Can We Afford DSAs Affordability?

By James Carlson

Modern Marxist Communists of the USSA (United Soviet Socialists of America)

What is ‘Affordability’? Can we afford the new socialism that comes from the new Democrat Socialists of America (DSA)? Left-wing, Liberal Progressives have applied a limited socialism since the New Deal, but now full-blown socialism is on the agenda. As the DSA takes office soon in Congress, Governorships, and various other elected posts nationwide, will they deliver on their promises of affordability or simply make us pay more? There are real solutions to real problems but don’t expect the DSA to provide them.

Socialism

Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist and has been since his teenage years. He has largely been responsible for building a group of socialists who tout an agenda of wealth redistribution. All the while complaining about Billionaire Oligarchs, Senator Sanders has as his goal the ability to spend billions of dollars, along with his socialist friends, contrary to the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8) and his oath of office. Their goal is to establish a Billionaire Oligarchy (BO) in place of what they claim to oppose. This is the height of hypocrisy.

Welcome the new BO of Sanders and the DSA. They will raise your taxes, spend your money, destroy our institutions, and claim they are making everything better for everyone. They are the next generation of tax-and-spend liberals born of the Democrat Party that was led by the Progressives for more than 2 generations (80 years). The DSA represents the 3^rd generation of the Democrat Progressives as a more radical bunch than Sanders and company who are the aging 2^nd generation.

Again, what is affordability? Can we afford the new DSA/BO? Recall that ‘economics’ comes from the Greek ‘economos’, meaning the rule of the household. Kitchen table issues are at the heart of any economy, and household economies struggle with many things financially. The new socialist liberals are seeking to take an advance on taxpayers’ dollars and spend trillions of dollars they do not have. This is the root of the problem with the new DSA/BO.

Taxes, by definition, are the public recapture of private funds. Democrats have always advocated for higher taxes. This is how they use the wealth of a nation to spend it however they want, not how you want. They take your money and spend it on the promises they make but never deliver. The path forward is to increase the progressive taxes to include average homeowners and make them pay their ‘fair share.’

Financial Burdens

As the new DSA/BO intend to play with their newfound power to effect socialist designs on our economy, we have real problems to face that impact affordability. If we are going to solve the ‘problem’, we need to know what the problem is. Among the many issues Americans face, we are seeing increasing problems with our nation’s financial institutions and our debt burdens.

First, Americans pay nearly $30 billion/year in penalties on top of their debt obligations, including credit card penalties and overdraft/NSF fees. This drains the household economy, making things less affordable than before. Further, mortgage loans, automobile loans, student loans, and medical debt all factor into the penalties the average American pays to our nation's financial institutions. We are not only in debt over our heads, but we also get punished for being a ‘day late and a dollar short.’

We need to overhaul the financial system where companies assume a violation of contract law without any adjudication in court, leading to a unilateral award of a financial penalty on our debt. This amounts to a private-sector recapture of private funds, or a private-sector tax. I call this ‘cocktail conservatism,’ where the financial world gets drunk on the penalties of our debt obligations. At the very least, regulations should require that at least half of the penalty we pay goes to the principal on our debt. If the financial world doesn’t like it, let them go to court and spend the millions needed to argue every nit-picking case.

Also, interest on our home mortgage totals more than 100% of our home's cost. For example, at 6%, a $300,000 mortgage generates approximately $347,500 in interest over 30 years. We pay for our house twice! Any chance we can limit total interest to no more than half the fair market value of the house? This is another area where Americans simply cannot afford the debt they take on.

Further, the credit card rates can amount to as much 39.99% in rare instances. The rate limit for most credit cards is about 20%. In comparison with a federal rule in loan sharking cases that limits interest rates to 45%, credit cards approach this legal limit. In a very real sense, there is little to no difference between credit cards and loan sharks. It would help to lower the rate at which interest is considered illegal to much lower levels. Or, better yet, limit the maximum rate by law. This would greatly increase the affordability of our nation’s household economies.

End Progressive Policies Entirely

Finally, we should look at the means available today to end the Progressive movement entirely. I’ve reviewed this history of progressivism before and summarize it as follows:

·       Support the Work Ethic of Americans with Jobs

·       Support impoverished Americans with tax money (socialism)

·       Support needy Americans with State Charity (entitlements)

This was the progressive movement's method under the New Deal. But as the Supreme Court ruled against the progressives early on, the Progressives in Congress threatened the Court with a Court-packing scheme. As a result, the Court wilted under the progressive tactics, calling Special Welfare – General Welfare. This ruling was called ‘a switch in time that saved 9.’

The Supreme Court recently sided with the Obamacare (aka ACA) policy, calling it a tax and saying a tax would be Constitutional. However, they didn’t rule on the tax’s Constitutionality according to Art. 1, Sec 8. As such, the current Administration has an opportunity to return to the Court and request a review of the tax to determine whether it is constitutional under Art. 1, Sec. 8. If the Court overrules ACA as being Special Welfare contrary to the Constitutional provision for taxation, they can also overturn the prior ‘switch in time’ ruling and end the false foundation of the entire Progressive movement.

With the current administration in office, we have 2 years to do this. And if the Court returns a favorable opinion, we can apply a ‘ramp function,’ not a ‘step function,’ as we slowly wean our nation off the tit of progressivism. Taking 10 – 20 years to finish the New Deal, we won’t be throwing grandma off the cliff. We will be reducing the burden of taxation on taxpayers who pay less on socialism/progressivism every year.

Finish the New Deal

The old ideal from the progressives in the 1930s and 1940s was to help people who needed jobs. However, this devolved into redistributed wealth and welfare entitlements. The latter became government-run charities. However, this violates a very old standard of the Separation of Church and State as advocated by James Madison in the 1860s (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments).  As we keep the promises we made to the older generation, we need to ensure that new promises hold merit both with the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8) and with this Separation principle.

The new Trump Accounts do just that. They shift away from progressivism by providing a savings account (like an IRA) funded by real charitable donations, not taxpayer dollars. Avoiding the pitfalls of socialism and entitlements (welfare-state liberalism), these accounts will give the youth of our country a financial foundation for their own economic futures.

By using the work ethic, the money spent on progressive programs can be gradually reduced year after year (ramp function), enabling people to work more and depend on the government less. The Reagan/Bush era saw this work with Workfare, which was an alternative to Welfare. We can provide for people’s needs as we slowly close the books on the New Deal, and end the progressive movement entirely.

We need to keep the promises we’ve made to the older generation and not make new promises to a younger generation we cannot reasonably expect to keep. We will reach a point where the tax base cannot fully fund all progressive policies. At that point, we have to commit to using the general fund to keep our promises.

Conclusion

We cannot afford all the promises made by the new radical socialists of the DSA/BO who promise everything and expect us all to pay for it with increased taxation. How is that going to help with affordability? Returning tax dollars to people, reducing the burden of debt, and keeping liberal spending to a minimum will improve affordability. Over time, people will have more of their own money to spend instead of the socialist BO spending it for us. We simply cannot afford the Affordability that the DSA is promising.

In summary, what is Affordability? Affordability requires:

·       Income from someone with a job.

·       Expenses paid by that income.

·       The continued ability to meet debt obligations.

These are required for affordability to be real. But then, what do Socialists offer?

·       Handouts by government taxation that circumvent actual income.

·       Deflated prices by government fiat that undermine free market value.

·       A dismissal of debt that undermines contracted obligations.

These socialist ideals directly oppose free markets, a free economy, and the ability to achieve the American Dream. It all starts with a solid work ethic, but socialism runs in reverse.

Actual economic reform can come in the form of:

·       A competitive job market.

·       Competitive pricing for goods and services.

·       Relieving the debt burden by reducing interest rates and penalties on debt.

It's time we get a good look at the Affordability issue and conclude that Socialism is unaffordable.