Meet the Socialists

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC for short) is the new face for the new Socialism (their term, not mine) pushing into what used to be a democratic government. She's the face; she's not the lone person. Bernie Sanders, for instance, did disturbingly well in his run for president on that platform. Their version of socialism is take from the rich and give to the government. Oh, hang on, don't get your knickers in a twist. The government will give it back to us. Well, not us. The poor, mostly. Well, the government mostly. Overhead, you know. But they're benevolent and will take care of us all. Free healthcare, free education, a unicorn in every pot, that sort of thing. They'll see that you get what they think you need and they'll see that you don't get what they don't think you need. Like earnings for work. You don't need that kind of thing. They'll simplify the tax forms. "Line 1: What did you earn? Line 2: Send it in."

AOC has proposed her "Green New Deal" aimed mainly at "green" -- saving the planet. She has a popular following in that -- more than I care to imagine. She wants to tax the very rich at a maximum 70% in order to pay for things like a "100% renewable energy" mandate for the nation in 12 years and revamping the nation's buildings to be eco-friendly. Eliminate fossil fuels entirely. It sounds extreme -- 70%. Turns out, not so much.

In 1944-1945, the richest Americans faced a 94% tax rate. Make $200,000 (in 1944-45 money) and take home $12,000. But that was wartime and everyone was working hard at winning and recovering from a war. But between 1917 and 2012 the average max income tax rate has been 61%. For a long time (1965-1981) it held at 70%. Sure, typically when the Democrats were in charge the tax rates went up or held high and when the Republicans were in charge it went the other way, but not always. From 1946-1963 it held at around 91%. That's 17 years of taking home $18,000 on a $200,000 income. (Always remember: those figures are from those times, not adjusted to today's equivalent.) If you look at 17 years of 91% and 16 years of 70% with an overall average for nearly 100 years of 61%, maybe 70% isn't outlandish.

You have to figure, though, that today we're talking about a maximum tax rate of 37% for $600,000 or more. So what AOC et.al. wants to do is to effectively double those rates, and not for a war effort. She wants to put the toothpaste back in the tube, confident that the wealthy will gladly double their tax rates without complaint. It's for the somewhat silly notion that we can save the planet. The fact is that other countries like China, India, and more are producing as much or more greenhouse gases as we are. The truth is that we have other clean energy sources we are using that do not qualify in the Green New Deal plan because they're not renewable. But she's planning on producing millions of good paying jobs on the backs of America's biggest earners (and the rest of us) by requiring the elimination of 83% of the existing power infrastructure. The truth is we currently lack the technology to safely, efficiently power the entire United States on renewable energy, so new technologies would have to be designed. Further, the other fact is that renewable energy sources are not the panacea they tout them to be. Solar panels, for instance, produce significant hazardous waste in their production, and they give out in 10 years and need to be produced again. Wind generators are nice, but it is estimated that up to 328,000 birds (without regard for their endangered status or not) are killed every year by these devices. Hydroelectric power seems like a good option (where it is available), but it, too, impacts land use, wildlife, and life-cycle global warming emissions. That is, nothing is absolutely clean. AOC et.al. would like us to take from the rich to fix something we can't fix with things that don't actually fix it.

Does that make me a climate change denier? Not really. Does it make me a partisan bigot? Not at all. Does that mean that I'm opposed to a Socialist government? Absolutely. But I may not get to choose otherwise as younger Americans who haven't learned from history begin to make choices for the rest of us without regard for history, science, or a grasp of human nature. This could get ugly.