New in PJ Media:
The Democrats are constantly rattling on about getting the rich to pay their “fair share” in taxes, even though the percentages one must pay in federal income tax rise with one’s income. Yet in this, as in so very much else, leftists are total hypocrites. The latest example of this rampant hypocrisy is none other than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Workers’ Paradise), who has just been ordered to pony up fair market price for the infamous “Tax the Rich” dress she wore to the 2021 Met Gala.
Yes, that was four years ago. Yes, in this case the wheels of justice have ground exceedingly slowly, but since we’re talking about a leading leftist here and the notorious two-tier justice system that still exists, though it is not nearly as strong and unapologetic as it was during the dark days of the Biden regime, we should be grateful that they grind at all.
The New York Times reported Friday that AOC “personally paid about $1,000 to rent the dress and accessories. But in a report released on Friday, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee concluded her initial payment had fallen short of the fair market rate, violating House rules.”
That’s not to say that the Ethics Committee was suggesting that AOC was trying to skirt the rules regarding her fancy proletarian outfit. Perish the thought! When have socialists ever tried to bend the rules? The Times noted that “while the committee found no reason to believe that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was trying to stiff the vendors, it wrote that “it would be appropriate” for her to pay an additional $2,733.28 to cover what it determined was the full value of her outfit.”
The report explained: “While the committee did not find that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s violations were knowing and willful, she nonetheless received impermissible gifts and must bear responsibility for the other conduct that occurred with respect to the delays in payment.” A socialist being held responsible for her actions? Have the End Times begun?
Despite its insistence that the socialist firebrand did nothing wrong, the committee levied a fine of sorts: “The panel also urged the congresswoman to make a $250 donation to the Met’s Costume Institute, the beneficiary of the star-studded annual gala, to cover the cost of a meal for her partner, Riley Roberts, who accompanied her. Once she did, the panel would close the yearslong investigation, it said.”
It’s incredible that there was a “yearslong investigation” of this at all, but it was no surprise at all that AOC would preach about income inequality while enjoying all the perks of being a prominent public figure. Shouldn’t a dedicated fighter for the proletariat be entitled to a few small favors?
Read the rest here.
Ron says
A pig in silk stockings you say?
What does this sort of behavior say about her.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Ouch! So that “Tax the Rich” dress that she wore, w/ those words in a Chick-Fil-A font finally cost her an additional $2733.18? I get that that was the fair market value presumably at the time (I love how they could get that close to the ¢ on how much she owes), but do they also factor in the inflated cost given what renting that dress cost then vs what it costs now? Also, what did Riley eat that cost $250 – a ton of Iranian caviar? Incidentally, I thought they had broken up, or haven’t they?
Anyway, as Andrew Wilkow often says, Socialism is only for everybody else: it’s not for the Socialist!
somehistory says
The tickets for the event cost 35 thousand….each; and her fella got in ***free****….
she stiffed the makeup lady …$400 for makeup and hair do….
aoc is a loudmouthed cheating hypocrite.
She insists that the “rich” be taxed…so tax her, and then tax her some more. Tax her until the cows come home.
traeh says
I don’t support AOC or socialism at all. That said, this sounds a bit like Repubs and Dems getting together to weaken the Dems’ current extremist leader who is driving the Dems into the ground. I mean, like, who determined the price of the dress, and how did the committee determine it? Sounds pretty arbitrary, to me, sort of like when Dem prosecutors accused Trump of a crime in supposedly overvaluing one of his real estate properties, even though the people he did business with in the matter said there is no need to go after Trump because they were quite happy with the deal and would do more deals with him in the future.
Well, politics, no matter who does it, is usually, if not always, an ugly beast. Usually, all you can do is try to pick the beast that’s a bit less ugly.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I do agree: of all the scandals to go after Dems on, this one seemed the most trivial. That said, turnabout is fair play: had the recipient of all that largesse been a Republican, she’d have probably received the Michele Bachmann treatment
traeh says
If the US did not have a tendency, like other Western nations, to be flooded with migrants, many from parts of the world whose peoples reject democracy and free speech and freedom of religion and prefer Islamic law, and if the US did not have giant adversaries on the world stage, I wouldn’t care that much whether or not we had a high tax, big social safety net system like the Nordic countries. But the US with its current responsibilities for global security has to be the most innovative, entrepreneurial, technologically advanced nation in the world, or the world is liable to go to hell, because if the US doesn’t keep totalitarian and authoritarian adversaries in check, they will aggressively expand into the power voids the US leaves behind. To be the richest and most technologically advanced nation requires low taxes on business and a streamlined regulatory system, for example by stipulating that for every new regulation, 10 old regulations must be removed. Not only does the ever growing mass of thousands and thousands of pages of regulations increasingly tie down and paralyze business and innovation. The forest of regulations also is often used in a corrupt way, for example big companies rich enough to pay lobbyists lobby for a regulation that hurts the business’ small competitors, who can’t afford to pay lobbyists to counter the regulation.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Essentially, all this boils down to: You can either have free stuff for your citizens, or you can have open borders. But you can’t have both!
Coming to think of it, even the Soviets or the Chicoms never had open borders for third world vagrants
40 rounds says
H L Mencken wrote something like “the problem with democracy is that jackals get voted in by jackasses.” True
traeh says
Pretty much everyone is a hypocrite, not just AOC. That’s why socialism, at least as an involuntary, state-run, centralized thing, is a terrible idea. If people want to live more cooperatively and in a more sharing way, nothing wrong with doing that outside the state, privately, or by a person restructuring the ownership of his own company to be “steward owned” or the like. Seems to be an increasing number of steward-owned companies these days, which remain profitable, but most of the profits stay with the company in perpetuity, and the company can never be sold, except to another steward-owned company. A portion of a steward-owned company’s profits typically can be distributed to various groups, depending on how the company is structured, for example, to workers, investors, consumers, suppliers, and others. I think these companies are important, because they provide a private, voluntary, decentralized alternative to state socialism, and therefore might be the only thing that will eventually weaken the AOCs and Bernie Sanders and their ilk and make them go away — because the brotherly instinct is something that will never go away until it is somehow incorporated into daily life. State socialism recognizes this brotherly drive but then proposes an utterly wrong solution to the problem of how to bring it into daily life. State socialism is the counterfeit of what actually needs to be done, with such means, for example, as companies that decide to set themselves up as steward-owned.
One doesn’t have to be a misanthrope to accept that virtually everyone is a hypocrite (with the exception of JC, assuming for a moment he is what Christians say he is). After all, you can look at us human hypocrites as a glass half full, rather than half empty. We just have to work on getting the glass closer to full, or better, overflowing…
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Essentially, capitalists love living under free markets, but socialists hate living under government economies unless they themselves are a part of the government. It’s “Socialism for thee, but not for me”, whereas the other is “Capitalism for all – you & me”
somehistory says
Mr. Spencer asks: “Have the End Times begun?” Perhaps asked in jest…or not.
Yes, yes they have and there is so much proof of that; but aoc being made to pay for a stupid dress, is not the proof.
abu taleb says
Spending $1,000 for renting a dress for several hours usage, she is really a “capitalist pig”.
(My apologies to pigs, I don’t mean to offend them)
OLD GUY says
I want to know who bought her and her boy friends $35,000. dollar tickets?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Good question. Maybe the Soros crowd?
OLD GUY says
Would not be surprised.