Spot the political party using slogans, not evidence

Catherine Rampell, a journalist for the Washington Post, has written an opinion piece claiming that Democrat policies have been based on experts and evidence and worries that because of people like Ocasio-Cortez, they risk becoming more like Republicans, who use slogans without evidence and who depend on cranks instead of experts.

Democrats in 2020 are at risk of turning into Republicans in 2016, minus the racism.

By which I mean: emphasizing empty slogans instead of evidence-based policy, rejecting experts in favor of cranks, handwaving away questions about implementation and promising that an expensive policy will magically "pay for itself" through economic growth.

It doesn't have to be this way.

There is, in fact, vibrant, nuanced debate within the Democratic Party over policy approaches that could improve the lives of regular Americans.

There are rival proposals for how to revamp our health-care system, including through Medicare expansion, Medicaid buy-in or single-payer.  Same with tax policy: Democratic presidential hopefuls have proposed expansions of the earned-income tax credit and child tax credit, a new wealth tax, tax-advantaged savings accounts for educational expenses, and so on.

In 2016, after all, Donald Trump won by offering up a series of empty slogans: Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.  Let's win again against China. Replace Obamacare with Something Terrific.  

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was the thoughtful, technocratic candidate.  She had white papers galore.  What's more, her proposals had pay-fors, making her the most fiscally responsible candidate in either party's primary.  

I believe she has the parties mixed up in that many Democrat policies that she says are based on evidence are not.  People whom Democrats call experts are cranks that just spew forth talking points.

Here are some examples:

Democrats passed Obamacare with help from "experts" who said the law would allow people to keep their doctors and keep their plans, would reduce premiums, and would reduce the budget deficit.  Those statements were knowingly and obviously false, because any law that dictates what plan you must have, adds massive mandates and regulations, and increases taxes substantially would not allow any of those things.  Most stenographers in the media just went along and repeated those lies.  The Democrats know the results of Obamacare and yet want to further reduce choice and claim that it will help people.  Democrats also claimed, with no evidence, that taking away the individual mandate in 2019 would substantially increase premiums.  Again, that was a lie, as premiums have stabilized for the first time in years.

Democrats and "experts" claim with no evidence that bureaucrats and politicians can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if the public just hands them trillions of dollars.  There is substantial evidence that the climate has always fluctuated cyclically and naturally long before humans and hydrocarbon fuels and the constant changing of predictions from cooling to warming to "climate change" shows that the cycles continue despite exponential growth in fuel use and population growth.

Democrats in many states are expanding abortion up to 40 weeks and possibly beyond if the baby survives an abortion attempt.  They call this "freedom of choice" or "reproductive rights."  The bills should instead be called freedom to kill, because there is no scientific reason to ever kill a viable infant.  If the mother truly has health issues, they should deliver the viable child instead of killing him.

The Democrats, without evidence, want to reduce the wealth gap by confiscating a greater share from whoever they decide is rich.  When and where have high taxes reduced the wealth gap?  They want to move toward socialism, even though there is evidence that socialism keeps people poor while the leaders greatly enrich themselves.  There is substantial evidence that high taxes and government power increase the wealth gap between the Washington, D.C. area and the rest of the country, and Democrats want more for the wealthiest area, which will further expand the gap.

Capitalism, not socialism, is what has allowed the U.S. to be the most powerful country in the world in 243 short years.  Capitalism allows people of all races and both sexes to move up the economic ladder.  Socialism keeps people dependent on government and takes away freedom.

Democrats, with the collusion of cranks who call themselves experts, say tax cuts reduce revenue to the government.  There is a substantial amount of evidence that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and greatly increase revenues, not reduce them as Democrats, including most journalists, say.  The best example is Bush's 2003 substantial cuts to individual rates.

In F.Y. 2000, federal revenues were $2.03 trillion.  George W. Bush inherited a recession and stagnant economy, and for three straight years, revenues dropped, despite high taxes, until F.Y. 2003, when they were down to $1.72 trillion.  After Bush cut the rates substantially, revenues went up for four straight years to $2.57 trillion.  They were up $850 billion because of the stimulating effect to the economy — so Democrats don't care about the evidence.

Here's a record of income for each fiscal year since 1960.

The silliest statement the writer makes is that Hillary was a thoughtful technocratic candidate.  She supported Obama's policies that gave us the slowest economic recovery in seventy years.  She supported Obamacare that gave us rapidly increasing premiums and loss of choice despite promises to the contrary.  She supported the Paris Climate Accord despite the massive cost and destruction it would cause to the U.S. economy while doing little or nothing for the climate.  She used "experts" like Mark Zandi, who predicted wrongly that Trump's policies would destroy the economy and predicted that her policies would greatly help the economy despite the bad results from Obama.

Democrats and "experts" predicted wrongly that the shutdown would cause great harm to the economy.  They pulled a number out of a hat that the shutdown cost $6 billion.  The experts were shocked when over 300,000 jobs were created in January.  The stock market has also skyrocketed for almost eight straight weeks right after the shutdown started.  Why didn't the experts factor that wealth increase in their economic calculations?

There is also a great deal of evidence that walls do work despite Democrat lies.

Then the journalist claims that it is Republicans who are racists.  It is the Democrats who claim that minorities don't have the capability to get photo IDs to vote, even though they require photo IDs for many things.  It is the Democrats who hang around with the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  It is the Democrats who seek to keep minorities dependent on government, and it is the Democrats who throw out the purely racist term "white privilege."  Democrats always play the race card because their policies are so regressive and oppressive.

Catherine Rampell, a journalist for the Washington Post, has written an opinion piece claiming that Democrat policies have been based on experts and evidence and worries that because of people like Ocasio-Cortez, they risk becoming more like Republicans, who use slogans without evidence and who depend on cranks instead of experts.

Democrats in 2020 are at risk of turning into Republicans in 2016, minus the racism.

By which I mean: emphasizing empty slogans instead of evidence-based policy, rejecting experts in favor of cranks, handwaving away questions about implementation and promising that an expensive policy will magically "pay for itself" through economic growth.

It doesn't have to be this way.

There is, in fact, vibrant, nuanced debate within the Democratic Party over policy approaches that could improve the lives of regular Americans.

There are rival proposals for how to revamp our health-care system, including through Medicare expansion, Medicaid buy-in or single-payer.  Same with tax policy: Democratic presidential hopefuls have proposed expansions of the earned-income tax credit and child tax credit, a new wealth tax, tax-advantaged savings accounts for educational expenses, and so on.

In 2016, after all, Donald Trump won by offering up a series of empty slogans: Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.  Let's win again against China. Replace Obamacare with Something Terrific.  

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was the thoughtful, technocratic candidate.  She had white papers galore.  What's more, her proposals had pay-fors, making her the most fiscally responsible candidate in either party's primary.  

I believe she has the parties mixed up in that many Democrat policies that she says are based on evidence are not.  People whom Democrats call experts are cranks that just spew forth talking points.

Here are some examples:

Democrats passed Obamacare with help from "experts" who said the law would allow people to keep their doctors and keep their plans, would reduce premiums, and would reduce the budget deficit.  Those statements were knowingly and obviously false, because any law that dictates what plan you must have, adds massive mandates and regulations, and increases taxes substantially would not allow any of those things.  Most stenographers in the media just went along and repeated those lies.  The Democrats know the results of Obamacare and yet want to further reduce choice and claim that it will help people.  Democrats also claimed, with no evidence, that taking away the individual mandate in 2019 would substantially increase premiums.  Again, that was a lie, as premiums have stabilized for the first time in years.

Democrats and "experts" claim with no evidence that bureaucrats and politicians can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if the public just hands them trillions of dollars.  There is substantial evidence that the climate has always fluctuated cyclically and naturally long before humans and hydrocarbon fuels and the constant changing of predictions from cooling to warming to "climate change" shows that the cycles continue despite exponential growth in fuel use and population growth.

Democrats in many states are expanding abortion up to 40 weeks and possibly beyond if the baby survives an abortion attempt.  They call this "freedom of choice" or "reproductive rights."  The bills should instead be called freedom to kill, because there is no scientific reason to ever kill a viable infant.  If the mother truly has health issues, they should deliver the viable child instead of killing him.

The Democrats, without evidence, want to reduce the wealth gap by confiscating a greater share from whoever they decide is rich.  When and where have high taxes reduced the wealth gap?  They want to move toward socialism, even though there is evidence that socialism keeps people poor while the leaders greatly enrich themselves.  There is substantial evidence that high taxes and government power increase the wealth gap between the Washington, D.C. area and the rest of the country, and Democrats want more for the wealthiest area, which will further expand the gap.

Capitalism, not socialism, is what has allowed the U.S. to be the most powerful country in the world in 243 short years.  Capitalism allows people of all races and both sexes to move up the economic ladder.  Socialism keeps people dependent on government and takes away freedom.

Democrats, with the collusion of cranks who call themselves experts, say tax cuts reduce revenue to the government.  There is a substantial amount of evidence that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and greatly increase revenues, not reduce them as Democrats, including most journalists, say.  The best example is Bush's 2003 substantial cuts to individual rates.

In F.Y. 2000, federal revenues were $2.03 trillion.  George W. Bush inherited a recession and stagnant economy, and for three straight years, revenues dropped, despite high taxes, until F.Y. 2003, when they were down to $1.72 trillion.  After Bush cut the rates substantially, revenues went up for four straight years to $2.57 trillion.  They were up $850 billion because of the stimulating effect to the economy — so Democrats don't care about the evidence.

Here's a record of income for each fiscal year since 1960.

The silliest statement the writer makes is that Hillary was a thoughtful technocratic candidate.  She supported Obama's policies that gave us the slowest economic recovery in seventy years.  She supported Obamacare that gave us rapidly increasing premiums and loss of choice despite promises to the contrary.  She supported the Paris Climate Accord despite the massive cost and destruction it would cause to the U.S. economy while doing little or nothing for the climate.  She used "experts" like Mark Zandi, who predicted wrongly that Trump's policies would destroy the economy and predicted that her policies would greatly help the economy despite the bad results from Obama.

Democrats and "experts" predicted wrongly that the shutdown would cause great harm to the economy.  They pulled a number out of a hat that the shutdown cost $6 billion.  The experts were shocked when over 300,000 jobs were created in January.  The stock market has also skyrocketed for almost eight straight weeks right after the shutdown started.  Why didn't the experts factor that wealth increase in their economic calculations?

There is also a great deal of evidence that walls do work despite Democrat lies.

Then the journalist claims that it is Republicans who are racists.  It is the Democrats who claim that minorities don't have the capability to get photo IDs to vote, even though they require photo IDs for many things.  It is the Democrats who hang around with the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  It is the Democrats who seek to keep minorities dependent on government, and it is the Democrats who throw out the purely racist term "white privilege."  Democrats always play the race card because their policies are so regressive and oppressive.