The Nation: Mike Konczal & Bryce Covert: The Real Solution to Wealth Inequality

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The Nation: Opinion: Mike Konczal & Bryce Covert: The Real Solution to Wealth Inequality

The New Democrat

Before I explain why I disagree with the wealth redistribution argument when it comes to the income and wealth gaps in America. I’m first going to be (excuse my American English) an asshole about socialism and the authors of this piece from The Nation. Granted The Nation is nothing if not provocative and for that is always worth reading. And thank God (well actually our Founding Fathers) for our First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that the state doesn’t control our media. Even though some on the far-left have advocated for nationalizing the media this country.

But about this latest piece from The Nation from Mike Konczal and Bruce Covert. For you Seinfeld fans and people familiar with this show I’m going to take you back to season four of that series. The Gay Episode (for lack of a better term) when a college reporter overhears Jerry and George pretending to be gay (no offense) and pretending to be boyfriends. And Jerry and George finding out about this and confronting the reporter and strongly telling her ” we are not gay! Not that there’s anything wrong with that if that’s who you are”. Well that is how I feel about Socialists in this country and I’m going to explain that.

Even as late as 1993 when that Seinfeld episode went on the air there were plenty of Gay-Americans who were still in the closet for obvious reasons. Most of them having to do with bigotry and ignorance about homosexuality. Well then and now we probably have millions of Americans who are stuck in the Socialist closet because they are afraid to let Americans know they are Socialists. Because of all the negative stereotypes that still remain in this country about socialism. With it constantly being linked to communism and other authoritarian philosophies.

What too many Americans still do not understand even with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is that Socialists tend to be democratic. And if you look at Europe as well as America Socialists tend to believe in a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise to go along with a robust welfare state that they believe should provide the basic human necessities. The reason why Socialists get called Liberals or use the liberal label for themselves (which is an insult to me as a Liberal) or Progressives is because of how unpopular the word Socialist is still in America. So they constantly advocate for socialist policies and programs, but go with the liberal or progressive label instead.

Now as far as the piece on The Nation. Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert are essentially arguing for a social democratic or socialist economic system. Not state controls the means of production, which is different. Just most of the money that is produced by the private sector to finance their robust welfare state. That would be in charge of the pensions, health care, college financing and perhaps education in general. And taking those services out of the private sector completely to be controlled by the U.S. Government.

As I’ve argued many times before the problem with the American economy is not that we have too many rich people. But that we have too many poor people and lower middle class people who if they were out of work would qualify for public assistance because of their lack of savings. Where government can make a real contribution here is to empower the people at the bottom and near bottom to get themselves the skills that they need to get a better job and make more money and obtain economic security. You empower people to be able to take care of themselves and live in freedom, they generally will if they have strong character and strong core of values. Government doesn’t need to do that for them.

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

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: ‘Debunking The White House’s Response to The New York Times’

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’ve written several posts this year already about why the drug warriors have lost the War on Drugs especially when it comes to marijuana. So here’s another one and this one comes thanks to the White House because they are using the same old tired lame arguments that drug warriors have used forever.

Let’s concede that marijuana is not good for juveniles. Let’s concede that people who are driving should not be high before they get behind the wheel. Let’s concede that there is and would be an underground meaning black market for marijuana even if it is legalized. I can answer these points with two words. So what! No I’m not taking those issues lightly or laughing at them. But the same issues come with both tobacco and alcohol which are both legal narcotics in this country. As far as the black market, that argument can be made about every product that is legal in this country. Because we have people who do not like paying taxes so they pay and sell products under the door.

If you want to lock people up for something that is dangerous we would end up with a country of convicts. We have countless number of products from junk food to soft drinks to caffeine to firearms to alcohol and tobacco. That are all potentially dangerous if they are either over consumed, or used incorrectly. Yet they are all legal because we’ve made decisions as a country that locking people up for simply doing something to themselves that comes with bad risks is something that we can’t afford and not a country that we want to be.

There has yet to be a study that has been published that shows marijuana consumption whether it is used responsibly or over consumed is more dangerous than any of those other legal products that come with serious risks is they are used correctly or incorrectly. Yet marijuana is illegal at the Federal level and those other products are regulated and taxed. And why? Could it be because those other industries have very effective lobbying machines and marijuana is just getting started and will be legal in either your state, or a state near you in the near future? I would love an answer to that question.

Posted in The New Democrat, War on Drugs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Review: John Fund: ‘Setting The Record Straight On Jim Crow’

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

What John Fund doesn’t seem to understand or perhaps is ignoring, which is possible because he is a bright guy is that the Southern Democrats who blocked the civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s are Republicans today and would be Republicans today. They would probably be part of the Tea Party coalition or the Christian Right or both factions since they overlap. You can’t be a Democrat today outside of maybe Mississippi and be against civil rights. You would simply not get elected even if you won the Democratic primary.

Of course Congressional Republicans in the 1960s voted in favor of civil rights more than Congressional Democrats. And if it wasn’t for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen who was the Republican Leader those laws never overcome the Southern Democratic led filibuster let alone become law. Democrats aren’t denying the party’s history against civil rights. What I’m saying is that is history and the party today is completely different from what it was during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Back in the 1960s the Republican Party was still a conservative limited government low-tax party that believed in decentralizing government. But they also believed in civil rights which means equal rights for all Americans. And that part of the party is gone for the most part with a few exceptions in the Northeast and perhaps the Midwest. They inherited the Southern Democrats who are today called the Christian Right and the Traditional Values Coalition. Who believe Americans especially Caucasians have a right to deny access to people of different races when it comes to their own property.

Posted in National Review, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Allan Gregg: Christopher Hitchens- On Bill Clinton

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m not a mindreader obviously, but Chris Hitchens was an admitted Socialist and was his whole life. Even though late in his career he became more of a Neoconservative on foreign policy and national security. He supported the War in Iraq and admitted that 9/11 changed his take on foreign policy and national security. If Hitchens was a Democrat he was from the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party, the New Left that came into existence in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The McGovernites that are Occupy Wall Street today are Social Democrats who probably had as much influence over the Democratic Party as the Christian Right has over the Republican Party today. And the McGovernites essentially ran the Democratic Party from 1968 or so until Democrats lost their fifth out of six presidential elections in 1988. Bill Clinton is a New Democrat and comes from the New Democratic wing of the Democratic Party that now runs the party today.

New Democrats believe in using government to empower people. Not support them indefinitely without expecting anything from those tax dollars. New Democrats believe in foreign trade, a strong but limited liberal internationalist foreign policy. Infrastructure, education and job training over government dependence. Smart on crime, not soft on crime which means punishing hardcore criminals and not blaming society for their crimes.

Social Democrats believe in the central state and that the job of government is to take care of people. Not empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Welfare to Work was kind of the last straw for Social Democrats in the Democratic Party after trade, the 1994 Crime Bill and deficit reduction. And not expanding the Federal state as it related to the economy and creating a welfare state for the country. And instead moving away from those traditional Democratic policies.

Again I’m not a mind-reader, but I believe a lot of the criticism that Chris Hitchens has for President Clinton has to do with President Clinton’s politics. Instead of the man’s personal behavior as President and that Hitchens is still angry over how Clinton transformed the Democratic Party and made it a center-left party again. And no longer a social democratic party that it was pre-Clinton that is common on the Left in Europe.

Posted in Christopher Hitchens, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Andrew Sullivan: Neither Living Nor Dead

Posted on August 4, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Before I give you my take on the U.S. Constitution, I’m going to give you takes from others further Left of me and from people who are to my Right and further Right.

Today’s so-called Progressives who are really Social Democrats to be real and blunt about it see the U.S. Constitution in European democratic terms and want to and see America as their type of social democracy. Where government is more centralized with more power and more resources for the good of the people. And where most if not all things done though government are through majoritarian means with majority rule. They probably see our constitutional amendment process as undemocratic because of what it takes to repeal or amend an amendment. As well as forcing all Americans regardless of generation and the times as having to live under the same Constitution and Rule of Law.

Conservatives and Libertarians see the Constitutional in its original form. (Or that is what they say) And anything that is not specifically laid out for government to do based on the words of Constitution, they see as unconstitutional when government tries to perform those functions. Neoconservatives or the Traditional Values Coalition lets say when it comes to personal choice and freedom say that anything that is not granted specifically with the exact words laid out in it for the people, those rights don’t exist for the people. And that government can deny those actions for them. The same-sex-marriage debate is a perfect example of it.

I guess I’m somewhere in the middle on this which is where a Liberal would be between a Social Democrat on the Left and a Libertarian on the Right. All of the amendments and constitutional rights that we have as individuals with the constitutional amendments and Bill of Rights apply to all of us at any time. But when it comes to things for either the people or what can government can do I’m not what is called a strict-constructionist which is sort of a bogus term to begin with. And even people who call themselves that find ways to expand government power to meet their own political goals.

Just because same-sex-marriage doesn’t exist in the Constitution, or marijuana, or gambling and perhaps even property rights and the Right to Privacy doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to practice those things as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with those practices. The Fourth Amendment clearly limits what government especially law enforcement can to when it comes to regulating individuals own lives. And the Fifth Amendment clearly limits what government can do to one’s property. And can’t simply decide to take it over or take it away simply because it wants to. The Equal Protection Clause clearly protect all classes of Americans equally and doesn’t grant government the right to discriminate because it doesn’t like one class of people.

I’m a Liberal Constitutionalist because I believe in the Constitution and more broadly liberal democracy. The rights that we have just from the words themselves will always be there unless they are repealed or amended through a super majority process. As it should be because we are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Not a social democracy and those things are different. And just because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say an individual or government can do something, doesn’t mean they can’t. You have to look at the Constitution and see where those rights exist or not.

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

The American Prospect: Paul Waldman- Can Liberalism Survive the Obama Presidency?

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

First of all Barack Obama when he ran for President in 2008 didn’t run as a McGovernite Social Democrat which is what the Occupy Wall Street and the broader New Left in America are. He ran as a mainstream moderate Liberal or Progressive. Who combined both New Democrat liberal policies with FDR New Deal progressive polices as it related to both economic and foreign policy. He didn’t run to end the War on Terror or War on Drugs. At best he ran to fight those wars better. He didn’t even officially come out for same-sex-marriage until he ran for reelection in 2012. And expanded the War on Drugs and War on Terror in his first-term.

I knew these things before I voted for him in 2008 and 2012. The New Left in America saw him as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, but someone who could actually get elected President. They obviously didn’t do their homework and have nothing to be disappointed with other than themselves. As far as liberalism itself and how President Obama relates to it. The economic agenda is there as far as expanding economic opportunity for people in poverty through education, job training, infrastructure and trade. But the social issues including civil liberties other than civil rights is where he comes up short as a Liberal.

All you need to know about how Millennial’s feel about liberalism is where they are on the issues. They believe in a lot of personal freedom, believe in civil liberties. Do not want government managing their own personal or economic affairs. This is the most tolerant and color-blind as well as race-blind generation this country has ever seen. Which is why affirmative action has lost so much support in this country. So liberalism is in good shape, but what it needs are real Liberals to step up, run for office, get elected and show them why personal and economic freedom are good things as well as tolerance. And we’ll see more liberal policies get passed in this country.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mises Daily: Opinion: Randall G. Holcombe: The War on Drugs is Not Like The War on Poverty

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Mises Daily: Opinion: Randall G. Holcombe: The War on Drugs is Not Like The War on Poverty

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Randall Holcombe makes somewhat of an obvious, but important point that the War on Poverty is not a real war because it doesn’t involve two sides fighting each other to determine some outcome. And I say obvious not to put Richard Holcombe down or anything, but the opposite actually because not a lot of Americans actually understand that. War is a very common term in America especially in Washington where wars are either started or where America gets involved in them. And is sorta of a Washington hip way of trying to tackle problems. By saying “we are going to war against this or that!”

I’m still not buying that the War on Drugs is a real war. Sure America’s involvement in the War on Drugs involves using some military force against foreign drug dealers and organizations. But generally speaking is fought against Americans who use illegal narcotics for their own personal reasons. And against Americans who sell illegal narcotics against Americans who want those drugs. What the War on Drugs really is, is an effort against people for what they do to themselves and against people who sell drugs that are illegal that others want.

The War on Drugs is a war on personal freedom and choice. Drugs addicts have no business being victims of the war as far as what government does to them. But given an escape out of the war by getting them the help that they need at their expense to get off of those drugs and be able to move on with their lives in a productive way. And instead target those who would further the addictions of those drug addicts and put them out of business.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Enterprise Institute: Representative Paul Ryan: ‘Expanding Opportunity in America’

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’ve seem some of the reactions from so-called progressive publications like Salon and the AlterNet about Representative Paul Ryan’s anti-poverty programs reform plan. Representative Ryan is of course the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee so he has solid knowledge of these issues because of the information he has to this subject because of his positions in the House. The reactions from Salon and others were typical of far-left publications when any poverty reform plan comes around that isn’t about more cash assistance. But instead about empowering people to take responsibility over their own lives. Calling the Ryan plan cold and mean-spirited.

Libertarian publications like Lew Rockwell and the Economic Policy Journal called this plan big government and nanny statist. Which again are typical reactions from libertarian publications that see any reforms that aren’t about eliminating public programs as big government. I don’t agree with the reactions from either the far-left or libertarian-right because Representative Ryan’s ideas are fairly mainstream. What he wants to do is reform the job training programs so more low-income adults can have access to college and finish their education. So they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance.

The other idea that Representative Ryan had been expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit so low-income workers have more incentive to work and not quit and go on public assistance all together. The block grant proposal which would essentially turn the public assistance programs over to the states and locals to run is a bit controversial and comes with risks. But can be very effective as long as they come with conditions. That the money for the programs are used for exactly that and not used to build roads or tax cuts, but go to the people who the programs are for.

The one lump some approach which would be to essentially turn all the public assistance into a credit to cover all the people who are on the programs bills. I have a big problem with and can’t support. Because instead of having public housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance, Welfare and whatever else you would give people a credit that covers the assistance of each of these programs. It would essentially be on public assistance check to cover all of these bills for people who are eligible for these programs. Which invites people to make bad choices with the money and use that money to pay for things that the credit isn’t intended for.

All in all I believe Representative Ryan takes a good approach and a positive step to seriously dealing with poverty in America. That is more about empowering people in poverty to get out of poverty instead of just leaving people in poverty with a few extra bucks funded by taxpayers. But it is not something I would support completely, but would incorporate in a broader public assistance reform plan to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance and living in freedoms supporting themselves.

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

Jamelle Bouie: John Fund’s Distorted History of The Democratic Party

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Erik Schneider

What right-wingers of today and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and National Review is one of them, don’t seem to understand is that even though it is true that Congressional Republicans supported the civil rights laws more than Congressional Democrats in the 1960s, the Democrats who were against those laws in Congress especially in the Senate are Republicans today are and would be Republicans today. They would be part of the Tea Party and Religious-Right wing of the Republican Party today and perhaps part of both factions and those two factions overlap.

Lyndon Johnson and to a certain extent Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon rewrote the political map in America. Back in the 1960s the Democratic Party represented the South and Mid-Atlantic and to a certain extent the West. The Republican Party was New England and the broader Northeast, Midwest and parts of the West as well. The civil rights laws completely changed that around that by the 1990s the South was solid Republican because those anti-civil rights Southern Democrats were now Republicans. Republican Trent Lott from Mississippi who was Leader of the Senate at one point use to be a Democrat.

The Northeast because of civil rights by the 1990s or even before that became the solid Democratic North. There are now maybe ten Northeastern Republicans in Congress. Senators Kelly Ayotte and Susan Collins from New Hampshire and Maine respectfully. And a handful of Representatives mostly from small blue-collar towns like in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania like Representative Mike Kelly. And politically and culturally small towns in the Northeast do not look much different from the Bible Belt in the South.

So when John Fund, Anne Coulter and Larry Elder on the right try to suggest that it is the Democratic Party that is racist and that it is Democrats who are racist. Because they voted against the civil rights laws and supported Jim Crow. You should ask them “which era are you talking about?” Because if they are referring to the 1960s, 50s, and even before that they would be right. But the fact is those Democrats who supported Jim Crow and blocked the civil rights laws in the 1950s and 60s today are Republicans and would be Republicans today.

Source:The New Democrat

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

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Finding a GOP Anti-Cruz, Middle East

Posted on August 1, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Right now House Republicans can’t get past their Tea Party base on anything. And that is led and known by the House Republican Leadership who don’t have the balls (to put it bluntly) to take them on, on anything. Immigration is just one example so what it happens when it comes to something where they have to look like they are doing anything when it comes to public support, they do what the Tea Party wants them to do even if it is automatically dead on arrival in the Senate and has very little if any support outside of their Tea Party Neoconservative base.

As far as Israel and their conflict with Hamas. Israel is getting beat up by the leftist press in Europe and the far-left in America. But nowhere else including Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt because those big states both know the dangers of terrorism. Which means the ball has always been and is still in the court of Israel when it comes to resolving the situation there. And they essentially have a free hand to destroy Hamas especially if they get the opportunity.

Posted in Shields & Brooks, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment