Progressives seek a constitution that provides wealth redistribution, controls human behavior, and dictates financial markets. With the Democratic Establishment working hard to defeat the stated democratic socialist in favor of one they call moderate; the scale of moderate is the real question. In today’s episode, we’ll explore how Joe Biden’s vision for America is one more of autocracy and less liberty. I’ll present evidence from JoeBiden.com that suggests Joe is just a different flavor of democratic socialist and clearly highlights his Progressive tendencies. Be sure to share today’s episode with your friends because the media is hiding the truth and it is up to us to shine the light of liberty on the move to remake America.
Last week we explored elements of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s campaign issues. Some might argue it was my podcast that caused Bernie to have such a bad super Tuesday (or as Joe Biden suggest super Thursday.) More than likely, however, the worries Bernie had been sharing about the Democratic Establishment working to sabotage his campaign is the real reason Joe Biden had a great showing.
No problem with Joe getting the nod, right? After all, he is past Vice-President and stood just a heartbeat away from becoming President of the United States. Before his time with President Obama, Joe was Senator Biden. First elected to the Senate on January 3, 1972 and was the sixth-youngest ever elected to the Senate. As a law school graduate, at the ripe old age of 28, Joe Biden entered the world of politics and was elected to the New Castle County Council.
Joe Biden earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. While not a great student, Joe entered Syracuse University College of Law and in 1968 graduated 76th out of a class of 85. During Joe’s first year in law school he was accused of plagiarizing a law review article and received a ‘F’ for the class. Joe was granted the opportunity to retake the class after he explained that he didn’t know the appropriate manner of article citation. In 1969 Joe was admitted to the Delaware Bar.
OK, That is just a brief bio of Joe Biden, but it is in no way comprehensive enough to make any decisions on the character of the man. With over 47 years of public service, it wouldn’t serve much purpose to recite his legislative accomplishments or argue his positions from the past as a measure of the man as he exists today. No, I intend instead to visit joebiden.com and review a few of his “issues” as a basis for measuring who President Joe Biden would be.
The first issue I’d like to explore is how Joe plans to Reduce the corrupting influence of money in politics and make it easier for candidates of all backgrounds to run for office. How will he do this?
Introduce a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections.
As president, Biden will fight for a constitutional amendment that will require candidates for federal office to solely fund their campaigns with public dollars, and prevent outside spending from distorting the election process.
Joe’s website references a campaign finance case that reached the Supreme Court in 2010 titled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
So Joe’s solution is to create a constitutional amendment that prohibits candidates running for federal office from receiving funds from private donors. It is interesting to note that, (as noted by President Obama) “Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf.” So, Joe’s Constitutional augmentation would be the first (of many I am sure) that instead dictates what the state must do “for” you instead of preventing things the state does “to” you.
In Joe’s mind, the courts ruling on the Citizens United case was wrong and donations to political campaigns should not be protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. No, Joe’s solution to the issue of too much money in federal elections is to only allow public money be spent to get elected. OK, that is not fair, because Joe goes on to say:
“Enact legislation to provide voluntary matching public funds for federal candidates receiving small dollar donations. While we work toward a constitutional amendment, meaningful change can be made by legislation. Biden will propose legislation to provide public matching funds for small dollar donations to all federal candidates. This will especially help first-time candidates access the resources needed to compete, freeing them to focus on interacting with voters, not high-dollar donors.”
My first question is what is the definition of a “small dollar donation”? The statement implies a set limit and with limits comes authority to restrict the contribution and the power to enforce compliance. This means private citizens would be limited in how much money they could donate to a candidate to help them ascend to public office and that the government would hold the power to prosecute violations. So maybe my description is correct, Joe’s idea is to change the Constitution to read what the state must do “for” you…
In the arena of Justice Reform, Joe says he will “End the criminalization of poverty.” How you ask? End cash bail and Stop jailing people for being too poor to pay fines and fees are just two of the many points listed. A couple episodes back I reviewed California’s Prop 47 and the effects it is having on crime. Both of these items are in that bill too. But, I shouldn’t cross contaminate Joe’s plans with the California experiment.
Ending cash bail means the government will determine your arrest process based on your financial means to pay the bail. Also, if your sentence includes a fine to which you can not pay, then the government would have the ability to forgive your fine. In fact, “Biden will use the grantmaking power of the federal government to incentivize the end of policies that incarcerate people for failing to pay fines and fees.” Grantmaking implies jurisdictions can apply for federal monies to offset the judgements forgiven. Again, something the government does “for” you.
In my opinion, these types of visions really exist just to secure votes. However, that might be too cynical on my part.
In the area of improving education, there are several issues we could discuss, but ”Expand home visiting” is one I’ll focus on in this podcast episode. Here is the language as it reads on his website:
Through the Affordable Care Act, President Obama and Vice President Biden funded voluntary home visiting programs, under which health and child development specialists make consistent, scheduled visits to help parents through the critical early stage of parenting. Families may receive coaching on preventive health and prenatal practices, learn how to care for their babies and about important child development milestones and behaviors, receive breastfeeding support, get connected to employment and child care, and receive general support in navigating the often-stressful early stages of parenthood. Home visiting has been found to improve school readiness, maternal, and child health, and reduce child maltreatment. President Biden will double funding for home visiting so more families benefit from this program every year.
Joe was very careful to note “voluntary“ home visiting programs, but in several places throughout Joe’s campaign website he references government assistance for low income families. From my experience, there are always conditions for government assistance. However, let’s assume for a moment that the program is truly voluntary. The idea of this program is to create a government program to provide “coaching” for parents on “prenatal practices”. Joe’s program even provides breastfeeding support—insert crude joke here. Is this really governments role? Is this not more evidence of Joe championing President Obama’s goal of changing the government to one that grants rights to the citizens instead of Americans having inalienable rights that are granted by God?
Let’s go through one more example, housing. Again, there are so many things to choose from and I am purposely avoiding the big ones like gun control…But in 2008 our housing market collapsed because the government got into the business of building the American dream. Presidents of years past sought to increase home ownership and incentivized lending institutions to give out more mortgage loans. In Joe’s new plan, he appears to be seeking to “Protect homeowners and renters from abusive lenders and landlords through a new Homeowner and Renter Bill of Rights.”
Sounds good, right? Here is a section of this plan that kind of bugs me, it reads: “This new Bill of Rights will prevent mortgage brokers from leading borrowers into loans that cost more than appropriate…” What is the definition of “appropriate”? Is the government in the best position to define appropriate when it comes to costs?
Joe’s overall housing plan is to limit housing cost to just 30% of a families income. Here again, Joe is working to put the government into the position of doing “for” the citizen instead of preventing the state from doing “to”.
Joe Biden is being championed by the Democratic Party Establishment as the moderate who puts the American people first; however, Joe Binden’s polices suggest he is a autocratic thinker who feels big government is the solution to all social ills.
When President Lincoln spoke the words “…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Our nation was embroiled in a civil war. After the battle of Gettysburg, Lincoln’s address immortalized the deeds of the brave men who fought and died for freedom. It might seem out of place to draw such a comparison to the 2020 election, but I venture to suggest his words have never been more important.
Politicians can be counted on for two things…first, they are self serving…second, they seek constant validation. These two things mean politicians are malleable. While they’ll ignore the lone voice, they never ignore voices from the masses—even if they choose to placate the political mob. Join together with your neighbors, have a conversation, read the issues each candidate is promoting, and then decide together if the meaning behind their words will help or hurt your community.
Our representative form of government requires people raise their hands and agree to serve the public good; sometimes finding those people is difficult. Too often we seek to defeat those with whom we disagree and thus good people avoid the public scrutiny. We should instead seek ways to dissuade the willing public servant to better represent the desires of their constituents.
Americans, not just conservatives, have disengaged from holding politicians accountable to our will. This in large part is because, as a society, we’ve disconnected from our community. We no longer go next door to borrow a cup of sugar, let alone discuss important political issues. Church attendance is at an all time low. Community centers have been replaced by hip coffeeshops where people sit in silence as strangers. We must reconnect with our neighbors and then find common ground. Once we all stand on common footing, then we can change the political issues championed by those seeking longer terms in public office.
We should all take some time, bake some cookies, and go say hi to our neighbors. America’s future is in our hands and I for one still believe in the American spirit. We are not really that much different from the Democrats who are currently supporting people like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Sure we call ourselves conservatives and believe a less intrusive government is better; like the famous words from John O’Sullivan, ”The best government is that which governs least.” However, it is not a notion of unAmericanism that drives people to support Joe Biden’s autocratic believes, it is our distant proximity to the ground from which Joe Biden forms his ideas that leave us no alternative. When the Joe Biden’s of the political world are forced to stand in proximity to their constituents and listen to their believes, the autocratic ideas will fade and the support for individual liberties will once again return to our system of governance.