When one Democratic candidate goes to the left, the other candidates lurch to match. We’ve seen it in support for the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, and super-high tax rates for the rich. We’re about to see it in regards to organized labor as Bernie Sanders’s campaign has become the first group in presidential campaign history to form a union.

one of the few accurate reports. Recognizing a union that has demonstrated majority support is not some act of charity or social conscience. It's the law. https://t.co/Mz4o0eoLpU

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) March 16, 2019

My Take

Whether this was a decision by campaign leadership to demonstrate their boss’s leftist credibility or of they’re simply being the leftists that they are, we can’t be sure. In fact, we’ll almost certainly never know. Either way, it’s done and now all of the other leftist campaigns have to respond.

Expect every major campaign team to unionize soon. It’s not because it will make them more effective. It won’t help them get better benefits or retain their jobs for longer term since the organization will fundamentally change following the election. All it will do is allow them to make the claim they’re so pro-union, they’re willing to accept the lost productivity associated with organized labor.

This is quickly becoming the most symbol-driven primary election season we’ve seen in decades, perhaps ever. It would all be very entertaining if it weren’t so dangerous to the American psyche.

One of the favorite tactics for the new Democrats to push their idea of super-high taxes on the rich is to invoke Dwight D. Eisenhower. They say even a Republican President once believed in high taxes on the rich, a time in which the highest tax bracket was 90%.

John Stossel an economic historian Phillip Magness debunked the myth that rich people actually paid the extreme tax rates of the past in this video. As usual, Democrats have selective memories when it comes to anything they want to press.

Back in the days of high taxes for the rich, there were enough loopholes intentionally left open for them to cut their actual tax rates tremendously. According to Magness, the actual average rate paid by millionaires back then was around 41%. With fewer loopholes available today, the highest tax bracket of 37% is close to what is actually paid by those earning the most money. But what would happen if the high tax rates of the past were combined with the lack of loopholes of today? We’d have an economic collapse that would hit so swiftly, there’s no way Democrats would have time to react.

The bottom line is this: the best producers in America will no longer have an incentive to produce here. Some would leave. Others would simply stop producing. It’s easier for them to reduce their revenue and live off their accumulated riches than to earn money for the government to take. Even at a “more reasonable” 70% tax rate, as proposed by some of the top Democrats today, the increase would be too great for most wealthy Americans to bear. We saw this play out in France. We could see it play out here if the Democrats get their way.

Fighting the talking points of the left is one of the biggest reasons conservative sites like NOQ Report exist. We call on those who want to help prevent the rise of socialistic ideas to contribute to us; as a news outlet that is crowdfunded, you’ll notice a conspicuous lack of spammy ads that you find on other sites. This is intentional and allows us to reach a broader audience with the conservative truth.

Democrats love pretending like raising taxes on the rich will solve all of our problems. They know it’s not true, but it certainly sound good in campaign speeches. This isn’t really a tax grab. It’s a power grab designed to confuse the people.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

The two opposing viewpoints when it comes to funding Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics are based on whether or not our tax dollars should be used to pay for abortions on demand or not. Planned Parenthood supporters want access for everyone and government money helps achieve this. Pro-Life activists want abortions limited or removed altogether, making funding of abortion clinics antithetical to their cause.

This is why a ruling in Ohio is getting so much attention.

Good! #DefundPP https://t.co/XFBXRxInMJ

— Pro-Life Action League (@ProLifeAction) March 13, 2019

But this isn’t really about pro-abortion versus pro-life. It really isn’t even about whether or not Planned Parenthood should be funded by taxpayers. This portion of the debate is about whether or not a state legislature has the power to decide how the people’s money is spent. For a court, any court, to claim that doing so is unconstitutional should send shivers down everyone’s spine, even those who support funding Planned Parenthood. When the courts decide who gets taxpayer funding, the power of the people is lost.

One of the things that separates NOQ Report from other conservative news outlets is our willingness to go to the heart of a matter. On the surface, this seems like a fight over funding, but the real issue here that everyone seems to be ignoring is the removal of our rights when an overpowered court continues to neuter our elected officials. This is why we request our readers help keep us 100% crowdfunded. We need support to keep these messages flowing.

Let’s fight this battle with our votes. Let’s fight it in state capitals. Even those who oppose defunding Planned Parenthood should be able to recognize that a judge declaring withdrawal of funding unconstitutional is a dangerous precedent. They wouldn’t be so happy about it if a different judge said it was illegal to fund Planned Parenthood. If that were the case, even pro-life conservatives should be screaming about overreach.

Judicial activism is rampant in America. It’s happening on both sides, though the left seems to be much more willing to contort the Constitution to fit their political ideology.

The debate over funding should be fought in the legislature. When the courts step in and declare a legislature does not have the right to fund or defund an entity, it’s clear judicial overreach. Neither side of the debate should want this.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?