I’m talking about the Panama Papers. Though Wisconsin is nice, too. Bernie said when the treaty with Panama was proposed that it was unwise because of Panama’s reputation for enabling tax avoidance. He said nothing, in spite of what the other democrat wants you to believe, about money laundering or other forms of fraudulent financial transactions. He called it on tax avoidance, which is an area he has fought against for decades.
Bernie has a way of picking out the problems with various statutes, treaties, or agreements in Congress. After all, he famously predicted in 2003 the following, the fifth of five points to consider before spending our treasure in the Middle East:
“Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.”
Bernie is many things to many people, but his current role seems to be a thorn in Hillary’s side. It must be difficult to argue, as she must, that she is the “better” candidate because she “evolves.” He was positively prescient about the result of the ill-fated move to war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the terror that gripped this country. In 2008, Hillary opposed the treaty with Panama that led to the recent disclosures, but became a firm supporter and cheerleader for it when she took over as Secretary of State. In much the way that she extolled the TPP as the gold standard of treaties, she went all in for the Panama treaty in spite of Bernie’s clarion view.
When I think about the person I will choose to vote for, one of the things I look for is vision. And vision that proves to be accurate is much more appealing than vision which changes to meet the current situation. All in all, I’d rather be with the one who got it right the first time, who saw the danger, argued for a different path, gave cogent reasons for following that different path, and didn’t change. Sorry, Hillary.