Andrew Gillum, endorsed by socialist Bernie Sanders, is the Democratic gubernatorial nominee for Florida.  The following is from his "Economy and Jobs" webpage as it appeared October 7, 2018:

Andrew has proposed the "Fair Share for Florida's Future" Plan to finally make real investments in our public schools and working families – and ask the richest corporations to pay a little more of their fair share.

"... fair share"?  Exactly how does Gillum define this term?  Exactly at what point does a share become "fair" or "unfair"?  We hear this term by adolescents and the left all the time.  Now Gillum, as a candidate for governor, is proposing an increase (that is, "a little more") in corporate taxes based on it.  So what exactly does it mean?  By exactly what standards does Gillum decide that the current rate is "unfair" and that his proposed rate would be "fair," or "more fair"?

"... real investments in our public schools"?  Through state and local expenditures, Florida spends in excess of $20 billion annually on public education.  Exactly what is "unreal" about those expenditures?

"... the richest corporations"?  So Gillum is not going to have all corporations pay their "fair share," but only the "richest" ones?  That is, he's going to have a progressive corporate tax rate?  What exactly will that progressive rate be?

By adjusting our state corporate tax level to a modest 7.75%, which allows our richest corporations to receive a tax cut and keeps our corporate tax rate more than 1% lower than California, we'll be able to recoup at least $1 billion and put it where we need it most – investing in our future.

"... 7.75%"?  Yes, that's what (on top of the 21% federal tax) the richest will pay, but what will "not richest" corporations pay?  Where is the progression of the rate?  Or is there is no progression?  Then why does Gillum suggest that there is?

(Is it because, on people, Florida has no state income tax?  Which means that Gillum cannot target "rich people" – it has to be "rich corporations" instead?  Because, whatever the proposal is, the word "rich" – to suggest that someone else will be paying – has to be included?)

"... a modest 7.75%"?  Mr.  Gillum fails to disclose that current rate is 5.5%, making Gillum's proposal a 2.25% increase over that rate.  A 2.25% increase over a 5.5% increase is a 41% increase.  If Gillum paid rent (and "the richest corporations" did not pay it for him) and it went from $500 to $705, or $1,000 to $1,410, would he call that a "modest" increase?

"... recoup"?  The definition of "recoup" is "to regain or recover; to reimburse or indemnify; to pay back."  In other words, Gillum is speaking as if the money earned by corporations does not really belong to them – that is, to the owners or shareholders who have put their money at risk to underwrite their corporation – but to "us," to people who have done nothing to earn the money but who want to "recoup" it.  Why then don't we "recoup" all of it?

"…we"?  Who are "we"?  Clearly, since we cannot "recoup" money from ourselves, corporations – excuse me, the "richest corporations" – that is, those people who work or own shares in them – are not included in that definition.  That is, the "we" does not include those who, through investment or labor, are actually earning the money.  (And some say Mr. Gillum is a socialist – where do they get that from?) 

The "Fair Share" plan calls for rebuilding our public schools, paying teachers a minimum starting salary of $50,000, investing in early childhood education programs, and investing in SHOP 2.0 and vocational training to help get workers the training they need for higher paying jobs.  He wants to help working families get ahead, including pushing for family-friendly policies like paid family leave that help workers take care of their families.

"... rebuilding our public schools"?  Huh?  As noted above, Florida currently spends over $20 billion annually.  So when were our public schools destroyed?  And if $20-plus billion annually was not enough to prevent their destruction, then why will the additional billion dollars Gillum wants prevent it?

"... early childhood education programs"?  Astonishing.  In one breath, Gillum says that prior efforts to educate students K-12 have failed.  In the next breath, he wants to extend that same educational process to students who are pre-kindergarten.  And then, in a third breath, he wants "family-friendly policies like paid family leave that help workers take care of their families."  But is extending public education to children as young as two or three really a "family-friendly" policy?

Socialism is defined as the state controlling the means of production.  (That is, there are no private businesses, no "rich corporations.")  If the state controls education from two to 18, or to 21, isn't that the same kind of thing?  Do we really need more government-controlled education?

Bert Peterson operates a website at 4thofjuly.info.