Jared Bernstein, the man who was formerly responsible for advising Vice President Joe Biden on economic matters (wow . . . that would be a daunting task), has said that if Obama is a socialist, he’s not a particularly good socialist. In fact, he said the President would have to be considered the “worst socialist ever” because the financial markets have been climbing during his Presidency. And to think everyone used to call me names for suggesting socialism is a tool used to prevent mass prosperity.
Al Sharpton, who is still engaged in a lengthy and protracted attempt to host his own television show with some degree of competency, seemed to agree whole heartedly with the Vice President’s former economic advisor. (Is this economic advisor a member of the same team that insisted we could keep our insurance, and that the 2009 stimulus would hold unemployment under 8 percent?)
“They can’t just argue different economic policies or opposition economic proposals. He has to be a socialist. His plan is a job killer. It’s all this name-calling and gutter talk,” said the MSNBC host who has accused Tea Party members of being racist, bigoted and homophobic. . . Irony abounds.
“We've actually been doing okay, maybe even a little better than okay, given the kinds of head winds and dysfunctional policy that this Congress has been throwing at the economy,” Bernstein replied, as if the litmus test for socialist policy is found within the S&P or Dow Jones Industrial.
We have to assume, given Bernstein’s cozy relationship with the socialistically inclined White House, that he was not referring to Obamacare when he referenced all that “dysfunctional policy” coming from DC.
It is true that the market has gone up. Markets tend to do that when a nation begins to devalue its currency en masse, and the government is unapologetically handing out favors to big business. Our “recovery”, however, has been largely the product of imaginative statistics and media spin. Over 91.5 million Americans are now out of the workforce – a 35 year low. A record number of people are now on food stamps, social security disability, and long term unemployment assistance. Full time jobs are drying up faster than private sector health insurance plans, and the underemployment rate continues to climb.
To suggest that the descriptive term “socialist” is inaccurate due to the fact that markets have climbed during the President’s tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a fairly weak argument. Especially given the White House’s consistent vilification of people who manage to accumulate wealth in today’s economy. (Unless, of course, they are prominent supporters. . . Apparently being wealthy is “ok” if you use your cash to promote a liberal agenda.)
Then came the coup de grâce:
“Imagine how we could be doing if there were good economic policies,” Bernstein said.
Good economic policies? Are we to assume he is referring to the President’s unadopted plans for economic recovery? Would this include things like making the rich “pay their fair share”, taxing capital gains at a higher rate, placing transaction fees on market trades, imposing taxes on carbon, and increasing redistributive welfare programs? Sounds kinda socialist. . . Just ask Francois Hollande.
The statement made by Bernstein was almost as laughable as the mental image of him attempting to discuss economics with Joe (open-mouth-insert-foot) Biden; in large part because the President’s proposed concepts of economic stewardship are merely clones of socialist party platforms from across the Atlantic.
Maybe Bernstein was on to something after all. . . The President has been seemingly unable to forge consensus among political factions on Capitol Hill. That, however, seems to be more illustrative of his leadership capabilities than his socialistic tendencies; but I assume Bernstein did not intend the comment as an assessment on Obama’s competency. Would it make Bernstein more comfortable if we referred to the President as America’s incompetent socialist?