Vice President Kamala Harris, not exactly the wordsmith of our time, took a shot at explaining (defending) the Democrats’ definition of equity, in contrast to equality, and as the veep is wont to do, her rambling comments once again proved she’s in way over her head.

While word salads and cackling about Venn diagrams and yellow school buses is one thing; trying to make socialist wealth redistribution sound reasonable is another. On Tuesday, Harris struck out. Again.

Almost defensively, Harris began:

Yes, we do talk about equity. We actually believe it is a good principle. In spite [of] what some so-called leaders might try to suggest.

Stop the tape. Kamala Harris, of all people, referring to so-called leaders? That’s comedy gold right there.

Madam Vice President continued:

We are proud of the fact that equity is one of our guiding principles. Proud of the fact that we understand equality is important but not everybody starts out on the same base.

So it sounds like it might be right; everyone gets an equal share and then they should compete and the best thing will win, but that assumes everyone starts out on the same base. Equity takes into account that that may not be the case.

Remember, the only thing that stands between this woman and the presidency of the United States is a mumbling, mentally declining 80-year-old man who can’t find his way off the stage or board Air Force One without falling down, half the time. 2024 matters; don’t screw it up — but I digress.

So, let’s dissect Harris’s defense of equity, shall we?

Speaking in this case on behalf of the Democrat Party, Kamala Harris clearly declared that all people — all the time — should “start on the same base.” Why, and by what justification?

If Person A works harder and becomes more successful than Person B, what right does “B” have to the largess of “A,” and why? If “A” builds a larger fortune than “B,” why should “A” pay a penalty (see: “wealth tax“) to “level of the playing field” for “B”?

The examples are many, including Biden’s socialist proposal to increase mortgage rates for “A” borrowers so “B” people can pay lower rates. This is not only blatant wealth redistribution; it’s also an inverted risk model, which is tantamount to healthy people paying higher life insurance and health insurance premiums than unhealthy people. I could go on — but this is making my head hurt, too.

Incidentally, if you’re ever of the mind to debate “equity vs. equality,” or any other left-wing notion with fired-up liberals — which I avoid (see: “wrestling with a pig in the mud”) — you’ll never change their minds, of course, but while you’re at it, you might as well explain a few basics of their flawed narratives. Equity is simply putting lipstick on the wealth redistribution pig.

Now, your left-wing pals (assuming you have any) might very well think wealth redistribution is an awesome, get-even concept. You know, given that “evil” rich people and even more-evil big corporations screw poor people and the middle class to the bone. [sarc]

This is generally nonsense, of course, but the coin of the realm of the left is emotion, not facts, so the reality that socialism has never worked goes in one ear of a leftist and out the other, of which the Democrat Party is fully aware — and takes full advantage.

Irish playwright and socialist, George Bernard Shaw said it best:

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

That, gang, is the fundamental cornerstone of today’s Democrat Party.

The Bottom Line

Noted Austrian-British economist and political philosopher Friedrich August von Hayek put it this way:

There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.

The Democrat Party was unavailable for comment.