The New Republic: Danny Vinik: ‘President Obama’s Promise to Not Raise Taxes on the Middle Class Makes Governing Harder’

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Erik Schneider

The New Republic: Opinion: Danny Vinik: President Obama’s Promise to Not Raise Taxes on the Middle Class Makes Governing Harder

I’m just going to be real here and say that Socialists have this belief that if government especially the federal government or central government (depending on the country) is not doing something or running something that is supposed to benefit the country than that program or policy is not ‘substantial’. They also believe that there’s no such thing as a bad tax increase except for maybe when it comes to the poor. Because all taxes and tax increases benefit the people because it goes to government to serve the people. Now whether you call yourself a Socialist or not and I doubt Danny Vinik from The New Republic does, these are socialist beliefs.

So when Danny Vinik says that anything that President Obama does that doesn’t increase taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy, or is not a Federal Government run program is not ‘substantial’ as Mr. Vinik says in his New Republic column today he is just making that point for me about how Socialists view taxes and the role of government especially the national government. If you want paid family leave in this country is very simple to do without raising taxes on anyone. It is called a paid family leave law and you have a paid sick leave law as well. You just pass a law that requires to pay their employees these benefits once they are eligible for them. Instead of having a new government program to run them.

As far as raising taxes on the middle class. The last thing you want to do in a struggling economy especially with a struggling middle class is to make the lives of these people even harder and make it harder for them to pay their bills. Especially as they see their income falling and their bills and cost of living rising. Which is exactly what would happen with a middle class tax increase either through the income tax or payroll tax. And neither Democrats or Republicans are interested in doing this at least at the leadership level. And only the socialist left believes this would be good policy.

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Madison TV: ‘JMU Speaker Series: Newt Gingrich’

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Erik Schneider

IMG_4824Source:James Madison TV– Newt Gingrich: former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican, Georgia – 1995-1999? speaking at James Madison University, in 2009.

“Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, spoke at James Madison University on Monday, April 16, 2007 in the Festival Conference and Student Center Ballroom.

Gingrich’s topic was “The Challenge Your Generation Faces.” Following his presentation, Gingrich engaged in a question-and-answer session with the audience. The event was free and open to the public.

Gingrich’s presentation, a part of the Guardian Lecture Series sponsored by the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs, was co-sponsored by the JMU Student Government Association.

Gingrich served as speaker of the House from 1995 until 1999. After leaving office in 1999, he served on the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission), which examined national security challenges as far out as 2025. In the commission’s report, which was published six months before 9/11, Gingrich proposed the idea of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

Gingrich received his bachelor’s degree in history from Emory University and his master’s and doctorate in European history from Tulane University. He taught history and environmental studies at West Georgia College for eight years before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978.”

From James Madison TV

To say the least, it is almost impossible to tell how James Madison and the other Founding Fathers of the United States would think of current American political discourse. They put the country together pre-radio and TV let alone the internet and social media.

But from the Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) writings they did like good political debate as long as it was intelligent and based on the facts. With all sides being able to make their case. They did write the First Amendment and free speech is a big part of that.

That is not current American political discourse. We are long past the times when we had two competing sides who believed the other side means the best for America and that we not only believed the case that they were making was the best course for the country. But that they loved America as well.

And we are now at a point where the fringes on both wings not only see the other side as wrong, but that they are trying to destroy the country and don’t even deserved to be heard. And in some cases with the haters of Rush Limbaugh believe government should step in and kick Rush off the air.

I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and believe the Tea Party wing and their allies on the Far-Right are largely responsible for the negative political discourse. With their claims that the other side the so-calledProgressive Democrats are :”Un-American and that Americans who don’t believe in our traditional way of life are Un-American as well.” Not just saying these things as a Liberal or as a Democrat, but as an individual and that is what a lot if not most of the credible evidence points at. With FOX News being their main mouthpiece to go along with right-wing talk radio.

But my side of the aisle and our fringe have some blame and guilt here as well. Whether you want to call it the MSNBC wing of the Democratic Party or Occupy Wall Street we have an element as well that believes the Tea Party and their Republican supporters are not only wrong, but are “bad people looking to destroy America and everything that is good about this country especially as it relates to social insurance. (From their point of view) And that they need to be shut up and destroyed and not just defeated for the good of the country as well.”

We are past the day when senators and representatives can have a long spirited, but respectful debate in Congress and then have a beer with their colleagues after the debate the people they just debated and even work with them to come up with a bipartisan consensus that they both could vote for.

And are now at a point where the fringes on both sides who in too many cases have the loudest voices and get the most airtime and print because it is really partisan bickering that sells the most papers and get’s the highest ratings. Who believe the other side is not only wrong, but evil and must be destroyed. Which makes consensus building and governing especially with a divided government.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate Magazine: Jamelle Bouie: Neocons Already Destroyed Iraq

Posted on June 20, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Slate: Opinion: Jamelle Bouie: The Neocons Already Destroyed Iraq Once

There’s an old American expression “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. Which basically translates if you are dumb enough to get fooled multiple times by the same person, you are a fool who deserves to be fooled. The Neoconservatives lost the argument over Iraq as early as early as 2006 when their Republican allies in Congress were kicked out of the House and Senate because of Iraq and how badly the Bush Administration botched that war and occupation. And for all the Republican support and American tax dollars to pay for those failures.

And because of all of this and the trillions of dollars added to the national debt and the thousands of lives America has lost in Iraq and the millions of lives Iraq has lost in Iraq a country of twenty-five-million people. Not a large country America except for portions of the Far-Right has no interest in going back in and trying to save a country from itself. Iraq has been left up to Iraq which was an original goal of the Bush Administration that the Obama Administration followed through on. Because they wanted to get us the hell out of Iraq a situation they knew couldn’t be fixed by Americans themselves.

Iraq now has a functioning federal government and military even as flawed as it is. But at least it represents Iraq and they have the responsibility to govern and defend themselves. And if they aren’t willing to live up to their own responsibilities they can’t expect Americans to do that for them and be left with the bill for those operations.

Posted in Originals, Slate Video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Sr. Semone Campbell- Political Faith Has Consequences

Posted on May 6, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

The American Left, especially the Far-Left, gets stereotyped as being Atheist.  This is reinforced by MSNBC at any point when they are talking about religion.  Ditto,  Salon, The Nation, the AlterNet or  Bill Maher.  But, there’s also a strong Religious Left in America and Sr. Simone Campbell is a perfect example of it.

The people of the Religious Left have very strong progressive and social democratic political tendencies.  They believe that their religion tells them to look after people and their communities and that government has a strong role to play in this. They believe in social justice and that all Americans should have equal access to freedom and true equality.

You could make a good case that the Religious Left came of age in the 1950s and 1960s with the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  It was pushing for civil rights and equality for African-Americans but, by the late 1960s, they had  won those battles and moved on to talking about and and pushing for social justice and giving the Federal Government a bigger role to see that more Americans have what they need to live well.

Not everyone on the Left is an atheist, as much as we get stereotyped that way. I come from an atheist family but I’m a liberal and an agnostic.  There are liberal catholics and progressive protestants and  even socialist christians. The problem with stereotypes is that even though they are all based on some truth, it’s never the whole truth.  It’s a biased characterization of a group that others want the public to see.  The popular religious characterization  of the left is a perfect example of that.

Brookings Institution: Sr. Semone Campbell- Faith Has Political Consequences

Posted in Brookings Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: Richard Davies Interviewing Zanny Minton-Beddoes- Time to Rethink Retirement

Posted on May 4, 2014 by Erik Schneider

img_0589Source:The New Democrat 

This emphasizes the great need for improving the skills of workers, especially in America which ranks 39th in the world in education. That 1 in 5 Americans lives in poverty is already unacceptable. The more educated your population is the better your country will be when it comes to economic freedom. The more likely they’ll be able to save to the point that perhaps they don’t even need Social Security and Medicare when they retire. Because they either have a well-funded pension plan, or a private retirement account that provides them the income that they need to retire and live well. Which would even include blue-collar workers because now they’ll have more skills and be able to move into management in their current company.. Or perhaps start their own company. Instead of being stuck with the same blue-collar job for most of their career that pays around 40-50 thousand-dollars a year and struggle just to pay for their cost of living. Let alone able to plan ahead for their own retirement.

Our aging population means current and future workers are going to have to work longer and be more productive. They need to put more money away for their own retirements and be less dependent on the public safety net to provide them needed income when they retire. Because Congress has very little political interest to save the Social Security and Medicare system. And Congress tends to only go big when it comes to reform when it benefits both parties politically. And most of the solutions that would save Social Security and Medicare are unpopular with either one party or the other. And I don’t like making this assumption, but if you were to assume that Social Security and Medicare were to go broke, unless they’re both saved at the last minute, that means more Americans need to do more thinking and investing on their own. And what Congress along with the states can do which would be popular is to expand education and job training for our low and middle-skilled workers. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job.

Private retirement accounts are an attractive policy option that encourages people to put money away, matched by their employers, away for savings and retirement. This allows people to finance their own retirements bringing down government costs. This is what is called Social Security Plus. The core of Social Security is still intact, but lower the payroll tax for low-income workers who get hammered by it. Raise it on the top-level workers and allow everyone to collect current Social Security when they retire. But also be able to have their private retirement account. Again money that they put away on their own that is tax free that is matched by their employers that is also tax free. Because the current economy and retirement system simply doesn’t work for enough people. Unless you’re currently wealthy or have a good government job. Which means you need more economic freedom in America so more Americans can benefit and live comfortably when and if they actually do retire.

The Economist: Richard Davies Interviewing Zanny Minton-Beddoes- Time To Rethink Retirement

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Jeffrey Rosen- Schuette Decision: Supreme Court Supported Precedent

Posted on May 2, 2014 by Erik Schneider


Source:The New Democrat

Jeff Rosen, as almost always, hit it on the mark today in his column in The New Republic.  He said that whether you agree with the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action at the University of Michigan  or not, you should at least agree with how they decided it.  Showing judicial restraint, they said that whether you have affirmative action in your state or not, should be decided by democratic processes, through the legislature and the voters.  It should be not be left to some unelected board or institution.

Today’s Progressives are always talking about the need for more democracy in America, that too many important decisions are being left to a handful of people who represent powerful interests.  Yet they take the undemocratic position that an institution, in this case the University of Michigan, knows better than the voters themselves whether or not there should be affirmative action at this public university.  They believe in affirmative action and will seek to preserve it by any means necessary. 

CBS News: Evening News With Scott Pelley- U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Michigan Affirmative Action Case

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate Magazine: Jay Porter: A Small Business Owner’s Care For Raising the Minimum Wage

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

There are several reasons why I’m in favor of raising the Federal minimum wage. Minimum wage workers are under paid for the work that they do and the services that they perform for their employers. Cashier handle most, if not all, of the money that their employer receives. They provide a necessary and essential service to their company. The company can’t stay in business without it.

Underpaying service workers reduces their ability to live a decent life. Taxpayers then have to assist these workers in meeting their costs of living. There is also a cost to the economy in decreased economic growth because of the purchasing power that these workers don’t have. Henry Ford realized this at the beginning of the 20th century.

Do I believe everyone is entitled to earn at least a middle class living simply for being alive? Of course not, I’m not a Socialist but I do believe that everyone is entitled to be paid the money that their work and services bring to the table. $7.25 an hour for workers who are critical to the success of a business is underpayment. The cost of that underpayment is passed to taxpayers as public assistance and lost economic growth.

Posted in Slate Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Shiller: ‘Better Insurance Against Income Inequality’

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

I could blog about indexing taxation of income for the wealthy in a couple of ways. One would discuss the fact that it would never pass this Congress, especially with a Republican House. Also, vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection in red states don’t want to talk about tax increases in an election year. They want to get reelected and keep the Senate in Democratic control.

This proposal will never become law but, just for the hell of it, we can talk about why its not good policy, which is yet another reason why it won’t become law. The idea that taxes on certain people could go up automatically without specific congressional or executive branch action is undemocratic. Money is power and the government should not rule that some people should have less of it without due process and complete transparency.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Minister Malcolm X: ‘We’re Going to Have to go to War Against the Racists’

Posted on April 27, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

This could easily be interpreted as saying that the supporters of equal rights and freedom for all Americans “are going to have to win the war against the racists in the courtroom and on the political battlefield,” which is what they have done for sixty or so years now. The bigots, both racists and homophobes, have been losing ground, since the Eisenhower Administration and Brown V. Board of Education.

The opponents of Malcolm X, especially on the Right and Far-Right, whether they are racists or not, will take his statement to say that he was calling for a violent revolution and for the African-American community to start attacking law enforcement, especially Caucasians and others who are in their way. This is not what he was saying. He was saying that if you are physically or verbally attacked, you have a right to defend yourself.

Posted in Malcolm X, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

George Will: ‘Progressives Are Wrong About The Essence of The Constitution’

Posted on April 26, 2014 by Erik Schneider

george will_ the washington post - Google SearchSource:The Washington Post– Conservative columnist George Will.

Source:The New Democrat

“In his latest column for The Washington Post, George Will praises Timothy Sandefur’s superb new book The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty. As Will explains, the book addresses perhaps the most fundamental debate in American politics: namely, the battle between what Sandefur calls “the individual’s right to freedom” and “the power of the majority to govern.” Sandefur, a principle attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, comes down squarely on the side of the individual. Here’s a snippet from Will’s review:

Sandefur says progressivism “inverts America’s constitutional foundations” by holding that the Constitution is “about” democracy, which rejects the framers’ premise that majority rule is legitimate “only within the boundaries” of the individual’s natural rights. These include — indeed, are mostly — unenumerated rights whose existence and importance are affirmed by the Ninth Amendment.

Many conservatives should be discomfited by Sandefur’s analysis, which entails this conclusion: Their indiscriminate denunciations of “judicial activism” inadvertently serve progressivism. The protection of rights, those constitutionally enumerated and others, requires a judiciary actively engaged in enforcing what the Constitution is “basically about,” which is making majority power respect individuals’ rights.

In 2013, Reason TV interviewed Sandefur about the ongoing legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Watch that interview below.”

From Reason Magazine

The more I hear from today’s, so-called, Progressives, (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) the more I believe that they are from a different country or, at least, have lived a long time in another country. They don’t seem to see the U.S. Constitution for what it is.  They say: “Look, this is how other countries do it and it works there so we should do the same thing here.”  They seem to be ignorant of the Constitution’s constraints on the Federal Government.

These people are really Social Democrats.  They believe that the United States should be ruled by majority rule.  If we ever let the will of the majority decide everything without that annoying document that keeps interposing the Federal court system,  we could build the socialist utopia that they’ve always wanted and take care of everyone.

The Social Democrats, in the absence of the Constitution, would move to a parliamentary social democracy where Congress, actually just the House of Representatives, would pick our President for us.

As George Will said in his column today, the U.S. Constitution is not about protecting American democracy but  protecting the constitutional rights of individual Americans.  Government at all levels is prohibited from infringing these rights even if certain of them become unpopular and a popular will emerges to limit these.  The U.S. Constitution protects Americans from big government even if an overweening big government becomes popular. 

Posted in The New Democrat, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment