The ultimate prize for a President Sanders would be the passage of some kind of legislation that would destroy the American economy.  Of course, that would not be the goal, but it would be the inevitable effect.  He could call it the “Finally The Rich Will Pay and Can’t Be Greedy Anymore Act.”  It would be as significant to him as is the ACA to President Obama, and maybe he could even have his name stamped on it.  But on a serious note, how would his proposals help working Americans?  More so, would Sanders even be able to divide the banks, and would he be able to convince Congress to continue raising the tax rates?

Sanders’ interview with the New York Daily News reinforces the arguments against his unfeasible and utopian perspective that the possibility for its implementation is unforeseeable.  Time and time again, he is unable to articulate how his pursuit of wealth redistribution can be achieved.  He does introduce a valid point, though: “Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.”  I don’t deny that there ought to be a legitimate discussion about tax reform, even on the corporate level, but I’m just not convinced Sanders’ plans are viable, nor fiscally responsible.

It’s no secret that our economic system is based on the principal of incentive.  Incentive, however, Sanders recognizes as greed.  The current corporate tax rate inhibits the growth of American businesses, who are making a business decision in moving their money offshore or investing elsewhere.  This, Sanders declares, is corporate greed.  But what the Left has done by increasing the rates is like backing a cat into a corner and then blaming it for swiping at you with its claws.  What did you expect?

Perhaps the Sanders’ phenomenon has a silver lining.  In his stump speech, which include the Wall-Street talking points and the demand for seizing wealth from the rich, he is solidifying that profound (it’s really not so profound) truth of our system that so many on the Left have forgotten.  The federal government does not create revenue.  What does that imply?  That the federal government shouldn’t be assuming the role of an institution that creates revenue.  For all its idiosyncrasies, the American economy which is fueled by businesses, corporations, and banks (not government) keeps the societal and governmental heart beating.

The “greedy” capitalistic effort on the part of businesses to expand, which Sanders ardently disdains, has created the very wealth that he needs to implement his policies.  So it can’t be all that bad.  I presume that if he were to win, and pass his policy, he would have to be thankful for the “greed.”