The American Conservative: James Antle: ‘Five Ways Reagan Nostalgia Misleads Conservatives’

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Five Ways Reagan Nostalgia Misleads Conservatives - The American Conservative

Source:The American Conservative– Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States (1981-89)

Source:The New Democrat

“This week marks Ronald Reagan’s 103rd birthday. Non-conservatives often mock the right’s nostalgia for the fortieth president, but the enthusiasm is as well placed as the FDR portraits that hung above many a New Deal Democrat’s mantle.

Reagan was one of just two political figures associated with the modern conservative movement to win the Republican presidential nomination, and he’s the only one to make it to the White House. Ever since his 49-state landslide reelection in 1984—he came within one vote per Minnesota precinct of making it a 50-state sweep—conservatives have held the reins in the GOP but have been unable to steer.

Agree with him or not, Reagan was the only conservative president since World War II to produce policy accomplishments that rival those of postwar liberal presidents. (Reagan is arguably the only conservative president since World War II, though I’d make a case for Eisenhower.)

Ideological foes, including the current president, recognize Reagan as someone who changed the political landscape in the country. The two main problems Reagan was elected to solve—stagflation and a reheated Cold War—are but a distant memory. And while he manifestly failed to shrink government or much advance social conservatism, he carved a permanent place for people who cared about both objectives in the Republican coalition.”

From The American Conservative

I saw a book event last week on C-SPAN that featured Ron Reagan the son of Ronald Reagan. Now I know that politically the two Ron’s in the Reagan Family are different politically. But it is clear that Ron Jr. respects and loves his father dearly and his father loved and respected him dearly. As well and the more Ron Jr. talks about his father, the more you could see that he respected his father’s politics as well. And considers his father to be a successful president. They just didn’t agree on all the issues like as they related to the environment, aids research, and homelessness.

I bring this up because Ron Reagan wrote a book about his father’s life a few years ago. 2010 or 2011 and wrote about his father’s life a biography about his father and that is what this book event was about. And it was held about the time of President Reagan’s 100th Birthday late January, 2011. And after he was done speaking he was asked by one of the people at the book event at Politics and Prose, a Washington bookstore not very far from where I live in Maryland: “What do you think your father would feel about today’s Republicans talking about your father and comparing themselves to him?”

I’m paraphrasing here, but Ron Reagan said something to the effect that today’s right-wingers liked the political success of his father and the fact that he was a Conservative Republican or called that. But they wouldn’t of liked his politics. That the party is much further to the Right today than it was when President Reagan left office back in 1989, some twenty-five years ago.

You gotta know that Ron Reagan Sr. considered himself a Libertarian up until 1975 or so when he was first considering a strong run for President of the United States. Well, the word Libertarian and libertarianism is considered as bad as Communist or communism by today’s Religious-Right and the broader Far-Right in the GOP.

Just read a column in the so-called American Conservative (even though it doesn’t sound that conservative to me at least in the Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan tradition) that said that and I’m paraphrasing here (and the link of that column is on this blog) that said even though President Reagan did a lot for the conservative movement, he didn’t do much for advancing what is called social conservatism. Well, again Ron Reagan was a Classical Conservative, again think of Barry Goldwater. Not a Religious Conservative or a Religious Nationalist, which is very different.

Not arguing that Ron Reagan Sr. was a pure Libertarian because he wasn’t. The way he built up the military that by the way started under President Ford and President Carter, is a perfect example of that. But he did believe that people should have the freedom to live their own lives. And was more interested in how people interacted with each other, than what they did in their privacy. He ran on decreasing the role of government in Americans lives, not expanding it. Which makes him very different from the Religious-Right who believe Americans have too much personal freedom.

Posted in Ronald Reagan, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New America Foundation: Elliot Schreur: Asset Building, President Obama’s Myra Program

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

When President Obama announced his MyRa program and expanding retirement savings in the State of the Union last week, he was talking about encouraging people to save for retirement. Which is something that we should be doing as a country with so few Americans having independent retirement savings from Social Security. Aleta Sprague of The New America Foundation points out correctly that this lack of retirement savings is a problem in America, but a another big problem and perhaps bigger is the lack of savings period. And when money get’s tight for Americans, they dip into the IRA that they have to pay today’s bills. Instead of keeping money they need in their retirement account.

What President Obama is proposing is that Americans have the option of setting up their own retirement account. That could be matched by their employer and that money be put away in their retirement account. Which is a good idea and I support that. But the problem now is that so many Americans the overwhelming majority of today’s workforce simply can’t afford to put money away right now. So what we need to be doing is expanding capital and assets for low-income workers and the lower-end of the middle class. So they can afford to put money away and be able to save for a MyRa system to be able to work.

Now what I support doing is a few things. To talk about retirement savings is create what is called Social Security Plus and make it a universal option for all income levels to be able to participate in this program. And not make it mandatory or have Social Security takeover the entire retirement system in the United States. Which some on the Left have suggested, but what I would do is give workers the option to increase their own payroll tax that would be matched by their employer. From 6.2% up to 9.3% again that would be matched by their employer and the money would be tax-free. And go into a individual retirement account and allow for workers to put money they make outside of their full-time job into their Social Security Plus IRA. Again that would be tax-free as well.

My SSP-IRA would again be a universal option to all Americans. Including low-income workers and lower-end working class workers. Because they would not only be able to participate in SSP-IRA, but get all the money they put into SSP-IRA back in a tax credit or a tax deduction. So they could afford to be part of this program as well. But again we also need to increase individual savings and I would even create private individual Unemployment Savings Accounts.

People could put money into their USA while they are working again matched by their employers. And when they are out of work or they see their income falling, but their bills are the same or are growing, they could go into their USA instead of the IRA to cover their bills until they go back to work. Or see their income go back up. And again a USA would be a universal option as well because low-end middle class workers and low-income workers could participate in this program as well. Because they could get their money back in a tax credit or a tax deduction.

If we want to expand savings and retirement in America, which I believe we need to do, we first have to expand income so more Americans can afford to save and retire. And that just doesn’t mean having more workers, but having more workers with good jobs that allows for them to put money away in the first place. And have less Americans struggling in the middle class and less Americans in poverty. Whether they are working or not so the resources are there to allow Americans to be able to put money away.

Posted in New America Foundation, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RT: Video: Breaking The Set, Socialist in Seattle

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Socialism has a future in the United States, but it is the Bernie Sanders democratic socialism. That combines a very large centralized federal welfare state with very high taxes to finance it. To go along with capitalism meaning private enterprise to finance the socialist welfare state. Not saying that type of economic system is ever coming to America for lots of reasons. And I’m certainly not in favor of that type of economic system. But that type of Socialist could get elected in Washington State, New England and other places in the country.

Marxist socialism for all sorts of reason is all but dead outside of the Communist Republic of Korea. Which would be North Korea for all sorts of reasons mainly because it doesn’t work. Governments have a hard enough time especially national governments managing their own services and agencies. Let alone trying to run an entire economy for an entire country especially a big country. Which is why China, India and Iran moved away from that system a long time ago.

What Socialists should be saying is that they are not here to take your property away from you. Business’s or private homes, but to make sure that everyone has the access to what they need to live well in life. And that government needs to provide some, but not all of these services so that everyone can do well in the country. And who you’re were born to and your parents economic levels shouldn’t be the only factors in how well people do in life.
Socialists

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

Lew Rockwell: Blog: Laurence M. Vance: Libertarianism vs. Liberalism vs. Conservatism

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Ron Paul
Lew Rockwell: Blog: Laurence M. Vance: Libertarianism vs. Liberalism-Conservatism

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This is an interesting discussion to have because as a Liberal myself who actually understands liberalism it burns me when I hear people who aren’t Liberals get called Liberals. And I’m think of the MSNBC talk lineup or Far-Left publications like The Nation and many others, Salon and AlterNet would be others. And when I hear liberalism being talked about like it is some big statist ideology that is socialist or communist in nature and even has things in common with what is called Islamism a big government ideology supported by radical Islamists and I’m know that is not liberalism at all.

I’m sure Libertarians get tired with being lumped in with people who are supposed to be Conservatives. Even though they really aren’t that conservative at all and I’m thinking of the Religious-Right and other rightists on the Far-Right. Libertarianism is very different from conservatism even, but similar. And it is sure as hell different from fundamentalist Christianity or the Bible Belters who claim to be real Conservatives. Even though aren’t interested in conserving freedom, but taking the country back to a certain way of life from the 1940s and 50s.

If you are talking about real Conservatives like Barry Goldwater and today Rand Paul they have a lot in common with Libertarians, but not everything. They are not so much interested in eliminating the safety net or welfare state as they are decentralizing it. And getting it out of Washington even though they wouldn’t of created it. Where of course the Classical Libertarian wants to eliminate it all together, Ron Paul comes to mind. And the Conservative Libertarian tends to have things in common with Classical Libertarians on social issues. That this is not the business of the Federal Government.

What separates libertarianism from liberalism and I mean real liberalism not what MSNBC puts up, which is supposed to be liberalism, but actual liberalism, is Liberals do have a role for government in the economy. But a limited role to protect workers and consumers from predators and to help people who can’t for whatever reasons take care of themselves. But also help them get on their two feet so they can take care of themselves instead. And we are much different on foreign policy, but we are very similar on personal issues. Civil liberties and other personal freedom issues.

The main differences between Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals and even Socialists has to do with the role of government in people’s lives. Libertarians would give you the smallest government and Socialists the biggest government. With Conservatives and Liberals somewhere in the middle. But with different roles for government. And if even these governing philosophies are similar, they are different enough where that should be acknowledged as well.

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

The Federalist: Fred Cole: Sweat The Details Later

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

This is the debate that the Republican Party should be having right now. Between Libertarians the Ron Paul’s of the world and the Conservative libertarian branch the old Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan wing of the party that seems to be led by Senator Rand Paul. And I would add Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Jeff Flake to that list as well. Because these are the real Conservatives in the Republican Party. Not the Far-Right faction of the Tea Party. But the Conservative Libertarians in the party.

The Republican Party will not be a governing party again at the national level which means controlling the White House unless they bring in new voters. And as big government is more unpopular both from an economic and personal point of view, Republicans need to drop big government and their Far-Right and get back to their conservative roots. If they expect to be able to compete with Democrats for the new voters that they need. Latinos, Asians, Jews, economically conservative African-Americans.

Right now the competing factions in the Republican Party that could actually move it forward and beyond their Bible Belt Neo-Conservative base, it’s the Ron Paul classical libertarian branch. The Rand Paul conservative libertarian branch and the establishment the leadership in the Republican Party. That is supposed to look out for the best interest of the GOP that tends to be economically and foreign policy oriented. And not so much interested in the social issues.

The conservative libertarian branches of the GOP is how they move forward and become a governing party again. That would even win back the U.S. Senate as well. Because they could tell Americans especially younger Americans that they have an economic message that young people could like. And they’re not trying to run their personal lives for them. Because the Religious-Right and Far-Right in general no longer runs the Republican Party.

Posted in Republican Party, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate Magazine: Matthew Yglesias: Work-Ethic and The Welfare State

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

This is the real debate we should be having when it comes to poverty in America. How to encourage people who are on Welfare whether they are working or not working either continue to work or go to work or go back to work. And when you have a safety net where people can get more in benefits not working at all or working fewer hours or making less money because they could get more money at home collecting public assistance, you are not encouraging people to work, but encouraging people not to work at all.

This is why the minimum wage debate is so critical because that is at the heart at this debate. If you want people to work, then work has to pay and when you are looking at jobs that only pay the minimum wage which is just $7.25 an hour and people at these jobs could collect more in public assistance benefits, you are incentivizing low-skilled workers to not work or quit their jobs. Because they could get more money collecting Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance and other benefits.

This is also why this little discussion about the Earned Income Tax Credit is so important. Something that was signed into law by President Richard Nixon no one’s Socialist in the early 1970s. And called the most successful anti-poverty program in history by President Ronald Reagan no one’s Liberal. Even though he does look pretty liberal compared with the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. But now you have Tea Party Republicans saying we should repeal that. Even though the EITC encourages people in low-income jobs to continue to work and not quit their jobs to collect public assistance.

So what I would do is to increase the minimum wage to ten-dollars and hour or more. With a thirty percent tax break for small employers which would have to be clearly defined. And apply today’s minimum wage for a full-time worker on minimum wage to people on Welfare Insurance. While they collect their other public assistance benefits as well. Including things like assistance for education and job training so they can get themselves a good job.

Expand the EITC to singles making twenty-five thousand dollars a year. And for couples up to thirty-thousand dollars a year to encourage these people to work. And also include benefits for them so they can get the education and job training they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. This is how you encourage work over Welfare by making it clear to people they can make more money working. Whatever the job is than not working at all.

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

The Young Turks: Jimmy Dore & Ben Mankiewicz- ‘Simple Weed Question Destroys Deputy Drug Czar’

Posted on February 5, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

This video is the perfect example of why the U.S. Government whoever is in charge since the creation of the so-called War on Drugs, why they have lost credibility. And no longer have much credibility on the War on Drugs. Especially with young adults let’s say early fifties and younger, but adolescents as well. When the Deputy Director of National Drug Policy Michael Botticeli can’t or won’t answer a simple basic question of whether or not marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, heroin or meth.

Representative Earl Blumenauer Democrat from Oregon who I like and respect, but do not agree with him on everything. Asked National Drug Policy Deputy Director Michael Botticeli who probably has all the information about the dangers of these illegal drugs as well as legal drugs and may even know this information by heart. Because it is a big part of his job. Was asked point-blank by Representative Blumenauer, “is marijuana as dangerous as meth or cocaine or heroin.” And Mr. Botticeli dodged the question, can only speculate why not being a mind-reader. But he must know the answer, but refused to share that information.

Representative Bluemenauer also made another great point that we’ve reduced the use of tobacco in this country. Not by locking people up, but by educating Americans about the dangers of tobacco. And then people seeing and knowing that and if they aren’t currently smoking, not getting into tobacco. And if they are current tobacco smokers getting off of tobacco or getting help for it. Which is exactly what we should be doing as far as how we deal with marijuana in this country.

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

Sam Seder: Video: ObamaCare Equals Freedom?

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
The New Democrat

Freedom if that is really what this is about is the ability for people to run their own lives and be able to make the decisions about their own lives. And I’m talking about both from an economic and personal vantage point. And to get that freedom people have to have the skills they need to be able to make the income to live in that freedom. Which is why education is so important for current students especially of they come from low-income families. But also for low-skilled adults work low-income jobs currently.

As far as the Congressional Budget Office report. I saw the House Budget Committee hearing with Doug Elmendorf today whose the Director of the CBO today. And House Democrats on that committee asked Director Elmendorf about that CBO report on the Affordable Care Act. And he said that what they are saying is what Sam Seder said in the video. That millions of Americans who are currently working in order to get health insurance will leave the workforce voluntary. Because now they’ll be able to get health insurance without the job they may not want.

This idea that Congressional Republicans are throwing out there that ObamaCare will destroy two-million jobs, is just more Republican propaganda or garbage about the Affordable Care Act. That they hate and are so frustrated about not being able to repeal. And will say practically anything at this point to make ObamaCare look bad. The next attack about ObamaCare might be that the ACA causes climate change. Something a lot of them do not even believe in and see as a government hoax.

Posted in Sam Seder, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: Walter E. Williams: The Many Welfare State Beneficiaries

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

It depends on how you define welfare and who it is supposed to be for. That is who should benefit from welfare and those programs. But generally speaking Americans probably view welfare as public assistance for people in need. And if that is the welfare you are talking about, then that assistance benefits people in poverty. Whether they are working or unemployed or perhaps not working, but are adults who have such little job experience even at low-income jobs and perhaps do not qualified as unemployed.

If welfare only benefited people in need the less-fortunate whether they are low-skilled workers, or the low-skilled unemployed and they must have this assistance just to survive, then I believe welfare would not be popular. But Americans would say we need these programs to prevent people from starving and going homeless. And so the do not feel the need to steal and so-forth. Which would be bad for the society as a whole.

But a big problem with welfare is that it just doesn’t support the less-fortunate in America. But it goes to people who simply do not need it. Like big business’s, big farmers included. Walter Williams example in the video of it benefiting upper middle class. And wealthy families with the school lunch program even though these parents can more than afford to pay full-price for their kids lunch. And because of this at least some Americans people who work very hard just to pay their bills and not have to collect from public assistance, say “why do I have to pay for people who can pay for themselves.”

Posted in Liberty Pen, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The State of The Democratic Party (1985)

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Rik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

What happened to the Democratic Party in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 in those presidential defeats and in the case of 1980 when the not only lost the White House in a landslide, but lost the U.S. Senate and eleven seats at that, was that their Far-Left rose up in the late 1960s in response to the Vietnam War and to against American capitalism. As well and made the Democratic Party look way out of the mainstream than they actually were.

The Democratic Party lost five out of six presidential elections from 1968-88. They won in 1976, but Jimmy Carter ran against the Democratic establishment and to a certain extent the Far-Left. And went out-of-the-way to convince people who was a New Democrat and mainstream and someone who shared a lot of American values. Like hard work, honesty and so-forth who ran against Washington. But lost in 1980 partly because he wasn’t able to solve a lot of problems that he inherited. But also because the Far-Left didn’t like him and took their support somewhere else.

And because of the Far-Left rising in the Democratic Party, partisan right-wingers and Republicans were successfully able to paint all major Democrats especially national Democrats, as out of the American mainstream and somehow Un-American and big believers in big government. And anti-capitalist, anti-success, anti-military and other things and even though only a small faction of Democrats believe in these things. Republicans were able to paint most major Democrats as supporting these things.

Posted in Firing Line, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment