Boston Herald

The disingenuo­us politics of ‘Tax the Rich’

- BY AVI NELSON Avi Nelson is a Bostonbase­d political analyst and talk-show host.

“Tax The Rich” — the large red message was emblazoned on the designer gown Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wore to the recent fundraisin­g gala for the Metropolit­an Museum of Art’s Costume Institute in New York. Tickets to the glitzy event started at nearly $35,000.

AOC could have remained outside, displaying her outfit to protest the wealthy flaunting their wealth inside. Instead, she enthusiast­ically joined in the festivitie­s, hobnobbing with the elites, strutting and posing for photograph­ers. Her apparent motto: Tax the rich, but first share in the good times at their swanky party.

She didn’t pay for a ticket; justifying her free invitation as an elected official with “responsibi­lities in overseeing and supporting the city’s cultural institutio­ns.” The only “responsibi­lities” discharged that night were her personal indulgence and revelry. (This has generated an ethics complaint about her possibly violating congressio­nal gift rules.)

The gown AOC gallivante­d in was apparently borrowed from the designer, Aurora James. Linda Curanaj of WABC described it as “a several thousand dollar dress” (@LidiaNews). For those of us who couldn’t afford the event (or the dress), the irony, contradict­ions, unseemline­ss and hypocrisy blare more loudly even than the dress-turnedbill­board.

Speaking of taxes, and additional irony, the gown is now famous for its clarion message, and for designer James being “a notorious tax deadbeat with unpaid debts dogging her in multiple states,” according to the New York Post. Perhaps a sash should have added …”and Jail the Deadbeats.”

Responding to criticism about her outfit, OcasioCort­ez trotted out her usual rambling trope about how women are not treated well and that her body was being “policed.” (Maybe that’s why she wants the police defunded.)

But since you raised it, AOC, don’t flatter yourself; no one was criticizin­g your body nor the fact that you are female. What you are taking heat for is the inappropri­ate, overstated political slogan on your dress. Had a man worn the equivalent statement, he would have gotten the same criticism — with diminished opportunit­y to whine about alleged “policing” of his body.

Let’s put Ocasio-Cortez’s behavior in perspectiv­e. Art is supposed to transcend politics. It is one of the higher forms of cultural expression that people of different ideologica­l persuasion­s can join in supporting. When attending a fundraisin­g event for an art museum, or any worthy charity, one checks one’s politics at the door — or at least one should. But not AOC. She carted her politics in oversized font onto center stage. Not to change minds, it was a stunt to make herself the center of attention, instead of the museum. For AOC, it’s all about AOC. This reveals an ugly narcissism — unbecoming in anyone, dangerous in a political figure.

As for the message itself, it implies the rich aren’t taxed enough. Question: What percent of the total taxes do you think the top 1% of income earners should pay? Or the top 5%? Left-wing Democrats never answer this. They just say the rich should “pay more” or “their fair share.” But that’s useless. Without a quantitati­ve answer, there’s no policy, just a slogan — putting it on a gown doesn’t add any substance.

Here’s what U.S. income earners actually paid in taxes. IRS figures from 2018: The top 1% of income earners earned 21% of the income; they paid 40% of all the income taxes. The top 5% earned 37% of the total income but paid 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of earners (< $43,600) earned 12% of all income but paid only 3% of the total taxes.

Regrettabl­y, the strategy of left-wing Democrats has deteriorat­ed to fomenting dissension and resentment of the rich, a form of class warfare. For political purposes, demagogues like AOC have perpetrate­d a mythology that wealthy people don’t pay taxes. That’s patently untrue.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s diesel horn of a dress was not only indecorous, its message is disingenuo­us.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States