The spooky factor of socialism
By: Sam Jones, Columnist
As Halloween approaches, and the goblins and ghouls come out to play, another monstrous creature lurks in the shadows, ready to strike on its gullible prey. Through its lies of morality, and a better future, popular support for socialism is sweeping across the country like the plague. The left claims a major difference between “lovely democratic socialism” and the socialism of the past that has never actually been successful. Though, what socialism actually is largely depends on who you’re talking to.
Socialism is universally defined as “a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control.” Presidential candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have brought socialist policies to the forefront of the American political debate. Universal healthcare and education at little to no cost to the general public are among the promises that socialist leaders bring. However, my fear of socialism does not come from the talking points. It comes from the execution of said policies.
Universal healthcare, leftists have claimed, will decrease the cost of healthcare for middle-class families. However, when presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is asked how this will affect tax rates, she side steps the question every time. Even Late Night Show host Stephen Colbert was unable to get a direct answer when he asked Warren how her healthcare plan would affect taxes. However, it is obvious that doctors will still need to be paid, and the medical field will still need to produce large amounts of income to be able to continue operating.
Additionally, most universal healthcare plans would abolish the option of private healthcare. Instead of mandating healthcare through the government, many critics have suggested perfecting a public option, while still allowing those with private insurance to keep their current plans. I would be far more likely to accept this plan, as it would offer an option to those who need better coverage through public insurance, while allowing the freedom to choose private insurance if it is the preferred option for individual citizens.
To my progressive friends and readers — while it is possible that we have reached some common ground on the healthcare debate above, we will not reach any agreement on the debate over free education.
My two roommates decided that college was not for them, and decided to go into blue-collar trade work. They started out making little to nothing, but after several semesters of training and trade school, their salaries have grown exponentially. The main point here is, college is not for everyone.
If the government allows anyone to come to Towson University for free, the level of academia could decrease. Think about some of your friends who did not choose college. Would they perform as well as someone who, throughout their whole high school education, worked hard and planned on attending college?
Additionally, the cost of education, which is extremely high, will not decrease. Between 1958 and 2005, the cost of a college education rose faster than the general inflation rate. This will continue, especially if the government claims they will front the cost.
However, they won’t front the cost. Taxpayers will pay their entire lives for others education, instead of paying once for their own. There are countless routes that one can take to find success in this country, and attending college is only one of them. Mastering a trade, like my roommates did, is a great alternative to a college education that can put you in a financially stable situation. You can always go to college once you have that stability.
The best solution to the college tuition crisis is to know if you can afford it, and if you can’t, consider alternatives to a college education.
