Over 12 years of public service, I’ve supported candidates from both parties. I hold views considered right of center: limited government, local control and skepticism that the answer to every problem is throwing more money at it and expanding government. I also hold views considered left of center, particularly on social issues and, to an extent, environmental issues. I take a libertarian view when it comes to personal choices. I just want humans to be happy, so long as their happiness isn’t hurting others.

Ultimately, I left the two-party system because neither party represented me. Both have become institutions focused far more on gaining and keeping power than solving problems.

Congressional stock trading is a prime example. Public support for a ban is overwhelming, yet Republicans have not enacted a clean, standalone ban and Democrats failed to act when they had the chance. Both share the blame. If they truly wanted it passed, they could pass it tomorrow. The dirty little secret is they benefit from the status quo.

As part of an exhausted majority frustrated with both parties, I think we need to acknowledge that people with different political philosophies can recognize the same problems and genuinely want to solve them.

Housing is unaffordable. Healthcare costs crush families and small businesses. College has become more expensive while the value of some degrees is increasingly questionable. Corporations have accumulated immense power. The disagreement is often not over whether these problems exist. It is over how we fix them.

This post is going to drive down on the increasingly prominent role of democratic socialist policies on the left. But before I do, it’s also increasingly difficult for me to support a candidate who considers themselves hard MAGA. I have serious concerns about the movement’s willingness to ignore constitutional norms, weaken checks and balances and place loyalty to an individual above institutions. MAGA captured a moment when folks were sick of parties ignoring basic problems, but it completely fumbled the opportunity.

And yes, POTUS and the Republican Party are playing footsies with socialism too. The U.S. government now owns stakes in 30 U.S. companies. I have real problems with that. Government should set and enforce fair rules for the market, not become an owner of the companies it regulates.

Conversely, I would not support a candidate who openly identifies as a democratic socialist. My opposition is not based on some trumped-up accusation that everyone to my left is a communist. Democratic socialism does not equal communism. Pretending otherwise is lazy.

Let’s drive down.

Democratic socialist policies are no longer fringe. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters view democratic socialist leaders positively. Among liberal Democrats that rises to 52%. These ideas deserve serious scrutiny.

The Democratic Socialists of America’s national program calls for publicly owned social housing, universal rent control and public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. I oppose those policies because they expand government’s economic role far beyond a reasonable safety net.

Housing is a good place to examine the difference between recognizing a problem and actually solving it.

Can rent control help someone who already has a regulated apartment? Yes. That benefit is real. But it does not build the next apartment.

Publicly owned social housing can build apartments, but it shifts construction, operating, maintenance and long-term financial risk to taxpayers.

New York City is the poster child for long-term rent regulation. After decades of it, the city still has one of the country’s most severe housing shortages. In 2023, the rental vacancy rate was just 1.41%. Among rent-stabilized apartments it was 0.98%.

Decades of controlling rents did not solve the underlying problem. A shortage of housing remains. Controlling the price of something that’s scarce doesn’t make it less scarce.

So what’s the alternative?

We should allow more housing types in appropriate places, including accessory dwelling units. We should encourage adaptive reuse, reduce unnecessary permitting delays, address financing barriers for housing types such as duplexes and apply smart growth principles guiding growth toward existing infrastructure.

Housing isn’t the only place we’re seeing this philosophy tested.

Another example: government grocery stores.

New York City, now led by a democratic socialist mayor, is becoming a real-world test of the same principle. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has announced five city-run grocery stores that will sell certain staple foods 30% below typical retail prices, with public subsidies helping cover the underlying costs and the city considering a system to manage who can purchase the discounted goods.

Government can subsidize the price, but it won’t eliminate scarcity.

The better approach is to make it easier for grocery stores to open and compete, especially in underserved neighborhoods, while reducing unnecessary costs that drive prices higher. If affordability is the concern, targeted assistance to families in need is preferable to having government own and operate the store itself. This is a fundamental difference between the American mixed-market system and democratic socialism: government can and should provide a safety net without becoming the primary owner or provider.

Someone still has to determine who gets access to a scarce product. If price is no longer doing it, government may end up doing it through eligibility rules, purchase limits or rationing.

This gets to the larger principle behind my objection.

My underlying political philosophy is simple. Disperse power whenever possible. Keep power closest to the individual: families, workers, small businesses and local communities. Government has an important role, but it should be constrained, competent and accountable.

I oppose government picking winners and losers. Locally, I’ve never voted in favor of a tax abatement for developers for that reason.

That does not mean government has no role. We can improve healthcare while demanding price transparency, competition and accountability. We can protect workers and confront monopolies without placing industries under government control. We can maintain a reliable safety net without allowing government to dominate our economic lives.

Democratic socialism moves in the opposite direction from my political philosophy. It concentrates enormous economic power in government and asks us to trust political institutions to use that power wisely. The answer to unaccountable corporate power is not more unaccountable government power.

Both MAGA and democratic socialism tapped into legitimate frustration with institutions that were not delivering results. MAGA devolved into a personality-driven movement willing to ignore constitutional norms. Democratic socialism channels frustration with corporate power and inequality toward concentrating more political and economic power in government. I reject both approaches.

Right now, voters are frustrated with the federal administration and looking for alternatives. The Democratic Party should not assume every victory represents a broad endorsement of democratic socialism. In many cases, voters are simply rejecting the status quo.

This is also why I believe our political system needs reforms that give independents and the exhausted middle a meaningful voice. Open primaries are part of that conversation. Closed primaries and gerrymandering allow a relatively small share of voters, often representing the ideological bases of the parties, to effectively decide elections. In heavily partisan districts, whoever emerges from the dominant party’s primary is often virtually guaranteed to win the general election. I’ll write more about that separately, along with the longer conversation about what happened to the populist right.

The problems are real. That does not mean the people proposing these policies are insincere. I reject villainizing folks we disagree with.

Identifying a problem and solving it are two different things. Good intentions do not guarantee good results. More centralized and less accountable government is not the answer, and I do not believe the solutions democratic socialists are proposing will work.

What’s proposed is a tax on certain savings and investments. Using the phrase “wealth tax” to describe it is meant to make it sound like it’s aimed only at billionaires or the ultra wealthy. That is a false. The title is misleading.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝘀: It’s a tax on commonly held savings, investments and small business interests. There is no minimum income threshold, so it is not limited to billionaires. This was a tax 30 counties once had but every one repealed years ago because it was widely acknowledged as double taxation on savings, harmful to small businesses and job creators, unreliable as a revenue source, and broadly unpopular. It was also seen as… illegal.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁? 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝗼𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂. Regardless of your income. And of course, you were already taxed when you earned that money. This is an additional tax on a lifetime of hard work, doing the right thing and saving so you do not have to depend on anyone. Maybe you hoped to pass a little on to your kids to give them a head start in life. This is a new tax on those savings.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗧𝗙𝘀? This is an additional tax on you. Regardless of your income. Another tax on money you were already taxed on when you earned it. If you later sell some stocks and have a capital gain, you will be taxed again. This is an additional tax on your savings.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗦 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗟𝗖? This is yet another tax on you. Regardless of your income. You work 50 or 60 hours a week. You already deal with rising costs, regulation, insurance, taxes and constant uncertainty. This adds one more burden. This is an additional tax.

Note: According to the SBA, over half of small employer firms are organized as S corporations (which is explicitly named in the Controllers original paper).

This proposal is not just a tax on billionaires. It reaches common business structures used by truly small businesses every day. No matter how many times they say the same thing over and over it’s still not true.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 “𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵” 𝘁𝗮𝘅. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. It is very important we get this accurate information out to community!

Sources:
**As the Controller’s report (Lehigh County Wealth Tax Analysis, May 1, 2026) notes, “Partnership interests, including ownership stakes in partnerships and S corporations, would generate roughly 75 percent of total revenue**

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀.

My first piece of legislation for 2026 will be distributed to my colleagues in the near future for co sponsorship. 1st read at our next meeting. It’s not flashy but addresses an issue that deserves attention.

The ordinance requires our Office of Assessment to provide an annual report to Commissioners with key data about the health of the county’s property assessment system including metrics, information on appeals and trends affecting the tax base.

As a preface, I’ve long reinforced on this page a belief that property taxes are one of the worst forms of taxation. They are fundamentally regressive taxes that hit folks with less income harder impacting housing affordability. Unfortunately, school property taxes have been rising year after year at unsustainable levels.

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁.

Over time assessments drift when markets change but values stay fixed. Some properties rise in value faster than others. When the system isn’t updated it produces winners and losers. Some artificially pay less while others carry more than they should. Regrettably, while the state requires us to use property taxes, they punt on the obligation to conduct reassessments to counties. This obligation is often ignored due to politics.

When reassessments become political and put off for years the system becomes more and more unfair. A third of PA’s 67 counties haven’t conducted one since 2000. 40% of the state relies on outdated data.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆. At this time, the data is not telling us we need to conduct reassessment.

Instead, my proposal requires a front and center presentation yearly based on underlying data. It makes sure commissioners and the public review the data yearly so future discussions are based on facts, not politics. The policy makes it harder for boards and executives to punt, ignore or kick the can down the road. It gives us warning when the time comes.

𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.