PBS: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Pipeline Politics & Chris Christie Scandal

Posted on January 31, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The Keystone Pipeline is something that President Obama almost has to do for the economy. And I believe he and Secretary of State John Kerry who are going to have to sign off on this. Because of the jobs in the energy sector that will come to the United States. And also the biggest thing that President Obama can do for the economy to create good jobs by himself. So if he’s getting environmental reports that say there isn’t much of an environmental impact to this, he almost has to sign off on it. For the jobs and economic growth that is needed in this country.

As far as Governor Chris Christie, wow those Dick Nixon comparisons from a few weeks ago might have looked extreme then, but are now looking real and credible. About someone who probably knows more about a bad story than he wants to admit to, but if he gives too much out right away it could hurt him politically. But the problem being for him that he can’t control the story. Which is what happened to President Nixon in 1973-74 with the Watergate scandal.

State of the Union, I would give President Obama a B perhaps even a B+, but certainly not a great speech. It was strong in the areas that he wants to move the country forward especially economically. And that he’ll do whatever in his power to make that happen. But I don’t believe there was anything in it that will bring people who weren’t already behind him to him. “And say we need to get Congress especially the Republican House of Representatives to work with President Obama.”

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

JFK Library: President Harry S. Truman- Criticism of Senator John F. Kennedy (1960)

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Derik Schneider

TNC_27 (excerpt) Truman Criticism of JFK (2010) - Google SearchSource:JFK Library– President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri (1945-53)

Source:The New Democrat

“TNC:27 (excerpt) Press conference given by President Harry Truman announcing his reasons for resigning as a delegate to the 1960 Democratic National Convention. July 2, 1960.

This film is copyrighted and may be licensed by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. See this link for more information about licensing this footage:JFK Library.”

From the JFK Library

I find the lack of experience criticism of John Kennedy from President Harry Truman interesting. Especially considering that by the time Senator John Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he had already been in Congress for thirteen years both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. And by the time he became President of the United States, he had been in Congress for fourteen years.

JFK’s Vice President Lyndon Johnson served in Congress for twenty-four years including as Leader of the Senate for six years. And yes, Senator Kennedy was a young president, but someone with who had been in Congress for a while and also someone who served in the U.S. Navy.

The biggest job that Harry Truman had before becoming President of the United States a job he got because he was Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President for a couple of months and was out of the loop on all major decisions made by the Roosevelt Administration.

Truman’s most important job before becoming President was as U.S. Senator from Missouri. Where he served for ten years. Jack Kennedy actually served in Congress longer than Harry Truman before he became President. Jack Kennedy fourteen years in Congress and Harry Truman ten years in Congress all as a Senator.

So the lack of experience argument from President Truman about Senator Kennedy, even though I’m sure President Truman meant well and was looking at from the perspective of a former President, just doesn’t fly. Since Jack Kennedy had more experience before becoming President of the United States than himself.

Because before becoming President, Harry Truman’s first big job came at the age of fifty years old. And the first time he ever experienced real success in his professional life.

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

Front Page Challenge: Malcolm X (1965)

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

Malcolm X’s message was about self-reliance and self-defense for the African-American community. Not trying to destroy any other community in the United States. Which is something that the right-wing especially the far-right does not understand that prefers to view Malcolm X as a racist. At least towards Caucasians and a criminal looking to destroy the United States. What Malcolm X believed instead was empowering an entire community to be able to live in freedom. Wherever they wanted to live and be able to take care of themselves instead. And not have to be dependent on government or anyone else for their well-being. Conservatives should like Malcolm X actually because of his beliefs in self-reliance and education, freedom for people to be able to make their own decisions. And not have to be dependent on government for their economic survival.

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

American Enterprise: Arthur Brooks: Why Conservatives Should Care About Social Justice

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Rik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

Arthur Brooks talking about creating a positive agenda instead of Republicans just saying what they are against. He’s arguing and has argued that Republicans need to offer what they are in favor of. His argument is and has been that Republicans and Democrats Conservatives and Liberals tend to want similar things when it comes to the economy. That both sides both want economic opportunity, freedom, economic mobility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. But that both sides have different plans in how to accomplish those things. And what the Right needs is to have a plan that attempts to at least move low-skilled and low-income workers as well as the low-skilled unemployed into the middle class where they can live in economic freedom. And they don’t seem united in how to accomplish that yet. Lets say the New Gingrich/Paul Ryan wing of the Right seems to believe that empowering low-income adults whether they are working or not with educational and job training opportunities is a good way to close the income gap in America. But the GOP as a whole is not united behind that.

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

Brookings Institution: Robert Moffitt: Questions About EITC’s Role in the Safety Net

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The whole point of the Earned Income Tax Credit which was signed into law by Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford, hardly Socialists, or even Liberals, was to encourage low-skilled workers to work even for low- income jobs. Instead of collecting all of their income from public assistance. So these workers can at least get some work experience even at entry-level service jobs and not be completely dependent on public assistance for their economic well-being. And by this standard the EITC has been very successful in the United States. And has probably contributed to keeping our unemployment rate lower than it otherwise would’ve been. Had people making ten to twenty-thousand-dollars a year not enough for most of the country by itself. Especially If they had to pay federal income taxes as well.

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

Chicago Tonight: John Callaway Interviewing Senator George McGovern (1978)

Posted on January 30, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

If George McGovern was a loser, than America needs a lot more losers just like him. When it comes to knowledge, experience and judgement, because he is one of the finest people America has ever produced. And we are lucky to have a man like him. Because here’s a distinguished teacher, historian, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator and again historian, as well as U.N. Ambassador for Food and Agriculture. Who was always about two things. Public service and public progress.

When it comes to Senator McGovern’s politics. We probably do not agree on much at least as it related to economic policy. He was a real FDR Progressive Democrat and the real thing unlike some of these so-called Progressives today. That I’ll talk more about later, but he and I are probably pretty close as it relates to things like civil liberties and personal freedom. So on those issues Senator McGovern was probably to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Another thing I would say about Senator McGovern was that he was a real FDR New Deal Progressive Democrat. As it related to economic policy, foreign policy and national security. Who wasn’t anti-military, or anti-law enforcement. Unlike a lot of his supporters who helped cost him the 1972 presidential election. But he was someone who had a real respect for limited smart power. And not just as it related to economic policy, unlike a lot of the so-called Progressives today. Who sound more like Socialists and even Anarchists at times.

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

Thom Hartmann: Video: Without Government, There is no Middle Class

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
The New Democrat

Any good business person whose in business to make a lot of money and be very profitable and be able to provide very well for themselves and their families even if they are the only people they intend to benefit, it is in their best interest to have a well-skilled educated productive workforce. Even if that means paying them very well with benefits. Why because the more productive workforce you have, the more profitable the company you’ll have. And it is a hell of a lot easier for people to do good jobs and be productive if they know there’s something in it for them. And getting good money and benefits out of it.

Buy a cheap car or a cheap lawyer to use as examples and I’m not talking about a car that was discounted, or someone is basically giving you the car as a gift with a large discount, or a lawyer who agrees to work for less, or at a much lower rate than they normally do. But a cheaply made car, or an inexperienced lawyer with not much of a success record. You are going to get what you paid for those services and have to deal with the consequences of not having a good car. Or a lawyer with the experience and judgement to represent you well. And this applies to any business.

But if you invest a good deal of money in a car or lawyer, but do it in a smart way, “this is what I want and need from a car, or lawyer and this is what it’s worth to get those services” and you put the money into it, you are going to get back probably more than what you put in. Especially if you have a good case, or you take care of your car. Same thing with employees that if you invest in them and make it clear they could do well for you working for you and they are good employees who know exactly what the job is about and what you expect, that is what you’ll get plus what you put in. It’s the difference between do you see employees as a cost of doing business, or an investment in your company.

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

Reason Magazine: Jacob Sullum: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Major Sentencing Reforms

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree that this bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t go far enough. I would decriminalize cocaine, heroin and meth. Not legalize them which is different, but my drug policy would be that if adults twenty-one and over are caught in possession of cocaine, heroin or meth, those drugs would immediately be stripped away from them. And they would pay a fine upon conviction based on how much the illegal narcotics are worth. And if they are caught selling these narcotics or smuggling them into the United States or producing them themselves to anyone, they would be arrested along with stripped of those narcotics. But at worst looking at jail time. Unless they are convicted of smuggling or producing narcotics in America. Or selling or giving them to minors.

What the Senate bill does instead is reduce the prison and jail time for people caught with these drugs. But they still are in prison and that is still the biggest problem with failed so-called War on Drugs. Is that it punishes people for what they do to themselves. And you could say sure if you are selling these narcotics to other people, you are hurting them as well. The problem with that is those people had a choice to purchase or not to purchase narcotics and then use them or not. So we are really at the core talking about punishing people for what they do to themselves instead.

The paternalists on the Right and Left will say that liberty can’t be allowing people to live their own lives, even if that means doing things that may be dangerous to themselves. Well one problem with that and there more problems with that, is the result of attempting to protect people from themselves for the betterment of society, is you end up hurting society because now you fill up your prisons with people are by in large are good people. And even productive people before prison or could’ve been very productive people before prison. But now they are in prison and would leave prison with criminal felony records. Making it very difficult for them to get a good job on the outside because of their felony conviction.

So the Senate bill is a very good start and I hope it passes in the Senate even if it is not improved. Good luck with the Neo-Con drug warriors in the House though. But it is just a first step and going further we need to get non-violent inmates who are not in prison for hurting anyone else. Physically, economically or anything else out of prison and either in drug rehab or halfway houses. And allow for them to move on with their lives and be productive citizens.

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

Washington Examiner: Equal Opportunity Should Be The Goal, Not Equal Outcomes

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

In three years this might be the third time I’ve agreed with the Washington Examiner editorial page on anything. And that includes all of their editorial columnists, but I think they hit a home run with today’s editorial. By saying that the real goal when it comes to the economy is creating an economic system where all Americans have a quality opportunity to succeed in America. Even if that means that some Americans have a better shot at success, because of how they were raised. But that all Americans have quality opportunities to succeed in America. That quality opportunities becomes universal.

This is the economic debate that Democrats should be having with Republicans. Instead of so-called Progressive Democrats calling for everything to be equal including income. That all taxes need to be so high so no one has too much compared with the rest of the country or doesn’t have too little. In other words quality of outcomes which is very different and bit more socialist. And economic Conservative Republicans, “saying that this is how capitalism works. That is some people have so much and others have almost nothing. So what because that is how capitalism works.”

The mainstream establishments of both parties including in the Republican Party understand that we have an achievement and success gap that leads to our income gap. And why we have a very small population with a lot of money and a large population with very little. Which is what I call the income gap and both parties have talked about how to close it. And this one thing I credit President Obama for because he has a real plan to close it built around education and job training for our low-skilled workers and a big believer in having a new national infrastructure plan. That would create more economic opportunity especially for the Americans that do not have it.

The Republican economic plan to address the income gap which I believe does not go far enough, is built around school choice and training for low-income workers and low-skilled Americans who are unemployed. And work requirements for people on public assistance. So the leaderships in both parties at least now understand that the education and income gap is the problem. And both believe equality of opportunity is the way to solve it. But the real debate now what is the best way to fix the problems.

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

The Washington Post: Robert J. Samuelson: The Debate That Wasn’t

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree with Robert Samuelson that Washington really hasn’t been debating the size of government. But avoiding tough decisions and when they find things they actually want to do that is both parties they either borrow the money to pay for it, or try to cut something they think not a lot of people would notice so they do not have to pay a political price for it. And the latest Farm Bill where they actually cut Food Assistance for millions of Americans who would go hungry without it is a perfect example of that. Instead of cutting subsidies to corporate farmers people who have money, they cut the people who do not have much of a voice in Washington and can’t hurt them politically.

The best way to reduce debt and deficits if that is your goal, is first to figure out what you need government to do and how much money it needs to do those things that can’t be done anywhere else, or done as well. Or perhaps done in other places, but you need the Federal Government to play a role there as well. And medical research from the NIH would be a perfect example of that. Right now in these so-called budget debates both sides are debating on the margins instead. Cut a little here, perhaps raise a little revenue like with the so-called fiscal cliff debate in late 2012. But neither party really has laid out a vision for the country at least when it comes to the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Even with the Tea Party in the Republican Party as much as they may bash Washington and big government they are the first to make sure no one cuts their Social Security and Medicare. And the first to get their share of whatever pork that is being offered for their states or districts. The so-called Paul Ryan plan from 2011 and 2012 doesn’t erase the budget deficit even by 2023. And most of the budget cuts in it are targeted towards people in poverty who again do not have the resources to complain. And that part of the budget is pretty small compared with the rest of the Federal budget. And leaves the current budget at about where it is right now as far as a percentage of Gross National Product. In the low twenties.

The only faction in Washington and in Congress that has a long-term vision for the size and scope of the Federal Government are the people with the least amount of power in Washington. The so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, but they seem to have a Federal program and tax increase for everything the country has to deal with. Including raising taxes by trillions of dollars to spend all that money on current Federal programs. And create new economic and social programs to generate economic and job growth not to pay down the debt or deficit. As part of what they call the People’s Budget.

If this was a real debate about the size and scope of the Federal Government, both the Democratic Leadership would have their plan and the Republican Leadership would have there’s. They would both be different and they would both be about limited government. Since neither party at least at the leadership levels are social democratic parties and are both mainstream parties on the Left and Right. At least at the top with factions further to the Left and Right on down their party. But they would both say we need an effective Federal Government with the resources to do what we need it to do. This is what we need it to do and this is how we would pay for it. And let the voters decide who has the better plan.

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