Sheldon Adelson vs Bernie... Plutocracy vs Democracy

A nexus of pure, unadulterated evil-- Trump and the Adelsons

Sheldon Adelson bought the biggest newspaper in Las Vegas for 140 million dollars. His net worth is something like 32 billion dollars and he represents the interests of the far right Likud Party among Republicans in the U.S. His bribes to Trump are over $25 million. He gives immense sums to Republicans in Congress. Bernie specifically named him in his wealth tax proposal, since he would owe $2.6 billion more in taxes when Bernie's proposal becomes law. The day after Bernie's proposal was made public, Adelson had one of his flunkies write an editorial for his newspaper: Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate rich people. Chock full of lies, it does make one of Bernie's points very well: the over-indulged super-rich are destroying democracy with their immense, untaxed wealth. Adelson:

One of Bernie Sanders’ charms, according to his followers, is that he’s an unapologetic advocate for his beliefs. Never mind that most of the 20th century stands as a monument to the catastrophic dangers of his collectivist philosophy, Bernie’s no phony!

True to form, comrade Sanders this week unveiled how he plans to pay for the gargantuan expansion of the federal government that will be necessary to provide his extensive handouts: He plans to harness the power of the state to fatten the Beltway bureaucracy with a new trillion-dollar pipeline carrying other people’s money.

Sen. Sanders would impose a “wealth” tax of up to 8 percent on rich Americans-- those making more than $16 million annually. His advisers project the new levy would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade, allowing a Sanders administration to pay for free health care, free day care, free college, free housing, free electric vehicles, free electricity and whatever else it can dream up to give away. Members of the Sanders camp also tout the proposal as a way to eliminate billionaires and to attack income inequality.

As for the latter, they have a point. Simply outlawing the accumulation of wealth and raiding the assets of high-earning Americans might indeed reduce income disparities-- by making everyone poorer. Is it any surprise that Bernie can barely bring himself to condemn the quasi-Marxists who have run Venezuela into the ground?

All this will no doubt appeal politically to certain voters who are unconcerned about the practical or moral intricacies of tax policy as long as they’re not the ones paying. But Sen. Sanders is notably silent on the economic ramifications of his confiscatory approach-- and how they might hurt the “little people” he supposedly wants to help.

“A wealth tax would have unknown effects on economic growth,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The founders of successful companies would have a harder time holding on to controlling stakes as they grow.”

Meanwhile, Tyler Cowen of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University notes that a wealth tax would almost certainly lower “investments in human capital and the creation of new businesses.” That, in turn, means fewer jobs, lower wages and economic stagnation, hardly a recipe for uplifting lower-income Americans.

In real terms-- as opposed to the fantasyland of Sen. Sanders’ campaign rhetoric-- a wealth tax would be constitutionally dubious, destructive for Americans of all income levels, impossible to get through Congress and a nightmare to enforce and administer. But give straight-shooter Bernie credit: He’s upfront about his plans to destroy the U.S. economy.

It's hardly news that greedy billionaires don't want to pay taxes or that Bernie intends to change the fundamental way the economic abundance of this country is distributed. "Follow the money," said Brianna Wu, the progressive candidate taking on Boston New Dem Stephen Lynch. "Housing affordability is a crisis in Massachusetts, and who’s funding Lynch’s campaign? Real estate conglomerates. Health care costs are out of control, and the same people profiting from that price gouging are funding Stephen Lynch. As long as politicians are taking cash from billionaires, billionaires will continue getting the better end of the deal."

Shan Chowdhury, is running against the most corrupt New Dem in New York, Gregory Meeks, a Wall Street owned-and-operated hack who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, carrying water for the banksters. "The fact Adelson uses the term 'human capital' is gross and solidifies the rich and powerful only wanting to keep their wealth, and have no interest in reducing harm imposed by the current market," Chowdhury told us this morning. "It does not make sense to impose heftier taxes on people who do not have money, while the rich reap the benefits from tax cuts. We know it did not work with Reaganomics. It destroyed households and made people poorer. We can tax the richest people in the world up to 8% and they would still have more wealth than a lot of everyday people. By closing the wealth gap, we can retrieve funding for resources such as Medicare for All, Free Public College Tuition, and Guaranteed Homes. Having basic necessities will motivate consumers to participate in the economy. What’s even better about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal is that it will cut away at big money influencers in our democracy. Let’s wipe out billionaires who pay elected officials to their bidding and make politicians accountable to the people. NO Finance, NO Insurance, NO Real Estate-- just the Working Class of America."

Rebecca Parson is the newest primary candidate Blue America has endorsed. This is an amazing woman, unlike anyone I've listened to talk about going to Congress since the first time I spoke with AOC. Rebecca is running for the Washington seat held by the head of the Wall Street-owned New Dems. What an amazing replacement she will be for him-- just as AOC has been for a former head of the New Dems! "Let's give credit where credit is due," she said this morning on reading the piece from Las Vegas. "Adelson is correct that a wealth tax would be impossible to get through Congress-- that's why we need a new Congress. One that isn't beholden to billionaires and their insatiable greed. Only then will we be able to get policies through that benefit the working class instead of the coddled-yet-ruthless billionaire class."

In Washington's 6th Congressional District, democratic socialist Rebecca Parson is fighting for just such a change. By rejecting corporate PAC and lobbyist money, she is free to pursue policies that nurture the working class and poor: national rent control, more social housing, Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee, and the Green New Deal. Her opponent Derek Kilmer, by contrast, takes millions in corporate cash every cycle and repays their generosity handsomely: by refusing to support Medicare for All or the Green New Deal. By voting to fast track the TPP against the express wishes of every labor union in his district. By voting to cut food stamps for 1.7 million people.

As Rebecca said herself, "It's time for a Congress that answers to the people, not its billionaire captors." Rachel Ventura is also running for a seat-- this one in Illinois-- occupied by a New Dem. Please consider contributing to all four of these extraordinary candidates by clicking on the Blue America primary thermometer over. Rachel told us that "The problem with having a millionaire as a representative, is that they are out of touch with the majority of the constituents in my district. In February of this year I approached Congressman Foster about signing on to the Medicare for All bill. I had just gone two years without insurance and was forced to pay the mandatory ACA penalty because it was cheaper than paying for coverage. It occurred to me that maybe he just doesn’t get it because he has probably never had to live without insurance." She continued:

When considering my finances as a single mom working two jobs, I had to make hard decisions like choosing to purchase life insurance (a cost of $300 per year) over health insurance ($13,000 per year). I made this choice because I feared what it meant to not have coverage in America. If the worst should have happened at least my children would have the death benefit. This is never a decision a parent should have to make. I remember choosing to not climb a tree with my daughters because an injury might also cause us to lose the house, or my ability to work. Millionaires don’t have to make these choices and they cannot relate to the fears that the rest of us have. They are out of touch with realities that most American’s face when it comes to every day decisions. Since most legislators tend to vote with their experiences and perceptions of their constituents, it means Foster is not able to see my district nor understand the needs of the people who live and work here. More than that, I have witnessed Foster looking down on those who have less. Judging a human being based on their financial state happens too much in this country and it is wrong.

Furthermore, running against an opponent who accepts millions in campaign contribution from only a few donors means he is more likely to represent the wealthy donors than my friends and neighbors in the 11th congressional district. These people, my people, would be better represented by someone who has suffered, made hard choices and “gets it” from real world experience. Wealthy donors means that candidate has the resources to reach voters easier through direct mail and endless TV commercials. In a district like mine where the median income is only $66,000 it means that we will have to stretch our small contributions and reach those voters through door-to-door volunteer efforts.

When looking at how Foster votes, he’s put businesses over American’s with Disabilities when he joined Republicans to gut the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When he voted against net neutrality, he effectively said that those who can afford the highest speed internet should be able to buy it. He believes in a tiered healthcare system where poor people have something that “isn’t great,” but the rich can still afford the best. This is someone who clearly does not have me and my family in mind.

To make matters worse, he doesn’t even own property in my district. Initially in 2008 he was the representative of the 14th district and lost the seat. In 2012 he invested enough money to buy the IL 11th congressional seat, but chose to rent an apartment in Naperville.

But consider this, Foster is the 48th richest person in Congress at a net worth of $9.4 million. I know it is hard to imagine a male Caucasian multi-millionaire basically buying a congressional seat. Or is it?

And, if he is the 48th richest member of Congress, what kind of representation are the voters getting in those 47 other districts? Voters in Illinois’ 11th district have a chance to change this lopsided representation for the wealthy on March 17th 2020.