The Week: 'Mick Mulvaney- Says Nobody Cares About The Deficit: He Used To Care A lot'

Source:The Week- White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Republicans knew someone would notice if President Trump didn't mention the deficit in his Tuesday State of the Union. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney didn't agree.

When Trump previewed his speech for 20 Republican supporters on Monday, Mulvaney argued that the ballooning deficit didn't need to be included because "nobody cares" about it, ABC News reports. That's not what Mulvaney would've said in his congressional days.

Before Trump tapped him to direct the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney was a congressman from South Carolina. And when he campaigned to earn that spot over Democratic incumbent and House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt, he made deficit reduction his "central policy concern," Politico's Jake Sherman recalls. He continued to complain about the national debt and deficit in his budget chair confirmation hearing in January 2017, but showed a shift that October when the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rolled around.

Ahead of its passage, the Congressional Budget Office concluded the GOP tax overhaul would add $1.46 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Another report concluded that, with an additional round of cuts proposed but not passed the next year, the total could reach $3.2 trillion. Yet Mulvaney defended the GOP's tax reform proposal all the way, telling Fox News in October 2017 that America needed "new deficits" to grow the economy. That earned Mulvaney a dreaded question from host Chris Wallace: "You were a deficit hawk. What happened, sir?"

From The Week 

"It wasn't ok when President Obama's government spending was causing budget deficits, but White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seems to accept deficits now that President Trump's proposed tax cuts might cause them."

Source:CNN- How times have changed 

From CNN

The title of this piece is very important, because before Mick Mulvaney became White House Chief of Staff and even before he was Director of Management and Budget at the White House, he was a U.S Representative from South Carolina and served on the House Budget Committee. It gets  even better than this, because he was part of the 2010 Tea Party House freshman class of 62 new House Republicans that won back the House for Republicans that year.

It gets even better than that, because back then when we had a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit with a Democratic President, House Republicans especially, but the Republican Party as a whole saw the national debt and deficits as big of threats to the United States as they see the People's Republic of China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nuclear Communist Korea. They talked about the dangers of the national debt and saw them as threats to their children and grandchildren's future with all the interest that they would have to pay on the national debt.

Back in the good ole days ( pre-President Donald Trump ) and just the first few years of this decade, Republicans especially House Republicans lead by Minority Leader and later Speaker John Boehner were serious deficit hawks. They made the Committee For a Responsible Budget ( an inside Washington reference ) proud everyday when they talked about the debt and deficit. But there's a catch to all of this, because back then there was a Democratic President named Barack Obama, who the Tea Party viewed as a tax and spend, Un-American Socialist who was ruining their 1950s Ozzie and Harriet America. ( And whether that was racial or not, you be the judge for yourself )

And go up to 2017 and what has changed? Replace a Progressive Democratic President named Barack Obama with a right-wing cultural warrior champion Nationalist President named Donald Trump. And give him a Republican Congress with the House and Senate ( for you American U.S. Government students ) and you now have a Republican President who calls himself the King of Debt. Who appoints a Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin who actually says that deficits don't matter. And a Republican House led by Speaker Paul Ryan who was probably the biggest deficit hawk at least as far as rhetoric during the Obama Administration, especially when he chaired the House Budget Committee, who is only concern with keeping his majority and passing enough legislation ( regardless of how it's paid for ) to keep his majority.

To know that the Tea Party campaign against the national debit and deficit was nothing more than a fraud that was as big as Enron, ( from back in the day ) go back to what they were saying about those issues then when Mick Mulvaney was Republican Mick Mulvaney and go up today with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party and what he and they say about the debt and deficit today. They claimed to care about those fiscal issues when there was a Democratic President and don't give a damn ( to be nice ) about those issues today. But only because now we have a Republican President who doesn't care about those issues. As well as a spineless House and Senate Republican caucus, who doesn't care about those issues either.

The Week: Paul Waldman: 'Americans Don't Pay Enough Taxes'

Source: Credible Politics- Tax Day, is no holiday- 

Source: The New Democrat

Only Socialists whether they're self-described Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist in Congress, ( but not the only Socialist in Congress ) or trapped in the closet with no key or person insight to let them out Socialists ( like perhaps Paul Waldman ) who prefer to be called Progressives or even worst and makes want to stick my head in a toilet when I hear this, but some Americans trapped in the closet Socialists, prefer to be called Liberals, even though they tend to be more illiberal than Liberal like having the belief in unlimited government and that individualism and personal freedom is actually dangerous and selfish, believe Americans are undertaxed.

Source: Bluegrass Institute- Big Government, wants more of your money 

But only Socialists believe Americans and even middle class Americans are actually undertaxed. And view tax day as a national holiday and fill out their tax returns with huge smiles on their faces. Celebrate tax day with a wine and cheese party and brag about having to pay more in taxes than the guy or lady next to them. Americans aren't overtaxed, but they're overburdened which is why you had millions of Americans in the Midwest and rustbelt Northeast like Western Pennsylvania, voting for Donald Trump for President in 2016.

Not because they believed their taxes were too low, but because they their bills were too high and their incomes weren't keeping up with the cost of living. And they had a political candidate in Donald Trump, who actually campaigned for them ( unlike Hillary Clinton ) and ask them for their vote ( unlike Hillary Clinton ) and gave them reasons to vote for him. ( Unlike Hillary Clinton ) I didn't vote for Donald Trump for several reasons most of them having to do with with his lack of character and qualifications for the most important job in the world, but you have to give him credit for campaigning for what some people might say forgotten Americans.

People who are blue-collar and work very hard everyday to make ends meet and are now seeing their hard work not generating enough income for them to pay their bills. They're not looking for a bigger U.S. Government to help them out and take more money from them, especially a government that is running 600 billion-dollar deficit headed to over a trillion and a 20 trillion-dollar national debt. They're looking to be able to make more money and to live comfortably and not have worry every week or month about how they're going to pay their bills. With higher bills, more bills, and less income to pay their bills.

Americans don't want to pay more in taxes, they want to earn more money. They want jobs that not just pay their bills, but allow for them to put money away and gives them the freedom to decide how to educate their own kids, plan their own kids college savings plan, their own kids childcare, make their own health care and health insurance decisions, plan their own retirements, and make other key decisions in life that most adult Americans have to make for themselves.

You don't increase Americans income by taxing them more and running higher deficits, because you're overspending and hurting economic growth. You increase Americans income with better education including for adults who are struggling even if they're working and empower for them to increase their own skills and education so they can get themselves a good job that allows for them to have the freedom and to make their own economic and personal decisions for themselves.

Instead of their fat overbearing, over paternalistic, selfish with other people's money, Uncle Sammy who feels he can't live on a four-trillion dollar national budget and needs more money from his nephews and nieces, even though he's running a 600 billion-dollar deficit ( headed to over a trillion ) and a 20 trillion-dollar national debt.

The Week: Ryan Cooper: 'Democrats Should Embrace The Freedom Not To Choose'

Source: The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not trying to sound insulting here (but don't mind if I do) but what Ryan Cooper wrote in The Week this week (ha, ha get it) could've been written over at The American Prospect, Salon, The Nation, AlterNet, or even over at In These Times and Common Dreams. Where the writers there are not just Socialists, but proudly so and proud to be Socialists. One of those New-Left (to be kind) publications that have argued that problem with America is economic freedom and capitalism in itself. That we expect Americans to make their own decisions with their own lives, at least once they're grown up and are out-of-school and then hold them personally accountable for their own decision-making.

Their argument being that Americans simply have too many decisions to make and as a result make too many bad decisions that the rest of society has to deal with. And that you need that big centralized welfare state big enough to manage the economic affairs of everyone and in some cases even personal affairs financed through high taxes. That Americans supposedly would get back in those so-called generous welfare benefits. That individuals are somehow too stupid to make their own decisions. But big government has all the right answers for them.

The Democratic Party led by their Congressional Leadership led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, did release an economic agenda that Democrats will be pushing for the 2018 mid-terms in hopes of winning back the House or Senate and perhaps even the entire Congress next year. And it was about economic development that included infrastructure investment, tax credits to incentivize more economic expansion, and anti-trust laws to break up current corporate monopolies so Americans would have more consumer choice, because there would be more competition and Americans would actually have to make more personal decisions on their own. (What a terrifying thought!)

But this is the Democratic Party and not the Green Party. Because if they were the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA, they wouldn't be the opposition party in America and within reach of becoming the majority party in both the House and Senate. And instead would be in court simply trying to gain ballot access so they could be on the ballot in more elections. Let alone actually holding any seats in Congress.

If you want to be part of a party that is anti-individualism, thinks choice is a bad thing and that somehow economic freedom is not only dangerous, because leave millions of Americans to have to manage their own affairs and make their own decisions and that is also selfish, because a lot of people actually make very good decisions with their own lives and end up becoming very successful in life, the Green Party is for you. Just don't ever expect your party to ever hold any real power in America.

But the Democratic Party at it's best is the party that doesn't bash capitalism, economic freedom, and wealth. But instead says that those things are good, but the problem with it is not enough people benefit from capitalism and not enough people have economic freedom and have achieved economic independence. Because quality education is not available to enough people and our infrastructure system is underdeveloped and because of that there isn't enough economic development in the country. Which is why Congressional Democrats are pushing for infrastructure investment in America.

As a JFK Liberal Democrat (a real Liberal Democrat) I believe once people have the skills and education to make their own decisions that they'll end up doing that. And be able to get good jobs and be very successful at them and in life in general. Which is a much better economic plan and better financial outlook for the country, because not only more people will be working, but with good jobs and paying income taxes. Which would also make government cheaper in America lessen the need for taxation, because you'll have all of these educated Americans with the ability to pay their own way in life.

And as a result government will end up collecting more in taxes that they can use to see that as many Americans as possible can get the skills that they need to do well in life. As well as to see that as much incentive as possible is there to incentivize the most economic development as possible. An educated society is an opportunity society that produces a free society. People with the ability to make their own decisions and then be held personally accountable for them. For better or for worse. Enjoy the fruits of their own labor and pay for their own mistakes.
Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung: Welfare State and Social Democracy

The Week: Sam Fragoso: 'How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry'

Source:The Week- William F. Buckley I believe debating Gore Vidal at the 1968 Republican National Convention, on ABC News.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This summer, the silver screen has been dominated by microscopic superheroes, prodigious dinosaurs, sexually uninhibited trainwrecks, and gyrating strippers — you know, the usual summertime fare. But the most entertaining film released this summer revolves around something different: a pair of loquacious, Anglo-Saxon intellectuals who wanted nothing more than to extinguish one another on public television.

Directed with precision and panache by journalists-turned-documentarians Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon, Best of Enemies begins in the spring of 1968 with a failing network desperate for viewership. With nothing to lose, ABC — dubbed the "budget car rental of television news” by New York's Frank Rich — settled on an unconventional approach to the Republican and Democratic conventions. The plan? Put William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, two ideologically opposed scholars, in front of a live an audience to do what they do best: debate.

Hailed as the "St. Paul of the conservative movement," Buckley (founder of National Review) served as the voice of the right. Conversely, Vidal, an esteemed author and consummate provocateur, represented the left. As Best of Enemies meticulously documents, this mercenary ploy for higher ratings led to riveting television. For 10 debates, Buckley and Vidal engaged in vigorous, often pointed dialogue about the problems plaguing America, from the Vietnam War to the marginalization of the poor. But the real draw, some might argue, was that these conversations often dovetailed into vindictive ad-hominem attacks. The heated tête-à-têtes weren't just about Richard Nixon, or the overreach of the federal government, or any other hotly contested issue. They were about personal domination. Vidal and Buckley didn't simply want to outsmart each other; they wanted to pummel the other into submission." 

You can read the rest of Sam Frasgoso's piece at The Week.  

"In the summer of 1968, television news changed forever. Dead last in the ratings, ABC hired two towering public intellectuals to debate each other during the Democratic and Republican national conventions. William F. Buckley Jr. was a leading light of the new conservative movement. A Democrat and cousin to Jackie Onassis, Gore Vidal was a leftist novelist and polemicist. Armed with deep-seated distrust and enmity, Vidal and Buckley believed each other’s political ideologies were dangerous for America. Like rounds in a heavyweight battle, they pummeled out policy and personal insult—their explosive exchanges devolving into vitriolic name-calling. Live and unscripted, they kept viewers riveted. Ratings for ABC News skyrocketed. And a new era in public discourse was born." 

Source:Movie Clips- William F. Buckley debating Gore Vidal on ABC News, at the 1968 Republican National Convention, in Miami Florida.

From Movie Clips

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. 

Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole debate. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game and knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. 

I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor Howard K. Smith, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV.

The Week: Ryu Spaeth: 'Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist?'

Source:The Week- Gregory Peck, in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. 

Source:The New Democrat

"The other day I happened to catch To Kill a Mockingbird on television. It was airing as part of the general enthusiasm that preceded the release of Go Set a Watchman, the controversial follow-up to Mockingbird that now stalks Harper Lee's classic novel like a shadow. I hadn't seen the movie since childhood, and made sure to pay attention during the famous trial scene, where Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck, uses all his wiles and rhetorical powers to save the life of Tom Robinson, a young black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. "In the name of God, do your duty," Atticus thunders in his closing speech, as if willing some spiritual transference of his own moral integrity into the hearts of the white jurors before him."

From The Week

"Dedicated to the brilliance of the 1962 feature film."

From Christopher Leps

Source:Christopher Leps- A scene from To Kill a Mockingbird.

I saw the To Kill a Mockingbird movie last night in preparation for this piece. And I’ve seen it before, the last time probably five years ago. And I haven’t actually read the book, so I can’t comment on that intelligently. But the movie, even though it certainly shows racist characters, it’s certainly not a racist movie.

If Ryu Spaeth, is asking whether the To Kill a Mockingbird movie is racist, with all due respect, that is a silly question. It is about a young African-American man in the deep South in the 1960s, who is falsely accused of murdering a young Caucasian woman. And the defendant, being represented by a good veteran Caucasian lawyer, who not only knows his client is innocent based on the evidence, but does what he can to get him acquitted.

Now, where is the racism in this movie? This movie is about a town in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Where the people there are not well-educated and struggling just to survive. Where the town is overwhelming Caucasian and probably Anglo-Saxon at that and who probably sees African-Americans and that is not what they called Black people back then, but they saw Africans as their ancestors who owned African slaves did. As animals and property, not as human beings. And yet one of the members of this community is falsely accused of raping a young Caucasian woman and one of the members of this Anglo-Saxon community, does whatever he can to defend Tom Robinson. An African-American man accused of raping a young Caucasian woman.

The To Kill a Mockingbird movie, is about the times, essentially. What life was like in very rural Alabama in the 1930s for both Caucasian and African people in this community. And racism, is obviously a factor here, like it was everywhere else in the country and perhaps a bigger problem in Alabama and the deep South in general.

But this movie doesn’t make one community look better than another community, or members of one community look better than another, simply because of their race. This movie was about showing what life was like for people in this community in the 1930s. And how justice was carried out and how the community responded when one of their members accuses someone of seriously hurting them. Nothing racist about that.

The Week: Peter Weber: How The Democrats Became The New Party of Liberty

Source:The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

To start off with a cliché and hopefully this will be my last one in this piece, (no promises) but how times have changed. Instead of the Republicans and so-called Conservatives talking about the need and the importance of freedom in America, Democrats are not only doing that, but actually pushing policies to accomplish that.

It started in May, when House Republicans thanks to members of their own caucus and the Democratic Caucus, didn’t have the votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Because of privacy and personal freedom issues that both caucus’s had with the bill. So, with House Democrats and Republicans actually working together for a change, they pass the USA Freedom Act. Which has stronger privacy protections in it, that eventually passed the Senate. But with mostly Senate Democratic votes, after Senate Republicans let the Patriot Act expire, because they didn’t have the votes for it.

June, has been perhaps the biggest month at least in the Obama Administration, for personal freedom at least and perhaps even economic freedom. Congress, with the House dragging the Senate along, passes the USA Freedom Act, that President Obama was happy to sign. Last week, the Affordable Care Act, gets held up again. Which means Americans won’t lose their health insurance, simply because they get sick and actually need what they paid into. Working class Americans, who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance, won’t lose their health insurance subsidy, because they live in the wrong state. Because of the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling, gays can’t be denied marriage, simply because they’re gay and not straight. Or they live in the wrong state.

Americans, are moving against the War on Drugs and are open to marijuana legalization and against over incarceration. Support comprehensive immigration reform and don’t see non-European immigrants as some threat to America and American values. As I blogged last week, prostitution, will become the next Culture War issue. As more Americans become familiar with that and ask why are we locking up people for having consensual sex between adults, even if money is involved. Even if financial transactions are involved. Which again, goes to over incarceration in America. And something that young Democrats, will support legalizing.

By in large, I’m happy as a Liberal Democrat with where my party is on both economic policy and social policy. We’re becoming the party of both personal and economic freedom. We just want that freedom to be available to everyone and not see people denied access, simply because of their complexion, race, ethnicity, gender, or even sexuality. We do have a growing big government wing in the party, that Salon, the new The New Republic and others support everyday. That publishes pieces that question both personal and economic freedom. Which no real Liberal would and they support political correctness, in defense of people who aren’t Caucasian and Christian. And they support the nanny state and higher taxes on the middle class. And more bigger centralized government in America.

But by in large, if you look at especially where young Americans are when it comes to the so-called Culture War and these personal freedom personal choice issues and that they tend not to be fans of big government involved in our personal economic affairs as well, Democrats at least at the leadership level, tend to be with these voters. Which is how someone like Barack Obama wins North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana in 2008 an wins Florida and Virginia again in 2012. Because these voters tend to agree with President Obama on these key social issues and using government to empower people, not take care of them. As Republicans bash big government when it comes to economic policy and promote it when it comes to social policy.

The Week: Ryan Cooper: 'The Beginning of The End of The War on Drugs'

Source:The Week- illegal narcotic in America.

Source:The New Democrat

"One of the many depressing aspects of the 2004 election was the crushing defeat of pro-gay marriage forces. Republican operatives, cynically stoking turnout with outright lies, put gay marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states, every one one of which was passed overwhelmingly.

So it's jarring that gay marriage is now legal in 36 states, a mere 10 years later. Gay marriage is also currently before the Supreme Court, which seems poised to legalize it permanently throughout the country.

Something similar might be happening with the War on Drugs. Though the change has been longer in coming, and like gay rights the battle is far from over, there are some recent developments that would be absolutely incomprehensible to a time traveler from 2004. And I'm not just talking about marijuana.

No, this is news about hard drugs in conservative states. In Kentucky, the legislature passed a bipartisan bill advancing a harm-reduction approach towards heroin addiction, while in Indiana, Republican Gov. Mike Pence authorized a needle-exchange program in response to an outbreak of HIV.

The experiments with full marijuana legalization in Colorado, Washington, D.C., and Washington state are vital and long-overdue measures. But marijuana poses relatively simple political and policy challenges, since as a drug it is relatively harmless and now widely known to be so. Harder drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine, by contrast, are much more dangerous and addictive, and thus pose more difficult political and policy questions.

On the other hand, hard drugs are also behind the very worst part of the War on Drugs — the gruesome violence it foments in Latin America, where gangs massacre each other and everyone else over the ability to sell drugs to Americans. Reforming drug policy has the potential to make the world a dramatically better place." 

From The Week 

"Aired: February 5, 2014 on MSNBC. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Congressman Steve Cohen verbally destroys Obama Administration's Drug Czar Michael Bottecilli during congressional testimony about the failed "War on Drugs."

Source:Henry Bloggit- The Last Word With Lawrence (don't call me Larry) O'Donnell.

From Henry Bloggit 

The so-called War On Drugs really represents what's wrong with big government in America and big government at it's worst, because it treats adults like children and punishes people for what they do to themselves. And I'm talking about addicts, not dealers It's like the big government version of someone grounding their kid for skipping school or not doing their homework. A big part about being an adult is having the freedom to to make your own decisions and control what goes in your own body. 

Source:The New Democrat- I prefer to say no to the War On Drugs.

I think it’s a mistake to put same-sex marriage in the same group and discussion as the War on Drugs. Because a big reason why so much progress has been made on marriage equality has to do with the American courts ruling that these gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because they are discriminating, because they create two different classes: one for straights and the other for gays. Straights can marry because they are straight and gays can’t simply because they want to marry someone of the same gender. Which is why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because it empowers one class of Americans over another.

I’m sure there are certain unconstitutional aspects of the War on Drugs. But the fact is under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government gets to decide what they’ll allow to be legal and what they won’t. Unless there’s already a constitutional right to own or purchase something, like firearms, where all Americans have the constitutional right to purchase and own firearms. There is no constitutional right in America to purchase one drug or another. The Federal Government gets to decide what they’ll outlaw and legalize and what they’ll enforce and what they won’t.

American federalism is why we aren’t seeing state bans on marijuana being thrown out by U.S. courts or state courts because those laws are constitutional. And why the federal Controlled Substance Act won’t get thrown out by any court because those drugs are substances and potential commerce and the U.S. Government has the right to decide what commerce is legal and what isn’t. 

Look, I would love see the War on Drugs, a bogus war (to be kind) that is not real and not a real war, I would love to see it get thrown out as unconstitutional. And we legalize marijuana at the federal level and decriminalize heroin, cocaine and meth at least to the extent that users and dealers aren’t treated as the same. Users and addicts get rehab at their expense and dealers go to jail.

But these things aren’t going to happen through the court system for the most part. The way you defeat the War on Drugs as far as finally ending it, because it as already lost politically, is through the legislative and political process. Get the word out across the country that marijuana is not something that should be endorsed, but that is has similar side-effects as alcohol. And it is a waste of money arresting people and sending them to prison for simple possession or usage of marijuana. Go state by state and lobby Congress as well and not just young Democrats, but Representatives and Senators of both parties. As well as continue to push ballot measures.

The Week: Ryan Cooper: Why Self-Respecting Atheists Should Ditch The New Atheists

Source: The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

There two groups of people in people in lets say American political culture that probably annoy me the most, even though I would die to defend their right to express their obnoxious ignorant opinions, which is what Freedom of Speech is about, right, the right to offend and annoy and all of that short of harassment and libel.

One of these two groups of people are people who I call religious fundamentalists regardless of their religion. Who believe that you have to not only be religious to be moral, but a believer in their religion. We see this both with the Christian-Right in America and the Muslim-Right in the Middle East. People who want to impose their moral values and way of life on everyone else.

The other group of people who Ryan Cooper calls New Atheists, people who I would militant Atheists, or even fundamentalist Atheists. People who believe that anyone who is religious is either stupid, crazy or a bad person who will or has murdered a lot of people. Its worst on the Far-Left in America because they believe anyone who is a fundamentalist Christian or perhaps just a Christian is a bigot especially if they are of Caucasian background. And anyone who critiques Islam and other non-Christian religions except for Judaism are bigots or racists or both. Even if their critique is correct.

This might be the main reason why I’m not religious or a non-believer other than being an Agnostic, because I simply don’t know if there is a God or not. Which I believe is the most honest and accurate answer about whether there is a God or not, because none of us actually know. But the other reason being I don’t want to be lumped in with people who want to force their moral and religious values on me. And I don’t want to be lumped in with people who look at believers good religious folk who aren’t bigots of any sort as stupid, crazy, immoral, or all of those things. Which is why I believe Agnosticism is growing in America.
Source:The Agenda With Steve Paikin

The Week: Jeff Spross: 'Why Reform Conservatives Should Join The Democratic Party'

Source:The New Democrat  

I wonder 20-25 years ago when the New Democrats started emerging in the Democratic Party did someone from lets say The Nation on the Far-Left or National Review on the Center-Right write a piece with the title something to the effect, “Why New Democrats Should Join The Republican Party”. Maybe I’ll look that up later and of course the New Democrats were the Center-Left Democrats who saved the Democratic Party from frankly McGovernism. The Far-Left or New-Left that took over the Democratic Party in 1968 and ran that party up until 1988 or so. When New Democrat Governor Mike Dukakis won the Democratic nomination for president.

The New Democrats weren’t about and still aren’t about making the Democratic Party a centrist party with no hard left or right. But making the Democratic Party a center-left party with Liberals and Progressives as the main faces and leaders of the party. That still believes in using government to achieve great things. But that government can’t do everything for everybody all the time. And we can’t tax our way to prosperity and take so much money from people that they don’t have freedom over their own lives. And that government should be used to empower people. Not make people dependent on government.

The Reform Conservatives at least to me look like the New Democrats of the Republican Party. Conservatives who want to bring the GOP back from its hard-right if not far-right image and make it a party that can appeal to working class and minority Americans. So it’s not just a party of Southern a rural Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And rich Anglo-Saxon Northeastern men. But a party that can compete and win in the Northeast and Midwest at the national level, win back Florida and even be competitive if not win California. The Republican Party did all of these things very well up until 1992 when again they lost to New Democrat Bill Clinton in the presidential election.

Welfare to Work is a Reform Conservative/New Democrat anti-poverty program that was passed in 1996. Reform conservatism is about using conservative policies to appeal to a broader base of American voters. Who like things like smarter and limited regulations, lower taxes, economic freedom. But don’t want government trying to run their personal lives for them including if they can join a union or not. And are people who aren’t just Anglo-Saxon as far as ethnicity and not just Protestant when it comes to their religion. Don’t just live in the Bible Belt and aren’t just men.

The Republican Party as a conservative has a history of appealing to a broad base of Americans. That was gone by 1996 or so when they became the party of the South and rural Midwest and West. And what Reform Conservatives are saying is that the Republican Party needs a conservative message and policies that appeals to more than just their traditional Bible Belt/country club base. They have to find ways to connect with working class voters. As well as Latinos and Asians and women of all races. And even Jewish and African-Americans if that is still possible for them at this point. To become governing party in the near-future.

The Week: William Falk: Vladimir Putin Raises The Stakes

Source:The New Democrat

I have a hard time seeing even Vladimir Putin attempting to invade any of the Baltic States for one reason only which is NATO. If Russia attacks the Baltic States, that brings in NATO and then Europe and America would respond to what Russia is doing and would send in ships, planes, personal to defend those countries. And then Russia would have a big decision to make. Do they really want to take on NATO that is so heavily backed by America. Russia could sort of get away with what they did in Ukraine even though they are now paying a heavy price for it financially and economically because Ukraine is not under protection of NATO.

I’m sure Vlad Putin as dreams if not fantasies of reuniting the old Russian Empire and perhaps go back to the Soviet Union days, but with more of a private enterprise economy and a more developed country perhaps. But he doesn’t have the resources and the manpower to do that. The Russian Federation military is not the Soviet Union military obviously, as far as numbers and resources and manpower even. And they are very limited to what they can do especially their economy and economic growth is so linked with their state-owned energy industry that is struggling right now because of all falling oil prices and economic sanctions.

The Putin Administration needs to pay a heavy price for invading Ukraine. They need to continue to pay that heavy price since they brought that on themselves. And if that is short of physically being eliminated from Ukraine, then the economic price should be so severe that people in the Russian Government think to themselves, “how long are going to put up with this dictator and how much damage are we going to allow him to do to our country before we look at replacing him?”. And could come fairly soon as people inside of the Russian Federation are already very aware of the damage that their President has done to their economy.

The Week: Pascal Emmanuel Gobry: Hey, Liberals: Conservatives Don't Have to be Moderate to be Smart

Source:The New Democrat

Back in the mid and late 1980s as the Democratic Party had just lost its second straight presidential election a landslide and third landslide lost in twelve years and about to lose their fourth landslide in 1988 a new democratic coalition emerged in the Democratic Party. And essentially took over the party by the early 1990s. And was made of governors for the most part and Washington outsiders in general. Bill Clinton is the most famous member of this group, but add Governor Mike Dukakis, when Governor Bob Kerry, Senate John Kerry, Senator Gary Hart, Senator Al Gore, Representative Dick Gephardt and many others.

These New Democrats ideologically formed the Democratic Leadership Council, The New Democratic Coalition and The New Democratic Network which is still in business today. The New Democrat would be the Democratic version of the Reform Conservative. Smart Liberal vs. Smart Conservative. The Republican Party has been going through an adjustment really since 2007 and haven’t recovered yet politically from the Iraq War, Great Recession and other mistakes both politically and on policy grounds from the Bush Administration. And looking for ways to comeback and broaden their coalition to become a governing party again which means having the White House.

But what the Republican Party is going through now is very similar to what the Democratic Party went through in the 1980s. As their far flank meaning the Far-Left if not took over their party at least was viewed that way by too many Americans that it not only cost them one presidential election after another, but they lost four landslides within a sixteen-year period from 1972-88. Because Democrats were seen as Far-Left. Anti-business, anti-military, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-success, anti-wealth, pro-tax and spend, pro-big government as it related both to the economy but personal health as well. They were seen as anti-law enforcement and pro-convicted criminal and anti-victim.

What the Republican Party is going through now happened to the Democratic Party forty-five fifty-years ago when the New-Left from the 1960s became a big part of the Democratic Party. Except the GOP doesn’t have a Far-Left and is seen as their Far-Right taking over their party. To the point they are seen as anti-women, anti-minority, anti-secular, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino in general, anti-science, anti-intelligence, anti-education and I’m sure several other things that I can’t think of right now that Americans tend to support. And now you have so-called Reform Conservatives who are trying to change the image of the GOP so they don’t scare so many Americans. Especially people who would be willing to vote Republican if they don’t scare them.

The New Democrats didn’t move the Democratic Party to the middle, as much as the mainstream media wants to portray that. They moved the party back to the Center-Left where John F. Kennedy had it and where Lyndon Johnson wanted to leave it and Jimmy Carter wanted to bring the party back to. And say Democrats are also pro-military, but don’t think we should try to govern the world. We are pro-business, but don’t believe business’s should go unregulated or untaxed and believe their workers should have a right to organize if they choose to. We believe in law enforcement, but we also believe in civil liberties and being smart on crime. And not arresting people who didn’t hurt anyone. We believe in government and freedom and that government when used in a limited way and empower those who need it to also live in freedom.

And hopefully what the Reform Conservatives are saying is that Republicans are still conservative, but we aren’t the Far-Right and we are not haters. They believe in the American melting pot and liberal democracy and that conservative values based on freedom from both an economic and personal perspective can benefit everyone. And if they are successful in doing that as the New Democrats were successful in the Democratic Party, they’ll save the Republican Party and save the center in American politics. Where a center-left Democratic Party and a center-right Republican Party can both equally compete for the votes of Americans who don’t see themselves a pure Democrats or pure Republicans.

The Week: Jeff Spross: 'President Obama's Middle-Out Economics is Good, Bottom-Up Economics is Better'

Source:The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

I have several questions that I would ask Jeff Spross. Which is why can’t you do both? Why can’t you have policies that improve the middle class in America so their wages go up and they can get better jobs and also assist the poor working or otherwise so they can get good jobs and leave poverty? And then I would ask how does he judge how safety net programs have cut poverty the last fifty-years.

Does Jeff Spross do that by saying that if you add up all the social insurance programs that one receives in cash dollars, they are technically not living in poverty anymore. When you add up their Welfare if they aren’t working, Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance etc in dollars. Or does he measure reductions in poverty by the numbers of people who are now in the middle class with good jobs and not needing public assistance at all to pay their bills.

The fact is public assistance programs and I’m not talking about Social Security and Medicare, but anti-poverty assistance for non-retired adults and seniors in America are only for people whose income is under a certain level. They are for people who do not earn enough money to take care of themselves. And because of that they are eligible for Medicaid, Food Assistance, Public Housing the Earned Income Tax Credit if they are working, but have a low-income job. So if you need these programs or any of them, you are in poverty by definition. Because you don’t earn enough money to live out of poverty on your own.

And then another question I would have for Jeff Spross. What is wrong with encouraging work, which are what work requirements are about. What is he worried about, that low-skilled unemployed adults will get jobs. Or finish their education as well and get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance. You don’t judge the success of anti-poverty programs by the number of people who need them. Meaning the more people who need public assistance, the more successful the program is. You judge these programs especially as they relate to education and job training for low-skilled and medium-skilled adults, by the number of people who don’t need them. Meaning the fewer people who need them, the better the program.

You judge public assistance by how many people are able to leave public assistance and poverty all together and now have a good job and are able to take care of themselves. Because now they have the skills and education needed to get themselves a good job that allows for them to support themselves and their families and no longer need public assistance at all. And the fact is we need to expand as well as empower the middle class in America. Because they are the people who drive economic and job growth in America. The real job creators with their spending on their basic and recreational needs. And education and job training and things like infrastructure and energy investment are how you drive down poverty, expand and empower the middle class in America.
Source:PBS NewsHour

The Week: Jeff Spross: 'Three Reasons Why Work Requirements For Food Stamps Are a Bad Idea'

Source:The New Democrat   

Here’s a big area where the Democratic Party disagrees. Where the Center-Left liberal New Democrats such as myself, disagrees with the more further left lets say Progressives and our quite frankly Far-Left. Our more social democratic least Democrats in the party. It is in the area of the role of government and more specifically our social insurance system and what should be expected from our citizens from themselves when it comes to managing their own affairs.

The difference being between Liberals who believe in independence, including economic dependence and for people to have the freedom over their own lives. Versus lets say Social Democrats in the party who have a more collectivist approach and don’t see a problem with people having to have long-term public assistance, even if they are able-bodied and mentally able to do that for themselves, if they just had the skills to do so, in order to survive. Even seeing it as a good thing that people have government taking care of them. Instead of people having to do that for themselves.

Bill Clinton, perhaps the most famous New Democrat in America now has a somewhat famous saying and campaign theme which was part of his 1992 presidential campaign, which was public assistance shouldn’t be free. That it should be an investment in people and not simply charity. And you can argue that simply giving people public assistance checks is an investment in them, because they’ll have that money to eat and everything else in order to live. And of course that money will go directly back in the economy right away. But that is not what then Governor Clinton meant.

What Bill Clinton was talking about was investing people’s human capital. Empowering them to be able to get the tools and skills that they need to actually get off of public assistance. Because now they have a good education, which may even include life training and can use those skills to get themselves a good job that pays their own bills and no longer need public assistance and private charity to survive. A much different approach from simply cutting people off simply because they’ve been on public assistance for a long time. Or saying that they don’t have to do anything while on public assistance, other than to use that assistance to pay their bills.

To tell people who are on public assistance, but are low-income workers that they have an option, but not requirement to get education and job training assistance as part of their government assistance and probably a lot of them will take that as well if they want to actually get out of poverty and become economically independent. But you tell them that they have to do nothing while on public assistance other than to stay out of trouble and oh by the way the way they aren’t eligible for education and job training assistance anyway as part of their public assistance, very few of them will ever leave poverty. Because they won’t be able to get themselves the skills to do so.

Work requirements are the incentive that unfortunately a lot of Americans who didn’t finish high school and haven’t shown a lot of responsibility and positive decision-making with their lives, need in order to take control over their own lives. And to build a positive future for themselves and their kids. But they aren’t a magic bullet and with them you also need education and job training assistance and even requirement so people aren’t leaving Welfare and other programs to go work a minimum wage job, multiple minimum wage jobs. You need both of those things working together.

The Week: Cuba & Uncle Sam: A Brief History

Source:The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

Cuba has never been a home of liberal democracy and liberal values, liberal utopia, or what have you. Similar to Iraq, they’ve always been ruled by one authoritarian regime or another and that includes America. So there’s never been this one grand moment or time in Cuban history that you can point to and say this was a great period for Cuba where their people lived in freedom and flourished. Because they’ve never had freedom and have never flourished as a country.

But given all of that and has much as Fidel Castro and his communist regime screwed up the Cuban economy, (and that might be putting it lightly) Cuba isn’t a hell hole, rat hole if you need a stronger word and I’m sure you can come up with a stronger one than that. Unlike Haiti, one of Cuba’s neighbors, there are some things that Cuba has done and does today very well and they’ve only gotten better and are going to get even better at that. As much as Fidel Castro was a communist dictator, he is a true Socialist, not democratic obviously, but certainly a Socialist, but unfortunately in the Marxist sense.

Cuba has a very good and developed social insurance and social welfare system. They have good schools, their kids get educated, but then have a hard time finding good jobs because of the Cuban state-owned industries. But that is improving thanks to the Communist State opening up the economy and allowing for private business’s, private property and private enterprise in general. And they have good health care and health insurance, especially considering we are still talking about a third-world country.

I think the direction that Cuba is headed into now, is like that of China and Russia. Where you’ll have a private enterprise economy, but with a generous welfare state like that in Scandinavia. And a country that will probably be even further advance when it comes to some personal freedom and civil liberty issues, just not guaranteed by a constitution. But where the country is still ruled by the Communist Party, without any real opposition to it. And where most of the political power is still centralized in Havana. So no to liberal or even social democracy in Cuba for now, but they are still further along than they ever have been.

The Week: Damon Linker: The Laughable to Get Mitt Romney to Run in 2016

Source:The New Democrat

Hubert Humphrey had a great line in 1968 when he and Richard Nixon were the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Vice President Humphrey's line was about one of Mr. Nixon's campaign themes for president in 1968 which was The New Nixon. And talking about Nixon's multiple political comebacks in his career as well as attempted political comebacks.

The 1952 Checkers speech that kept then Senator Nixon on the Republican ticket for Vice President.

The experienced and ready to serve Nixon in 1960 when he ran for President the first time.

The New Nixon 1962 when he ran for Governor of California in after losing the 1960 presidential election to Jack Kennedy.

And what Hubert said about all of these new Nixon's was that "a man who has had as many political face jobs and touchups in his career can't be very new". I'm paraphrasing here but that is damn close. And you go to Mitt Romney and doesn't matter which Mitt you choose and I'll get into more of that later, but Mitt Romney has had a similar political career. One of the differences between Tricky Dick Nixon and Flip Flopper Mitt Romney is that Dick won most of his political elections. Nixon was 8-2 as a political candidate and incumbent which covers all of his Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential elections. Mitt is 1-3 not exactly as winner as a politician.

But let's take a look at Mitt Romney's political career because that should explain that 1-3 record. He was Liberal Democrat Mitt in 1994 essentially running as a New Democrat in Massachusetts (even though he is a Republican, go figure) for U.S. Senate against the progressive champion Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost that election overwhelmingly an election where he was a strong favorite going in. Then Moderate Mitt shows up in 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And of course that is still the only election Mitt has ever won in now sixty-seven years on this planet. Moderate Mitt managed to stay around as Governor until he ran for President the first time in 2007.

In 2007-08 Religious-Conservative/Neo-Con Hawk (even though he's a Mormon and comes form a religion that believes in multiple spouses) Mitt shows up to run for President the first time. Mike Huckabee deserves the credit for the best line about Mitt Romney in that campaign. When Governor Huckabee said that "Mitt looks like the man who fired your father". Mitt Romney has Wall Street country club Northeastern conservative establishment Republican written all over his chess and back. And yet he's never run as someone who is proud of his success in life. But the candidate who runs as the guy who tries to please everybody, but instead offends everyone at the same time.

In 2009-10 was probably the best part of Mitt Romney's political career where he was once again out of public office because he couldn't get a job in it. But that is a time when he did some real studying about current affairs especially foreign policy and learning about the United States Government and issues that the country was facing. The problem was that he didn't use that knowledge very well to communicate a reason for why he should be elected President in 2012. But instead focused on who does he need to vote for him and how to talk everyone at the same time with different messages for each group.

2012 is the biggest stain not only on Mitt's career and something the Republican Party is going to have a real hard time living down especially if they lose again in 2016 and fail to win back the Senate in 2014. Because 2012 at least based on history and the economy was an election they should've won at least on paper. Going up against a fairly weak incumbent (but not weak enough for Mitt Romney) in President Barack Obama who was somewhere around 45% approval nationally with a struggling economy that had eight-percent unemployment most of the year that was barely growing. With a high budget deficit and national debt.

But again we are talking about Mitt Romney here so what does he do, but of course changes his political appearance once again. Who is Mitt Romney? You ask Mitt and put him on truth serum and he might say "I'm who I need to be to accomplish what I want to accomplish at any given time". You ask him off of truth serum and you may get five different answers to the same question at the same time. 2012 was Flip Flopper Mitt because I'm still struggling to figure out what his campaign theme was about because he changed it multiple times. At best it was successful businessman with a history of turning struggling organizations around who would turn the American economy around Mitt. Not exactly inspirational.

When the main question about a politician or a politician wannabe in Mitt Romney's case who has spent only four years of his entire life in public office (not for a lack of trying) because he lost most of the elections he's run in, but when the main question is after twenty years on public life as far as being well known and the number one question is "who are you?" Or "who is he"? You know you are in trouble as a political candidate. And that pretty much summarizes the political career of Mitt  Romney. The man who didn't even have the guts to let voters know who is he and what is he about and why they should vote for him.

The Week: Damon Linker: Why Liberals Should Support the Hobby Lobby Decision

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Damon Linker that real Liberals as I call people who are actually Liberals should support the Hobby Lobby decision. But perhaps I would put it differently. That it is one thing to be pro-choice which I am on most things as a Liberal. But it is another thing to say that you are not only pro-choice and lets take birth control to use as an example and that you believe women should have this right so much that you believe government should enforce that belief on the rest of the country even through law.

I believe in a hell of a lot of individual freedom as a Liberal and that is really what liberalism is about. Liberation and liberty what the word actually comes from. A bit different from collectivist or collectivism or the collective things that well collectivists tend to believe Socialists even. That "individual freedom by itself is dangerous and if you allow individuals to make these decisions for themselves you are giving them freedom to make mistakes that society have to pay for". Which is the common view of people who are supposed to be the so-called modern Liberals and Progressives. But they aren't, instead they are collectivists and statists which is very different.

But my broader point is you can believe in all of the individual freedom in the world. But if you don't match that with personal responsibility and that freedom is not free and that people need to be held responsible for their own personal choices. And that one's personal freedom can't infringe on others. Like forcing someone or organizations to pay for your own health care even if it goes against their religious beliefs. That is when and only when freedom is dangerous. When people aren't responsible for their own personal choices. And are allowed to infringe on others freedom and beliefs.

If you want birth control and decide to have an abortion, by all means more power to you. Just as long as I don't have to pay for it as an individual or no one else has to pay for it by law. Or we as taxpayers don't have to pay for it collectively. Which is why I agree with the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Because they aren't saying you can't have birth control, (at least not collectively) but what they are saying is that you can't force others to pay for your birth control.

The Week: Shikha Dalmia: 'Affirmative Action is Doomed: Here's What Progressives Can do About it'

Source:The New Democrat

The rhetoric of affirmative action is running out of steam.  The real Roosevelt (Franklin and Theodore) and LBJ Progressives need to step up to the plate and say "We are losing ground badly on this issue and we need a real progressive alternative now."  They should tell the New Left Socialists who believe in equality at all costs, "Shut the hell up and go back to the kiddy table where you belong because the adults are now back in charge and we'll take us to the promise land."

What I'm saying here is that the real Progressives in America not the far-left Socialists and leftists and statist micro-managers on the Left who want to run Americans' lives for them, want to use government to see that all Americans have a fair shot at living in freedom and taking advantage of that freedom and the opportunities it provides.  They need to  restore the Progressive good name with a positive economic agenda built around education and economic development that would benefit communities that are struggling in America right now.

Instead of giving Americans access and status because of their race, ethnicity or gender, empower them to obtain that access and status for themselves.  Whether you support affirmative action or not, and I don't, even as we are moving to a majority-minority country, affirmative action is losing political support and support in the judiciary, as well. There isn't a current majority for support on the U.S. Supreme Court and there may never be again.

What what the real Progressives need to do to counter this is to say what we are going to do instead.

We are going to back strict and effective enforcement of civil rights laws as they obtain to race, ethnicity and gender with financial sanctions being assessed on anyone guilty of violating these rights,  the funds from those financial sanctions going to the victims.

We are going to empower all Americans who are disadvantaged by poverty to get themselves out of it.  We are going to target communities with high levels of poverty which lack education and infrastructure, regardless of race and ethnicity and encourage companies to invest in those areas with good jobs, more than service sector jobs.  We will make job training opportunities available from both the public and private sectors for low-skilled, unemployed Americans so they can get good jobs.  We will empower these Americans to build their own businesses in their communities.

We are going to have a real education reform agenda that will not have to be approved by the teachers' unions. Yes, we are going to give more funding to the low-income communities for their skills.  We are going to encourage well-qualified Americans to teach in underserved communities. We are going to allow parents to send their kids to the public school of their choice.  No longer will they be trapped in a failing school not getting the education they need to be successful in life simply because of where they live.  Teachers' pay will be based on how well their students are learning, not how long they've been teaching.

If the goal is to lift more people out of poverty and reduce it to the point that it is no longer considered a big deal anymore,  like inflation, here's a progressive agenda that would benefit millions of low-income Americans whether they are adults or not. If the goal is to have a progressive agenda that benefits millions of African and Latin-Americans, who tend to come from low-income communities, here's one  that benefits those communities and would make affirmative action a thing of the past, as it should be.