AP NEWS

Peter Lucas: Democrats Separate Good Billionaires from Bad Billionaires

February 8, 2019

There are good billionaires and there are bad billionaires.

You are a good billionaire if you want to impeach President Donald Trump and contribute to progressive Democrats running for president.

You are a bad billionaire if you want to run for president yourself.

Tom Steyer, the rich California hedge fund political activist, is a good billionaire because, in the eyes of progressive Democrats, he is spending his own money to impeach Trump. And he is not running for president, or so he says.

Howard Schultz, former CEO of Starbucks, and Michael Bloomberg, both of whom are interested in running for president, are bad billionaires because they want to compete and spend their own money rather than beg from others.

There are so many Democrats running for president that a wealthy candidate like Schultz or Bloomberg could rack up a series of primary victories over less well-heeled Democrats. And that scares the hell out of the Democratic political establishment.

In addition, Schultz and Bloomberg, both self-made men, are vehemently opposed to the confiscatory tax plans proposed by left-leaning Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, that would impose steep taxes on acquired wealth in addition to other, existing taxes.

The Democratic Party, once the party of working-class Americans, has changed so radically that it has broken into two wings.

One wing is made up of men who accumulated vast wealth, like Bloomberg and Schultz. The other wing is made up of people like Warren and Harris who want to take away that wealth.

They, like the increasing number of radical socialists in the Democratic Party, would turn that wealth over to the government so that it could redistribute it to the needy, the way it was done in the workers’ paradises of Cuba and Venezuela. The only people who acquire wealth in socialist countries are the elitist socialist who run them. Everybody else goes hungry.

That aside, Steyer has brought his Need to Impeach campaign to Massachusetts. Through television ads, Steyer is seeking to pressure the state’s congressional delegation into going after Trump, as if it needed any encouragement.

He has mainly targeted U.S. Rep. Richard Neal of Springfield, who is the new chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and who has the authority to subpoena Trump’s income tax records, which have never been made public.

Trump all along has maintained that his income tax records have been under review and that it would be premature to release them before a federal audit was completed. If so, it is one of the longest audits in history.

Steyer, who has already spent millions in his campaign to get the U.S. House to impeach Trump, is spending some $109,000 more for ads running in western Massachusetts.

The ads are designed to get Neal’s constituents to pressure him to get Trump’s tax records and begin impeachment proceedings.

“It’s time to hold Donald Trump accountable, and we can do our part in Massachusetts,” a voice over in the ad says. “All we need is our congressman, Richard Neal, to be with us. Neal can subpoena Trump’s tax returns and vote to start impeachment hearings against the most lawless and corrupt president in American history.”

The ad also asks voters to call Neal and urge him to begin impeachment.

While Steyer and his ad may have caused something of a stir, it might have been far easier -- and perhaps more effective -- if he talked to Neal.

Far be it for me to tell a billionaire what to do -- millionaires do not even listen to me -- but perhaps Steyer could request such a meeting when he visits Springfield Tuesday as scheduled.

There he could just ask Neal to support impeachment, and Neal would say “of course.”

That way Steyer could have saved all that money and devoted it to a real campaign for president, and not the stealth campaign he is running now.

Speaking of millionaires, Warren, who is expected to make her presidential candidacy official in Lawrence Saturday, is in the curious position of attacking fellow Democrats who also happen to be rich.

It is curious because Warren is quite well off herself with a net worth of $8 million. And it is unseemly to watch Democrat millionaires squabbling with Democrat billionaires.

The $8 million may be a paltry sum compared to the wealth of Bloomberg, Schultz and Steyer, but it is more money than the people of poor Lawrence will ever see in a lifetime.

Email: luke1825@aol.com

AP RADIO
Update hourly