Thomas Catenacci on November 16, 2021

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confused a number of facts about fossil fuels in a video to her followers explaining why pipelines are bad for the country.

The congresswoman mistakenly asserted that the Keystone XL and Line 3 pipelines were proposed to increase U.S. natural gas exports in the video she posted on her Instagram account Saturday. The two pipelines would transport crude oil, not natural gas, from Canada into the U.S. as an import, according to their operators.

“When you look at Keystone XL, and when you look at a lot of these other pipelines, people say, ‘Oh, this is for energy, you know, independence in the United States,’” Ocasio-Cortez stated during the video which has garnered more than 180,000 views. “We actually already produce enough to power our own country, whether you agree with it or not.”

“A lot of these pipelines are being built so that the United States can export and sell natural gas abroad,” she continued. “And, you know, people make geopolitical arguments as to why that should be the case.”

Line 3 has transported crude oil into the U.S. through Minnesota since the 1960s. Enbridge, the company that operates the pipeline, is currently constructing a $2.9 billion Line 3 replacement, but the company has faced intense resistance from environmental activists.

Ocasio-Cortez said that she believes Line 3 “should not exist.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would have similarly taken crude oil into the U.S. from western Canada. However, the pipeline — proposed as an extension to an already existing line that stretches from North Dakota to Texas — was canceled by its operator TC Energy after President Joe Biden revoked its federal permit.

More than 20 states have accused the president of overstepping his constitutional authority in an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the permit revocation.

“The President has certain prerogatives to act on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs,” the lawsuit stated. “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress—whether he likes them or not.”

Republicans and fossil fuel industry advocates have argued that ensuring the U.S. has a steady, reliable supply of oil and natural gas protects national security. They also argue that the U.S. should leverage its own natural resources to be a net exporter of oil and gas rather than rely on foreign powers for energy.

But the Biden administration has hamstrung the U.S. fossil fuel industry, canceling pipelines, abandoning large drilling projects and introducing sweeping regulations, while asking Middle Eastern countries for more oil and Russia for more gas.

The post AOC Confuses Natural Gas For Oil In Video Explaining Why Pipelines Are Bad appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Andrew Kerr on September 16, 2021

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have violated a myriad of House ethics rules for attending the ritzy Met Gala on Monday evening while wearing a “tax the rich” dress, a conservative watchdog group alleged in a complaint filed Thursday.
• “Representative Ocasio-Cortez may have violated the House Gift Rule by accepting free admission for herself and boyfriend to the Met Gala event and receiving related gifts before, during, or after the event, including the use of custom-designed dress, limousine service, the use of the Carlyle Hotel, professional hair and makeup services, and any other related services or goods,” The National Legal and Policy center stated in its complaint.
• The NLPC is the second conservative watchdog group to demand an ethics investigation into Ocasio-Cortez over her attendance at the Met Gala. 

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have violated a myriad of House ethics rules for attending the ritzy Met Gala on Monday evening while wearing a “tax the rich” dress, a conservative watchdog group alleged in a complaint obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The watchdog group, National Legal and Policy Center, alleged in a complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics on Thursday that Ocasio-Cortez’s acceptance of free tickets to the event, which reportedly run at $35,000 apiece, for both herself and her boyfriend violated House Gift Rules. The group also alleged that Ocasio-Cortez received a prohibited gift from a paid attendee of the Met Gala by sitting at a sponsored table during the event, which are reportedly valued at up to $300,000.

In addition, the watchdog group alleged that Ocasio-Cortez may have accepted prohibited in-kind gifts due to her use of her custom-designed “tax the rich” dress and other services and amenities.

“Representative Ocasio-Cortez may have violated the House Gift Rule by accepting free admission for herself and boyfriend to the Met Gala event and receiving related gifts before, during, or after the event, including the use of custom-designed dress, limousine service, the use of the Carlyle Hotel, professional hair and makeup services, and any other related services or goods,” stated the NLPC’s complaint, which was filed by the group’s counsel, Paul Kamenar.

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the charity that receives the proceeds of the Met Gala, told the DCNF that Ocasio-Cortez and other elected officials that attended the Monday evening event were “guests of the Museum.”And Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram after the event that she “borrowed” her dress from its designer, and that her attendance at the gala was in line with her “responsibilities in overseeing our city’s cultural institutions that serve the public.”

The NLPC is the second watchdog group to demand an ethics investigation into Ocasio-Cortez’s attendance at the Met Gala this week. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez’s Attendance At Lavish Met Gala Draws Ethics Complaint)

Another conservative watchdog group, the American Accountability Foundation, filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics on Tuesday arguing that Ocasio-Cortez was not permitted to accept free tickets for the Met Gala because a for-profit company, Conde Nast, manages invitations to the charity event.

The NLPC added in its complaint filed Thursday Ocasio-Cortez may have also violated gift rules by sitting at a sponsored table during the event.

“In short, it is the table sponsor who is gifting or underwriting a coveted seat to AOC at the Gala,” the complaint states. “And if the sponsor of the table where AOC sat was one paid for by one of the corporations attending the event, such as Instagram or Facebook, AOC has received a prohibited gift from the corporation that also lobbies Congress.”

The complaint also highlighted potential issues surrounding Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend, Riley Roberts, attending the Met Gala for free alongside the lawmaker, noting that the House Gift Rule permits lawmakers to only provide a second ticket to a charity fundraiser, their spouse or dependent child.

“Thus, because her boyfriend is not her ‘spouse or dependent,’ her acceptance of an ‘invite plus one’ to the Met Gala would violate the Gift Rule unless AOC or her boyfriend paid for his $35,000 ticket, an unlikely scenario,” the NLPC’s complaint states.

Ocasio-Cortez’s use of a custom “tax the rich” dress, even if borrowed only for the duration of the event, also violates the House Gift Rule because the dress designer had to devote “valuable professional services in designing and making this one-of-a-kind dress,” the NLPC stated in its complaint.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Ocasio-Cortez Hit With Second Ethics Complaint Over ‘Tax The Rich’ Met Gala Appearance appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The Congresswoman from New York wore a white dress with the words “Tax the Rich” written in large red letters across the back.

Tickets for the Met Gala cost $30,000 per person with tables start at $200,000, according to The New York Post.

A reporter for NewsMax, Benny Johnson, also claimed that AOC’s choice of attire for the event had a price tag of $1,000.

AOC must think she is the progressive counterpart to outspoken conservative singer/model Joy Villa, who first gained national attention with her “Make America Great Again” dress that she wore to the Grammys in support of former President Donald Trump in 2017. Villa, I might add, has shown much more dignity and grace than AOC ever dreamed of.

The problem lies not in making a political statement at a big event like the Met gala. In fact, I do not think it is out of place for a sitting member of Congress to make a political statement.

The issue at hand is the blatant hypocrisy of AOC’s message. It’s highly ironic that a sitting congresswoman would attend an event that costs $30,000 and wear a $1,000 gown, and then have the audacity to talk about taxing the rich!

AOC, you are the rich! Do you think middle-class Americans have the kind of money to attend high-class balls, wearing clothes that cost thousands of dollars? Do you think they have the connections or money to rub shoulders with the who’s who of the entertainment industry?

What would you say to your constituents about your decision to attend the Met Gala when so many are likely scraping by just to make ends meet? You are not a woman of the people. If you really cared, you would be fighting in Congress to keep the American economy open and removing regulatory burdens placed on the American people instead of trying to be a Progressive Cinderella.

This behavior is all too typical of progressive politicians and they whine and complain about people they call “rich elitists” while refusing to acknowledge their own arrogance. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are no different than the kings and queens of old who wined and dined, getting fat and living easy off of the backs of people who suffered in poverty.

In spite of the congresswoman’s decision to attend the Met Gala, it’s not out of line to ask about her abuela’s  home in Puerto Rico that she claimed was severely damaged by Hurricane Maria back in June. AOC blasted former President Donald Trump for blocking relief to the island in the aftermath of the hurricane. If the congresswoman can afford to be at an event as prestigious as the Met Gala, surely she can afford to at least help take care of her grandmother’s home repairs.

Unless of course, she doesn’t really care about her grandmother and was just using her as a political prop in an attempt to increase government spending. Perhaps it is old-fashioned of me to think that if you genuinely love someone, you should help them when they are in dire circumstances if you have the means to do so. I hope that AOC’s grandmother is in a much better state of living these days—especially since her granddaughter thinks it is appropriate to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous while claiming to serve the common people of New York.

If AOC lived according to her principles, she would be appalled at the idea of attending the Met Gala while so many of her fellow Americans are suffering as businesses struggle to get by or have closed
due to government restrictions under the guise of a pandemic.

Tyrants of the past and present would be proud of the progressive darling who is living up to the mantra, “Do as I say and not as I do!”

The post Tax Me: The Hypocrisy of AOC’s “Tax The Rich” Dress appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Ocasio-Cortez Calls for ‘Full Investigation’ into Cuomo Nursing Home Scandal appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohan 

The boyfriend of Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explained how to combat racism as a white person Friday.

Riley Roberts, 30, chatted with his girlfriend, Ocasio-Cortez, about “combating racism as a white person” Friday night on her Instagram story, the New York Post reported. Roberts, who works as a web developer, met Ocasio-Cortez while the two were studying at Boston University.

“So, Riley, what has been helpful to you in combating racism?” Ocasio-Cortez asked Roberts in the Instagram story video.

“I think it’s helpful and important to talk to other white people about racism, and I think a lot of people, they don’t want to be racist,” Roberts said. “They don’t think that they’re racist, but they also don’t know some of the things that they believe or say are and can be racist.”

WATCH:

AOC and boyfriend Riley Roberts discuss tips for “combating racism as a white person”https://t.co/LahjyfZs5X pic.twitter.com/SQrTtVHiOd

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) February 8, 2020

Roberts also suggested telling racist friends that they are “wrong” rather than “racist.”

“One of the effective ways is just to talk and kind of help teach them about why some of the things they believe or say or think are wrong — not necessarily racist — but that they’re wrong and that will sort of chip away and contribute to some development in this area but not necessarily take somebody from being a racist to not being a racist in one conversation,” he said.

Ocasio-Cortez added: “And it’s just always being open to learning about racist things that we may have said or done without judgement, defensiveness.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Ocasio-Cortez’s White Boyfriend Explains How To Combat Racism As A White Person appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Peter Hasson 

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused legendary radio host Rush Limbaugh of faking his reaction to President Donald Trump awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address.

Limbaugh, who announced Monday that he has advanced-stage lung cancer, grew visibly emotional while receiving the award during Trump’s address. Ocasio-Cortez accused him of faking it.

“Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist,” she said in an Instagram video Tuesday night.

“But even just on top of that, to do it in the middle of the State of the Union and not even dignify it with its own ceremony as it has, there’s all sorts of norms that are being violated and not just for people’s humanity but also it truly just cheapens the value of it,” she added.

WATCH:

“Also him pretending to be surprised was such a joke,” she continued.

“This has been news all day, there have been multiple reports from multiple outlets, saying that Rush limbaugh was going to receive the Medal of Freedom, and then Trump announced it and he had to pretend like this was some kind of Oprah moment,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

WATCH:

, AOC

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post ‘Oprah Moment’: Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Rush Limbaugh Of Faking His SOTU Reaction appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“You didn’t make those widgets,” she added. “You sat on a couch while thousands of people were paid modern-day slave wages … [and] are literally dying because they can’t afford to live.”

This latest rant continued her war on the entrepreneurs and the capitalist system responsible for creating the most widespread economic abundance and highest quality of life in the history of mankind.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

In the United States, real income over the past 40 years has risen for all income levels to the point where a middle-class income in 1980 could qualify as lower middle today, and an upper-middle-class income in 1980 would qualify as middle class today. Life expectancy has increased nearly eight years since 1970.

Ocasio-Cortez refuses to acknowledge that in a free society, individuals become wealthy by meeting customer needs. Wealth and economic output expands—or shrinks—based on a combination of human ingenuity, labor, natural resources, and capital investment. Few wealthy people get that way from plundering others. They create wealth by bringing to market products that benefit others.

Consider an apple orchard. Apple trees are the capital asset; apples the product. Forcing an orchard owner to convert some of the trees to firewood would deplete the supply of capital (apple trees) and diminish future economic output (apples). Confiscating the net income of the orchard owner would leave less capital to expand for the owner and less growth for the economy.

Income taxes or the wealth taxes proposed by Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives yield the same results across an entire economy—less economic output and lower future growth.

Jeff Bezos—the world’s wealthiest man at $131 billion—transformed commerce through Amazon. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Larry Page revolutionized information technology. The Walton family re-engineered retail through Walmart, expanding consumer choice, driving down costs, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

In prior generations, businesspeople and inventors such as Henry Ford and Thomas Edison earned fortunes by improving the lives of others, but those fortunes reflect only a small fraction of the value added to society by their innovation. To punish such success is to incentivize consuming wealth rather than investing and growing and to deter other entrepreneurs from even trying to start businesses.

Capital represents far more than cash locked away in a Scrooge McDuck vault. Instead, capital means factories, manufacturing, equipment, and intellectual property yielding output and creating wealth.

Capital confiscated through taxation means less capital to replace obsolete or deteriorated equipment, fewer resources for research and development, and diminished funds for business expansion.

This is akin to dismantling productive machinery and redistributing the pieces as scrap metal. Although the wealthy are immediately affected, this confiscation reduces the quality of life for all income levels over the longer term.

Plundering the wealthy harms all of us.

Furthermore, tax hikes on the wealthy alone—or even on the upper-middle class—simply cannot adequately fund the massive government spending programs (ranging from $48 trillion to $92 trillion over 10 years) promoted by the left recently.

The government could confiscate every dollar earned (starting with dollar No. 1) by those with incomes of $200,000 or above and every penny of corporate profits and still raise only $32 trillion. And that presumes people and corporations would continue normal operations despite all their income being taxed away.

A European-style cradle-to-grave welfare state requires European levels of taxation—and the sluggish economic growth that accompanies it.

What does this look like? Payroll taxes in parts of Europe exceed 50%. A “value-added tax” of more than 20% hurts consumers, rich and poor. A middle-class worker earning $40,000 a year in Europe pays $6,000 more in taxes than the typical U.S. worker. Those earning $100,000 pay $16,000 more in taxes annually.

It’s no surprise that the average family disposable income in Germany is $11,000 less than in the United States.

In reality, the desire for power—rather than economic betterment—fuels the war on wealth.

Just as Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff admitted the Green New Deal is about transforming America—rather than resolving a climate crisis—so the war on billionaires is a grab for economic control.

In the words of Ocasio-Cortez herself, “To be ethical if you’re a billionaire today the thing that you need to do is give up control and power … So, I don’t want your money, as much as we want your power.”

Central planning elites thrive on directing society and controlling economic development as they deem fit.

Dismantling our free-market, capitalist system erases opportunities for ordinary citizens and levels the wealthy.

Communist revolutions of the past 150 years in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, and Cuba bear witness to the brutal impact of the most extreme agendas. The lackluster economies and high taxes across Spain, France, Greece, and Italy warn of the milder misery resulting from the softer tyranny of socialism. We must reject both. The war on wealth is a war on us all.

COMMENTARY BY

The post Ocasio-Cortez’s War on Wealth Is a War on All of Us appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Andrew Kerr 

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prolific Democratic fundraisers in the House, but she’s refusing to pay any dues to the Democrats’ House campaign organization.

Ocasio-Cortez has failed to pay a penny of the $250,000 she owes in “dues” to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), according to a Friday Fox News report. Instead, she’s leveraging her own fundraising prowess to bypass the Democratic party apparatus and directly support progressive candidates, some of whom are running against her colleagues in the House.

“Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills,” an unnamed House Democratic aide told Fox News. “She’s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”

New York Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks told the outlet: “Sometimes the question comes: ‘Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?’”

“DCCC dues are about supporting others because you want to be part of the team,” Meeks said. “The goal is to be in the majority. And the goal is, when you are on a team I would think, to respect individuals whose districts are different than yours.”

Meeks also criticized Ocasio-Cortez’s close relationship with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose revolution, according to Meeks, “is to not just to stop the Republicans, it’s to blow up the Democratic Party.”

Ocasio-Cortez is the third-most prolific fundraiser among incumbent House Democrats, according to Open Secrets. She’s raised $3,354,732 since the beginning of 2019, behind only House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Rep. Adam Schiff, who raised $3,717,762 and $4,377,168, respectively.

“For me personally, I’m not paying D-trip dues,” Ocasio-Cortez said, citing a “myriad of reasons,” according to Fox.

“One, I don’t agree with the policy around blacklisting groups that help progressive candidates,” Ocasio-Cortez said in reference to a DCCC policy instituted in 2019 that blacklists third-party vendors that do business with primary challengers.

“I want to help frontline members by putting that money straight into their pocket,” she said.

And Ocasio-Cortez has. She’s raised more than $300,000 for progressive candidates in 2019, some of which are challenging some of her House colleagues, according to Fox News.

For example, Ocasio-Cortez helped raise $35,000 for Jessica Cisneros, a progressive candidate vying to defeat Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas.

“Certainly, these are new times,” Cuellar told Fox News of Ocasio-Cortez’s efforts to put him out of a job, “which is something that we certainly don’t agree with.”

Former DCCC chairwoman Rep. Nita Lowey of New York said Ocasio-Cortez’s refusal to pay her dues could pose a threat to the party, as it may encourage other members to shun the party fundraising apparatus.

“If you are a Democrat and you’re here, you should be part of the effort,” Lowey told Fox News. “But [Ocasio-Cortez] may not feel that way. Each to their own.”

But current DCCC chairwoman, Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, noted the DCCC’s record off-year fundraising haul in 2019 while downplaying Ocasio-Cortez’s refusal to pay her dues.

“That’s always up to individual members so I guess I don’t think about it one way or another,” Bustos said of Ocasio-Cortez. “We’re raising record amounts of money from our members.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post ‘Deadbeat Cortez’: Ocasio-Cortez Refuses To Pay Party Dues, Angering Some Of Her Democratic Colleagues appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In a typical AOC fashion, she went on a rant about how the free market treated “women and people who give birth” (whomever those non-women giving birth are) worse than we treat puppies. Why? Well because at least puppies get to stay with their moms for eight weeks, and apparently, the ‘free-market’ deprives women from eight weeks of paid leave after giving birth (seriously watch the whole thing here).

I can only imagine what was going on in the mind of the Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Greszler, the conservative witness at which this idiocy was directed. Had I been in Greszler’s shoes, I would have been tempted to burst out laughing and say, “Behold, ladies and gentlemen, this is who is responsible for making policy for this country!”

Greszler was wiser and she just stood there in silence—not that she was even given the courtesy of being allowed to reply. Always the thoughtful one, she waited to be back in her office before drafting a response to the representative that included this gem:

“It’s also a terrible comparison, considering that puppies are taken from their mothers and sold after eight weeks (most states require an eight-week period for vaccination purposes). These puppies also never get to meet their fathers.”

By now we are used to ignorant statements and bad analogies from this particular representative. But what made this episode a little different is that AOC, who has never had kids, was lecturing Greszler, a working mom of six (all under the age of 11), who had just been the only witness of the bunch to present actual data about the impact of the federal government mandating a paid leave – data based on her study of the impact of such programs at the state level.

This fact-freeness is what is infuriating about this debate—and it was on display at this hearing. What you get is a lot of emotions and opinions. You also get stories about how paid leave is great and useful to mothers and families, which no one denies. But these stories about the benefits of paid leave are meant as evidence that the government should provide it, which of course they aren’t.

There were many other fact-free arguments presented that day. Many of them aren’t unique to Democrats. Indeed, it is common these days to hear Republicans/conservatives who support this program echo claims usually made by Democrats, such as the fact that not all women have access to paid leave is a market failure. Never mind that they never really try to show that there is indeed such a market failure at play here (Don Boudreaux makes that point again here).

And on the rare occasions when they do, they casually toss out claims such as “the United States is the only country that doesn’t have a national paid leave program” – as if this is a meaningful argument. Such “arguments” are even more amusing coming from conservatives who are always so insistent on “America’s exceptionalism.”

Advocates of paid leave also repeatedly claim that the lack of a federal mandate means that American women don’t have access to paid leave. I assume the almost complete absence of paid leave is what AOC was implying. They love to quote the number provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that reports only 19 percent of women have access to paid leave in the U.S., in spite of many scholars having commented on the fact that this number leaves out multiple options enjoyed by mothers.

In fact, when including all the ways that employers provide paid leave to their employees, the number is not 19 percent but, instead, close to 65 percent. These eager advocates also fail to look at who are the women who indeed do not now have paid leave as part of their employment contracts.

Scholars who have undertaken the effort to look for this information find that the women who don’t receive paid leave are lower wage and low skilled, and typically hold part-time jobs. These findings do not reflect any widespread abhorrent treatment of employees by employers. Instead, these findings reflect the understandable wish of most of these low-wage workers to receive as much as possible of their compensation in the form of take-home pay.

The most frustrating aspect of the current debate, however, is the fact that paid-leave advocates ignore (or refuse to acknowledge) the ample literature that shows what happened in countries and states that have adopted the kind of paid-leave policies they would like to see implemented in the U.S.. Greszler devoted an entire section of her testimony to showing that the number one lesson learned from these examples is the U.S. government shouldn’t emulate them.

As she writes, these programs are regressive (especially when financed through a payroll tax), and they redistribute money from low- income earners to middle- and upper- income earners. They also exacerbate gender inequities by leading to fewer women being promoted and landing managerial positions. These programs are costly and a prime target for expansion, which is no laughing matter considering that Uncle Sam is $22 trillion in debt as it is.

It is worth noting the most recent study about the California paid-leave program. The authors find that it didn’t boost women’s work (as Democrats had predicted), nor did it boost fertility (as conservatives had predicted), but it did reduce women’s earnings in the long-run (as free-market scholars had predicted). Here is an excerpt from the executive summary:

“For new mothers, taking up PFLA reduced employment by 7 percent and lowered annual wages by 8 percent six to ten years after giving birth. Overall, PFLA tended to reduce the number of children born and, by decreasing mothers’ time at work, increase time spent with children.”

This, of course, was not a new result, and it is consistent with the large literature that studies government provisions in Europe in particular. (I have written about Denmark’s experience with paid leave here). Why anyone would want to implement such a program with its inevitable outcome is inconceivable to me.

And yet here we are today. In Washington DC, this week, at a congressional hearing on the issue, the one witness presenting data and warning Representatives about these negative consequences was ridiculed.

Veronique de Rugy

AIER Senior Fellow Veronique de Rugy is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy.

This article is republished with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

The post Do We Treat Children Worse than Dogs? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Chris White 

Sen. Bernie Sanders is marking out a different position on billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s decision to jump in the White House race than that of Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez.

“You’re not going to buy this election,” the Vermont senator said Saturday during a climate summit in Des Moines, Iowa. Sanders, who is running for president as a Democrat, was referring to the former New York City mayor’s last-minute decision to join the contest.

“That is the arrogance of billionaires,” Sanders told ABC News Saturday. “As I understand it, he’s planning to skip the first four states. We’re doing five events this weekend right here in Iowa, all over New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, California. But he’s too important.”

Bloomberg directed staffers to gather signatures in Alabama to qualify for the Democratic primary in the state, which had a Friday deadline for entrance into the race. He is expected to pose a substantial problem for former Vice President Joe Biden, a moderate candidate struggling to raise cash.

Bloomberg is one of two billionaires who are vying to beat President Donald Trump, himself a billionaire who won the 2016 presidential race in an improbably fashion. Hedge fund manager Tom Steyer is also angling to spend millions of dollars on a long-shot Democratic presidential campaign.

Sanders is using Bloomberg’s candidacy as a cudgel against what he sees is wealthy ownership of the party. “You see, when you’re worth $50 billion, I guess you don’t have to have town meetings, you don’t have to talk to ordinary people,” he added during the ABC interview.

WATCH:

Tonight we say to Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires: Sorry, you’re not going to buy this election. pic.twitter.com/15sVnuPxwR

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 10, 2019

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York joined Sanders in the interview in Iowa. She mirrored his position.

“I don’t think billionaires should be president right now,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Sanders supporter, said during the interview. Sanders’s remarks Saturday stand in contrast to those from Perez, who told CNN Friday that he welcomes Bloomberg to the race.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Bernie Sanders Rails Against The Two Wall Street Billionaires Running In The Democratic Primary appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.