When political radicals cannot explain who gets taxed, how much gets taken, or where the money goes, every American should start watching their wallet.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once observed that there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. I have spent enough time around politicians, political operators, and people who genuinely believe they are the smartest person in the room to know exactly what he meant.
And if Goethe were alive today and forced to sit through some of these podcast interviews with the current crop of political operators, I suspect he would reach for a stiff drink, shake his head, and conclude that humanity had learned absolutely nothing.
Because what I am watching from the Democratic Socialists of America and its leadership is not merely political radicalism. It is a masterclass in economic cluelessness. And frankly, the combination should scare the hell out of anyone who works for a living, owns a business, saves for retirement, or simply expects the government to have some idea what it is doing with their money.
Let me be very clear about something before anyone tries to twist my argument. I believe people should pay their fair share of taxes. I have no problem with the principle that those at the top of the economic ladder should not be allowed to manipulate the system to avoid contributing. Fairness matters.
But there is a gigantic difference between believing in progressive taxation and handing the keys to the treasury to people who cannot explain the basic mechanics of their own economic agenda.
And that brings me to something I find particularly disturbing.
If you are sitting comfortably right now thinking, “Well, this whole wealth-redistribution thing is aimed at billionaires. It has nothing to do with me,” I have a wake-up call for you.
When the people demanding sweeping economic redistribution cannot even tell you what “rich” means, cannot articulate the income threshold at which you become a target, and cannot explain precisely how much revenue their policies are supposed to generate, you should probably start paying attention.
Because eventually, somebody has to write the check.
Case in point: DSA co-chair Megan Romer recently appeared on The New Yorker Radio Hour, and what followed was, in my view, an absolute performance for the ages.
David Remnick pressed her on an incredibly basic question: How exactly does the organization intend to finance the sweeping economic agenda it is advocating by taxing the wealthy?
Her response?
“Uhhhh, yeah, you know, again, I don’t have like a solid answer.”
Then she chuckled.
I want you to think about that for a second.
This isn’t someone sitting around a dorm room arguing about political theory. This is a leader of a political organization advocating a fundamental restructuring of the American economic system.
And when asked how the hell she intends to pay for it, the answer is essentially: I don’t know.
Followed by a laugh.
I’ve been around politics long enough to know that when someone cannot answer a basic question, they frequently try to bury the deficiency beneath a mountain of words.
That’s essentially what happened next.
When Remnick pressed her on whether the co-chair of an organization advocating massive financial restructuring might want to offer something a little more concrete than slogans, Romer essentially responded, “That’s a good question.”
Well, yes. It is a good question.
It’s actually the question. The question I would be asking on my new 77WABC show “When You Know…You Know.”
She then pivoted into broad language about determining what we need to spend, focusing on billionaires who exploited working people, democracy, and establishing an interim tax base.
Fine.
But where are the numbers?
Where is the threshold?
Where is the actual definition?
Where is the economic model?
Where is the point at which someone goes from being a billionaire target to a millionaire target to a successful small-business owner who simply had the audacity to build something valuable?
This would be funny if the stakes weren’t becoming increasingly serious.
Because these people are no longer simply campus activists waving signs and shouting slogans at rallies. They are winning elections. None of this is partisan; it’s personal. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike are being played, and sooner or later, every one of us gets the bill.
We’ve seen DSA-backed candidates make real gains in New York Democratic primaries. Candidates such as Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez have secured victories with the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
That changes the equation.
When an ideological movement begins converting its rhetoric into political power, I stop laughing and start paying attention.
Because now these ideas aren’t confined to podcasts, protest rallies, or social media posts. They are moving toward legislative chambers where somebody eventually has to turn the slogans into actual policy.
And government policy has consequences.
Donald Trump, naturally, has seized on this spectacle because it feeds directly into his favorite political narrative. He has mocked Mamdani, celebrated the election of what he describes as communists, declared that “the game is on,” and warned that communism is a cancer that needs to be cut out.
Trump knows exactly what he is doing.
He takes the most extreme rhetoric coming from the left, puts it under a political spotlight, and turns it into an existential argument about the future of America.
But here’s the irony that I think the radical left consistently fails to understand:
Every time they demonstrate breathtaking incompetence, they make Trump’s argument for him.
When someone cannot explain how their economic program works, what the definition of “rich” is, Trump’s warnings suddenly sound less ridiculous to voters who are already worried about their jobs, taxes, mortgages, savings, and retirement.
And that’s the tragedy.
The real danger isn’t simply another predictable partisan food fight between Democrats and Republicans. I have lived through enough of those to know how this movie ends.
The real danger is an economic philosophy that treats public finance like a game of political pickup basketball.
You cannot simply announce, “We’re going to tax the rich,” and leave the definition of “rich” for later.
You cannot promise sweeping new spending while shrugging when someone asks how you’re going to pay for it.
And you certainly cannot laugh when asked to explain the arithmetic.
Because eventually the math comes due.
Today, it’s billionaires.
Tomorrow, maybe it’s millionaires.
Then perhaps it’s successful entrepreneurs, small-business owners, investors, professionals, or anyone whose income happens to exceed whatever new political threshold gets established.
And eventually, you can find yourself looking at the retirement account, home, or savings you spent decades building and wondering when exactly you became the “wealthy” person they promised they wouldn’t come after.
I’ve watched political movements throughout my life convince themselves that moral certainty is a substitute for competence.
It isn’t.
Good intentions don’t balance budgets.
Slogans don’t finance government.
And laughter isn’t an economic policy.
I believe in fairness. I believe the wealthy should contribute. I believe government has legitimate responsibilities to its citizens.
But I also believe that before politicians start reaching into my pocket, or yours, they damn well better be able to explain exactly how much they intend to take, from whom, why, and what we are getting in return.
That’s not radical.
That’s basic accountability.
And if the people demanding control over the economy cannot answer those elementary questions, I don’t want them anywhere near the controls.
Because when ideology replaces competence, arithmetic eventually wins.
And when arithmetic wins, guess whose wallet gets opened first?
Consider yourself warned.