Socialism Rises From The Ash Heap of History: The Improbable Story of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn

Socialism, the bastardized version of Communism, once consigned, along with Communism, to the ash heap of history is now seeing a resurgence thanks to two avuncular self styled crusaders. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are selling bromides and what Friedrich Hayek memorably called 'Road to Serfdom'. What is the true nature of this resurgent evil that once plagued more than half the world from Moscow to London to Latin America?

Make no mistake, Sanders and Corbyn are repackaging Communism in Socialist garb and presenting it as not just palatable alternative but as panacea to every societal illness. That Sanders and Corbyn do not call for abolishing private property, the cornerstone of Marxism, should not lull us into complacency about the true evil nature of socialism which, compared to communism, is more sinister due to the very innocent noble sounding promises that it is wrapped in. What could be wrong with 'free college for all' or 'free healthcare for all'?

Bernie Sanders (Picture Courtesy Politico)

Last year I wrote of Jill Stein, the nominee of Green Party:

Jill Stein's interview with Cenk Uygur of the ultra left wing channel Young Turks is revelatory in a Freudian sense. Launching into a lengthy monologue that can be picked line by line for half truths and playing loose with facts by any fact checker Dr. Stein lays out why her campaign should be appealing to "43 million young people, and going into middle age and beyond, who are trapped in predatory student loan debt" (transcript from Slate). The appeal, Stein says is simple, "there's only one place that they can put their votes in order to cancel their debt". Yep. As simple as that. I come from India, where politicians promise illiterate farmers that hundreds of millions of dollars in farm loans can be written off. They win, they write off the loans and of course it does nobody any good.

Jill Stein went on to equate loan write offs to the GI bill. The GI Bill, god bless the Greatest Generation, was not a loan write off or a hand out, rather, it was the debt of gratitude paid by a nation in 'EXCHANGE' for services rendered, the ultimate sacrifice, by the youth of this country. If Dr. Stein proposes free education in exchange for military service then that is already in vogue and nothing revolutionary but any such suggestion on a large scale would have her brood of peaceniks puking, not, lapping up. Uygur's reaction to all this "you are definitely to the left of me". To be left of Uygur means it is lecturing Marx on how to do redistribution better than what the Communist Manifesto said. 

Both Sanders and Corbyn have attracted the committed support of legions of millennials who, having escaped the sting of socialism and never been instructed on the ideological debates of communism versus free market, don't know the true nature of what they're cheering.

Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York and Presidential aspirant for 2020, seeking to cover himself in progressive credentials and seek the mantle of Sanders, has promulgated a 'free college' scheme. Independent estimates, according to New York Times, peg the cost in a wide range, $138-$232 million. No one knows the true cost which depends on number of enrollees and many other factors. Other analysis points out that, as Hillary Clinton repeatedly said in objection to Sanders during campaign, the plan does nothing for the poor students, from families earning less than $50,000, as they are already covered for tuition fees by existing programs. On the other hand the program is a largess for the middle class, earning unto $125,000. Most importantly the program does nothing for part time students, which most poor students are but rewards only full time students and insists that students should graduate in 4 years, most poor students graduate in 6 years. A little known provision in the proposal insists that students, upon graduation, should serve the state of New York for the number of years they received funding. 'Road to Serfdom'.

What could be wrong with giving free kindergarten to all children of New York City, mind you, just the City not the State? A price tab of $400 million for 65,000 children and that's just for 4 year olds. This is a program that NPR points out is not means tested and, again, benefits all, without demarcation of who needs it and who doesn't. An expansion of the pre-k program to all 3 year olds in the city would cost, New York Times says, $700 million to cover 62,000 children per year. The expense could grow to $1 billion. If there ever was a ponzi scheme this is it. Why not just deposit the money spent per children into a mutual fund and the child may never have to go to school or have to earn a penny by working when it reaches adulthood.

In 2000 NYC's pension costs were just 2% of the city's budget. A 2014 New York Times article said that in 2015 NYC pension costs would comprise, $8 billion, 12% of the city's budget, fueled by union contracts. In city after American city, in State after State pension costs of public employees are budget busters with sickening regularity. Police, Transit, Teachers, Firemen unions are the combined single biggest drivers of pension costs. Unions lobby and campaign for politicians who'll promise rosy pension benefits like retiring at 55 with full pension and 'cost of living adjustments' forever and lump sum cash equivalents of rolled over sick leave over decades of service all the while with measly contributions from employees. Greedy politicians agree to those demands by playing creative accounting on pension returns. Over estimating pension returns politicians put less than required money into the system because if they put in what is needed there would be only pennies left for services to the taxpayer. Add to this luxurious overtime pay that unions negotiate and the miserly premium they pay for the ballooning healthcare costs. Bernie Madoff is a picture of fiscal sanity in contrast.

Is it any wonder then that the last census confirmed said most New York City residents are either rich or poor and very little middle class. New York City has only those who can afford the taxes and those who need those taxes.

What could be wrong with 'free healthcare' for all? Bernie Sanders's own home state Vermont tried what is popularly called 'public option' and abandoned it when it almost consumed the entire state budget. California is now flirting with a public option for all Californians, including illegal immigrants at a cost $400 billion. California's entire budget is around $180 billion. While America's notoriously expensive healthcare surely needs to be tamed but the much lauded public option proves to be a fiscal disaster. The California experiment is being spearheaded by the Nurses union which touts a study funded by it that says that the extra cost can be mopped up by, what else, more taxation that includes raising the already high sales tax to nearly 10%. When sales tax rises that affects every citizen, rich or poor.

Bernie Sanders raved and ranted about breaking Big Banks and sending CEOs to jail on the campaign trail. Asked during a debate as to why he'd not ask for jail time for government run EPA (Environment Protection Agency) that literally muzzled evidence that the water in Flint, Michigan was poisoned he hemmed and hawed. This is the problem with Sanders and his worldview. Private enterprise is held to a much higher standard whereas incompetence and plain villainy by a government entity is par for the course. Faced with mounting evidence of corrupt ineptness at government run Veterans Affair Sanders, a New York Times article said, was reluctant to admit wrong doing until the evidence was clearly beyond ignoring.

Jeremy Corbyn

Contrast how Obama administration dealt with Volkswagen and BP on the one hand and big time union shop GM. The Obama administration skinned alive BP for the Gulf oil disaster, an accident. BP almost became bankrupt. Volkswagen cheated on emission standards and was slapped fines that eventually came to $30 billion. General Motors management systematically hid evidence of faulty ignition switches that had resulted in nearly 124 deaths. The penalty on GM was a paltry $900 million. The number of deaths due to VW scandal was 0, the number dead in BP accident was 11. I guess the tens of thousands of union workers in GM or that they were a democratic voting bloc had nothing to do with Obama's decisions.

Bleeding heart liberals cried hoarse about BP oil spill but did not give a squeak about an entire river polluted for generations to come by the EPA. The EPA, against advice, triggered a mining accident in a Colorado river leaving it polluted with toxic waste and then refused to pay the damages that were estimated at $1.2 billion, according to CBS News, citing 'sovereign immunity, which prohibits most lawsuits against the government'. The poor American citizen living in Colorado suffering toxic waste have no recourse to any largesse as settlement because their polluter is the government unlike the residents of Louisiana where an 'accident', not intentional act unlike the EPA, resulted from the actions of a corporations.

The story of Bernie Madoff, the ponzi operator, and the racy story of a few guys who shorted the housing market are often cited as evidences of a 'rigged system' and how more regulation is needed. This is laughable. Employees of the SEC were watching porn at office while the financial crises swirled. Tipsters tried contacting SEC regarding Madoff but to no avail. One of the 'Big Short', Mark Baum, tried telling regulators, to no avail, how he figured out that the housing market would crater. I'm not arguing for dismantling regulations but regulations are not a panacea.

Bernie Sanders rails about the rich not paying their 'fair share'. This is baloney. Pew research center shows that 51.6% of US Income Tax is paid by the top 2.7 % (AGI $250,000+). The bottom nearly 60% that includes AGI unto $50,000 pay just 5% of the  total tax receipt.

Pew Research center sums up for 2015, "analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

Trump was not the only one playing the fool with facts in the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders was equally guilty. Sanders grandly claimed that the humongous bill for his free tuition would be paid for by a tax of Wall Street. Politifact rated that claim as 'mostly false'.

Sanders's healthcare proposal, scored by left leaning economists cited by New York Times, would cost $2-$3 Trillion in 'additional' spending 'per year'. Sanders extolled Denmark for its welfare programs. What he left out was that the average tax rate of Denmark, that includes the middle class, is 49% compared to the US average of 25%. Further taxes in Denmark, according to liberal online magazine Vox: VAT, a form of sales tax, is 25% ; 180% tax on car purchases, effective income tax rates are 35-48%. America is, thankfully, not Denmark.

Elections are won and lost for complex set of reasons and we should avoid the temptation to simplify electoral mandates. It is tempting to read into the Trump victory and impressive loss of Corbyn a simplistic story of revolt against a liberal international order built on the principles of free market and free trade.

Asked what would he consider a major threat to US Sanders singled out 'Climate change'. Sure, one could make the case for that but imagine how that answer would play to the coal belt of Ohio and Pennsylvania that gifted the Oval office to Trump. Those states did not tip to Trump only because of his anti-trade stance. Trump's deadly cocktail of xenophobia, racism, sexism and muscular rhetoric against trade pacts all rolled into one winning combination that, aided by wikileaks, delivered a stunning win.

I'm not a climate change denier. Global warming needs serious problem solving but solutions that, unlike those proposed by limousine latte-sipping liberals, should not be mere pabulums. Most prescriptions from the likes of Sanders are devoid of economic or scientific merit. Why do Tesla and Toyota Prius car buyers need a tax break? If there's a tax sop that has to be tossed it is molly coddling buyers of expensive hybrid cars. Why is Tesla subsidized heavily by taxpayers for their factory? An Obama administration official conceded in a congressional hearing that drivers of CNG powered buses are counted in 'green jobs'. If this is not boondoggle what else is? It is a myth that Solar power is 'clean'.

We're told that the youth of UK delivered a rebuke to Theresa May by rallying behind Jeremy Corbyn and that it is proof that socialism is once again hip. Nonsense. Theresa May ran a horribly arrogant campaign and promised a 'hard Brexit'. The last thing the youth wanted was a 'hard Brexit'. When Brexit happened these same pundits bemoaned that the worst affected were the educated youth. If that is true how did they rally behind Corbyn, who, for all practical purposes, was a Brexit proponent with his denunciations of international trade?

The Guardian, a trusted left wing newspaper, gave an unflattering review of Corbyn's proposals that were the template 'tax and spend' socialism of the 40s. Both Sanders and Corbyn like to downplay how their dragnet of higher taxation will spread far into the middle class and instead pretend as if they could deliver 'heaven on earth', as socialism was once called, at the cost of few. We're often sold stories of how income taxes on high earners were in the stratospheric 80s in the Eisenhower era and how all was well with the world. Truth, nonsense. One, not many really paid that rate. Two, in this globalized world of today high earners can migrate at will and money moves better across borders. One of the chief criticisms against Thomas Piketty's theory of high taxation was that he insufficiently factored how people would change their behavior in response to tax increases. If tax cuts are oversold for stimulating economy then it is equally true that adverse responses to tax increases are downplayed. When Sanders says that wealth 'flows' to the top 1% it is an obscene statement that does not even pay cognizance to the fact that the rich are also 'working rich'. Money did not 'flow' to Bill Gates or to people like me who are in the top 10%. Money doesn't grow on trees. Incidentally Sanders owns three homes including a beach home. So much for a guy who wants the government to decide how much is too much. Corbyn wants to tax those who earn 80,000 pounds at the rate of 45%. Try living with that salary in London or Oxford after that tax. It is more honest to call the tax as extortion racket.

George Orwell, like Corbyn and Sanders, loved the idea of capping salaries of CEOs except when it meant his own royalties. Orwell hated the idea of selling books cheaper than they should be if only to increase readership. His argument was it doesn't promote readership. Sure. Everyone loves to be a socialist on another man's dime. Just like Sanders Corbyn bristled when even sympathetic analysts pegged the costs for his programs as budget busting. Corbyn, Guardian said, had no way to pay for 90 billion pounds in spending.

The 2016 election saw the advent of the term 'low information voter'. It was used to refer to, primarily, Trump voters who voted for him while living off of welfare programs that he either planned to cut or had no intention of keeping intact. Sanders and Corbyn voters are no different. Many of their supporters had no idea of the hollowness of their programs beyond the fact they sounded good and were, economically speaking, utopian fantasies.

A popular trope in US is about US defense spending, which, dwarfs other expenses.

The above graph slyly shows only 'discretionary spending'. Now, here's the full picture.

On the overall US budget 'entitlement spending' (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies) totals 51%. Essentially half of US budget goes to welfare cost. Here's Nate Silver in New York Times statistically depicting US government spending over the post-war era.

Obamacare addresses a key American issue and expanded healthcare accessibility but truth is 80% of Obamacare enrollees depend on subsidies. In a stunning video that surfaced after the 2012 election Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, admitted that while the program was sold on the basis of controlling cost it was planned solely for expanding care and that the American voter was practically lied to. Expanding healthcare was supposed to control costs by enabling access to preventive care but current studies show that access to healthcare actually increases costs because more symptoms are diagnosed. Sure, it is a good thing for a citizen BUT there is a price to pay.

Sanders and Corbyn were admired for their passionate espousal of causes with messianic fervor. They even strutted around with a halo compared to Clinton and May who were seen as being in the pocket of elitists and corporate interests. Little did it matter that Sanders and Corbyn were admirers of totalitarian thugs like Fidel Castro and were completely dishonest about the cost of their programs. If Trump voters were ready to overlook his faults Sanders and Corbyn voters refused to see any faults in their idols.

I asked a Bernie Sanders supporter if he can point to any statement or audio clip of Sanders praising any entrepreneur or CEO over the many decades he's been in public life. There's none. Zilch. Yet one can find him praising Castro. Then Corbyn is in a league of his own with his molly coddling of IRA. While Trump's love of totalitarian leaders was ridiculed these saints of socialism escaped rebuke for their own penchant for totalitarianism.

Sanders and Corbyn make a virtue out of their aversion to militaristic adventurism but their record is not only inconsistent but, especially for Sanders, plainly duplicitous. Sanders voted for both the Afghanistan war and the Libyan expedition. Corby amended his manifesto to voice support for NATO while having opposed Afghanistan war, after all 9/11 did not happen in UK.

Sanders's campaign was known for cold shouldering black and hispanic voters who were rolled up by Hillary Clinton. There was considerable opposition to Sanders's free tuition idea from the black voters. Black voters were deeply suspicious of Sanders's communism-lite economics since they had long memories of how FDR's New Deal, the high noon of socialism, institutionalized segregation in government projects. Black voters, like any democratic party worker, support big government but socialism is one step too far for them.

All of the above criticisms is not dismiss as invalid genuine concerns of income stagnation or income inequality or global warming. A Harvard study found that for every automation of a job six employees lost their job. Entire classes of jobs have been wiped out in the past 20 years thanks to technological innovation. While a college degree ensures a pathway to prosperity too many people are feeling compelled to attend college at great cost even when they would go into jobs which do not need a college degree. College tuition and healthcare costs are genuine concerns that need better solutions not a wholesale takeover by government.

From my obituary for Thatcher:

What was life in UK before Thatcher? A liberal writer writing in the staunchly liberal 'The Guardian' gives a glimpse: "But if today's Guardian readers time-travelled to the late 70s they might be irritated to discover that tomorrow's TV listings were a state secret not shared with daily newspapers. A special licence was granted exclusively to the Radio Times. (No wonder it sold 7m copies a week). It was illegal to put an extension lead on your phone. You would need to wait six weeks for an engineer. There was only one state-approved answering machine available. Your local electricity "board" could be a very unfriendly place. Thatcher swept away those state monopolies in the new coinage of "privatisation" and transformed daily life in a way we now take for granted."

In another curious parallel both Reagan and Thatcher faced down crippling strikes and broke down the unions. Thatcher had her miners strike in her second term and Reagan had the PATCO strike in his first term. Both strikes were led by greedy unions willing to prove they were militant unions. Reagan fired the entire PATCO union. The miners lost broad public sympathy with their arsonous streak. Organized labor never recovered from those death blows. Both countries, thanks to that, have since prospered.

Between Thatcher and Reagan it was Thatcher who found the words to taunt socialists: "you want to make the poor poorer as long as the rich are less rich". Asked if she would do a u-turn on her policies a stout Thatcher retorted "u turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning". "There is no such thing as public money" said she. Yes, its not a revelation or a discovery. But such truths had been forgotten for decades under the assault of liberal Keynesian policies. Truths needed to be re-told and thats what Thatcher did and for that the world owes her gratitude.

It is not for nothing that 'The Economist' called her a 'Freedom Fighter'.

References:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/nyregion/free-tuition-new-york-colleges-plan.html?_r=0
2. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/08/pf/college/new-york-free-tuition/index.html
3. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/09/08/438584249/new-york-city-mayor-goes-all-in-on-free-preschool
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/nyregion/de-blasio-pre-k-expansion.html
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/how-new-york-made-pre-k-a-success.html
6. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html
7. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html
8. https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/nyc-pension-costs-will-go-even-higher/
9. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/nyregion/new-york-city-pension-system-is-strained-by-costs-and-politics.html?_r=0
10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/mta-workers-overtime-making-100000_n_1616921.html
11. http://nypost.com/2016/03/13/nycs-highest-paid-bus-driver-doubled-his-salary-with-ot/
12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/epa-waited-too-long-to-warn-of-flint-water-danger-report-says.html
13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/20/epa-should-have-intervened-in-flint-water-crisis-months-earlier-watchdog-says/?utm_term=.6ebab3cfd880
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch_recalls
15. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/
16. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/
17. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-largest-fine-u-s-history-volkswagen-n749406
18. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
19. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/
20. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477402982/study-sanders-proposals-would-add-18-trillion-to-debt-over-10-years
21. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html
22. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477402982/study-sanders-proposals-would-add-18-trillion-to-debt-over-10-years
23. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/16/9544007/denmark-nordic-model
24. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges
25. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/labour-party-recognise-90bn-cost-deliver-manifesto-pledges-election
26. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/30/corbyn-unable-to-give-cost-of-childare-pledge-in-interview
27. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/corbyn-needs-to-find-10bn-a-year-to-make-good-on-tuition-fee-pledge
28. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/10/jeremy-corbyns-morning-interviews-politics-live
29. http://medialens.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-1-alerts-full/mailid-350-the-guardian-readers-editor-responds-on-jeremy-corbyn.html
30. https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/?_r=0
31. http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2013/04/thatcher-is-dead-long-live-thatcherism.html

Bernie Sanders is Bad for Indian-Americans and America

The 2016 US presidential election could easily be called the 'rage election'. Both parties are witnessing full blown revolts by their respective voter bases and voters are literally hoisting certifiably lunatic candidates and showering electoral success on them. Electorates of the past have gone to the polls and vented their ire against status quo but the candidates they chose to be the vessels of their hopes were candidates of hope like Reagan or Clinton or Obama but this election cycle see the voters running behind a socialist peddling hare brained schemes that promise utopia and a hate mongering billionaire clown.

The danger that Donald Trump poses is apparent and needs no sophistication to unravel but the danger posed by Bernie Sanders, self styled 'Democratic Socialist, is more subtle but no less poisonous because it comes wrapped in good intentions and therefore very attractive to the gullible. Policy makers sympathetic to Democrats have come out openly and issued a signed statement debunking Sanders's proposals as fantasies that if enacted would wreck the American economy. Sanders's socialism has found wide acceptance within the Democratic party which is intellectually predisposed to such an ideology. Indian-Americans are mostly democrats and have surprisingly become supporters of Sanders overlooking Hillary Clinton. How did an ethnic group that ran away from a socialist country become cheerleaders for a socialist? Why does an ethnic group that has enjoyed the fruits of capitalism become supporters of socialism? How did an immigrant group end up supporting a anti-immigration advocate?

Bernie Sanders (Image courtesy Wikipedia)

The most attractive proposal of Sanders that has literally caught fire is his 'medicare-for-all'. Sanders's proposal is to institute a single payer system akin to what countries like UK, Canada and other European countries have. The woes of America's healthcare system are well known. Essentially America spends more capita on healthcare and results like mortality rates are no better than that of any industrialized country. Until Obama passed his legacy making healthcare overhaul legislation insurance companies refused coverage for pre-existing coverage amongst many other issues. Sanders makes the argument that for a modest tax increase on all, an average $500, everyone can get coverage that would save $5000. Those cost and savings projected are based on estimates arrived at by his campaign and have become the fiercest contested detail by especially left leaning economists.

Sanders often cites the example of Denmark as a model of a country that takes care of its poor. What Sanders conveniently forgets to mention is that Denmark has a top income tax rate of 60% and that rate starts at annual gross income of $60,000. If Sanders even offers a tax rate close to that from a debate stage his supporters will get a jolt of electrifying reality. Sanders presents a rosy picture of the single payer system without even hinting at why such a system is plagued by troubles in every country it currently exists. Sanders's own home state Vermont tried instituting a single payer system but eventually abandoned it because the projected costs exceeded the total revenue of the state despite stiff increases of taxes on businesses. Sanders argues that in a single-payer system there will be cost efficiencies because the government, the single-payer entity, can bargain better prices from drug manufacturers and hospitals. What is unsaid is that such cost-efficiencies entail deep cuts in how doctors and hospitals are reimbursed. It is a problem that the current medicare system faces with doctors and hospitals exiting the system due to paltry reimbursement.

A critique of Sanders's health plan by left leaning economists, a New York Times report noted, none of whom are aligned with Clinton and are not republican friendly, said that Sanders's plan "will increase the size of Federal government by more than 50%" and add "two trillion to $3 trillion to the deficit each year". Yes, that's each year.

An AP-GFK poll on support for Sanders's medicare for all illustrated the limits of what Americans are ready to support. 39% expressed support while 33% opposed the plan. When the supporters where asked if they'd still support the plan if the plan meant tax increases the support flipped with 39% now opposing. Essentially everyone loves socialism only when somebody else is paying the bill.

UK's much vaunted NHS is practically facing a revolt by junior doctors and an exodus of doctors to countries like Australia and New Zealand is happening. In Canada some private insurance is required to supplement the single payer insurance provided by the government and of course taxes on income and sales taxes are considerably higher than the US.

To make his health plan work Sanders needs to completely overhaul one-sixth of American economy ranging from how much doctors are paid, hospital reimbursements, drug pricing, ability to see specialists, even ability to sue doctors or hospitals for malpractices (nearly 75% of US malpractice lawsuits are frivolous lawsuits. But Democrats who are controlled by the multi-billion dollar Tort lawyers lobby will not touch Tort reform with a ten foot pole). Indian-Americans boast of having large number of doctors and many hope their children will become one, therefore it's ironical to see this group support Sanders's fantasy plan.

Skyrocketing college fees is a nightmare for every American parent and Sanders the Santa Claus comes to the rescue with 'free-college for all'. Just as his single payer system was a failed idea in practice this too is a failed idea. A Washington Post article lays bare the stupidity of such an idea with a stinging title, "the false hope of free college". This is utter nonsense. Like anything given free the program when implemented by Georgia it was a disaster. When Obama offered a similar plan even left leaning think tank Brookings institution ripped into it saying that it is "bad for poor Americans". Again, Sanders will have to institute price controls for teachers salaries and college administrators. Elizabeth Warren, beloved lioness of the fringe far left and former professor at Harvard, was paid $300,000 for being a part-time professor.

Sanders airily dismisses talk of how to pay for his programs with a proposal to tax Wall Street transactions. He calls it a "tax on speculators" and rants that the business model of Wall Street is 'fraud'. His campaign cites very optimistic estimates of such revenue. The position paper on his own site states plainly that the revenue estimates from such a tax has little theoretical background since it has never been tried. A "financial transaction tax" will not hit just "millionaires and billionaires" but every American who holds retirement accounts and college savings accounts, both of which are heavily used by the high earning Indian-American community. When Obama floated a proposal to tax the wildly popular college savings plan even liberal democrats revolted, including a Sanders supporting colleague of mine. Again and again everyone loves socialism provided somebody else pays the bill.

While Sanders was filling stadiums with thousands of fawning supporters a friendly fire came from economists who had served in Obama's administration. When Sanders rails against a 'rigged economy' and calls for a 'political revolution' it discredits democrats who have fought in the trenches to advance liberal policies against stiff opposition. Sanders makes them look like weasels for compromises that they agreed to in order to advances a larger goal. The open letter bluntly stated that Sanders's economic proposals are not supported by evidence.

Sanders also hits Indian-Americans where it hurts most, immigration. He has always been anti-immigration arguing that influx of labor is inimical to native workers. Again, economic theory is not on his side. Running for the presidency in the Democratic party Sanders is spinning that his vote against a Ted Kennedy sponsored legislation for immigration that included a guest worker program was because that program was "akin to slavery". Hillary Clinton hit back that Ted Kennedy, a liberal lion of the senate, would not have proposed any legislation that treats workers as slaves. Sanders has muted his anti-immigration stance bending to political pandering for office. So much for truth telling.

Indians while being instinctively capitalist when it comes to their personal wallet and earning they are yet to become intellectually comfortable with capitalism as a philosophy. Many Indian-Americans who support Sanders are comfortable with higher taxes because they think he's only targeting 'millionaires and billionaires' and even if their taxes go up it'd only do so marginally in which case the benefits will outweigh the cost. Both are fallacious naivete. To finance Sanders's extravagant proposals taxes will have to rise steeply, on all. Sanders cannot have Denmark with American tax structure. There are some who'd argue "well so what if my taxes go up, after all someone has to pay".

During a debate Sanders pointedly accused Hillary of being unworthy of the label "progressive" because she's a "moderate". He could not have stated more clearly that in his mind being a progressive means a militant far left liberal and nothing to do with being a moderate. Moderation, for Sanders, is a vice. Sanders has a blind faith in the goodness of the government to the extent that when evidence piled  up against Veterans Affairs hospitals of corruption and venality he, according to a New York Times report, refused to believe it at first. On the contrary Sanders think an entire private industry is made up of criminals with fraud as business model. Sanders is a hypocrite who rails against Wall Street but is silent on how the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the darling of the liberals, created a man made disaster by flooding a river with highly toxic materials and indulged in a year long cover up of lead contamination in the drinking water supplied by the city of Flint. If any private company had done either of that Sanders would be baying for their blood.

A Sanders presidency will hurt Indian-Americans where it hurts most, college admissions for their children. Indian-American applicants to colleges face a steep challenge, especially for Ivy League universities, thanks to affirmative action and admission practices that practically border on discrimination. The passing away of dependably conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has put the very ideological balance of the court at play. Sanders has already vowed to nominate a liberal judge. Asian-Americans have filed lawsuits against Harvard alleging discriminatory practices. A case against affirmative action is already pending in the Supreme Court. With a justice like Sonia Sotomayor, a self confessed affirmative action baby, is inimical to Indian-American interests and the absence of a Scalia poses grave danger to prospects of Indian-American kids.

Sanders, as Hillary points out, is a single-issue candidate who knows nothing beyond ranting about income-inequality. To a question of Afghanistan he turned the answer to Syria and parroted his vote against the Iraq war in 2003 leaving the viewers scratching their heads. Indian-Americans still mostly view their adopted country as a foreign country and through the prism of foreign policy. Also, they are instinctively sympathetic to the ideas of America as an imperialist country without having taken any efforts to learn how an isolationist country underwent a metamorphosis post-Munich and Pearl Harbor. Sanders tries to present himself as reasonable by saying he's not totally against war but his record is anything but. The 1991 Persian Gulf war, sanctioned by UN Security council, funded by Saudis and had a clear definition of what constitutes victory, did not get his vote of approval in the Congress nevertheless. Sanders is a hopeless far left liberal pacifist who's intellectually incapable of understanding geo-politics.

Why should any of the above matter? Hillary adroitly recently pointed out that the dishonesty behind telling voters, especially the poor voters, that they can save $5000 by paying just $500 in taxes is cruel. Sanders's intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking. He shares, uncomfortably, several traits with Trump. Trump often beats back those who say his policies are unrealistic he retorts with a truism that anything he says is true because he says it and anyone refusing to accept it is tarred with a brush. Sanders labels his naysayers as "the establishment" and "reactionaries".

How does Sanders attract so many fawning voters? People love free stuff. That's an undeniable attraction for anyone. Who'd not like it if their kid can get free education, especially when somebody else is picking up the tab. Sanders's voters, in another parallel with the Trump campaign, have simply willed themselves into believing anything he peddles. Washington Post editorial board acidly wrote, "Mr Sanders's success so far does not show that the country is ready for a political revolution. It merely shows that many progressives like being told what they want to hear". The editorial was duly titled "Bernie Sanders's fiction filled campaign".

Why did Paul Krugman and Fareed Zakaria decry Sanders for promoting unserious ideas and for peddling intellectually dishonest economics? Both Krugman and Zakaria have repeatedly condemned Republicans for peddling intellectually dishonest theories about how tax cuts, however irresponsible and not paid for, would spur growth and compensate the loss of revenue. Krugman and Zakaria lamented how Sanders is bringing back an era of democratic politics when unrealistic economic proposals where freely dished out to entice voters about how paradise was waiting. Zakaria wrote:

"But this is nitpicking. He is painting with a broader brush, being an authentic man who speaks his mind, willing to present bold ideas geared to capture the imagination. Never mind that establishment elites criticize them as unworkable or divisive or radical.Am I speaking about Bernie Sanders — or Donald Trump?"

Bernie Sanders is bad for Indian-Americans and America.

References:

1. Fareed Zakaria's column "Bernie Sanders's outlandish plans make Republicans look serious" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-plans-make-republicans-look-serious/2016/02/18/4dbddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html
2. New York Times article "Why left of center policy wonks are skeptical of Bernie Sanders" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/upshot/why-left-of-center-wonks-are-skeptical-of-bernie-sanders.html
3. NYT article "Left leaning economists question cost of Bernie Sanders's plans" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html
4. AP-GFK poll on support for healthcare http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-02-25/ap-gfk-poll-support-shaky-for-sanders-medicare-for-all
5. Obama administration economists's open letter to Sanders https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/
6. Paul Krugman's column on Sanders's economic policy "Varieties of Voodoo" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/varieties-of-voodoo.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2FPaul%20Krugman&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article
7. Washington Post editorial "Bernie Sanders's fiction filled campaign" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
8. Washington Post oped "The false hope of free college" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/23/the-false-hope-of-free-college/
9. Brookings Institution paper on Obama's free college plan http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-obama-free-community-college-bad-idea-sotu-butler
10. Washington Post editorial rebuttal to Bernie Sanders who claimed that they oppose his plan because it's bold. "Bernie Sanders's idea are not too bold. They are facile" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-ideas-are-not-too-bold-they-are-too-facile/2016/01/28/e7125bca-c60a-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

The Democratic Primary Debate: A Love Fest, A Santa Claus Syndrome and Unasked Questions

If anyone thought the Democratic primary debate was substantive, policy oriented, an adult conversation and political bonhomie, everything that, in their opinion, the GOP debate was not, is either naive or politically ignorant or a blatant partisan or a mix of all that. What they are not is knowledgeable and objective. Here's why.

Anyone who chuckles about the rowdy GOP debate and preens about how fault like the Democrats were did not live in 2008. As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled for the nomination in 2008 the Democratic party feared being torn asunder. That is no exaggeration. Even as there appeared no pathway toward becoming the nominee Hillary Clinton refused to drop out of the race making the African-American community angry that she'd ensure that Barack Obama arrives at the nomination as 'damaged goods'. At the debate in South Carolina Clinton and Obama lit into each other with Obama wondering which Clinton he was running against and Clinton alleging that Obama worked for a slum lord. Bill Clinton did not help matters for Hillary by recalling how Jesse Jackson failed in his quest for the nomination. The black community was aghast at the blatant put down of Obama's historic candidacy. Much respected black Congressman John Clyburne reportedly said "why doesn't Bill Clinton call Obama a boy and get it over with".

Miffed at what she perceived as kid-glove treatment of Obama by debate moderators Hillary complained in a debate in Philadelphia, "why don't you give him a pillow?"Seeing the nomination slip away the Clinton campaign threw the kitchen sink at Obama. When commentators asked about the harsh tactics Bill Clinton nonchalantly said "politics is contact sport. If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen". Asked if she thought Obama was a Christian Hillary gave a Clintonesque reply "yes, as far as I know".

From Wikipedia

The real low point was before the primaries of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama campaign willfully misrepresented Hillary health care plan of calling for individual mandates as a 'tax'. Incidentally Obama, as president did exactly that and the Supreme Court ruled that it was indeed a tax. Hillary Clinton seethed with volcanic rage and exploded before the press "shame on you Barack Obama. Meet me in Ohio". It was also then that Obama's private comments about people "clinging to guns and religion" and voting against their interests got out Hillary jumped at it with gusto. Obama returned the favor and ridiculed her for "acting like Annie Oakley" and hoped that he'd get to see her soon "in her duck blinds".

Once Obama became the presumptive nominee he and Hillary decided to bury their hatchets and journeyed to a joint campaign event to proclaim unity. The event was scheduled at Unity, New Hampshire. Indeed. So, please save the eye rolling at the rowdiness of the GOP debate.

The Democratic party has a formidable candidate and only one other candidate who is even remotely giving her anxiety while in the crowded GOP field there is actually deep bench of talent once one looks beyond the Trump-Carson-Fiorina circus act. There is no Obama this time who is disrupting the coronation of Hillary Clinton. It actually deprives excitement for the party. The GOP voter is more excited to vote than the Democratic party faithful.

It is a complete fabricated myth to say that the Democratic debate was policy oriented compared to the Jake Tapper moderated GOP debate. First, as the Washington Examiner pointed out, it speaks to CNN's double standards. The CNN conducted GOP debate was promoted like it was fight night from the word go. Jake Tapper, an otherwise decent journalist, reduced a presidential debate to schoolyard brawl by asking each candidate what he or she thought of an uncharitable or critical remark made by another candidate. Compelled to outdo Fox News in the ratings game CNN reduced the GOP debate to a slug fest. The same CNN promoted the democratic debate as high minded policy debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy aside Anderson Cooper lobbed softball questions.

Hillary Clinton is probably the most experienced candidate with an unprecedented resume to ever run for the President. Former First Lady, Senator, first woman candidate to win a primary and Secretary of State. A formidable candidate Clinton is also a magnet for controversies. Anderson Cooper did not ask substantive questions to her. What were the unasked questions?

Cooper asked Clinton whether her Presidency will be Obama's third term. Clinton gave her by now much mocked laughter and said that if elected being the first woman President would be difference enough. Cooper had no follow through or push back. Clinton just reduced the Presidency to affirmative action where an extra chromosome is deemed change enough. Barely months after leaving the cabinet Clinton had ridiculed Obama's central foreign policy theme of 'do no stupid stuff' as being an insufficient 'organizing principle' for a great country. We do not yet know what she thinks of as 'organizing principle' on the foreign policy front.

'Two for the price of one' was Hillary Clinton's campaign stump speech in 1992. Many of the key topics of today's campaign have its roots in the Clinton Presidency when Hillary was a co-equal partner and yet she was not called to answer for them. There was mention of re-instating Glass-Steagall act but no one sought to ask Hillary what she thought of the act repealed by her husband and now widely blamed for the 2008 financial crises. The large scale incarceration of blacks is spoken of as an urgent racial issue but nobody asked Hillary what her thoughts were on legislation signed by her husband to 'get tough on crimes'. Democrats love to talk of income inequality and a rigged economy but no one asked Hillary if she still agrees with her husband's legislation to 'end welfare as we know it'.

Bill Clinton was widely derided for his style of compromising and 'triangulation'. Hillary was not asked what 'kind' of a president she would be. Seeking to be the new Democrat Bill Clinton declared 'the era of big government is over'. Yet, Hillary, nudged by Bernie Sanders, a self declared democratic socialist, is calling for big government. She was not asked to draw a contrast with the Clinton era. More importantly, in 2008 Obama tied Hillary Clinton's support of NAFTA around her neck as an albatross and presented her as inimical to the working class voter base. In fact Obama's campaign rhetoric was so shrill that Canada was alarmed if he would, as president, repeal the landmark trade pact. To quell the anxieties Obama campaign despatched Austan Goolsbee in secret to the Canadian embassy to calm them saying that all such posturing was only for the sake of campaign. Any other candidates candidacy would have sunk without a trace when such things come out into the open but Obama, the teflon candidate, sailed on. Now, that Obama is negotiating a historic trade pact with South Asian countries. For the second time Hillary found herself selling a free trade pact. Asked why is she now opposing a trade pact she was promoting Hillary said "it did not meet her gold standard" for such acts. Nobody asked her what is indeed her gold standard. If Obama got the pillow from questioners in 2008 in 2012 it is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is nothing if not the best informed policy wonk. A commentator once wrote that if the presidency was decided by a written exam she'd ace it. Hillary burst into the national conscience with the disastrous attempted overhaul of the nations convoluted health care industry during Bill Clinton's first term. It was a failure that defined Hillary in the public mind well into the 2000s. Obama's legacy making legislation, often pejoratively referred to as 'Obamacare', is the 'Affordable Care Act'. One of the key revenue streams for funding ACA is a tax on employer provided health plans deemed too generous. The tax, called 'Cadillac tax', actually ensnares a lot of the health plans negotiated by Unions like the UAW. Hillary is now calling for the repeal of that tax. Nobody asked her how she proposes to fund ACA after depriving it of a key revenue source.

A key moment during the debate was when Hillary was asked about the seemingly never ending email scandal. Hillary in true Clinton fashion took responsibility for her decision to use a private email server without mentioning the many months she spent pretending it was a non-issue and tied herself like a pretzel on the timeline of events and finally capping it all with, again, a Clintonian parsing of legality there were no emails in her server that was deemed classified at the time it came in. In yet another moment of how the mainstream media is misreading popular sentiment contrary to their expectations the email scandal lived on in popular discourse and has impacted Hillary's popularity especially on the question of whether she is trustworthy.

Many of those who applauded the Democratic debate pointed to how Hillary's arch rival Bernie Sanders rallied to her support saying that people don't want to listen anymore to "your damn email scandal". Hillary, beaming with gratitude, thanked Bernie as the hall, crowded with devoted partisans, erupted into a standing ovation. Sanders had his own selfish reason in wanting to put an end to any discussion of the email scandal. Sanders's candidacy is built around talking economic equality and his policy prescriptions of 'democratic socialism' and every minute spent talking something else takes the oxygen out of his campaign against a vastly better funded, better organized juggernaut of a campaign that is Hillary's campaign.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a 'democratic socialist' while in reality he should just call himself a 'socialist' but I guess that term is too radioactive to use. Amongst the democratic party it has become an article of faith, a religious orthodoxy, to make it appear that there is no problem on earth that can be solved without taxing the "millionaires and billionaires" and there is no ill on earth that does not involve "the rich". This is no longer the party of Bill Clinton, the new Democrat and it is not even the party of Obama but it is trying to hark back to the days of the muscular liberalism of FDR.

Bernie Sanders is the rock star excitement in 2015 for Democratic party. The leftward lurch of Hillary Clinton is to steal some of that thunder and protect her flank and not make the mistake she did in 2008 of not watching out the left wing of the party. Cooper asked Sanders to define 'democratic socialism' and elicited a non-definition. When pressed whether he thinks his high taxation agenda would work Sanders offered Denmark as an example. Hillary Clinton laced into him saying "we are not Denmark" and that she, unlike Sanders, is a "progressive but a progressive who likes to get results". Sanders was left blinking and wondering what hit him.

Sanders too was not asked to justify his so called 'Denmark model'. Democrats are the worst cheats when they talk of increasing taxes for the 'millionaires and billionaires' because in reality many of their tax proposals starts at $250,000, which in reality, is mostly middle class in the expensive to live North East and California. Democrats are unleashing a class war in America by making 98% people think that they can have the cake and eat it too by making the 2% pay for it. In reality if every utopian idea of the democrats is implemented it'd take taxes on a much larger population. In recent interviews Sanders concedes, oh so slyly and oh so shyly, that indeed the taxes will affect everyone and not just the much vilified rich.

From Wikipedia

Anderson Cooper, a limousine liberal himself, did not have the intellectual gravitas to point out to Sanders that it is the much reviled 'rich' who pay the majority of the taxes too. It is a complete canard to say the rich get tax breaks. All statistical data point to the incontrovertible truth that the rich, especially the demonized top 1%, pay the lions share of America's tax receipts. Actually in Denmark, like any European country, the middle class pays a much higher tax than America. The duplicity of democrats, starting with Obama, is in offering European style socialism with American taxation where, unlike Europe, the few pay for every program. If socialism is to be stuffed down my throat I'd much rather prefer the European model than the American one.

Donald Trump has made the GOP the laughing stock of the world and the democrats are salivating at the prospect of Trump being the GOP nominee. What is less noticed or spoken of is how Bernie Sanders's immigration policies are strikingly similar to Trump albeit without the racism of the latter. Sanders stoutly opposes immigration. Of course like his beloved Denmark he wants America to close it's borders. Interestingly there was no question on that.

Asked if they would pardon Edward Snowden if he returns to America all the candidates safely agreed that they'd not pardon him. The real unasked question was about the grotesque surveillance state that Obama's administration presides over. Obama, in his first inaugural address, loftily declared that he rejects the false choice between security and liberty. Yet, Obama's warrantless wiretaps have prompted even somebody like former New York Times editor to remark that this is the most dangerous presidency in American history. No one, not even Obama's secretary of State, was asked "what do you intend to do?"

A columnist listing the winners of the night included Barack Obama because the incumbent was not criticized at all and in fact all candidates struggled to differentiate themselves from the incumbent. This underscores how little Obama's record, despite his approval rating hovering less than 50%, was not really dissected especially by those who want to succeed him from his own party. Essentially they were all auditioning for Obama's third term.

The questions on Iraq war and Syria were dispatched off by the candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, with staple talking points that went unchallenged. Another question that went unasked was Obama's policy of drone wars that has come to be written about with great concern even on the front pages of New York Times, especially on the very contentious way that the administration counts the dead, its classification of who is a terrorist is controversial to say the least. We are asked to believe such a vacuous debate was substantive. If this is how policy debates are to be conducted I'd easily trade it for the motley raucous GOP debate.

The democratic party has been afflicted by what I'd like to call the 'Santa Claus syndrome'. Santa Claus, at least sets some criteria to get a gift, one has to have behaved good, the democrats want to run the economy like its a candy store and outdo Santa. It is pathetic that there was no serious questioning on the biggest problem that America faces. Debt and deficit. Make no mistake America's debt problem is a ticking time bomb and no amount of taxing the 1% will fix it. Also, make no mistake that the large part of debt is entirely due to what is collectively called 'entitlement spending'.

On the issue of taxes a Tamil blogger provided a Freudian slip that best illustrates why taxing the rich is popular and why somebody like Sanders draws support. The blogger, a Sanders supporter, cooly said "well its not people like us who'll be affected by his taxes". Essentially he was confessing that while he may get to enjoy the benefits (actually that is itself debatable) it'll be somebody else paying for it. Coming from a country ruined by freebies he has learned little of the cost of such sloganeering.

One of Sanders's pipe dreams is to provide free college. Of course, yet again, it is to be paid for by taxing the rich. Oy vey, if only I had a penny every time that idea was offered I can retire securely. The reckless government funding of college tuition has played a big role in fueling the exponential increase of college tuition in America. If health care spending is to be controlled democrats love to bash the service providers, viz the insurance companies and hospitals whereas when it comes to tuition increase there is little or no talk of holding universities responsible but instead talk only revolves around how to raid the treasury to keep funding the ravenous appetite of universities. The Obama administration's feeble efforts in including affordability as a criterion in scoring universities was quietly buried thanks to the immense power of lobbying that universities, breeding grounds for future merchants of utopia, exercised. It is easy for democrats to rail and rant against the much regulated industries of oil and high finance than to even offer a weak protest against the true driver of inequality, unaffordable college education.

Democrats love to brag that Obama's 'Affordable care act' brought the number of uninsured down by a large margin. True. Very true. But what is also true is that nearly 80% new enrollees in ACA draw a subsidy from the government and most are part of the expansion of medicaid. This is absolute catastrophe waiting to explode. In this context is worthwhile recalling that a video showing one of the architects of the act bragging that the American public was duped into supporting the healthcare overhaul on the premise that it would cut costs whereas the goal was only to expand care and taming the cost was not even on the agenda. And here we have a debate that featured Hillary Clinton without a question about any of that. Civility? Shucks. Policy oriented debate? My foot.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, struggling in the polls and therefore seeking to gain a foothold in the debate shrieked with self-righteous indignation that he'd expand healthcare to even illegal immigrants. Of course who cares about how to pay for it. O'Malley left a solid blue Maryland so broken that they elected a Republican to succeed him as governor. It is not without reason that every liberal state is fiscally deep in the red with structural deficits. Of course O'Malley was on the debate stage merely as decoration that Anderson Cooper did not even pretend to ask him anything substantive.

The night's only moment of candor, albeit, again, with the right dose of righteous indignation, was when Bernie Sanders bristled about his voting records on gun rights. Mr Sanders, who voted against the 'Brady bill', angrily thundered that he comes from a state, Vermont, which cherishes gun rights. So by that token he should give a pass to Hillary Clinton  who as Senator from New York had to accommodate Wall Street banks because after-all what can the state of New York do without those fat cats?

In a debate that featured 3 senators and two governors, one of whom had been a senator too, there was no question of how they'd work with GOP or reach out across the aisle. For the foreseeable future the GOP will control the house and the Senate will not have a filibuster proof democratic majority unless a full blown drubbing of the GOP happens thanks to until now unthinkable situation of Trump being the nominee. A democratic president will have to reach across the aisle. Obama who had no experience of crafting any legislation let alone a bipartisan legislation had no idea of how to be a Bill Clinton. Unlike George Bush who worked with his arch rival Ted Kennedy to create a bipartisan legislation to reform education Obama had to pass his health care reform without a single vote from the GOP. The cause was not just the GOP's intransigence but also that of a hubris driven imperious president who loved to taunt his rivals "elections have consequences and I won". For all those who rail against GOP's intransigence belabor under the ignorance of how the likes of Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren operate. Warren, the liberal lioness, once said that she'd much rather leave "blood and teeth on the floor" instead of compromising on the nature of an agency she was proposing. Once GOP took control of the Senate Obama was able to move more bills than he ever could when Harry Reid controlled the senate. Privately Obama administration confided to New York Times that without Reid the president has found GOP more willing to work with him and more willing to be professional.

As for the much lauded civility of Obama asking his one time bitter rival Hillary Clinton to serve in his cabinet people forget that he asked Bush appointee Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of defense. Sure it was nice of Obama but we need to credit Gates too for agreeing to serve under a guy who vilified his former boss as a ticket to the Oval office. Also less noticed is how non-partisan Bush was and is. During the days of the financial crises, a gift of the Clinton economy actually, Bush instructed all his officials to keep the campaigns of both Obama and McCain equally informed because one of them will have to succeed him. Also, unlike what the departing Clinton administration did Bush ensured that the incoming Obama team was already up to speed on national security and key issues.

In case the readers have forgotten I take pleasure in reminding them how childish the Clinton administration behaved when George Bush took over. Peeved over the contentious and controversial manner of how Bush reached the presidency many Clinton officials vandalized the computers in the White House by removing the letter 'W' from the keyboards.

Let's see what kind of beast will slouch towards the Oval office in 2016.

References:

1. CNN debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1KJR5UZjM
2. "86% of Health Care Enrollees Receive Subsidies, White House Says" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/11-7-million-americans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0
3. Healthcare architect Jonathan Gruber saying "lack of transparency" helped pass Affordable Care Act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
4. Jonathan Gruber calls the American voter "stupid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUOyqw5HhRI
5. The Denmark fallacy. Here's how US taxation compares to other countries. Check the graphic. At $55,000 Denmark levies a 60% tax. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/01/pf/taxes/top-income-tax/
6. Medicare and Social Security is driving US debt http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/
7. Clinton White House vandalized computers when George Bush transitioned in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html
8. Tensions flare between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in South Carolina debate in 2008 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA
9. Hillary Clinton says 'Shame on  you Barack Obama' in Ohio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY
10. Hillary Clinton complaining about the preferential treatment given to Barack Obama during debates http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/26/clinton-i-always-get-the-first-question/comment-page-12/
11. "The rich pay majority of US income taxes" http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
12. Elizabeth Warren on leaving "blood and teeth on the floor" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/13/1025859/-Vanity-Fair-The-Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much-Elizabeth-Warren-I-ve-done-brutal#
13. Bernie Sanders for taxing "ALL" to fund family leave plan http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/
14. Bernie Sanders tells Bill Maher that more than just 1% will be taxed more (but not too many) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/17/heres-how-bernie-sanders-told-comedian-bill-maher-he-would-pay-for-his-plans/