Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D.
BOOK FRANK VERNUCCIO FOR AN INTERVIEW NOW BY EMAILING email@example.com or call Don at 813-792-21812
Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D., the editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, brings his 30 years of experience in government and professional writing and broadcast journalism to your audience. Vernuccio provides insights that captivate listeners.
The similar views of the three top candidates for the Democrat nomination for the White House, Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and, very soon, Vice President Joe Biden with President Obama insure that the 2016 campaign will be a referendum on the overarching goal the incumbent has pursued during his tenure in office: to reshape the American economy and culture into one designed to produce equality of outcomes. The President’s vision applies to non-Americans as well as to U.S. citizens.
Most of the ancillary issues, including examples such as the massive transfer of spending from defense to social programs, the virtually open borders, the reduced footprint of American forces across the globe, Obamacare, etc. are means to this end.
The White House has largely managed to avoid a substantive national conversation on this goal, although the inclusion of those outside the U.S. has lately come more into focus. In this aspect, Mr. Obama has been fortunate, thanks to a largely compliant media. A certain percentage of the voters receiving federal aid may be attracted to his philosophy, but his consistent inclusion of those outside America rankles many natural Democrat supporters, including inner city blacks and union rank and file members who have lost jobs due to the large influx of illegals tacitly allowed into the nation thanks to the Administration’s intentionally lax enforcement of the southern border.
While Clinton, Sanders and Biden are ideologically similar to the President, they differ considerably in style. Senator Sanders has been bluntly honest about his rejection of the traditional U.S. economic structure (he does disagree with the President on some job-related issues.) The other two have been more subtle but equally as committed to his vision. The more congenial Joe Biden would be more apt to work with Congress.
The lack of transparency on the part of the Obama Administration has been an instrumental part of its efforts, as is the significant attempts to chill opposition, whether through IRS intimidation, attempts to place monitors in newsrooms, the bugging of reporters, and the plans to regulate the internet. But those tactics will not work for candidates, whose goals and proposed strategies will be the subject of intense discussion and analysis.
As summer draws to a close, the political conversation appears to dwell increasingly on immigration. The continued, essentially unregulated influx across the U.S. southern border sheds light on the President’s unspoken but apparent rejection of placing American concerns above those of the global population.
The fact that the equality of outcomes idea, under whatever approach it has been tried, has failed apparently doesn’t faze the White House or the Democrat front-runners. Whether attempted in a strict setting such as the old USSR, or the more genial social-democrat nations of Europe, it has failed to produce economies that provide financial rewards for the diligent or an incentive to the private sector to expand hiring.
That shouldn’t be surprising, since the key goal is not the prosperity of the people, but their equality. Taking down the middle class to the level of the poor is as acceptable an outcome as is bringing the poor up to the middle class. Both results provide an equality of outcomes. Examples from across the globe and throughout history virtually guarantee, however, that more middle class will wind up poor than poor wind up as middle class.
The President’s rather autocratic style in attaining his vision– avoiding Congress has been virtually a mantra for Mr. Obama (I can’t wait for Congress to act,” “I have a pen and a phone,” and the labelling of key international deals as just about anything other than treaties which require the consent of Congress) may work against Biden, Clinton and Sanders unless they expressly reject the tactic. For those concerned about safeguarding Constitutional guarantees and procedures, the President’s—and many of his key supporters—rejection of those bedrock rights will also serve as a detriment to the Democrat nominee.