The Future of Freedom Foundation: Opinion: Laurence M. Vance: The Transportation Fiscal Cliff: How to Fund American Infrastructure

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Ederik Schneider
American Highway

The Future of Freedom Foundation: Opinion: Laurence M. Vance: The Transportation Fiscal Cliff

Just to respond to Laurence Vance’s libertarian argument against the Federal Highway System. The reason President Dwight Eisenhower (no one’s Socialist) and Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress created the FHS in the 1950s was because the United States is exactly that. One country and in order to drive from one end to the other like truckers in Dallas who have to get products to Atlanta within days you need roads and highways that connect to each other from state to state. You need a Federal authority to handle those issues so those projects get done.

The states have their highways that are used by their drivers in their states and so do the counties. But you need Federal highways to get from state to state. But as far as the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ as it relates to our American highways. That is real I just haven’t heard it put that way yet, but according to the U.S. Core of Engineers (not Socialists) we have over a trillion-dollar deficit when it comes to infrastructure in this country. As far as repairs that need to be done and projects that need to be built that aren’t getting done. Which is money that is not going into the economy. Contracts that aren’t going to construction companies and workers that aren’t being hired to complete these projects. Which also leaves our roads and bridges less safer than they should be.

The way you correct this problem is to do one of the few things that Congress is supposed to do in the first place. And that is pass a highway bill and fix the financing in the Highway Trust Fund. Which until the Tea Party took control of the House of Representatives in 2011 was never that difficult of task for Congress to accomplish. Because senators and representatives in both parties understood the importance of the Highway Trust Fund. As well as how good of a tool it was in getting reelected. By getting money out of Washington and back home to their state or district to fund highways and bridges, as well as other infrastructure.

To fund the Highway Trust Fund again is fairly simple. You can raise the gas tax, tax oil, tax pollution, tax alcohol, tax tobacco, tax things that people don’t need that are more luxury items that they will still pay for because they love those things. And put that money into our infrastructure. Or you could do something more radical that I think a real Libertarian would like or at least not hate. But that is more of a New Democrat liberal idea which would be to create an independent National Infrastructure Bank. Which would fund and prioritize our infrastructure projects and finance them by bringing in investors from the private sector that would put up the money for the projects and get that money back plus profit from the users of the projects. Which is an idea that deserves a post of its own.

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

Townhall: Paul Greenberg: Howard Baker, Man in the Middle

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

To me at least as someone who is not a Republican Howard Baker the former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and Republican Leader who served both as Minority Leader with a Democratic President in Jimmy Carter and Senate Leader under a Republican President in Ronald Reagan is one of the last great statesman in the Republican Party. A true leader and I’ll talk about his leadership later on. A true patriot someone who believed in country and governing first and always before politics.

There are so many examples of this, but go back to 1973 when a then Democratic Congress was looking at investigating the Nixon 1972 reelection campaign, as well as any involvement the Nixon Administration may of have in Watergate in other campaign violations. And the Senate took the lead in these investigations with the House coming later in their 1974 impeachment inquiry and Senate Baker at the time just starting his second term in the Senate was seen as both a Republican and Richard Nixon partisan and loyalist. Yet he serves as Ranking Member for the Republicans on the Senate select committee that investigated the Nixon reelect campaign.

And it was Senator Baker who had the most famous and I believe important line and question during that committee’s investigation. Which was “what did the President know and when did he know it?” He wasn’t there to defend a Republican President and his serve as President Nixon’s counsel, but to find out the truth of what happened during the Nixon campaign and even what happened during Watergate. And that is how he led the Republicans on that committee and how he worked with Senator Sam Ervin the Chairman of that committee who was also a Democrat.

And then you can go up to 1977 and through the Jimmy Carter Administration where President Carter a mainstream Liberal Democrat (even from Georgia) who had huge majorities in Congress with a filibuster proof Democratic Senate in his first two years with sixty or sixty-one votes. And yet Howard Baker who had just become Senate Minority Leader the Republican Leader in the Senate in January, 1977 and who was called “President Carter’s best friend in Congress”, Howard Baker the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate. Because President Carter was what we call now a New Democrat a mainstream center-left Liberal. Not part of the FDR New Deal coalition or the George McGovern radical New Left that came of age in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Jimmy Carter even though he had those huge Democratic majorities in Congress both House and Senate was dealing with a Democratic Leadership especially in the House and to a certain extent in the Senate that was much more progressive than he was and much further to the Left. That when Democrats won the election going away in 1976 as far as not only winning back the White House, but retaining large majorities in Congress believed it was time to go back to the 1960s and expand the Great Society and go even further and creating large welfare state in America. But that wasn’t who Jimmy Carter was and he needed Republican votes in Congress to pass a lot of his agenda to prevent Senate Republicans and Southern Democrats in the Senate from blocking his agenda. So he turned to Howard Baker for his help.

And then you can go to 1981 where Ronald Reagan is not only now President after defeating President Carter in a landslide in 1980, but thanks to Reagan Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952. And now control the upper half of Congress the Senate and pick up thirty seats in the House to give them a fairly large minority in the House that could work with Southern Democrats in the House as well. Senate Minority Leader Baker now becomes Senate Leader Baker and now has to lead the Senate and govern and not just his caucus. Which is not easy with a 53-47 majority where you still need sixty votes to prevent legislation from being blocked. And he was able to work with a Democratic House and get deals with Senate Democrats and President Reagan to keep the trains moving.

I see Howard Baker as Bob Dole before Bob Dole became Senate Republican Leader replacing Leader Baker who had just retired. Because they were both loyal Republicans and loyal Conservatives as their voting records in Congress suggest. But they both believed in public service and knew how to be public servants and to govern. And of course would’ve rather have seen different legislation than what they produced with the agreements that they would get with Democrats and even to a certain extent moderate Republicans in their caucus. But at the end of the day they knew how to govern and how to count votes. And at the end of the day they needed to produce even if that meant producing really good legislation or good legislation instead of great, than that is what they would do to prevent crisis’s from happening.

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

Equitable Growth: Brad Delong- Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and the Decay of Welfare Capitalism

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Progressive Era

Equitable Growth: Blog: Brad Delong: Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and the Decay of Welfare Capitalism

‘Welfare capitalism’ is just another way of saying democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is an economic system common in Europe and Canada to a certain extent and Australia. Where you have a robust private sector private enterprise economy. But you also have a large publicly funded welfare state that are paid for by high taxes and a lot of taxes (at least by American standards) to fund that welfare state. It is just that people in America who would be called Social Democrats or even Socialists in Europe don’t like using terms like democratic socialism in America because of the negative political stigma that comes with the words socialism and socialist.

That welfare state funds everything from education K-12 or whatever the grades are depending on the country. To college, to health care, to health insurance, unemployment insurance, maternity leave, sick leave, childcare. Things that Americans except for the education part tend to get through the private sector. The United States generally spends around twenty-percent of its Gross National Product on the Federal Government. Europe is generally around fifty-percent on their federal government depending on the country.

This socialist form of capitalism (and yes there is such a thing) has been something that Social Democrats in America have tried to bring to America since the New Deal era. But haven’t had any real success since the Great Society of the 1960s. Because for one the country since the late 1960s if not further back has moved right politically. But also Americans tend not to be as far to the left as Socialists and don’t like the idea of paying a lot in taxes to pay for services they can get in the private sector.

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

Book TV: Laurence Tribe: Uncertain Justice

Posted on July 2, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

A lot of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 rulings where the right-wing comes out on top 5-4 looks fishy to me. And looks like an example of where the Tea Party and their big money backers have bought those five right-wing justices. And those five justices are just there to protect the wishes of the partisan right-wing of the Republican Party. The hard libertarian-right and the far-right. The campaign finance decisions are a perfect example of that.

But as Laurence Tribe mentioned in his talk you’ll see cases where Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of the Left, but where the so-called swing vote Anthony Kennedy who I believe is more of a Libertarian than anything else, at least a Conservative Libertarian will rule with the Right. And with Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Sam Alito ruling with the Left instead of Justice Kennedy. Or Justice Antonin Scalia perhaps the Tea Party’s favorite Justice ruling with the Left when it comes with the privacy issues.

Actually if you look at most of the Supreme Court decisions they tend not to be 5-4 either way. And a lot of them are 6-3 or 7-2. The Justices agree on a lot more than they get credit for. It’s really just the controversial decisions where there are clear differences between the Left and Right that makes the Supreme Court look a lot more partisan than it is. Like with campaign finance or corporate power, unions affirmative action to use as examples. So the Supreme Court is not as radical as it tends to get portrayed especially by the radical-left.

Posted in Book TV, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thom Hartmann: We the People Are the Ultimate Arbiters!

Posted on July 2, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

So under Thom Hartmann’s theory when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton that was passed by a Republican Congress that SCOTUS had no constitutional authority to do that. By the way DOMA was a law making it illegal for same-sex marriages to be recognized by the Federal Government. Which to me at least is unconstitutional on its face and deserved to be thrown out. But under Mr. Hartmann’s theory SCOTUS had no business touching that bill.

Thom Hartmann making what would be called a strict-constructionist argument about the constitutional authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Which means to put it simply that if the actual words do not exist in the Constitution for individuals or governments or organizations to do X or Y, then those rights and powers do not exist. To use as an example since the word privacy does not exist anywhere in the Constitution Americans do not have a constitutional right to privacy in the United States even under the Fourth Amendment. That would be a strict-constructionist argument.

I hate to break it to anyone who is not aware of this especially people on the further left in America (to be nice), but America is not a social democracy and we never have been. We are a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy which is different. And just because there’s a popular majority that says Congress should pass X or Y and Congress does pass X or Y, doesn’t mean Congress does actually pass that law in the first place. But even if Congress does pass the law that doesn’t mean that law stays in place. And that is where the Supreme Court comes in to decide not if laws are well written or are good laws. But to decide on the constitutionality of them and nothing more.

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

Talking Points Memo: Greg Gutfield: ‘Hobby Lobby Case Sends Shrieking Feminists Into Hysteria’

Posted on July 2, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Greg Gutfield with an interesting take on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. I covered this last night, but again if you are seriously a Liberal and you don’t just call yourself a Liberal because you are afraid of the political stigma that comes with being called a socialist or a social democrat, but you are a real Liberal with real liberal feelings and politics, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. And I would also argue that if you are a true feminist you shouldn’t have a problem with the decision either.

Why because the Supreme Court didn’t say that you can’t have birth control or contraceptives. Its just said government can’t force people to pay for your birth control or contraceptives. But that is not enough for radical feminists. They not only want to be able to do what they want to do. But force people to pay for their choices and then eliminate any possible opposition to their beliefs by trying to get people fired when they say something on their show or write an article saying something that offends them.

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

C-SPAN: Richard Brookhiser: ‘Social and Financial Power in America’

Posted on July 2, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

It was true Anglo-Saxon British-Americans essentially built America and at the very least led to the creation of the building of America. Now you could easily make an excellent case they built America off of African slave labor. And that the African slaves really built America as slaves to the Europeans who settled the country. Which is true but the Anglo-Saxons the first Americans who weren’t Indian created the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans today. Which is the United States Constitution and for that they deserve a lot of credit.

Posted in Book TV, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson Signs 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted on July 2, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

President Lyndon Johnson signing of the 1964 Civil Rights is one of the most important moments in American history. Because he signed a law that granted access to millions of Americans who were simply denied that access simply because of their race and for no other reason than that. And what it meant was that not only do all Americans have the same constitutional rights under law. But that they have to be enforced equally for all Americans. And if the states aren’t willing to do that and leave Americans in the dark because of their race, than the Federal Government will step in and enforce those laws and rights for them.
Posted in LBJ Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fiscal Times: Mark Thoma: Are Calls for Wealth Redistribution Based on Envy or Justice?

Posted on July 1, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Wealth or income redistribution, it depends on how you define it because government at all levels does it all the time everyday. And generally when government redistributes wealth it is noncontroversial. It taxes these people who live here to fund a school or fix a road over here. Social Security taxes today’s workers to pay for today’s retirees. So for anyone who says they are against wealth redistribution they should also explain how they feel about public education and roads and so forth. Things that the public uses everyday that if anything most of us tend to take for granted.

But this post is not really about noncontroversial income redistribution because where would the fun be in that. But to talk about the controversial forms of wealth redistribution at least at the hands of government. That is calls from the let’s say so-called progressive-left or even socialist-left that says “the Federal Government should tax the superrich and perhaps just plain rich people. (Perhaps minorities would be excluded) To take care of Americans who aren’t doing very well and perhaps people who aren’t technically but have to work very hard and a lot just to pay their bills”.

If you want a society that is financially free at least in the sense that it is successful and not only able to pay their bills, but set aside money for themselves and even donate to charity and perhaps look after family members and friends who may need a little extra money, that economic success simply has to be encouraged and rewarded. Instead of essentially punishing people for making it on their own and making a lot of money to take care of people who aren’t successful.

Otherwise you will create a dependent society in America instead of that free society where wealth is discouraged and dependency on government to survive financially is encouraged. Because you are telling people whether intentionally or not that they shouldn’t be successful because we the government will take a lot of that money from you. And also telling people that “if you aren’t successful the wealthy will take care of you at the hands of government”.

What we should be doing instead as a society especially for struggling Americans is to empower them to become successful on their own. Either by finishing their education or furthering their education. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. And that means reforming public education in America, making educational and job training opportunities universal for low-skilled adults. And for the college educated who now need more skills because their good job left for another country or no longer exists. And investing a lot more in infrastructure especially in underserved communities so they have the roads, schools and business’s that they need to be economically successful.

You want more Americans to be doing well in America you don’t discourage the Americans who are doing well already to stop being successful. What you do instead is continue to encourage people to be successful in this country. As well as empower more Americans to be successful as well.

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

Salon: Robert Reich: Hillary’s Appeal to the Middle Class are Tone-Death

Posted on July 1, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Salon: Opinion: Robert Reich: Hillary’s Appeals to the Middle Class Are Tone-Death

Wow I actually agree with Robert Reich on something. That Hillary Clinton is tone-death. Wait that is not exactly how he put that, but she does seem to have a hard communicating to people about what she actually believes. And that could mean that she’s a bad politician. Or less flattering she doesn’t know what the hell she believes about anything at least when it comes to controversial issues. Or even less flattering she doesn’t want to take an official stand on anything that may cost her support with people she believes she needs to win an election. Which would make her a weak and somewhat corrupt politician.

To give Hillary the benefit of the doubt (just to be polite if nothing else) I’m going to say that she’s a bad politician. Not corrupt, but someone who doesn’t know how to communicate what she actually believes in a way that garners the most support possible. Or doesn’t have this Ronald Reagan quality as someone who comes off as credible and genuine that says what they believe. And leaves Americans in place as saying, “you know what I don’t agree with that person on everything, but enough to support them. And at least they say what they believe unlike their opponents”.

I also agree with Bob Reich on another thing and this might be the last time I agree with him on anything this summer. That Hillary Clinton’s wealth or her husband’s wealth is not a problem either. Just as long as the money they’ve made post-White House was made legally and legitimately. That they earned all of that money and again as Reich put it we’ve had several very wealthy presidents. Actually maybe even a majority of our presidents have been very well off before becoming President of the United States. We don’t see a lot of career teachers or police officers or truck drivers making it as President. Our presidents tended to have come from successful wealthy families or made a lot of money in the private sector.

That doesn’t disqualify wealthy people from running for President. As long as they have a message that appeals to common folk. (For lack of a better expression) And then can communicate how they became so wealthy and what plans do they have so average and struggling Americans can make it in America as well. Something to the effect “look I’ve made it in this country by getting myself a good education. Working hard, being very productive and producing a quality affordable service that has made me a lot of money. And so can you and this how you can be successful as well”. Not sure if Hillary is capable of speaking to average Americans that way, but we’ll soon see.

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