Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 268: 'Pocahontas' Liz must come clean on her all-inclusive tax scheme

Liz Warren
One can only ponder what it must be like to be in the strategy room at Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren’s campaign headquarters. The one-time longshot’s profile has shot up like a rocket of late and people are actually paying attention to her now…including her fellow Democrat aspirants.

Compare today with the early days of the Massachusetts senator’s presidential run, when she was reeling from her pathetic New Year’s Eve campaign announcement. The longtime academic and politician infamously uttered “I’m going to get me a beer” and then addressed her social media audience as though she were just a regular gal with flyover country roots who swills suds in the kitchen with her hubby and plots out trillion dollar big government programs in her spare time.

But seeing as the faux-Native American is rapidly gaining on frontrunner Joe Biden in Democrat primary polls (she’s now a clear number two in the Real Clear Politics Average) -- and many consider her the de facto leader because the former Obama VP is teetering on the edge of mental instability and scandal (Ukraine) -- Warren’s proposals are garnering more intense scrutiny. And while she’s notorious for “having a plan” for every societal ailment (both real and perceived, such as climate change), those ideas, when run through the prism of practicality and feasibility, don’t make much sense.

For that reason “Pocahontas” is taking more incoming flak these days. This could get ugly real soon, folks, especially if Warren keeps speaking as though some mystical invisible force will provide the means to pay for everything she’s promised. Naomi Jagoda and Jonathan Easley reported at The Hill, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is coming under increasing pressure from her 2020 rivals to spell out how she’d pay for her ‘Medicare for All’ proposal...

“Warren has been asked several times whether taxes would have to go up on the middle class to pay for her universal health care plan, most notably at the debate earlier this month in Houston.

“She has consistently avoided giving a yes or no answer, saying instead that middle-class families’ overall health costs would decline but without specifying whether their taxes would increase.”

In their story the Hill reporters referred to Warren’s recent appearance on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” where the Trump-hating leftwing host repeatedly pressed her to answer the tax increase question. “Pocahontas” wouldn’t surrender it, of course, and like most of the country Colbert looked visibly annoyed at the woman’s evasiveness.

Anyone who’s bothered to watch the first three Democrat presidential debates understands why Warren’s challengers are similarly frustrated. As one of the polling leaders she’s set up camp (her teepee?) at center stage and spouted her nonsense with all the certainty of a Baptist preacher, confident that “the rich” and “corporations” will come forth with the billions and trillions needed to satisfy all the debts she’d rack up if the voting public is nuts enough to entrust her with the keys to the White House and the Treasury building right next door.

“Pocahontas” tosses out government goodies like a carnival barker at the doorway to a sideshow, enticing passers-by with tales of assurance, wonder and comfort. In reality she’s more like a fairy-tale granny who conjures health insurance policies as though they were cookies and milk before bedtime. Both she and Bernie Sanders are as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that there’s money to pay for everything they dream up, including the elimination of premiums and copays, all to be accomplished without raising taxes on anyone except the greedy successful lot who shouldn’t be trusted with all their excess purchasing power.

To those who actually handle billing and paying insurance claims this is akin to a fantasy sequence. Little House on the Prairie’s Doc Baker sometimes accepted apples and chickens as payment for his services, and if “Pocahontas” Warren becomes president we just might go back to some sort of convoluted barter system because hers won’t be workable.

Warren surmises the middle class will benefit through magically lowering health insurance costs, but if the government is supposed to provide everything, why would there be any expenses at all? At least “The Bern” admits taxes may go up for the middling sort, but they’ll pay less in the long run because their doctor bills will go down.

But not Warren. She’s tight-lipped on the “t-word” (taxes) though she doesn’t mind bragging on her lofty “wealth tax” on top earners. Numerous economists have pointed out there aren’t enough rich folks to possibly fund all her schemes but it hasn’t stopped “Pocahontas” from raising her tomahawk and continuing to hack away as though nothing can stop her from providing what she dictates.

The former Harvard law professor’s (she specialized in bankruptcy law, how fitting) probably never come close to running a business or meeting a payroll but somehow she’s convinced the gullible and uniformed to accept her “plans” to takeover a huge portion of the American economy. Further, everything will work out because she “fights” for people and will ensure no one gets left behind. But who’s to say people who’ve gone to school and worked all their lives even want what she’s peddling?

Warren’s promise-everything-now-worry-about-it-later approach to pitching her ideas reminds me of a former superior who would always pledge the world to potential clients without the slightest understanding of how our department operated and what our capabilities were. The boss would walk out of meetings tickled pink that she’d won a signed contract and counted future checks on the way -- and my coworkers and I would look at each other dumbfounded as to how we’d deliver on the clueless partner’s guarantees.

Politics, like marketing, is much easier when you don’t have to (or can’t) explain what it is you’re selling, just putting everything on the line and then getting ticked off at your underlings when they can’t perform the way you think they should. It’s the stuff of lawsuits or cancelled contracts -- and causes your people (or your voters) to lose faith in you.

But “Pocahontas” doesn’t care. She just wants the opportunity to be the first woman president and ride the streets in those cool presidential limos and fly around the world in Air Force One. It’d be a long way from her formative years in Oklahoma where her parents filled her skull full of wild stories about disapproving families and native ancestry due to high cheek bones. Or something like that.

President Donald Trump’s critics accused him of the same things (making impossible campaign promises in 2015 and ‘16) though the notion is different involving someone who’s successfully managed an “empire” for decades. Some of Trump’s visions (Mexico pay for the wall?) may have been a little far-fetched from a practical standpoint but he was dreaming big. “Pocahontas,” on the other hand, seems like she’s been taking too many tokes from the peace pipe.

Regardless, Republicans chose Trump and now it appears Democrats are warming to the possibility of “Pocahontas” leading their party in next year’s election. Is it simply the roar of democracy or characteristic of a flawed nominating system that’s allowed these non-traditional candidates to get through? Jay Cost wrote at National Review, “Are Trump and Warren the best we can do? The nomination process must be reformed...

“Maybe Biden can hang on and win the nomination, but increasingly people are thinking that it will be a Warren–Trump general election. What a nightmare. What a failure of our party institutions to stick us with one candidate, Trump, who is widely disliked, and another, Warren, with a truly radical agenda. Is it really asking too much for our parties to give us candidates that we . . . y’know . . . can actually stand?

“I do not expect any of this to change any time soon. What we need is party reform, which is basically the one issue nobody is talking about. Banning beef? Sure. Transgender prisons? You betcha. Abolishing the Electoral College? Why not. Keeping the crazies from dominating our parties? Crickets.”

As usual, Cost presents interesting questions. It’s true that aspiring presidential candidates work overtime to target certain segments of the primary electorate, and it’s also correct that those activist constituencies tend to be more ideologically “extreme” than the so-called “centrist” party establishments.

If it were up to the elites every party standard-bearer would be chosen by carefully assembled focus groups tasked with selecting candidates who appeal to the lowest common denominator. But up until recently it’s arguable the party candidates were just that -- the least offensive alternatives in their respective factions.

Obama overcame the un-electable Hillary Clinton in 2008, so shouldn’t party primary voters be commended for recognizing which one was best before it was too late? The same applies to Bill Clinton in ’92. And George W. Bush in 2000. These guys may not have been the first choice of the more-demanding grassroots, but the establishment sure loved all of ‘em.

And how about John McCain in ’08 and Mitt Romney in 2012? Elements of the GOP grassroots fought tooth and nail to stave off the boring and mundane establishment favorites, yet the losers squeaked through anyway. Sometimes the “people” choose winners, sometimes not.

Taking the nominating responsibility away from party voters isn’t a solution. What would Cost suggest in the alternative, going back to the days of smoke-filled backrooms and closed-door dealings at party nominating conventions? Or instituting some sort of nationwide primary election day, which would heavily favor establishment-backed candidates with name recognition and those who could out-fundraise their lesser-known upstart competitors?

Trump -- and Warren (if she ends up winning) -- aren’t the issue. It’s the political blueblood class that assumes they know better than everyone else.

Time will tell whether Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren has the political skills and practical wherewithal to explain her proposals in a manner that voters identify with, and whether she’ll overcome Joe Biden’s electability argument. Democrat primary participants will decide. Do they know best?

Share this