After a shocking upset victory by Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were hoping to continue a progressive takeover of the Democratic Party but that hope was dashed to the rocks Tuesday. Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez failed her first major test on how much influence she has in pushing progressive Democrat’s far-left agenda as the majority of the candidates that she endorsed lost Tuesday night.

It wasn’t a great night for Republicans, it wasn’t a great night for Democrats, but it was a horrible night for Democratic socialists.

Republicans and Democrats are trying to read the tea leaves to decipher the future of the country in the midterm elections after the results of Tuesday’s primary elections and one special election. This could be taken as a positive that the radical left’s agenda is not as popular as the more moderate Democrat philosophy, but this could also mean we might now have the classic “we’re hiding our desire for progress towards socialism” Democrats, rather than the ones who say “we’re socialists and we’re proud of it” Democrats.

Recently, I heard MSNBC saying things like, “Polls show that socialism is not popular with Democrats in the center of the country. We want these things though. So, we just need to find another word besides socialist.” No, actually, socialism is defined by those bad things.

So, look out. Democratic socialism is probably going back undercover for a while.

In a way, I’d rather have someone come out and say they’re for socialism, as opposed to someone wearing a mask. That way we can have an actual, upfront debate between socialist vs constitutionalist. Should this country go more toward the founders’ philosophy and the constitution, or should we go toward socialism, communism, totalitarianism?

Vox, a left-wing site, recently published a piece that comprehensively delineated the staggering amount of money the socialist policies that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez espouse would cost.  According to The Tax Policy Center, over the next 30 years, the total of the plans proposed by Cortez and Sanders would cost (you might want to sit down for this) $218 trillion! That’s just a tad more than we have by the way. This also includes major caveats. $218 trillion massively understates their universal jobs program and does not at all include the universal housing program. There’s no universal food program included either, which you know will have to come at some point if the economy starts destroying itself. It also does not include universal internet and other things they talk about all the time.

We’re talking about $42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit. According to Vox.com, to put this in perspective, Washington is currently projected to collect $44 trillion in revenues over the next decade. The 30 year projected tab is $218 trillion, on top of an $84 trillion baseline deficit. Federal spending, which is typically 18%-22% of GDP in the United States, would soar past 40% of GDP, on its way to 50% of GDP within three decades. With Cortez/Sanders’ plan, state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60% of GDP!

When asked how she’ll pay for all of her plans, Ocasio-Cortez did not give an actual answer. Instead, she blamed the tax cuts and endless wars. Actually, the federal government will spend $4.3 trillion this year.  What percentage of that goes to the military (including the vets) you might ask? The answer is 16%. The remainder goes to the “priorities” that we are supposedly ignoring, according to the Ocasio-Cortez. 62% goes to mandatory spending under social security, Medicare & Medicaid. The vast majority goes to the social welfare programs that Ocasio-Cortez says we are spending too little. The fact is, the amount of money we spend, per capita, on social welfare programs, is almost actually on par with that of European countries and actually surpasses some European countries. So, it’s a lie that we’re spending it on “tax cuts.” First of all, that’s not an expenditure. That’s me keeping my own money. The Republican tax cut, or the “fiscal Armageddon” as the left likes to call it, costs less than $2 trillion over the next decade. Second, when she says we’re not investing in the middle class, what she really means is, she wants to tax the living daylights out of anyone making over $30,000/year. The kind of money she is proposing to spend is so insane it makes what we have spent before almost obsolete.

If we are destroyed or disabled because of our spending, who will stand for freedom? There is something different about us and our nation. Individual liberty is bred into us, assuming we’re not too late with the university system indoctrination of collectivism into our own children. If we fall, who else is strong enough to hold the torch for freedom?