Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is lauded by the Left as a progressive democratic socialist. However, his stances on artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers are anti-progress and anti-America.
In March, Sanders proposed a federal moratorium on AI data center development.
“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity. The scale, scope and speed of that change is unprecedented,” Sanders correctly stated.
But he lost me with this illogical leap. “We cannot sit back and allow a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity…The time for action is now. We need a federal moratorium on AI data centers.”
A national halt on data center development today would be akin to a national freeze on computer development during the Cold War. This would have crippled U.S. technological competitiveness, reduced prosperity, slaughtered jobs, stifled innovation, and probably helped the Soviet Union.
Thus, a national moratorium on AI data center development would have similar consequences as we are amid an AI arms race, like it or not, with China and Russia. A U.S. freeze on AI data center development would be a boon to our adversaries while simultaneously delivering a crushing blow to America’s economy.
When it comes to data center development and construction, which is a hot topic, decisions are best made at the most local level. A federal ban is idiotic.
More recently, Sanders has called for socializing the entire AI industry. In a New York Times op-ed, Sanders said he will introduce a 50 percent “ownership tax” on AI giants like Anthropic and OpenAI.
“The time has come to reclaim what was stolen from us,” Sanders declared. “Since AI is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity, not just Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and other billionaires.”
Cleverly, Bernie frames the narrative as giving the “American people a direct role in determining the future of this technology.”
Under his nationalization program, “the future of AI and the transformation of human life” will not be dictated by a handful of “Big Tech oligarchs” because the “federal government would have the power, through its voting shares and an equal representation on each company's board, to block decisions that hurt our citizens and to push for policies that help them.”
In other words, Bernie wants Washington bureaucrats to exert much more control over AI because socialist, centralized, micromanagement has such a strong record of success.
Predictably, Sanders is ecstatic when he dreamily writes about the tax revenue his “American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act” would spawn.
He says it will “guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us – not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer.”
By improving the lives, he means government handouts on an unprecedented scale.
A universal basic income. The “billions, if not trillions, of dollars generated by this fund would provide direct payments to the American people.”
“And as the fund generates more and more wealth, the proceeds would be used to ensure that every man, woman and child in our country has a decent and dignified standard of living, including healthcare, education and housing.”
Here lies the problem.
If past is prologue, the fund will not create “more and more wealth.” In fact, based on history, it is almost assured that the fund will produce less and less wealth.
Why is this? Because government intervention will skew decision-making with politics. These companies will become zombies, not cutting-edge innovators.
Bernie’s AI sovereign wealth scheme is not only a political ploy to buy votes. It also seeks to recalibrate the fundamental relationship between the public and private sectors in favor of government.
Under the argument, the government should take 50 percent ownership of all companies that it deems as making “decisions that hurt our citizens.”
I bet Bernie would use this silly basis to confiscate 50 percent of oil and gas companies. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ridiculous benchmark was used against retail stores, grocery chains, or any sector in which the government wants a piece of the pie.
If you subscribe to the slippery slope contention, this could get very ugly.
Thus, it is imperative that this socialist sham and Bernie’s ban on data centers be nipped in the bud. These stupid policies should be mocked, ridiculed, and outright dismissed for their socialist underpinnings and anti-American postures.
Nationalization coupled with top-down, command-and-control economics is the antithesis of the American way and must be avoided.
Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.