Radical abortion proposals, 70% tax rates and eliminating private health insurance
Several events of this past week, should dispel any doubts as to the direction of today’s Democratic Party. The party has been lurching leftward gradually over the past few years. It has now embraced the most radical, left-wing policies in its history.
First up, Democratic hopeful, Kamala Harris, without blinking an eye, proposed Medicare for all. By her own admission her policy would wipe out all private health insurance plans. When she received push-back from members of her own party, she announced, “I’m flexible.” Got that? Harris is flexible. Such magnanimity.
Next up to bat. Author and self-help guru Marianne Williamson, threw her hat in the ring. Although she is not a viable candidate, her announcement was important for her reparations for slavery proposal, with $10 billion per year to be distributed over a decade. “I believe $100 billion given to a council to apply this money to economic projects and educational projects of renewal for that population is a debt to be paid,” she said. Wait and see how many Democrats attack her proposal. Q.E.D.
Not to be outdone, Democratic Party rock-star and media darling Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez (AOC), a self-professed democratic socialist, proposed a 70% marginal tax-rate to fund her “Green New Deal.” This energy nirvana will completely decarbonize the country. Currently, 17% of the country’s energy is renewable. No worries says AOC. “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Saving the best for last, Kathy Tran, a delegate to the Virginia assembly, proposed an abortion bill that would have allowed terminating a pregnancy while a mother was in labor. This is more commonly known as “infanticide.” After facing a hostile line of questioning concerning the details of her proposal, Tran reaffirmed her policy, that indeed a 3rd trimester abortion would be permitted. Subsequent to her original statement, Tran attempted to
claim that people had misunderstood her proposal and she was sorry for any confusion. However, a review of the video of her original statement leaves no room for doubt, that her unequivocal position was termination at the birth of the baby.
While she was in damage-control mode, Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, had no such qualms about the nature of the proposed procedure,
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
As Matthew Continetti, of the Washington Free Beacon, noted, Northam’s choice of words seemed rather incongruous,
“Note the sequence of events. The “infant would be comfortable,” Northam says, and then “a discussion would ensue.” A discussion about what? The Boston Red Sox? Or would it be about the fate of the child—the life or death of a born-alive child? Who would want to be part of such a discussion? Who can contemplate such an exchange without becoming queasy?”
It seems that with each successive Democrat presidential hopeful, the policy proposals became more and more extreme.