"Once again, they're siding with Big Pharma at the expense of the American people."
—Robert Reich

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), leaders of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, sent letters (pdf) to a dozen drug company CEOs "warning that information they provide to the committee could be leaked to the public... "


"The sweeping anti-corruption, democracy reform bill passed by Democrats in the House last week included measures to prevent foreign money from influencing future elections, but every single House Republican voted against the bill.

Christian Science Monitor reported on Monday that the Democrats’ bill, H.R.1, was meant to address “an urgent need to close loopholes that could allow foreign money to surreptitiously influence American voters, citing in particular a Kremlin-linked company that bought divisive Facebook ads and a Trump administration tax rule change last summer that could allow illegal foreign donors to evade detection.”


Nothing to offer, except of course, more of the same...   corruption.

If you wish to comment, please login.