CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates: How to Make Work Pay

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Derik Schneider
Father of the Negative Income Tax

CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates

I saw a video this afternoon of President Richard Nixon giving a speech to the country outlining his Welfare reform plan from 1969. In it he talked about the dangers of paying people more not to work than people could make in not working. I agree with that which is why I’m not only in favor of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars and hour and indexing it for inflation. But tying today’s Welfare payments to that of what a full-time minimum wage worker would make  at today’s $7.25 an hour minimum wage.

You tell someone on Welfare that they can not only make more money working than not working whatever the job is and you also tell them even if you do take a short-term low-wage job that pays more than not working and we’ll meaning taxpayers will help you finish your education which includes credits for childcare and finishing their education including vocational training. You now have incentivize them to leave Welfare and reenter or enter the workforce. And for people who simply are on Welfare because they are uneducated and don’t want to work they’ll get kicked off Welfare for simply being irresponsible, or their time limit will run out on them.

But again work should pay more than not working. So I’m not only about increasing the minimum wage, but I would propose and idea that was proposed by the great economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s. He called it the Negative Income Tax, my version of that would be would instead of cutting people’s Welfare assistance once go to work you let them keep that up to the point that they are no longer collecting or making a poverty income. Whatever money they make from washing their neighbors laundry, or looking after their kids and doing other household chores, or cooking food for people you allow for them to keep all that money plus what they collect from public assistance.

As well as going back to work with an official job again up to the point they are not longer collecting or earning a poverty income. Why, so we encourage people to work and go back to work and finish their education so they can finally get themselves a good job. Instead of saying “for whatever you try to do for yourself and that allows you some type of economic independence, we Uncle Sam or whatever government are going to penalize you in the form of some tax. To encourage you to stay on public assistance and not work at all so you become complete dependents on us the government”.

Posted in War on Poverty | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mises Daily: Blog: Andrew Syrios: A Brief History of Progressivism: What is Progressivism?

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Ederik Schneider
Classical Progressive

Mises Daily: Blog: Andrew Syrios: A Brief History of Progressivism

What is a Progressive? It depends on what you mean and almost who you ask. But whatever a Progressive is, they aren’t Liberals unless the idea of what a progressive is means someone who believes in progress. But without some real ideological vision in how to achieve progress. So if that is the case than I would be both a Liberal because I believe in individual freedom, individual and equal rights for all and responsibility, constitutional law and rights that can’t be taken away just through majoritarian rule. Limited government that protects people from predators, but doesn’t try to run our lives for us.

But I’m also someone who believes in progress and that even government has limited role in seeing that progress is achieved for the people. To me that is what a classical Progressive I guess the Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt’s, Lyndon Johnson’s back in the day Progressives who believed in progress and using government including the Federal Government in a limited way to bring about that progress. But if you watch MSNBC now and read so-called progressive publications like The Nation, Salon, the AlterNet, TruthOut and now the new New Republic progressivism doesn’t look the way I described it.

Lets say today’s Progressives or a lot of people who are labeled as Progressives are really what I call Eurocrats. Social Democrats people who believe in social democracy and that “freedom economic and otherwise is essentially dangerous. Because it comes with so much individual choice and decision-making that can be overwhelming for an individual. So you need a government big enough especially at the federal level to ensure that dangerous even individual choices aren’t made. Because when bad individual choices are made the society as a whole as to pay for those bad choices”.

That is not Lyndon Johnson progressivism. President Johnson never wanted a government so big that it could essentially run Americans lives for them and outlaw and remove risk completely. He wanted to use government to empower as many Americans as possible to be able to live the American Dream. (For lack of a better phrase) And what I mean by that is that LBJ did believe in public social insurance and the safety net. But not use it to run people’s lives for them, but to empower people in need to be able to help themselves. Today’s so-called Progressives are much further left than that.

If you really are a Progressive you believe government especially the Federal Government has a role limited at that, but a major role in seeing that everyone has the ability to live well in life. And even live in freedom with the ability to take care of themselves. So you believe in things like public financing for infrastructure and education and even health care. But you don’t believe government especially the Federal Government should have a complete monopoly over these services. You believe in things like the safety net, but not having it so big that people no longer have to make economic decisions for themselves.

A real Progressive believes in public broadcasting, but doesn’t believe government should own and operate all media. Just having an independent public broadcasting option for people to use as well. And if you are a real Progressive you are not a prohibitionist or a nanny statist. Someone who believes in outlawing personal choices that are dangerous. Like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and add junk food and soft drinks today. And if you are a real Progressive you believe in gun control to keep firearms out of the hands of predators and the mentally disabled. But not outlaw them from responsible individuals who use them for protection and have them in private hands.

Progressives, statists, and Communists aren’t the same people with three different labels. Progressive are not only democratic, but believe in a certain level of individual freedom because they don’t believe you can have a government big enough to run people’s lives for them. But also because a government that big would be regressive and not serve anyone well. And that educated people tend to know what they need to do and have in order to live well and be productive responsible people. But you want government strong enough to ensure that everyone has a quality opportunity to live in freedom.

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

Richard Nixon Foundation: Video: President Nixon Unveils Family Assistance Program in 1969

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Rik Schneider

What President Nixon is talking about here in 1969 became what is now known as Welfare to Work. The bipartisan law that Congress passed in 1996 that was signed by President Bill Clinton. The old Welfare system was based on subsidizing low-skilled adults who didn’t have the skills needed to get a good job and support themselves and their families. But essentially left them in poverty without much of an ability to move up and get off of Welfare and move to the middle class.

What President Nixon is talking about here is to continue to subsidize people in poverty. But to empower them to be able to move out of poverty with things like education and job training. But also design a system where working regardless of the job pays more than not working. I believe in that as well which is why I support increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars an hour and index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost of living. And then tie today’s Welfare cash payments to today’s $7.25 an hour minimum wage for a forty hour a week fifty-two weeks a year job.

You want people in poverty to stay in poverty than you encourage people not to work and pay them more not to work than they could make working with their current skills. But if you want people to actually get out of poverty, than you have to empower people on Welfare to get themselves the skills that they need to move up the economic ladder and get off of Welfare all together. Which is my approach and President Nixon covered some of that in this speech.

 

Posted in Richard Nixon Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Catherine Rampell: Limousine Liberalism’s Good Work

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Erik Schneider

The Washington Post: Opinion: Catherine Rampell: Limousine Liberalism’s Good Works 

I’m sick and tired (and that is putting it mildly) of hearing people especially rabid partisan right-wingers claim that Liberals hate the wealthy and people with money and hate capitalism and private enterprise. I mean for anyone who actually looks at who has a lot of the money in the country, a lot of those people are Liberals and someone of them even further left than that. I mean seriously what is a so-called Limousine Liberal? A wealthy Liberal, but a Liberal who also cares about the poor.

As a Liberal myself people should be able to make as much money as their skills and production will allow for them to make and what people are willing to pay them for their services. And that includes everyone regardless of political and ideological affiliation. Now what separates me as a Liberal from Libertarians and hardcore Conservatives is that I believe everyone should pay taxes based on how much they make and that includes the rich. You take advantage of the opportunities you were given living in this great country, you should pay for them as well so those opportunities are available for other Americans as well.

I don’t have a problem with rich Liberals, but people who are supposed to care about the poor and the income gap, but who do little or nothing about it on their own. And hangout with and associate with people who they claim are the reasons for the income gap in America. Cheerleaders lets say for the poor who say they are on the side of the disadvantage, but don’t do a damn thing about it that could actually help those people. And essentially attack the rich to further their own nest. Which I believe was one of the points that Catherine Rampell was making in her column in the Post today. That is where I agree with her.

Again as a Liberal economic freedom is great and we should all be able to make as much money as we are capable of making based on what we bring to the table economically and professionally. But economic freedom shouldn’t be based on who you were born to or who your parents know. But it should be for everyone in the sense that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in economic freedom in America. And that doesn’t come with higher public assistance checks, but with quality education for all starting at K-12 and even before that for all of our students. And empowering low-income adults to finish their education so they have the skills they need to get themselves a good job.

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

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur & Anna Kasparien: ‘The Establishment Should Fear Elizabeth Warren’

Posted on July 21, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

What are the real political differences between Senator Barack Obama from 2005 to late 2008 and Senator Elizabeth Warren now? They both used and use great rhetoric in the sense that they know how to move their bases and the progressive wing (if you want to call it that) of the Democratic Party. But if you look at their voting records in the Senate they were and are both with their leadership in the Senate that would put them with center-left of the party. But certainly not leftist radical Green Party Progressive Caucus types the Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader types that The Young Turks tend to follow and love.

I don’t know if Senator Warren is going to run for president or not and what I’ve seen from her so far doesn’t give me much to vote for. Long on rhetoric and short on policy, but keep in mind U.S. Senator is not only her first experience in Congress, but in public office in general at least as an elected official and she’s only been on the job for eighteen months.

But the only people who should fear the Senator if she runs for president are the Hillary Clinton establishment Democrats. Because if Senator Warren does run she’ll take real stances and force Hillary Clinton to officially go on the record on things that she would rather keep a big secret at least until the general election in 2016.
Posted in The New Democrat, TYT | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Los Angeles Times: Representative David Dreier: Can We Make Congress Move?

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

With all due respect to Representative David Dreier who served in the House of Representatives from 1981-2013 and has and inside view of Congress at least the House, “it is worst than it looks”. To paraphrase a title of a book from Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein in their 2006 book about Congress. The public is obviously not always right and because of that I’m one of the last people who would ever advocate for a pure majoritarian social democratic form of government. But back in 2006 Congress’s approval rating was somewhere around fifteen-percent and now it is ten-percent on a good day.

And if you just look all the available evidence about Congress both the House and Senate, Congress is clearly broken. And then if you look at how the House and Senate deal with each other, which in many cases is not at all and how representatives and senators talk about the other chamber, it is even worst. Forget about liking each other the Republican House and Democratic Senate do not even respect each other. The American people voted for a divided Congress in the last two elections and that is exactly what they have. And Congress as a result is so divided that it can’t get it’s basic work done like a highway bill.

When Congress actually does come together and does some work. It generally starts with the Senate because House Republicans have this take it or leave it approach over there. “Pass our Republican bill, or we’ll pass nothing”. Which gets blocked by Senate Leader Reid because Democrats are in the majority and get to decide what comes to the floor in the Senate. Senate Democrats will then try to write their own bill that gets blocked by Senate Republicans because Senate Democrats don’t have the sixty votes for cloture which is how debate ends.

And then when cooler heads prevail which is how the Senate is supposed to operate anyway, practical Senate Democrats and Republicans come together and write a compromise. Which passes unless a group of very partisan Democratic and Republican Senators are able to block it, or get an amendment to the bill that makes the bill unpopular on both sides. But even when the Senate gets a compromise passed it is dead on arrival in the House because it is not a House Republican bill. And the bill at best is a temporary fix to a long-term problem. Which that line right there is all you need to know about why Congress doesn’t work. Temporary solutions to long-term problems.

If you think that is as bad as Congress can get, stay tuned because there is plenty more that will be written in the future. And no I don’t have a solution in how to fix Congress in one post. Because it is a bicameral legislature with both chambers needing fixing. I’m not sure I could write one post about how to fix the House or Senate that could cover all the issues in one post. And anyone including Representative David Dreier still wondering why Congress doesn’t work?

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

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: What Should a Do Something Congress Do

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

In an era where the American people were actually crying out for something different and real that could bring the country together that was facing the most difficult economic and financial challenges since the Great Depression and I’m thinking of 2008/09, President Barack Obama gives us essentially a political slogan which is “Hope and Change”. What is that other than what those two words mean even when you put them together, Hope and Change. What are we hoping for and what do we want to change from and what do we want to be instead.

Whatever you think of the New Deal from Franklin Roosevelt, or Fair Deal with Harry Truman, or Camelot with Jack Kennedy, or the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson, or the Reagan Revolution, these were all real agendas. With real policies, policy initiatives and policy goals designed to take the country in a certain direction for the good of the country. And a big problem that I’ve had with Barack Obama as President is that even though he’s had real policy initiatives and goals and has wanted to move the country in a new direction, he’s lacked the vision to move the country behind that agenda and support him.

You can make all the complaints about Congressional Republicans that you want especially in the Senate about blocking President Obama’s agenda. But they haven’t paid much of a political price for their obstructionism because except for President Obama’s reelection as President he hasn’t been able to bring Independents who may be politically more incline to vote for Democrats behind him. Because the President and other Democrats haven’t communicated very effectively reasons to get behind President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Where is and what is President Obama’s agenda and policies when it comes to all the challenges that the country faces on a whole range of issues? I could probably give you a pretty good idea issue by issue, but I couldn’t tell what that agenda is called because it doesn’t have a name. Because even as political slogans might sound cheesy or like political gamesmanship today with how simplistic and even superficial American voters can be when it comes to choosing who to vote for and voting many times for candidates and incumbents based on personality, political slogans can be very helpful in bringing voters behind you.

I don’t believe even President Obama even knows what his political agenda is, or can at least tell you in a few words and make it clear for everyone. He instead goes issue by issue which I guess has its own effectiveness when he’s successful. But he’s gone from Hope and Change to at best Practical Progressivism (my words) which is not exactly and attention grabber for non-hard core political junkies and not something that expires Independents behind you.

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

The New Republic: Issac Chotner: James Garner Obituary, Actor Dead at 86

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

In an age where we are so dominated by social media and celebrity culture and by people who want to be their favorite celebrities and live their lives and even people who later become celebrities that want to live the lives of their favorite celebrities we had James Garner who personified the expression “keeping it real”. The only person that James Garner ever wanted to be in life was James Garner. Because that is the only person he knew how to be and was so confident in his own skin that James Garner was the only person he wanted to be. Or at least that is how he came off in his roles. Whether young people considered him to be awesome or whatever or not.

Garner represents the opposite of what we generally get from Hollywood today of a lot of cookie-cutter characters, actors and roles that are trying to be exactly like or very similar to whatever is considered to be awesome or hot at the time. He was a real genuine actor the genuine article an actor’s actor and not a clone of whatever is supposed to be hot at that time. But a great actor a true professional who did his work and played his roles the way they should be played by him. And not try to play them based on whatever is considered hot at the time.

He played his role in a charming professional real way where you got to see Garner in the character he was playing. You almost in a way got to him playing himself. It was almost as if he wasn’t acting but playing a character as if he was the character and the personality, intelligence and humor that he brought to all of his roles came from him. Instead of the director feeding him things to say and to do. You didn’t do that with Jim Garner. You gave him the role and script and he would study those things and delivered his part as himself.

Jim Garner wasn’t a great comedic actor, but a great actor who was very funny simply at being himself and bringing what he had to those roles. The Rockford Files is not a comedy. But a crime drama a detective show. But the thing is it is a very funny show and his detective movies were funny as well even though they were supposed to be serious. Because that is the kind actor Garner was and the directors of these shows and movies Maverick being another example of that wanted to bring that side out of him his charm and humor. To go along with his intelligence and personality.

The actors that remind me of Jim Garner pre-Garner would be Cary Grant. And after Garner would be Mel Gibson and George Clooney. Again none of these actors are pure comedic actors in the sense of most if not all of their roles are comedic roles. But these are all very funny intelligent actors that bring their personality and humor to all of their roles. So the directors of these movies and shows in Garner’s case would almost be stupid not to use these other gifts that these actors had even if their roles and the movies are supposed to be serious.

Cary Grant, Mel Gibson and George Clooney are all real and people who are very confident in their own skin. Self-confident actors who all have no interest in being anyone other than themselves. And all of these guys including Jim Garner could’ve all made great livings as comedians or comedic actors. But since they are all great actors as well as very funny actors they all have the ability to play serious roles and yet bring their humor and realness to all of their roles and that is what we see from them. And the type of actor that Jim Garner was. And he will be deeply missed especially with how cookie-cutter and repetitive that Hollywood has become.

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

The Kelly File: Megyn Kelly Interviews Bill Ayers, Leader of the Weather Underground

Posted on July 17, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Bill Ayers was part of the antiwar movement in the mid and late 1960s protesting the Vietnam War and perhaps other United States national security policies. Which was also part of what became the New Left in the late 1960s that was a socialist anarchist movement. That believed the center-left in America wasn’t moving fast enough the Democratic Party especially to address inequality, racial injustices, poverty the Military Industrial Complex. And this movement wanted to takeover the Democratic Party and move the country in a much different direction even through using violence.
Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Today: Pat Buchanan In Depth With Thom Hartmann: Richard Nixon’s Greatest Comeback

Posted on July 17, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan over Thom Hartmann on this. And I disagree with Thom Hartmann on a lot because he is so far out in left field that it would be impossible to hit a home run out at that ballpark at least to left field. You would need a jet plane to fly the baseball and drop it over the wall at that ballpark. But I agree with Pat Buchanan as much as it snows in Los Angeles. Because he is so far to the right that he makes the Islāmic theocrats in Iran look moderate. But I probably agree with Hartmann more often than Buchanan on most civil liberties issues like the War on Drugs.

And this is why I agree with Buchanan here. Because as much as the far-left likes to paint Richard Nixon as some type of right-wing authoritarian with the illegal bugging and other criminal activities inside of the White House, Dick Nixon was actually pretty moderate or progressive even as it related to civil rights issues. And even consumer and workers protections is it related to the environment and civil rights. As Mr. Buchanan said Mr. Nixon was way ahead of the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party on civil and equal rights and supported all the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 60s. And even supported affirmative action in the 1970s.

Posted in Russia Today, The New Democrat, Thom Hartmann | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment