Updated: Oct 9, 2019
AOC is at it again, again.
As if the Green New Deal wasn't destructive enough, AOC has pinpointed a few portions of the economy she had previously forgotten to destroy in her first $90+ trillion bill. This past weekend, the Socialist Congresswoman from New York introduced her massive new economic and social plan entitled, "A Just Society." (How could you be against that??)
Now she wants to institute a national rent control. Capping rental increases at no more than 3% per year. Not only is this a bad idea, it's also been a terrible reality for those living under strict rent control in places like New York, and San Francisco.
Regardless of the intentions, Rent Control is a price control. Setting caps on free market prices has always led to shortages, and rent control is no exception. In this case, the shortage would be (and has been) in housing. That’s nothing to joke about.
When you control prices charged for rent, you might feel as though you're helping the people that can't afford higher prices. In fact, like most government policies, it hurts the very people it aims to help.
Rent control leads to a decreased investment in housing. Those who have money to invest, have choices in the areas in which they want to invest their hard-earned money. In a free market, they may decide that the financial benefit of building apartment complexes outweighs the potential risks.
Regardless of the feelings you had in reading that previous statement, it's the truth of the situation. In a price controlled market, people with money will choose to invest elsewhere. Prices must always be free to fluctuate. In a market where you've basically only allowed the prices to fluctuate down, you're going to get less investment, and subsequently less available housing. Such as we've seen in the case of housing shortages in cities that have strict laws on rental prices.
You might be in poverty
In addition to that, AOC wants to move the poverty line. Her new poverty threshold would take into account your ability to afford "neccessities" like high-speed internet. This would undoubtedly, and by design, move hundreds of thousands if not millions more into the "poverty" category. This would of course create a much greater need for more welfare spending, and of course, higher taxes.
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the fact that we live in a society so great, that not having access to high-speed internet can make you "impoverished." Who would have known that in 1985 100% of the worlds population was in poverty?
You get government money, and you get government money, and you...
As if that wasn't all destructive enough, she wants to officially make welfare available for everyone, regardless of their immigration status.
This might be a rhetorical question, but does math even matter anymore? Is there any consideration for the fact that we literally cannot afford to make government welfare available for everyone in the world? By saying that I mean, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, right? Apparently not. Forget the fact that we already don't have enough money to fund the current liabilities with Social Security and Medicare- that apparently does not matter either.
Will we ever have a return to rationality in politics? What does it say for our education system when an entire section of society thinks you can pay out 10 trillion dollars worth of benefits with 4 trillion dollars worth of income?
Welcome to 2019, America.