[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 37 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1564-S1565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Socialism

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as strange as it seems, socialism is 
having a bit of a resurgence here in the Nation's Capital these days.
  Why, you might ask, has this failed economic theory that is so 
destructive of individual freedom captured the attention of some of our 
friends in the Democratic Party? I admit, to me, it is somewhat of a 
mystery.
  My guess is I am not the only one who assumed that every American has 
learned the lessons of history and that those lessons are common 
knowledge. Apparently not. One other possibility is that socialism is a 
stalking horse for other, less obvious goals. I will have more to say 
about what the Founders believed about the concentration of government 
power that would be needed to implement these utopian schemes at a 
later time. I also will return to the Senate floor at another time to 
talk about the well-funded efforts, including in the State of Texas, to 
advance the cause of socialism, unbeknownst to most of my fellow 
Texans.
  Maybe self-identified socialists or democratic socialists--by the 
way, that is an impossible contradiction in terms. You can't be 
democratic and a socialist at the same time. Obviously, people put 
those two terms together to try to mask their true intentions.
  Obviously, these self-identified democratic socialists have never 
learned what it is or what it stands for. Recent polling suggests that 
Americans have vastly different ideas about what socialism really 
means. A Gallup poll, for example, found that 23 percent of the people 
who responded understood that it means economic equality--though the 
definition of what equality looks like varies pretty significantly. 
About the same number of people said they didn't know or had no opinion 
of what socialism means. Roughly 17 percent understand it to mean 
government ownership or control of business and the economy.
  There were a variety of answers, ranging from government-guaranteed 
benefits to communism, to people simply being social and getting along. 
That is what some people think socialism is. This confusion about what, 
exactly, socialism is has allowed its supporters to push this 
discredited idea back into the political mainstream.
  The so-called democratic socialists are trying to convince the 
American people that bigger government and less liberty are the 
solutions to economic inequality. But they don't just want economic 
opportunity or equal opportunity; they want equal outcomes. They 
clearly want to put the government in charge of Americans' lives.
  To be sure, they will not be honest about the means by which that 
equality would be accomplished under socialism. They use a lot of feel-
good phrases to mask the consequences of their argument. They say 
things like ``give a voice to the voiceless'' or ``to achieve a more 
just society.'' What they don't tell you is that in order to 
redistribute economic benefits, you would have to marshal the power of 
the government to coerce the American people to give up the fruits of 
their labor in pursuit of socialist, utopian aims.
  While socialists will not tell you what the government would have to 
do to force that redistribution, they like to point to Scandinavian 
countries as a model for socialism's success. But there are some 
problems with that.
  They will say: Look at Denmark. They have free higher education, 
universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare, and they are doing 
great. So, they say, socialism works. But facts are stubborn things. 
For one, Denmark is not a socialist country. Just ask the Danish Prime 
Minister, who said:

       Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is 
     a market economy.

  The left argues: It is still a good model. We want that.
  OK, so how are they paying for all of these programs? It is certainly 
not just from the top 1 percent of the wealthiest of Americans. It is 
the middle class too. Margaret Thatcher once said: ``The problem with 
socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.''

  Let's look at tax rates. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the 
world. In the United States, tax revenue accounts for just over a 
quarter of the size of our economy. In Denmark, it is 50 percent--or 
double.
  Let's also compare our two countries. The population of the country 
of Denmark is roughly 1/60th the population of the United States. In 
terms of landmass, it is about 16,000 square miles. Texas is almost 17 
times the size of Denmark.
  So if the model used in Denmark is, one, not socialism and, two, 
unaffordable, let's instead look for a better example of a country that 
has embraced socialism. I would suggest Venezuela would be a good 
candidate.
  In the late 1990s, then-Presidential Candidate Hugo Chavez delivered 
impassioned speeches promising to lead Venezuela into a socialist 
paradise. He talked about the country's wealth being stolen by evil 
capitalists and greedy corporations and promised hope and change if he 
was elected. That sounds similar to some of the snake oil being sold by 
a number of radical Democrats today. By the way, you don't see caravans 
of people attempting to immigrate to socialist countries like 
Venezuela. It is just the opposite.
  We now know that Chavez's promises were empty and dangerous, and 
while Venezuela certainly saw a lot of change, it wasn't the kind they 
wanted or the kind they expected. The government took over businesses; 
they shut down free markets; and they suppressed free speech. As a 
result, one of the richest countries in the world is now among the 
poorest. Basic commodities like food, medicine, and water are in short 
supply; freedom of the press has disappeared; crime rates have 
skyrocketed; and millions have fled.
  Of course, it is no surprise that self-proclaimed socialists in the 
United

[[Page S1565]]

States refuse to accept this as an example of socialism. But this is 
the truth. That is why socialism must be soundly rejected.
  Sir Winston Churchill, who had an incredible gift for words, once 
said:

       The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of 
     blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal 
     sharing of miseries.

  Clearly, misery would be a result of a current fad celebrating 
socialism, and we must firmly and clearly reject it.
  In a society like ours, based on the free enterprise system, business 
owners compete for business and make decisions based on what the 
customer wants and needs, and this helps keep the cost of living low 
while offering consumers choice.
  Competition and free enterprise are the opposite of centrally planned 
and administered socialist economies and the only economic system 
compatible with individual liberty.
  In a socialist country, the government owns or controls everything. 
If you don't like it or insist on going your own way, you will be 
squished like a bug. Socialism forces citizens to be submissive to the 
government's plan--a far cry from the freedoms and liberties promised 
under our Constitution.
  Most Americans don't want the government to run their lives. They 
want less government, which is to say they want more freedom. So while 
things like free healthcare or free higher education or free housing 
sound pretty good superficially, they are a fantasy and part of the 
agenda to move the United States toward a socialist, government-
controlled economy.
  Under our free enterprise system, people work to earn their living. 
The harder you work, the more you benefit and the better you can 
provide for yourself and your family. That is something we call the 
American dream. But with socialism, that kind of motivation doesn't 
exist at all. Why would you put in the extra effort? Why would you work 
longer hours when you will receive the same pay and benefits as 
everybody else? Why would you pursue an advanced degree and pour your 
heart into researching new medical cures when you know, at the end of 
the day, the person who chooses to do nothing will receive the same 
benefits you do? Well, you wouldn't. That is why socialism doesn't 
work.
  In a recent Washington Post column, George Will defined today's 
understanding of socialism as this:

       Almost everyone will be nice to almost everyone, using 
     money taken from a few. This means having government 
     distribute, according to its conception of equity, the wealth 
     produced by capitalism.

  The problem is, as he said, the government will take and take until 
eventually there is nothing more to take. Once that happens, the 
economy will tank; jobs will dry up; taxes will get higher to pay for 
the benefits promised; and those utopian sentiments will not feel quite 
so good anymore.
  The enemy of socialism isn't greed. It is experience. That is why 
there are no socialist success stories. Venezuela, the Soviet Union, 
Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania--time and again, we have seen socialism 
fail. That has been the universal experience.
  As President Trump said in Miami last week:

       Socialism promises prosperity, but it delivers poverty. 
     Socialism promises unity, but it delivers hatred and it 
     delivers division. Socialism promises a better future, but it 
     always returns to the darkest chapters of the past.

  Slapping the word ``democratic'' in front of the word ``socialism'' 
doesn't make it any less radical or any less terrifying. In fact, 
democracy and socialism are at war with each other.
  This is not about lifting up the poor. It is about taking our freedom 
away and turning it over to our government overlords and taskmasters.
  As so many seem to have forgotten the lessons of history, I plan to 
return to the Senate floor to discuss this disturbing trend further and 
remind the American people why socialism is the enemy, not a friend, of 
our country.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 2 minutes, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.