Bloomberg's Opposition To Bernie Is all About Class... And The Toxic Greed Of The Billionaire Class

Early yesterday, Axios posted a Jonathan Swan blurb about a Bloomberg stop in Compton, California-- Bernie country. Bloomberg-- whose very mediocre $11 million Super Bowl ad was rated the 60th best out of 62 ads that ran (beating just Pop Tart's Fixed the Pretzel and Trump's Criminal Justice Reform)-- sees himself as the candidate from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to stop Bernie after Biden implodes, the first manifestation of which was shown Monday night in Iowa.

Although Bloomberg-- a notorious liar-- told Swan that he'd support Bernie over Trumpanzee if those were his two options, people should understand Sanders at this moment is "so far to the left it's not practical" [and that] "what he wants to do would never get through Congress... I don't agree with him on virtually anything. But I have committed to support the Democratic candidate because I find Trump so unsuited for the job."

He added that he hopes "that if Bernie did win he would change some of his policies, or Congress would make him change some of his policies." There you go-- the voice of an American oligarch who should be running in the primaries of his own party-- the GOP-- rather than as a Democrat. Bloomberg views the Democratic Party as a transactional-- and easily purchased-- vehicle for his own ambitions.

So what does Bloomberg see as so disqualifying in Bernie? Basically... Bernie's entire platform, which is geared towards the 99% of Americans who are not multimillionaires and billionaires. Bloomberg does not want to see people of his class paying for healthcare, education, amelioration of the Climate Crisis (that they created), housing... and he sure doesn't agree with Bernie's tax on extreme wealth, a tax on people with a net worth over over $32 million that would raise over $4 trillion over the next decade and "cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class." The plan also ensures that rich criminals like Trump and Bloomberg "are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies." Bernie:

Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth, and it is worse now than at any time since the 1920s.

At a time when millions of Americans are working two or three jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people.

Over the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase in its wealth, while the bottom half of American society has actually lost $900 billion in wealth. In other words, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much. For the sake of our democracy and working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.

In order to reduce the outrageous level of inequality that exists in America today and to rebuild the disappearing middle class, the time has come for the United States to establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.

This wealth tax would only apply to net worth of over $32 million and would raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade. Anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

...This tax on extreme wealth would have a progressive rate structure that would only apply to the wealthiest 180,000 households in America who are in the top 0.1 percent.

It would start with a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple. That means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000.

The tax rate would increase to 2 percent on net worth from $50 to $250 million, 3 percent from $250 to $500 million, 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. These brackets are halved for singles.

Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

Under current law, the IRS is already required to assess the net worth of the wealthiest Americans when they pass away, to calculate estate tax liability. A federal wealth tax would require the IRS to make the same assessment on an annual basis for the wealthiest Americans. Steps would also be taken to streamline the process for purposes of the wealth tax.

For assets that are difficult to appraise, the Treasury Department would have the option of allowing taxpayers to have appraisals done periodically instead of annually. The Treasury Department would establish the average rates of appreciation for several classes of assets. Those appraised only every few years would be assumed to appreciate in the intervening years at the average rate established for their designated class.

Assets placed in a trust would be treated as owned by the grantor of the trust (by the person giving assets to the trust) until that person’s death.

...The reality is that we already have a wealth tax in America – the property tax -and it disproportionately impacts working class families. One of the biggest sources of wealth for middle-income families is owner-occupied homes, which are taxed in most states at rates that can be as high as, or even higher than, 1 percent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent of Americans is not housing or real property and is not subject to any sort of property tax.

This proposal would ensure that assets owned by the top 0.1 percent are taxed the same way as much of the wealth owned by the middle-class is already taxed.

This was probably as big a reason for Mini-Mike to through his hate into therein as his out-sized ego. Here how his news network covered Bernie's wealth tax announcement 3 months ago. Note the billionaire's moron tool (anchor) laughing strategically:

The NeoCon Wing Of The Democratic Party Is Beginning To Grapple With The Reality That They May No Longer Be In Charge

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that billionaire class avatar Michael Bloomberg "did not rule out" spending a billion dollars of his own to defeat Trump-- even when its clear he's not going to be the nominee-- and even if Bernie or Elizabeth is the nominee.

"Bloomberg’s plans would effectively create a shadow campaign operation for the general election, complete with hundreds of organizers in key battleground states and a robust digital operation, ready to be inherited by the party nominee-- regardless of who that nominee may be.

Already, Mr. Bloomberg has spent more than $200 million on advertising, putting him on pace to spend by early March about the same as what President Barack Obama’s campaign spent on advertising over the course of the entire 2012 general election. If Mr. Bloomberg fails to win the nomination, future spending would be redirected toward attacking Mr. Trump.

And in an interview with Reuter's Jason Lange in Texas, Bloomberg rejected the attacks that he's trying to buy the election: "Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump. I’m spending all my money to get rid of Trump. Do you want me to spend more or less? End of story."

Sounds personal-- more than ideological... and maybe a little ego-driven. Also-- Bloomberg, a moderate #NeverTrump Republican masquerading as a Democrat-- detests Trump, who isn't nearly as rich as he is-- for beating him to the presidency... and because Trump derisively refers to him as "Little Michael." And, in fact, on Saturday Bloomberg was interviewed by CBS News' Tim Perry to whom he reiterated that "the number one thing is to replace Donald Trump... While I certainly would disagree with Bernie on an awful lot of things, if it's Donald Trump vs. Bernie, I would support Bernie.

Last week, Reuters released a poll Ipsos did for them about one of those places where Bloomberg disagrees with Bernie-- a wealth tax on the super-rich. Billionaires-- like Trump and Bloomberg-- and their toadies son't like the whole idea of a wealth tax and call it "socialism!!!!" The Ipsos poll shows that 64% of Americans like the idea-- including even 53% of Republicans.

A wealth tax is levied on an individual’s net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources.

...The Reuters/Ipsos results suggested even stronger support for an annual levy on total wealth, not just income. Warren and Sanders have touted the idea as a way to help pay for major social programs like Medicare for All and to reverse a stark rise in the share of wealth owned by the very richest Americans, known as the “1 percent.”

The poll also points to changing attitudes toward basic ideas such as “keeping what you earn.”

That notion, central to a winner-take-all brand of capitalism, got mixed reviews. While 56% of Republicans agreed the very rich should keep what they have regardless of the impact on inequality, 35% of Republicans disagreed with the statement, as did 71% of Democrats.

Republican survey respondents interviewed by Reuters said they did not see their support for a wealth tax conflicting with their party ideals or their support for Trump.

Kathy Herron, 56, a Republican who lives in Santa Rosa, California, said her support for Trump-- a self-proclaimed billionaire-- stems from his hardline policies on illegal immigration. In her view, the president would do well to support higher taxes on rich Americans. “We’re taxed from one end to the other, and it just seems the rich don’t pay their share,” she said.

In recent years in particular, mainstream economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve have taken seriously the possibility that high levels of wealth and income inequality may be not just politically corrosive, but bad for economic growth.

At the most recent Fed policy meeting, staff members presented research on how families’ differing access to credit might make a recession worse-- the sort of exercise that shows how unequal starting points among households can influence national outcomes.

Economic and market trends have likely reinforced doubts about who gets ahead, and how fast. Since the start in 2009 of a now-decade-long recovery, the top 1 percent’s share of national net worth has grown from 27.8% to 32.2%, driven by a record-setting boom in the stock market, according to Fed data.

Trump has cited the rise in equity markets as a selling point in his campaign, which is centered on taking credit for historically low unemployment, and a tariff-heavy trade policy that he says will restore manufacturing jobs.

But that has not changed the country’s wealth picture. While the share of wealth held by the bottom 50% of Americans has increased since the crisis, to 1.5% percent, longterm the trend is down, with their share at less than half what it was in 1989. The shares of wealth held by the middle and upper middle classes-- or all other Americans save for the richest 1 percent-- have all fallen since the crisis.

The key questions:

1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - The very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs

• Strongly agree- 36% (49% among Democrats)
• Somewhat agree- 28% (28% among Dems)
• Somewhat disagree- 15% (12% among Dems)
• Strongly disagree- 11% (6% among Dems)

2. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - The very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality

• Strongly agree- 13% (7% among Dems)
• Somewhat agree- 20% (14% among Dems)
• Somewhat disagree- 23% (26% among Dems)
• Strongly disagree- 31% (45% among Dems)

Politico reported that at a campaign event for white collar Democrats-- lawyers and insurance executives-- in Des Moines last week, "A young voter stood up and asked Biden 'How could we trust your judgment?' After all, the voter said, he’d gotten two of the biggest questions in recent years wrong: the 2002 Iraq War vote when he was a senator and the 2011 Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which Biden, then vice president, counseled Obama against... On Iraq, Biden gave a familiar answer that Democratic senators who voted for the invasion have been making for 17 years: It was a vote to give President George W. Bush leverage at the United Nations to bolster a weapons inspection regime, not to greenlight an imminent attack. (This is historically accurate, but a bit like arguing you let a college-aged friend borrow your credit card only for buying books for his fraternity and then being surprised about all the pot and booze he added to the bill.)"

Biden boasted that he "will put my record against anyone in public life in terms of foreign policy." Bernie, noted Politico, is the only rival who seemed to welcome that challenge.

Earlier on the same day Biden spoke, Sanders stumped in Grundy Center, about 90 minutes northeast of Des Moines. It was a small working-class audience and Sanders, after blasting Biden on Iran for the cameras, returned to health care.

Though the term is not often used nowadays, the Sanders town hall format is what sixties-era activists used to call “consciousness raising.” He prods ordinary people to stand up and describe for their fellow citizens the depravities they’ve experienced in the American health care system. Older radicals used the method to make working people aware that they were oppressed, that they weren’t the only ones, and that they could do something about it.

These sessions usually surface so many sad stories that Sanders has a regular joke about how his wife, Jane, complains that his events are too depressing. He then points to an aide who will be handing out Prozac on the way out.

The Sanders view is that, quite literally, this is how the revolution starts. Raise enough consciousness among regular people about the vagaries of the health insurance industry and eventually people will be organizing together and clamoring to trade in their own insurance plans in favor of “Medicare for All.” This is not just how Sanders sees health care, but it’s how he sees almost every issue, including foreign policy.

“I was mayor of the city of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union was our enemy,” he said in a 2017 address at Westminster College, in Missouri. “We established a sister city program with the Russian city of Yaroslavl, a program which still exists today. I will never forget seeing Russian boys and girls visiting Vermont, getting to know American kids, and becoming good friends. Hatred and wars are often based on fear and ignorance. The way to defeat this ignorance and diminish this fear is through meeting with others and understanding the way they see the world. Good foreign policy means building people-to-people relationships.”

...Sanders’ allies describe Biden as a bloodthirsty neoliberal warmonger who will return to militarism once elected... Progressives have also changed the politics of foreign policy. Democrats across the spectrum no longer believe that a reflexive toughness to international crises is a prerequisite for victory. In 2004, Kerry, who in his youth was most famous for his opposition to the Vietnam War, reinvented himself as a war fighter for the general election. (He lost.)

The Biden campaign attempted to bullshit the media that they would match Bernie's Iowa rallies with AOC by rolling out Biden's A-team: Kerry and little known Iowa conservative freshman Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer. Bernie and AOC are drawing thousands, Biden, Kerry and Finkenauer are drawing dozens-- sometimes not even.

Biden supporters and staffers waiting for surrogate John Kerry

And Bernie leads in Iowa polling now. He's number one-- with 21.3%-- in the Real Clear Politics polling average (with Biden at 17.7%). And in the latest poll-- the Iowa Poll for Des Moines Register and CNN-- Not only is Bernie # 1, but Biden is barely hanging on with 15%, the number needed to move on to the second round.

Let's look at a perspective-- a missive to shocked neocon GenXerss-- on all this from Cleveland-based attorney and blogger Tim Russo, an unwavering, unflinching Bernie supporter: Now that you’re in Bernie panic….

It’s happening. As polls one by one put Bernie Sanders the front runner to win Iowa, then New Hampshire, the Great Bernie Panic of 2020 has begun. Relax! Shock is always the first stage of grief, is it not? Grief at the death of your dear, departed worldview needn’t be too long. After all, it’s served you so poorly you couldn’t see Bernie Sanders (let alone Trump) happening. Duh!! The good news? There is no zeal like that of the recently converted; a nirvana of endless energy awaits you. The shock is natural. Here are some steps to help you along, as the inevitability sets in. Enjoy the ride!

1. Unplug. Turn off the TV, the podcasts, the talking heads. Very little mass media existing in the early 21st century will help you navigate a road you must walk yourself. In fact, media today is purpose built to oppose precisely that. If silence is too much for your brain, (too many ghosts! second thoughts! regrets! shame MY GOD the SHAME) listen to your favorite music. Find new music. Go back to vinyl, get those god damn plugs out your fucking ears and immerse in the tactile experience of placing needle onto LP to conjure the angels of your soul. I find watching classic movies on TCM is just the ticket-- no commercials!

2. Read Marx. Did you know Marx wrote about America? A lot? No, you didn’t. Now you do! Get the 2016 edition of those works, and study them closely. I realize the letters of the alphabet “M” and “a” and “r” and “x” are not permitted to pass your lips in pronounced succession, but that shit’s over bitch. Educate yourself on what’s been denied to your brain your whole life. Your brain is just sitting there, waiting. It will thank you.

3. Talk to strangers. Run with scissors, even! Yes, the world order needs to be reversed. All of it. Up needs to be down, right must become (literally) left. You are shocked that Bernie Sanders is even an option, let alone about to win. Guess what? That means you got it all wrong, your whole life, and now you need to go in the opposite direction, in everything you do. Literally everything. It’ll be fun!

4. Get drunk. Your dead worldview deserves to go out with a bang, so raise a glass (or 6) to your deluded former self, how stupid you were, and have a laugh. Spark up a fatty. Let that freak flag fly that you buried your whole life, and enjoy the world around you, because it’s changing, fast.

Are All Billionaires, By Their Nature, The Enemies Of Society? The Enemies Of The Working Class?

Billionaires freaked when there was talk about eliminating them. But no one was talking about guillotines or firing squads-- just more equitable tax plans. That's what Bernie proposed, what AOC proposed and what Elizabeth Warren proposed. And the billionaires and their lackeys went bonkers.

A littler history. The top marginal tax rates on multimillionaires-- there were no billionaires back then-- was 25% in the Roaring Twenties, a purely Republican economy that led directly to the Great Depression. FDR and the Democratic-controlled Congress raised the top rate to 63% in 1932 and then 79% in 1936. In 1941-- as World War II raged-- the top rate went up to 81%, 88% the following year and a much fairer 94% in 1944. After 1946, the very wealthy and their conservative allies in both parties worked to bring the rate down, first back to 91% and in 1964 to 77% and then 70% in 1965 both cuts under conservative Democrat Lyndon Johnson with congresses largely controlled by a coalition of conservative (mostly Southern) Democrats and Republicans. That was already way too low but in 1982, another conservative Democrat, Jimmy Carter lowered the top rate to 50%. After Reagan was completely senile and with virtually no participation the government, Republicans around him lowered the rate to 38.5 and then 28. It went up and down within a very low tight range between 28 and 39 .6 ever since. Currently the top marginal rate on regular income is 37%, although the system is so riven with loop-holes that few billionaires pay anywhere near that amount.

Jamie Dimon went after Elizabeth Warren this week, claiming she "vilifies successful people," presumably defining "successful people" as the ones who have accumulated the most wealth. AOC's proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to a measly 70%-- instead of to the 90% level where it belongs-- is wildly popular among non-billionaires. Last February a Morning Consult poll for Politico, in line with similar polls, found that just 9% of registered votes think upper income people pay too much in taxes while 63% say they pay too little. Among Democrats 78% said the rich don't pay enough as do 61% of independents and 46% of Republicans.

They were also asked if they think the tax system favors the wealthy. 73% of registered votes said yes and only 14% disagreed. 87% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 55% of Republicans agree that the tax system favors the wealthy. 77% agreed that the system has too many loop-holes (including 82% of Democrats, 78% of independents and 71% of Republicans).

When asked if the wealthy should pay higher taxes 54% of registered voters agreed strongly and 22% somewhat agreed; that's 76%. Among Democrats 74% agreed strongly and 17% agreed somewhat, which makes 91%. Among Independents 52% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (74%). And among Republicans 32% agreed strongly and 30% agreed somewhat (62%).

They tested version of the wealth tax plans advocated by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie with this question: "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to levy a new, 2 percent annual tax on all assets owned by households with a net worth of $50 million or more, and an additional 1 percent tax on households with a net worth of more than $1 billion?" Among all registered voters, 39% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (61%). Among Democrats, it's 53% strongly and 21% somewhat, a total of 74%. Even among Republicans the overall number is 50% in favor and just 30% opposed.

Another related question was "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to increase the marginal tax rate on income over $10 million a year to 70 percent?" And once again, among all registered voters 27% strongly favored and 18% somewhat favored 45%, which went up to 38% strongly and 22% somewhat among Democrats, a total of 60%.

The best of the plans is Bernie's, which would put a 1% tax on the top 0.1% of households-- so a 1% tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple, which means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000. It would rise to 2% on households with a net worth between $50 million and $250 million, 3% on net worth up to $500 million, 4% on net worth up to $1 billion, and up to an 8% tax on wealth over $10 billion.

That said, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, of late claiming to be a Democrat, is filing to run for president, at least in Alabama.

Despite preparing to file the necessary paperwork in Alabama, Bloomberg has yet to make a final decision on a run, the spokesman added.

Bloomberg's possible entrance comes as former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign struggles to break out of the Democratic field and as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a liberal lawmaker who has railed against billionaires like Bloomberg, rises in the Democratic primary campaign. A possible Bloomberg bid would be sure to dramatically shake up the Democratic primary process.

The reason Bloomberg is filing in Alabama is strictly because of the state's early filing deadline. Despite it not being an early nominating state-- Alabamans will pick their Democratic nominee on March 3-- the state has a filing deadline on Friday.

Bloomberg has privately expressed concerns about the strength of the 2020 field, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

The billionaire's decision to lay the groundwork for a run comes as Warren rises in the polls.

"He certainly disagrees with a lot of what she's put out there," said the person. "But he thinks she's smart and has put a lot of thought into her policies."

Bloomberg publicly entertained a 2020 bid earlier this year, traveling the country to meet with voters and determine whether a run was possible. He told reporters during this public speculation that he was seriously considering a bid, to the point that he had decided he would self-fund a campaign.

"In terms of running for office, I ran three times. I used only my own money, so I didn't have to ask anybody what they wanted in return for a contribution," he told CNN in January. "The public liked that every time they elected me. And, if I ran again, I would do the same thing."

But Bloomberg decided in March that he would not run for president, even though he had been leaning toward it for months.

"As I've thought about a possible presidential campaign, the choice before me has become clear. Should I devote the next two years to talking about my ideas and record, knowing that I might never win the Democratic nomination? Or should I spend the next two years doubling down on the work that I am already leading and funding, and that I know can produce real and beneficial results for the country, right now," he wrote in an opinion piece. "I've come to realize that I'm less interested in talking than doing."

He added: "And I have concluded that, for now, the best way for me to help our country is by rolling up my sleeves and continuing to get work done."

Bloomberg, however, has begun to rethink that decision, in part, because he does not believe any of the current candidates are positioned to defeat Trump.

That is an unflattering indictment of the Democratic field by the former New York mayor, who found earlier this year that there would be a narrow path to victory with Biden in the race. Since then, however, Biden's campaign has failed to take off, struggling to both capture the Democratic base and to raise money, and Bloomberg's possible entry will represent a direct threat to the former vice president.

Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg's spokesman, said Bloomberg wants to "finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated."

"But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that," Wolfson said. "If Mike runs he would offer a new choice to Democrats built on a unique record running America's biggest city, building a business from scratch and taking on some of America's toughest challenges as a high-impact philanthropist."

Wolfson added: "Based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win."

Bloomberg's possible run would be met with a series of serious questions from the Democratic base.

Rather than an asset, Bloomberg's wealth could be considered a knock against him. Candidates like Warren and others have decried self-funding campaigns and run hard against the impact that money has in politics.

When Bloomberg considered a run earlier this year, a number of Democratic operatives told CNN they believed that a Bloomberg campaign would be doomed by the mayor's positions on policing, ties to Wall Street and the fact that he had spent much of his time in politics as a Republican and independent.

But Bloomberg also would bring considerable strengths to a campaign, including his work on climate change and guns and the fact that he has spent millions on Democratic causes for years.

Generally speaking, Democrats who ran as Democrats and on Democratic values did well across the country on Tuesday. Democrats who are politically like Bloomberg and who ran as Republican-lite candidates-- notably Jim Hood in Mississippi's gubernatorial race and Bob Andrzejczak in New Jersey's one state Senate race-- failed to enthuse base votes, who didn't bother voting, ceding both elections to the Republicans. No doubt Bloomberg's strategy is to count on a brokered convention that he can buy. And, without a doubt, that would mean 4 more years of Trump.

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.

Bernie Is Right: There Shouldn't Be Any Billionaires

Yesterday, as soon as Bernie announced his wealth tax proposal-- something he's been working on long before he ran for president in 2016-- Thomas Kaplan was working to undermine its authenticity for NY Times readers by insinuating he was just trying to one-up Elizabeth Warren. "With the proposal," wrote Kaplan in his second paragraph, "Mr. Sanders is embracing an idea that has been a centerpiece of the campaign of his top progressive rival, Senator Elizabeth Warren. But while Ms. Warren came first, Mr. Sanders is going bigger. His wealth tax would apply to a larger number of households, impose a higher top rate and raise more money."

I spoke with Stephanie Kelton about the plan since I knew she had been working on it as a top economic advisor to Bernie, first in the Senate when he was the ranking member of the Budget Committee and then during the 2016 campaign. She told me that Bernie had her and Steve Wamhoff, his tax expert on the Senate Budget Committee, working "on a wealth tax back in 2015. We did a lot of work on it, had meetings at the Joint Committee on Taxation), made recommendations, etc. It takes a long time to do this kind of thing carefully. The numbers came together with input from two of the country’s leading experts on inequality, Emanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. It’s clear that the Sanders proposal is about addressing the kinds of extreme concentrations in wealth that are corrupting our democracy." The folks at Patriotic Millionaires agree. In their celebratory e-mail yesterday, they said they "need each and every one of the 2020 presidential candidates to enunciate the problem clearly and put forth real, substantive solutions to wealth inequality in this country." Morris Pearl, former managing director at Blackrock, Inc., and Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, wrote that "The wealthiest people in this country haven't been paying their fair share for a long time, and part of that problem is because our tax code only taxes the wealthy based on how much income they choose to take each year. The very rich get money not from earning it each year, but from spending wealth that they have already made. If our tax laws only target one without touching the other, then rich folks like me will continue to find ways to game the system and our inequality crisis will continue to get worse. There are many ways to address wealth inequality, and Senator Sanders's wealth tax proposal this morning is a welcome addition to our national tax debate... We are thrilled to see this proposal and look forward to more dialogue on this critical issue moving forward in the debates."

In a note to his supporters yesterday, Bernie wrote that "Our tax on extreme wealth would only apply to the wealthiest households in America and would cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years-- which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small, privileged class."

This is how much more in taxes some of the richest people in America would owe this year:

• The Walton family - $14.8 billion
• Jeff Bezos - $8.9 billion
• Charles Koch - $3.2 billion
• Sheldon Adelson - $2.6 billion
• Rupert Murdoch - $1.28 billion

Our plan would raise more than $4 trillion over the next decade and anyone with a net worth of less than $32 million would not see their taxes go up under this plan.

Now, I have never understood how someone could have tens and hundreds of billions of dollars and feel the desperate need for even more. I would think that with the amount of money the 0.1 percent of this country has, they might just be able to get by.

But the truth is, for the past several decades there has been a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much.

And for the sake of our democracy and for working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.

In my view, a nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little. Millions of people across this country struggle to put bread on the table and are one paycheck away from economic devastation, while the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

It has got to stop.

And when we are in the White House, it will.

Bernie's proposal taxes accumulated wealth, not just income and Kaplan wrote that it "is particularly aggressive in how it would erode the fortunes of billionaires. His tax would cut in half the wealth of the typical billionaire after 15 years, according to two economists who worked with the Sanders campaign on the plan. Mr. Sanders would use the money generated by his wealth tax to fund the housing plan he released last week and a forthcoming plan for universal child care, as well as to help pay for Medicare for all. He quotes Bernie: "Let me be very clear: As president of the United States, I will reduce the outrageous and grotesque and immoral level of income and wealth inequality. What we are trying to do is demand and implement a policy which significantly reduces income and wealth inequality in America by telling the wealthiest families in this country they cannot have so much wealth."

Asked if he thought billionaires should exist in the United States, Mr. Sanders said, “I hope the day comes when they don’t.” He added, “It’s not going to be tomorrow.”

“I don’t think that billionaires should exist,” he said, adding that there would always be rich people and others with less money. “This proposal does not eliminate billionaires, but it eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have, and I think that’s exactly what we should be doing.”

...Mr. Sanders, of Vermont, would create an annual tax that would apply to households with a net worth above $32 million-- about 180,000 households in total, or about the top 0.1 percent, according to the economists who worked on the plan.

He would create a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million, with increasing marginal rates topping out at 8 percent on net worth over $10 billion. For single filers, the brackets would be halved, meaning the tax would kick in at $16 million.

By contrast, the wealth tax proposed by Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, would apply to households with a net worth above $50 million-- an estimated 70,000 households in total.

The structure of her plan is simpler: She would apply a 2 percent tax on net worth from $50 million to $1 billion, and a 3 percent tax on net worth above $1 billion. Unlike the Sanders plan, the tax brackets would be the same for married and single filers.

• $32 million to $50 million net worth: 1 percent marginal tax rate
• $50 million to $250 million: 2 percent
• $250 million to $500 million: 3 percent
• $500 million to $1 billion: 4 percent
• $1 billion to $2.5 billion: 5 percent
• $2.5 billion to $5 billion: 6 percent
• $5 billion to $10 billion: 7 percent
• Over $10 billion: 8 percent

Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal

• $50 million to $1 billion: 2 percent
• Over $1 billion: 3 percent

Note: The brackets shown for the Sanders proposal are for married filers; the brackets would be halved for single filers. The Warren proposal uses the same brackets for married and single filers.

Mr. Sanders’s tax is projected to raise $4.35 trillion over a decade, while Ms. Warren’s is projected to raise $2.6 trillion over the same time period. Those estimates were produced by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the University of California, Berkeley, with whom both the Sanders and Warren campaigns consulted as they developed their proposals. (The projection for Ms. Warren’s plan differs slightly from their original estimate of $2.75 trillion earlier this year.)

“The Sanders plan is really pitched at the idea that we don’t want billionaires and decabillionaires to be billionaires and decabillionaires for as long as they currently are,” Mr. Saez said. “It’s going to erode their fortunes much faster than the Warren wealth tax.”

Mr. Sanders included several steps in his plan to enforce the tax, including creating a “national wealth registry,” increasing funding for the Internal Revenue Service and requiring audits of many taxpayers who are subject to the wealth tax, including all billionaires.

Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman calculated how the Warren and Sanders wealth taxes would have affected the fortunes of the richest Americans had each been in effect since 1982. The fortune of Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder who Forbes said was worth $160 billion last year, would have been $87 billion under the Warren plan and $43 billion under the Sanders plan.

Over all, the economists found, the cumulative wealth of the top 15 richest Americans in 2018-- amounting to $943 billion-- would have been $434 billion under the Warren plan and $196 billion under the Sanders plan.

Mr. Sanders is hardly a newcomer to the idea of a wealth tax. In a 1997 book, he wrote that it was “time, high time, to establish a tax on wealth similar to those that exist in most European countries.” In 2017, he included a wealth tax on a list of financing options for Medicare for all.

Ask yourself, do you want the 2020 election to be about the pros and cons of runaway economic inequality and how to fix it-- or about whose family is more corrupt, Trump's or Biden's, who lies more, Trump or Biden, who is further alone the path to complete senility, Trump or Biden-- and who is the lesser evil, Trump or Biden? Let's have a real debate about real and fundamental issues.

What About President Elizabeth Warren? That Has A Nice Ring!

Next Saturday, Elizabeth Warren will make it official: she's running. Big surprise? No. Good news? I think so. Of all the candidates and potential candidates, she has-- along with Bernie (and Marianne)-- the best ideas to put out for Americans to think about. The rest of them, frankly, are coming across as one form or another of careerist. The cases being made by Kamala, Beto, Biden, Gillibrand, Castro... are all about them. Elizabeth Warren is making a case about us.



So Saturday she announces in Lawrence, Massachusetts (at Everett Mills, the site of the Bread and Roses strike in 1912. Why there? That's where immigrant textile mill workers, led by the IWW, fought back against the "greedy mill owners who cut workers’ already meager salaries." The strike lasted 2 months and united workers of 40 different nationalities. IWW leaders Bill Haywood and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn went to Lawrence to help direct the strike, which resulted in congressional hearings forcing the mill owners to settle and giving workers in Lawrence and the rest of New England substantial raises.

The Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence, Mass, 1912

After Lawrence, she heads right up to Dover City Hall in New Hampshire for a 3 PM organizing event. Sunday morning she'll be at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, followed by a rally in Iowa City at the Iowa Memorial Union at the University of Iowa in the late afternoon. And then in the evening she'll be at the Mississippi Fairgrounds in Davenport for a more intimate roundtable discussion.

She doesn't stop there. Right after Iowa, she's off to events in South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and California.

There must be something even more sublimely wonderful about Elizabeth Warner than even her fans-- like myself-- have understood. The extreme right hates her even more than they hate Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton! Think about that! According to some right-winger at the Washington Times yesterday, refers to her as a "lightning rod," the "tip of the spear," a "strident liberal," someone with "cultural pedigrees," an "indefatigable backer of government power," a "class warrior from a privileged position" and "the symbol of everything they don’t like: a Harvard professor who is to the left of Barack Obama." At least he pointed out that she is"not a flip-flopper," a reference to Kirsten Gillibrand, who has virtually come to define the term.

BREAD AND ROSES
by John Denver

As we go marching, marching
In the beauty of the day
A million darkened kitchens
A thousand mill lofts grey
Are touched with all the radiance
That a sudden sun discloses
For the people hear us singing
Bread and roses, bread and roses

As we go marching, marching
We battle too for men
For they are women's children
And we mother them again
Our lives shall not be sweated
From birth until life closes
Hearts starve as well as bodies
Give us bread, but give us roses

As we go marching, marching
We bring the greater days
For the rising of the women
Means the rising of the race
No more the drudge and idler
Ten that toil where one reposes
But the sharing of life's glories
Bread and roses, bread and roses

Don't Be So Sure The Democratic Party Has Moved Left The Way The Corporate Media Says It Has

The Morning Consult poll released by Politico this morning shows an electorate moving sharply left... at least on taxing the super-wealthy. The two party establishments may not like the progressive tax reform ideas Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and AOC are bringing up, but the voters do-- overwhelmingly. The Morning Consult poll shows 76% of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. A recent Fox News survey showed that 70% of Americans favor AOC's proposal that taxes need to go up on those earning over $10 million-- including 54% of Republicans. Warren's wealth tax proposal is opposed by just 20% of voters, while 61% want to see it enacted. "It’s not surprising to me at all," said Senator Warren. "Washington has been working so long for the billionaire class that people around here cannot imagine crossing them. It never even becomes a topic of conversation. The ultra-millionaires have gotten so much from this country that it’s not unreasonable to ask them to give back a little bit."

The numbers suggest the political ground upon which the 2020 pres-idential cam-paign will be fought is shifting in dramatic ways, reflecting the rise in inequality in the United States and growing concerns in the electorate about the fairness of the American system.

“There is a deep wellspring in terms of perception of unfairness in the economy that’s been tapped into here that either didn’t exist five years ago or existed and had not had a chance to be expressed,” said Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy at JPMorgan Asset Management who has studied the latest tax proposals. “This is quite a moment in American economic history where all of a sudden in a matter of months this thing has kind of exploded like this.”

Voters seem to be moving left a lot faster than the status quo-oriented Democratic Party establishment is. Nevertheless, writing for The Intercept early Sunday morning, Shaun King exclaimed cautious optimism about the 2020 Democratic Party. Obviously, no one needs King to tell us that 2016 was a disaster that "caused real harm to legions of everyday Americans." One of the reasons he's optimistic is because he sees the party embracing progressive ideas.

A few years ago, if you supported “Medicare for All,” you were probably either a hippie, a Bernie supporter, or both. Today, polls show that 70 percent of Americans like it, and mainstream Democrats are finally embracing it publicly. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez began talking about how essential it is that the United States embrace a “Green New Deal,” on Day 1 her idea only had support from a few of her closest allies in government. In just a few weeks’ time, you’d now struggle to find a Democrat who doesn’t support it. Speaking of Ocasio-Cortez, she’s got the entire country talking about finally making the ultra-rich pay their fair share of taxes. And a few years ago, I struggled to find a single mainstream Democrat talking about ending cash bail or decriminalizing weed-- now those are basic talking points for presidential candidates.

I’m glad about all of this, but here’s why I’m cautiously optimistic. It’s easy as hell to talk about your bold policy choices when your party doesn’t have the power to enact them. I just want to make sure the Democrats don’t lose their nerve when it matters most.

Not 70% of the Democrats in Congress-- not even half

I'm less optimistic than Shaun. He thinks that because the presidential candidates have been hiring minority staffers there's a better chance that they won't-- let's call it-- sell out or wimp out. Good luck with that, buddy. That Julián Castro hired an amazing black woman, a highly skilled organizer named Maya Rupert, as his campaign manager, is a good thing on many levels. That it's a reason to be optimistic, even cautiously, about the Democratic Party... I wish I could find the new MSNBC promo for Chris Hayes' show. Or even just remember it exactly. It's about how his show will cut through all the bullshit and noice to get to what's really important in the election: who candidates are going to fight for and how believable and capable they are.

A couple of days ago, Les Leopold, writing for CommonDreams.org warned readers to Beware the Moderate Democrat. Like me, Leopold resents how the corporate media has given the word "moderate" over to those on the right of the Democratic Party. "Such a soothing political word," he wrote. "It conjures up a reasonable, considerate person who seeks the middle ground between ideological extremists: Works well with others, crosses the aisle to make good policy, knows how to win incremental change rather than issuing jarring proclamations that jump too far ahead of the electorate. A moderate is pragmatic, gets things done and doesn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Oh, in these troubled times, aren't such moderates-- beloved as they are by right-wingers like Bret Stephens-- desperately needed?"

Get ready to hear more and more of that from mainstream media pundits as the Democratic Party moves more towards the kind of progressive populism put forward by the Sanders/AOC wing of the party. We'll be asked by centrist journalists to take a careful look at more reasonable moderates like Gillibrand, McAuliffe, Bloomberg, Biden, Booker, Landrieu and many more (e.g. Is There Room in 2020 for a Centrist Democrat? and The Loneliness of a Moderate Democrat).

But what is the substance of all this centrism and moderation?

First and foremost, these moderates are united by their unwillingness to take on Wall Street. And because of that unwillingness, they are unable to confront the defining problem of our era-- runaway inequality.  They cannot face up to the fact that the wages of the average worker have been stagnant for an entire generation. Meanwhile the pay gap between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker has risen from 40 to 1 in 1980 to an obscene 800 to 1 today.

The centrists run away from this problem in large part because they are in a desperate race to win the very first primary-- the fundraising primary. And it is no secret that victory goes to the candidate who garners the most financial support from Wall Street/corporate Democrats.

Rather than discussing runaway inequality and ways to ameliorate it through Medicare for All, free higher education, and higher taxes on the super-rich, these moderates instead will stress enhancing "opportunity," and "removing barriers" to race/gender advancement.  Rather than confronting billionaire oligarchs they want to "partner with business" and, in some vague way tame their excesses while also building a robust and fair economy with "opportunity for all." No conflict needed. No diatribes against the billionaire class. Hear the melodious tones of moderation.

From this coziness with Wall Street flows the trope about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative."  The moderate centrists, and their Wall Street donors, support LBTQ rights, the advancement of women in business, immigration and criminal justice reform, gun control, and abortion rights.  At the same time, they believe the entire progressive runaway inequality platform is an affront to economic reason: High taxes on the rich will discourage initiative and innovation; single-payer health care and free higher education will bankrupt the country; breaking up the big banks will cripple investment and jobs.

Of course, the moderates must ignore the reams of data from all over the world that show that these progressive reforms would reduce inequality and enhance the well-being of nearly everyone, though it is true that reducing inequality would harm-- at least to some extent-- the precious privileges of the very few. The super-rich would have to pay more. They would no longer be able to financially strip mine the rest of us through wasteful stock buy-backs.  Their billions would be reduced a bit. But most alarming would be their deflated egos: No longer could they bask in the false narrative that what is so very good for them is good for all of us.

But do "moderates" represent anyone other than their Wall Street donors? Is there a mass base for the kind of moderation they are putting forward?

Let's take a look at the eye-popping data from the 2016 presidential election, put together by the Voter Survey Group, which polled 8,000 Americans (a very large sample which is eight to fifteen times larger than most of the surveys we usually see in the news.) A study of these voters showed that they could be divided into four major groups.  (See Lee Drutman, Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyond. Note: the title names used below are mine not his.).

• The first group, Left Populists, are those who are both social and economic progressives. They support immigration, women and minority equality, LBGTQ rights and immigration. They also worry about rising inequality and support proposals that would attack it.
• The second group, Nativist Populists, also worry about rising inequality and support proposals that attack it. But they are more comfortable with traditional gender roles, have qualms about abortion, see immigration as a problem and are not particularly supportive about LBGTQ rights.
• The third group are the Arch Conservatives who are not interested in reversing economic inequality or social inequality.
• And finally we have the Socially Liberal/Fiscal Conservatives. This is the home base for the "moderate" politicians who are wooing Wall Street and see themselves as the sensible alternatives to the extremist populists.

So more or less, that's who we are.  If the electorate were equally divided among these four groups, the "moderates" might have an argument. The facts tell a different story:

• Left Populists account for 44.6 percent of the electorate according to this study.
• 28.9 percent are Nativist Populists. This means that nearly three-quarters of all voters fear runaway inequality and want to reduce it. But these economic populists are divided on identity issues.
• Arch Conservatives account for another 22.7 percent.
• And that leaves a miniscule 3.8 percent for the Socially Liberal/Fiscal conservatives.

How pathetic is that? It goes to show how out of touch these billionaires and their accolades are from political reality. They have no base. Nada. There's no one there... except very rich Wall Street/Corporate funders and centrist pundits who feel compelled to find a judicious balance between left and right.

Danger Ahead

The data shows why Trump's nativist, race-baiting, immigrant-bashing base-building makes some electoral sense. If he can hold both the Nativist Populists and the Arch Conservatives he can win again. And he can do that most easily against a candidate with virtually no natural base-- the "moderate"-- the Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative Democrat.

Given enough financial support, a "moderate" might be able to buy her or his way through the Democratic primaries, especially if many candidates split the progressive populist vote. One could imagine one of the "moderates" becoming a media darling of the center, which might further enhance his or her status.

But should one of them squeak through to become the nominee, we might have a Democratic debacle. The nativist economic populists on the right might flock back to Trump along with the arch conservatives who will never leave him. Trump may look incredibly weak now, but a Wall Street-backed Democratic "moderate" with a natural base of 3.8 percent could give the worst president in American history a real chance.

Jim Hightower, the great Texan populist, turned a phrase that comes to mind every time a Wall Street "moderate" is touted.

"There's nothing in the middle of the road," he famously quipped, "but yellow stripes and dead Armadillos."

And even Jim Hightower fully embraced Beto, even as Beto, an unabashed New Dem, was one of the minority of Democrats in the House, when he was a unaccomplished backbencher there, refusing to support Medicare-For-All. Don't even ask about the Green New Deal. I can barely wait to hear him discussing AOC's proposal for a 60-70% marginal tax rate on annual earnings of over $10 million.