PBS: NewsHour: Judy Woodruff: How Justice John Stevens Would Change the Constitution

Posted on April 30, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Justice Stevens has apparently been playing a lot of baseball lately, playing the position of left fielder in a ballpark with a very large left field.  He’s talking about essentially doing away with the second amendment.  His has been opposed to the death penalty and held this position on campaign finance for a very long time.


I agree with Justice Stevens on gerrymandering.  I would set up a Federal Congressional Districting Commission, for a lack of a better term,  to review states’ redistricting decisions.  States could still draw their own U.S. House districts but could no longer draw them for partisan advantage.

There will be a future post on this blog about campaign finance with more detail, perhaps this week.  Voters need, at the very least, to know where the money  that is going to candidates is coming front so that they can make informed decisions about their representation in Congress. Congress should pass full-disclosure of all political contributions.

As a Liberal Democrat that the Second Amendment embodies the right to self-defense and the right to life.  For that to mean anything, you have to have the right to protect your own life.  So,        I oppose any constitutional amendment that would empower the state, at any level, to prohibit gun ownership for adults.

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

David Pakman: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Racist Practices

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

Sometimes it’s great to be a lawyer, especially when you are talking about the First Amendment. But since I’m not a lawyer I’ll have to use my skills as a Liberal instead and what I’ve read about the First Amendment to explain this.

The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to say whatever they want to short of libeling, harassing, or inciting violence.  Someone could have the most intelligent opinions or the dumbest and expression of all is protected as long as it does not cause legally actionable harm to others.  For instance, you can believe that your next door neighbor is an asshole or have racist opinions about that individual but you can’t act upon your beliefs by physically attacking them or damaging their property.

Bankers can have negative views about American Indians but they can’t them deny them their services.  They cannot foreclose on anyone because they do not like the community to which they belong.

Posted in David Pakman, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoover Institution: Edward Paul Lazear: How to Energize a Lackluster Recovery

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

The U.S. income tax is now the biggest book ever written in the history of the world, at least as far as I know, standing at over one-million pages.  How would you like that for a book review homework assignment?  This system is in drastic need of reform.  I propose a National Progressive Consumption Tax or NPCT.

This eliminates, perhaps,  the biggest book  in world history and tells Americans that what they make and earn is legally and officially theirs but Uncle Sam will take a percentage of what they spend to provide the needed services that only the Federal Government can.  This system eliminates a lot of taxpayer funded subsidies to businesses and wealthy individuals.  No one would be able to avoid the NPCT except the working poor who would receive a scale of exemptions to replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.  They would be eligible for other subsidies to help them move up the economic ladder simply by reporting their annual income to the IRS.  The NPCT would be progressive because low-income people spend almost all of their money on the basic necessities of life which would be taxed at a lower rate than luxury goods.

The NPCT would be good for economic growth.  Taxes on capital gains and business incomes could be reduced.  Basic necessities would be taxed at low rates.  Food, housing, and non-luxury transportation will be consumed because people have to have those things.  The wealthy would continue to spend money on their play toys even if those things are taxed more highly.

Savings will be encouraged, resulting in less consumer debt.  In the next recession, people would have the means to continue supporting themselves and we would have less need for public assistance.  

Posted in Hoover Institution, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Heartland Institute: Richard Ebeling- The Free Market vs. The Interventionist State

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Ederik Schneider



Source:The New Democrat

There is no pure free market economy in the world today.  I use the term private market instead of free market and private enterprise instead of free enterprise.  Any type of economy that’s subjected to taxes and regulations is not free.

Individuals in any civilized and lawful society are not free to do anything that they want.  Freedom in a civilized society is the freedom to live as we please not the freedom to hurt innocent people.  Even a hundred years ago, we didn’t have a completely free market.  We had  labor laws and anti-monopoly laws.  In his article today, Richard Ebeling suggested that the U.S. had a free market economy back then. What we had was a private economy where most of the country’s resources were out of Federal hands.  Roughly sixty-percent of the American economy was in private hands.

Scandinavia is a bit different.  All of these countries are social democracies.  Their national governments own about fifty-five to sixty-percent of the economy, the same as in Britain.  The rest of their economies are in private hands. The old capitalist vs. socialist debate is exactly that, old and, I would add, dead.  Because every developed and developing country in the world, Mexico for example,   has some type of a capitalist economic system.

Many European countries  have socialist-capitalist systems, private enterprise combined with a robust welfare state to provide insurance for people when they aren’t able to take care of themselves.  They also provide services that socialists believe shouldn’t be for-profit, basic human services that everyone needs.  The U.S. is a little different. We have perhaps the largest private sector in the world but with a large regulatory state and a modest safety net for people who are down on their luck.

The world is past the point of discussion of free market vs. state command and control economy.  In North America, Europe, South America, and Asia we are discussing the states role in the economy.  It’s no longer almost everything vs. almost nothing.  

Yale University: Professor John Roemer- The Future of Capitalism

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

The Economist View: Robert Shiller: ‘Better Insurance Against Inequality’

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

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

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

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

Crooks & Liars: Joshua Holland: Outrage Over ObamaCare is Nothing Compared With FDR’s New Deal

Posted on April 28, 2014 by kireschneider
In the 1920s and 30s, the U.S. economy was a pretty freewheeling affair. Taxes were low and regulation of the economy was minimal.  Libertarians were as close to utopia as they had ever been.  When the first Franklin Roosevelt administration took office, they were confronted with the Great Depression.  The New Deal that they fashioned in response, though it seemed radical at the time, was actually a very practical, mainstream, economic response.
The Conservatives were saying that this was a natural fluctuation of the market and that it would recover on its own.  On the Far-Left, the Socialists were saying that this is capitalism at its worst and a great example of how it doesn’t work.  We need to replace it and come up with a completely different  economic system.


FDR was a pragmatic Progressive and didn’t enter the White House with a bold agenda for dealing with the Great Depression.  He had ideas but nothing big and bold.  In airplane pilot’s lingo “He created the New Deal by the seat of his pants.”  Saying that the Roosevelt Administration made it up as they went along is probably too loose but they put in ideas as they got them.  They had not developed a New Deal agenda as far back as the 1932 presidential campaign.

The Socialists were calling for steep new taxes on the wealthy.  I’m sure they wouldn’t have left what was left of the middle class off the hook.  They called for nationalization of industries and creation of a Nordic-like welfare state.   The Libertarians were saying that government should stay out of the way and let the economy fix itself, if anything lower taxes and regulations on private capital.

FDR’s New Deal was in the middle.  It affirmed American capitalism as a good system that empowers millions of Americans to be successful.  What it lacked, and what the New Deal provided, was an insurance system, paid for by the economy itself, for people who need help when the system failed.  This is how Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Welfare Insurance were created.  The New Deal, included, as well, new infrastructure investment to do needed work that the private sector was neglecting and to provide employment to millions of Americans. 

Posted in FDR Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: It’s Time to Outlaw Billionaires

Posted on April 28, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

Thom Hartmann should change the name of his political segment “The Lone Liberal” to The Lone Socialist. The Lone Liberal segment on this show is where Thom Hartmann, the supposed Liberal, takes on at least two right-wingers in a debate but socialism is really what Mr. Hartmann is espousing.  He says that wealth is basically a bad thing and should be eliminated that so there are no longer extremes of income.

If you don’t want Americans to be as productive as they can be and to enjoy the benefits of their productivity, then take away their incentive to be productive and successful. Taxing people at 100 percent of any income over a billion dollars or 90 percent over a million discourages our most productive people people from being productive.

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

Reason Magazine: A. Barton Hinkle: Bipartisan Hypocrisy on Free Speech

Posted on April 28, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I disagree with Barton Hinkle’s column, at least in this sense.  The First Amendment protects against censorship by government. We don’t have First Amendment rights to say what we please on the premises of our employer. That employer could have a rule that certain subjects cannot be discussed during office hours.  If they find one of their employees in violation of that rule, they would be well within their rights to sanction that employee.

Private businesses are allowed to operate under their own rules as long as they aren’t violating the law.  The First Amendment is binding on government, not private, entities.  In Reason today, Hinkle used the example of the Dixie Chicks in 2003 when they spoke out against President Bush and the Iraq War. Country music stations pulled their songs and refused to play them.  These stations, as private enterprises, have the right to play whatever music they want and do not have to disclose the reasons for their choices.

This blog talks about free speech and censorship on a regular basis, including several posts this week.  It talks about laws or proposals from either the Left or the Right that propose to constrain American public expression. Government censorship of citizen expression is unconstitutional except for the release of classified information.  Some forms of verbal aggression agains others, such as libel, harassment, the incitement of violence or false public warnings such as yelling, “Fire,” in a crowded public space, can expose the perpetrator to criminal or civil sanctions.   

A proposed law declaring homophobic language prohibited on the public airways or in print media because it is hateful would be in violation of the First Amendment as would a law prohibiting music or movies with certain forms of adult content.  Either would be government censorship that doesn’t meet any of the exceptions that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. 

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

The Fiscal Times: Edward Morrissey: Why Michael Bloomberg’s Nanny Campaign Will Backfire

Posted on April 27, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

New York, New York, what a city.  Trust me, that sounds funnier with my fake New York accent than it does with my fake Philadelphia accent, for some reason.  New York might be the only big city in America except, perhaps, San Francisco that produces popular politicians who believe that it’s their duty to protect their constituents from themselves.  And that they do not get any negative political feedback as a result.

Maybe New Yorkers believe that they are too dumb to decide for themselves what or how much food and drink they should consume or whether or not they should smoke or when they should go to bed. Should they be able to smoke marijuana or have to go to jail for their own good if they do smoke or possess marijuana. Should they be allowed to look at pornography or not? Should they be able to gamble their own money or not?  What’s the next NYC prohibition, sex before marriage or sex with someone of the same sex?

Only in New York and perhaps San Francisco could big city politicians get away with trying to micro-manage the lives of their constituents. Just about everywhere else they would be seen for what they are which are nanny statists. You think the welfare state is too much government. Well some of those high taxes you would pay would also be directed towards the nanny state. Having cops on the street to put people to bed at night or take cigarettes or Doritos out of their mouths does not come for free.

Posted in Big Government, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Free Speech TV: Hendrik Hertzberg: New York Joins Pact to Elect President by Popular Vote

Posted on April 27, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I like this idea of throwing out the Electoral College and going directly to a popular vote to decide the President of the United States as much as like the idea that wealthy people should get more votes than other people simply because you have more money. Instead of all voters being entitled to one and only vote, which is the way it is now, and has been since 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The whole idea of having the Electoral College is so that elections in more states matter and that presidential candidates have to campaign even in at least some small states if those states are swing states. New Hampshire being a perfect example of that but Iowa is another good example of that as well. You take that away and the Democrats will go to the Democratic big states and Republicans will go to the Republican big states to lock down their bases and run up the votes needed to win. And then perhaps go to a few key swing states to get them over fifty-percent. With the rest of the country still getting to vote but without much influence in who is the next President of the United States.

Not saying the Electoral College is perfect and I agree to a certain extent that it is undemocratic because we’ve had unpopular people elected President of the United States before. George W. Bush case in point in 2000. But if you are familiar with this blog at least you know that America is not a pure democracy in the sense that everything is done by majority rule to begin with. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy where our individual rights can’t be taken away by a simple majority vote.

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