The ideological guru of the “Occupy” movement is Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a leftist hard enough to cut glass with her ideology. Her big contribution to the “income inequality” debate was arguing, in a famous viral video, that since no one can prosper without using public resources, the State rightfully owns all wealth and property. Rich people benefitted disproportionately from those public resources, so there is no morally defensible upper limit to what the State can decide to take from them.
It was soon discovered that Warren is yet another liberal blowhard who doesn’t “walk the walk,” as she decided not to pay the voluntary “millionaires’ tax” in Massachusetts, even though she is extremely well-heeled.
Now Warren is stumping for President Obama’s new “student loan initiative,” in which a self-destructing bill written and passed by Democrats in 2007 – without the vote of Senator Barack Obama, who didn’t bother to show up when it was being voted on – would be extended to keep student loans at an artificially low rate of 3.4 percent. A great deal of this pander to the youth vote is based on the notion that rich Republicans don’t understand what it’s like to be a student, struggling to pay those fantastically inflated tuition rates, whose inflation we are angrily instructed not to discuss.
Right on cue, Warren’s opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown, noticed that Warren herself has an interest-free student loan from Harvard. As reported in the Boston Herald:
Warren disclosed the 20-year interest free loan from Harvard, which lent her between $15,000 and $50,000 in 1996, in financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate last September.
“Let me get this straight: struggling students and families pay more, so multi-millionaire Warren can pay nothing? This sweetheart deal adds insult to injury for the students whose high tuition costs have already made Warren a wealthy one-percenter, and reveals yet again Professor Warren’s hypocritical idea of fairness,” wrote Brown’s campaign manager Jim Barnett.
This won’t really bother the liberal base, which is very comfortable with the notion of its ruling-class demigods enjoying fabulous perks and luxurious lifestyles. (Barack Obama earned his Sun King lifestyle by “fighting for the people,” don’t you know!)
It will, however, complicate the sale of the student-loan narrative to independent voters nervously watching the federal debt mountain teeter over their heads. Case in point: the Herald quotes Boston College political science professor Marc Landry snapping, “There’s a very active market for great talent in academia. I don’t respect Brown’s effort to paint Warren as a privileged character. Can we move on to the real issues?”
But… but… I thought “everyone playing by the same rules” and the cosmic struggle against “unfairness” were the real issues. In fact, they are the only issues Democrats want to talk about. They certainly don’t want to discuss collapsing GDP, soaring unemployment, unsustainable government debt, “green energy” corruption, exploding gas prices, or whatever else Obama did when he was racking up another $5 trillion in debt over the last three years… funding everything except extended student loan subsidies.
Also, when private industry competes in the “active market for great talent,” people like Elizabeth Warren jump down their throats, howling bloody murder about “excessive compensation.” Their ideology is entirely based on the drive to tax that despicable excess away, so the all-knowing State can “invest” it for the public good.
The Brown campaign also noted that Ivy League tuitions have ballooned by at least $16,000 since Warren got her sweet interest-free loan, and she’s currently pulling down a $350,000 salary from Harvard – which is, all by itself, more than enough to make her an evil “millionaire” who shouldn’t be keeping her own money, let alone enjoying an interest-free student loan.
While we’re on the subject, does anyone actually have any details about Barack Obama’s student loans? He’s been complaining about them lately, but his academic career is shrouded in impenetrable mystery. Do we have any documentation about how much his higher education cost, and how it was financed? Could we get a comparison with how much the same education would cost today, in inflation-adjusted dollars?
If you’re a liberal, it’s time to look at yourself in the mirror and be brutally honest about something you’ve tacitly accepted thus far: there will never be a regime in which everyone is treated “fairly.” The elites will always live better than you do. They can get there by contributing to prosperity… or by spreading misery. When people like Obama and Warren thunder about “fairness” to student audiences, they should finish by throwing a fistful of ObamaCare waivers over the crowd.