Skip to main content

Common brands owned by Koch Industries
Less power for government, more power for guys like them, and the corporations they control.
Liberty. Power. Government. The way one frames the equation that connects these three words is at the heart of any political philosophy. The passage of a law in Wyoming got me thinking again about them. Wyoming just made it a criminal act to gather and submit to the government any kind of data—including photos—derived from privately owned land. In other words, if one documents pollution on private property and informs the authorities, one is breaking the law. This ridiculous statute is almost certainly unconstitutional, so rather than discuss it in detail I want to use it as a jumping off point to explore the anti-government philosophy—and in particular the motivations for it—that underlay the law.

Supporters of laws like this one love to talk broadly about liberty, property rights, and protecting the freedom of individuals from government overreach. All of these things are fine in the abstract. I also want to be free, to have liberty, to be protected from a tyrannical government taking my stuff. Who wouldn't?

However, this a simplistic, one-sided way of looking at things. Libertarianism—an ideology also embedded within its far more potent cousin, anti-government conservatism—is incredibly simplistic. Ayn Rand—whose fictional works strongly appeal to the anti-government right—is such a perfect example of this simplicity that we have this bit of wisdom from John Rogers:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Please follow me across the darkest depths of Mordor, i.e., beyond the fold.
Continue Reading
Demonstrators take part in a protest to demand higher wages for fast-food workers outside McDonald's in Los Angeles, California May 15, 2014. The march was held as part of an international protest by fast-food workers who planned to go on strikes in 150 c
If national Democrats had done their job, she'd have had a living wage years ago.
Before she was the tart-tongued grande dame on Downton Abbey, Maggie Smith was the tartan-clad elder stateswoman of Hogwarts. In the sixth Potter film, after Harry saved his friend Ron Weasley from poisoning, Smith's Professor McGonagall quipped: "I think we all agree that Mr. Potter’s actions were heroic. The question is: Why were they necessary."

As great a triumph as was the passage of a minimum wage hike in Los Angeles—one that will raise the floor to $15 an hour by 2020 and index it to inflation going forward—reading about it brought to mind the aforementioned quotation. The city-by-city, state-by-state struggle to raise the minimum wage has undoubtedly been heroic. Los Angeles—because of the sheer size of its population—is its most impressive and important achievement to date, although certainly not its only one. But why, indeed, has that struggle been necessary?

It has been necessary, first and foremost, because national Democrats failed low-wage workers on the issue in 2009 and 2010. Yes, this country increased the federal minimum wage in 2007, when a Congress with Democratic majorities passed the first such increase in 10 years. And the raise was—from a percentage standpoint—impressive, going up 40 percent, from $5.15 to $7.25, over 26 months. With a Republican president, that may have been as much as was possible at that time. Maybe.

But then Barack Obama became president of the United States, and Democrats increased their majorities in the House and Senate to the point that, once Al Franken's recount finally came to an end and he took his seat, the Senate Democratic caucus counted 60 members—enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. Franken took his seat, in fact, less than a month before the third and final wage increase mandated in 2007 took effect. Why, we can ask, did the Democratic Party—the party of working people—fail to take further action?

Please follow me beyond the fold for more on this question.

Continue Reading
George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, 2006.
The picture tells the story. No separation. Just call them Jebya.
As bad as you may have thought this week was for Jeb Bush, it was actually worse. This is the week Jeb Bush lost the Republican presidential nomination. And it may just be the week that Marco Rubio won it. When Fox News' Megyn Kelly asked Jeb on Monday whether he would have ordered the invasion of Iraq—knowing what we know today—there's no way she thought she was about to sink his chances of becoming the third Bush to sit in the Oval Office in 25 years.

After his initial answer didn't go so well, the next day Jeb tried to get away with claiming he misheard the question—yet he blew it again, complaining about having to answer a "hypothetical" and failing to give the right answer (which, as Paul Begala pointed out, is: "No! God no! Of course, no! Certainly not!"). It took four days before Jeb finally, finally got it, or maybe only sort of got it, given that he felt compelled to throw in that the world is "significantly safer" because his brother took out Saddam, and added that, going forward, "We need to re-engage [in Iraq], and do it in a more forceful way."

Here's why those four days are so important. The Republican clown car is more like a clown Winnebago, i.e., there are a whole lot of people on it. Don't like one? Try another. More specifically, Jeb Bush has some strengths and some weaknesses, and this fiasco (when noted foreign policy expert Chris Christie is able to smack you on Iraq, not to mention a 19-year-old college student, you know you've screwed up) reminded Republican voters just how serious those weaknesses are.

Follow below the fold for more.

Continue Reading
Some states are red, others are blue. The GOP candidates are too yellow-bellied to say what they ought to.
George W. Bush had one in 1999 when he criticized the fundamentalist right, as personified by Robert Bork. Bill Clinton's in 1992 gave rise to the term itself, after he denounced the activist and hip-hop artist Sister Souljah's outrageous remarks about white people. Now we're gearing up for 2016, and the time has come for someone to step out of the clown car that is the Republican presidential field and have his or her own such moment by condemning the off-the-charts extremism represented by those pushing the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory.

As anyone who's read Hunter's blistering take knows, there are some people down in Texas who are very concerned about a set of military exercises called Jade Helm 15. The purpose of the exercises is to maintain troop readiness, but some super-patriots (thank God for Chuck Norris) have ferreted out that they are actually an elaborate cover for the coming implementation of martial law. Okay, so we've got some people on the right who see tyranny lurking around every corner. No big surprise there to anyone who's heard of FEMA concentration camps or Agenda 21.

Back to Jade Helm 15. For a sampling of the level of paranoia out there, take a look at this letter from a Texas Ranger (not the baseball player kind) about these exercises that was sent to Dave Hodges (whose own site offers a veritable cornucopia of right-wing conspiracy theories), host of the "The Common Sense Show":

Let me drop a bombshell that I have not seen you address. There are trains moving throughout Texas that have shackles inside some of the cars. I have not personally seen them, but I know personnel that have seen this. This indicates that these trains will be used to transport prisoners of some sort. I know from reading your articles that your default belief will be that these are for American political prisoners and will be transported to FEMA detention camps of some sort. We have been told by Homeland that these trains are slated for transporting captured terrorists, non-domestic. We are not sure we can trust this explanation because Homeland is keeping a lot from us and we are growing increasingly uncomfortable with their presence in Texas.
Take a deep breath. Take another. Although you may not have personally seen it, there is more to this post beyond the fold, if you'd care to follow me. Shackles do not await you.
Continue Reading
Eric Harris after being shot by Tulsa police
No snarky comment here. Not for this image.
'Why?' It's the most useful one word sentence in the English language. It's how we begin the search for causes, for understanding, for truth. We have to figure out why something happened before we can figure out how to make change going forward. There are people who want to understand why the events that unfolded this week in Baltimore did so, and there are people who most assuredly do not. Let's start with the latter, or least with the most egregious of them, since we don't have all day to go through the full litany.

Republican Maryland state legislator and radio talk show host Patrick McDonough, in discussing the events that took place in Baltimore, emphasized "a lack of parenting." He also praised a proposal to take food stamps away from families whose children participated in the protests. I'll let those statements speak for themselves. Among national figures, one of the more popular themes was—try not to be shocked—to blame President Obama. Donald Trump (I know, I know) offered this gem:

Our great African American president hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are happily and openly destroying Baltimore.
Then there's Ben Shapiro, columnist, editor-at-large for Breitbart News, and author of The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration (Count 1 in Shapiro's list of charges is—wait for it—"Espionage"). Shapiro opined that Baltimore demonstrates the President's "legacy of racial polarization." Fox News' Lou Dobbs attributed this week's events in Baltimore to the Obama administration's having "corroborated if not condoned ... a war on law enforcement."

These guys too fringy for you? How about Ted Cruz, a United States senator elected from one of the most populous states in our union and a serious, if not likely to be victorious, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. In his musings on Baltimore, Cruz accused the president of having "made decisions that I think have inflamed racial tensions—that have divided us rather than bring us together." When probed by Dana Bash of CNN, and asked for examples, Cruz repeated the charge, but offered no specifics other than mentioning "the beer summit," and complaining that Obama "vilif[ied] and caricature[d]" those who opposed him politically on matters such as health care and the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cruz. You aren't Donald Trump, or at least you'd like to think you aren't. But you need to be more prepared than that if you want to level such a serious charge at the president of the United States. As I've written elsewhere, the idea that Obama is a divider is ridiculous. Ask yourself whether a divider would say something like this:

Whether your ancestors came here on the Mayflower or a slave ship; whether they signed in at Ellis Island or they crossed the Rio Grande — we are one people. We need one another. Our patriotism is not rooted in ethnicity, but in a shared belief of the enduring and permanent promise of this country.
Please follow me beyond the fold for a discussion of what and whom is really to blame for what happened in Baltimore.
Continue Reading
Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference.
I solemnly swear that I am up to no good. And not in the fun way, like in Harry Potter.
Bobby Jindal wants to be relevant. Yes, he wants to be president, but given where the soon-to-be former governor of Louisiana stands in recent polling, Jindal needs to make sure he can walk before he can seriously run. After previously trying to be the sensible Republican who criticized those within the party who say "stupid" things, he's now gone ahead and abandoned that anti-stupid position.

You see, Jindal is quite perturbed at the fact that, in Indiana and Arkansas, corporations forced fundamentalist conservatives to back down from their attempts to enshrine in law the absolute right of anyone to deny gay people equal treatment if doing so would offend their religious beliefs. Jindal has decided that the way to differentiate himself from the rest of the Republican presidential field is to show that he is more loyal than anyone else to his Christian conservative beliefs, and especially more loyal to them than fellow governors Pence and Hutchinson of Indiana and Arkansas, respectively. That's why he's more excited than ever to support the kind of "religious liberty" bill from which those states ultimately turned away. Jindal clearly thinks that he can be the most Christian conservative of them all, and then, just maybe, he can actually gain some traction for his as-yet-undeclared campaign for the White House.

That's the context for the op-ed piece Jindal wrote for Thursday's New York Times. One must read the whole thing in order to truly appreciate his, er, passion on the issue. But his overarching theme is that the business community was wrong to bring pressure against this kind of legislation, and that they should "stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty" against those who expound a "misguided, government-dictating ideology." That's how Jindal characterizes those "left-wing activists" and "radical liberals" who support those radical, liberal principles of equal rights for and equal treatment of all citizens.

I explore the passion of Bobby Jindal further beyond the fold.

Continue Reading
Radio show host Rush Limbaugh speaks at a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation, on the similarities between the war on terrorism and the television show
You may have heard about Dan Price, founder and CEO of Gravity Systems, or at least you may have heard about what he did last week. He set a new minimum wage for employees at his company. That new minimum wage is $70,000 a year. He's making this happen in part by cutting his own pay to $70,000. Price explained that he wanted to do something about income inequality:
“They were walking me through the math of making 40 grand a year,” he said, then describing a surprise rent increase or nagging credit card debt.

“I hear that every single week,” he added. “That just eats at me inside.”

What Price did reflects the spirit of the broader fight for a living wage, which recently took to the streets to fight for $15 an hour, or $31,200 a year for someone working 40 hours a week. According to a New York Times article, the public response to Price's decision has been overwhelmingly supportive. But if there's someone who wasn't going to like it, I'm sure you can guess who that is:
This is pure, unadulterated socialism, which has never worked. That's why I hope this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail.

Now, Rush, let me talk to you the way I'd talk to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the differences between capitalism and socialism—since that clearly describes you. When a business owner decides on a wage policy for his employees, that is something that only happens in capitalism. In socialism, the government doesn't just set a minimum wage, it determines all wages.

Beyond the fold I continue the education of Rush Limbaugh.

Continue Reading
Sign saying
A rose by any other name....
Let's get a couple of things straight. I'm not talking about a new name for Obamacare because its actual contents are more popular than the name itself, which is what Kathleen Sebelius (remember her?) said last December when she suggested that the program needs rebranding. I'm simply thinking long-term.

Who knows what our healthcare system will look like in 2045? I'd like to think we'd have some form of single-payer, universal coverage. But let's say we don't, and that we still have some version of the healthcare exchanges, the premium subsidies for lower-income Americans, and the other basic elements of healthcare reform contained in the Affordable Care Act. Could you imagine, 30 years after President Obama left office, that people will still be talking about getting health insurance through "Obamacare?" Anyone who has read my posts knows that I think this president has had a strongly positive impact on our country's direction, so it's not like I'd be offended to do so. It would just be, well, odd.

There is a part of me that would like to see the name continued, if only to remind people just who is responsible for the benefits they are receiving. But to be realistic, having a program in 2045 whose name references a president first elected in 2008 would just sound dated, old-fashioned, like yesterday's news.

In the 2012 campaign, on the other hand, I thought it was brilliant for the president to reclaim the name Obamacare from his Republican opponents. For example, a month before the election, he turned the tables on them, declaring: "They call it Obamacare? I do care! You should care, too," and later the same day adding: "Folks go around saying Obamacare. That’s right—I care. That’s their main agenda? That’s your plank? .... Making sure 30 million people don’t have health insurance?" He was rightfully proud to embrace his signature domestic policy achievement.

President Obama has said that he has "no more campaigns to run." So the question becomes what makes sense in terms of the program's name going forward. Here's what I propose:

Got you thinking? I hope so. Please follow me beyond the fold for more.
Continue Reading
A demonstrator holds a sign during a nationwide strike and protest at fast food restaurants to raise the hourly minimum wage to $15 in New York, December 5, 2013. Fast-food workers in hundreds of U.S. cities staged a day of rallies on Thursday to demand h
When different progressive movements stick together, everybody wins.
Silos are dangerous. I’m not talking about the kind that house nuclear missiles, but rather the metaphorical kind, the kind that divide people who could and should be working together toward a shared goal. Too often, progressives have found themselves divided into these kinds of silos, for example, with women—themselves typically divided by race and ethnicity—fighting for gender equality, LGBT folks fighting for gay rights, unions and workers fighting for labor rights, and on and on.

To some degree, these divisions are understandable. Part of the way a marginalized group empowers itself is by creating a movement in which its members play a predominant role. At the end of the day, however, the goal of a political movement ought not to be solely or even primarily to help those who actively participate to feel empowered—as important as that is— but rather to achieve specific policy or other concrete aims that improve the lives of all those whom the movement represents. The movement must be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Achieving those ends requires marshaling as much support as possible, and that means each group must break out of its silo and support one another’s causes.

Three of the progressive movements that are most active right now are Black Lives Matter, the push for marriage equality and LGBT rights more broadly, and the push for a minimum/living wage. Each of these has not only gained widespread publicity, but also helped achieve real successes, whether we are talking about marriage equality becoming legal, hikes in the minimum wage as well as increased minimum wages paid by major employers, or the reforms being implemented in Ferguson, Missouri. Each of these movements is powerful on its own. Working together, they can achieve much more. And they are coming together.

Please follow me beyond the fold for more on these positive developments.

Continue Reading
U.S. President Barack Obama (L) listens to the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Richard Cordray in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington July 17, 2013. REUTERS/Larry Downing
Richard Cordray runs the agency that issued the proposals. Barack Obama signed legislation creating that agency.
I've got two quotations I'd like you to consider, one from someone you know, and one from someone you probably don't. The first is from Ronald Reagan:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'
The second remark is from Trudy Robideau. It describes her experience with so-called payday loans, i.e., short term, high interest loans designed to help people with a financial emergency who are between paychecks. Ms. Robideau needed to repair her car and borrowed $800. When it came due, she paid a fee to extend the due date. Eventually, she ended up taking out a new loan to pay back the old one, beginning a vicious cycle similar to the one that has ruined countless lives while this industry has almost quadrupled in size (not counting for inflation) since 2001. Here's Ms. Robideau:
Ka-ching. You're hooked. You can feel the hook right in your mouth. And you don't know it at the time, but it gets deeper and deeper.
The remark from President Reagan perfectly encapsulates contemporary Republicanism, both in form and content. It's simplistic, ideological, and emotional. One other thing: it's completely divorced from the reality of any specific person's life. A person like Trudy Robideau.

Please follow me beyond the fold for more on this issue.

Continue Reading
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) pauses during remarks to reporters at a news conference following a Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington January 7, 2015.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst    (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR4KFJ3
John Boehner not moving his lips. That's at least a start.
"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." This quotation has been attributed to Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and Socrates. It's too bad John Boehner doesn't seem to have taken it to heart. Here's what Boehner said on Sunday about the peace process in the Middle East.
"Well, [Netanyahu] doesn't have a partner," Boehner said. "How do you have a two-state solution when you don't have a partner in that solution, when you don't have a partner for peace, when you've got a -- when the other state is vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth?"
Really, Mr. Boehner? The Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, is vowing to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? That would be the same Palestinian Authority that has recognized Israel as a state since 1993, and which has renounced violence as a method of resistance.

To say the least, Hamas is a different story, not to mention groups like Islamic Jihad. However, without going into the complexities of an incomparably complex situation, John Boehner made a blanket statement about "the other state." That means the government officially recognized as the representative of the Palestinians. That's the government led by President Abbas. Boehner's statement wasn't an oversimplification, or a slight exaggeration, or a misperception. It was a flat-out falsehood. John Boehner has decided that he wants to conduct American Mideast policy—despite, you know, not actually being president—and yet he makes a statement as absurdly incorrect as this? It's simply unconscionable.

And we know why he did it. Unblinking, blind support for Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be the one issue best able to excite the Republican base. We see this in the blowback that hit James Baker after he criticized the Israeli prime minister, even as he added that the United States would "never, never, never abandon Israel." None other than Baker's best buddy's son, Jeb Bush, slammed him. Netanyahu is so untouchable among Republicans that Bill Kristol mused that "Bibi would probably win the Republican nomination if it were legal." Apparently, Ted Cruz receives his "biggest standing ovation at each event" when he proclaims his devotion to Bibi.

In the same interview with CNN, Boehner criticized President Obama as well, stating: "I think the animosity exhibited by our administration toward the prime minister of Israel is reprehensible." Never mind the fact that the Speaker of the House seems to be more supportive of a foreign government—key ally or not—than our own. Boehner knows that if there's one thing the Republican base likes from its politicians as much as declaring fealty to Benjamin Netanyahu, it's going after Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama smiling and holding
Republicans wants to take away your health care. But you can smile too as long as we have a Democratic president to stop them.
The new budget proposals from House and Senate Republicans are a joke. How bad a joke? Both would repeal Obamacare, yet both count on collecting $1 trillion over 10 years in Obamacare taxes—all of which, by the way, would be paid by upper-income earners. Maya MacGuineas, who heads the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, lamented that the Republican plan relies on "details [that] are in some ways unrealistic and unspecified," and contains "several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget discipline and artificially reduce the size of the deficit on paper." Less kindly, there's the way Dana Milbank put it: "the [House] budget does not rely on gimmicks. The budget is a gimmick." Finally, a "very, very angry" Paul Krugman condemned the House and Senate plans as "an enormous, destructive con job."

Whether one calls it a gimmick, a joke, or a dagger aimed at the heart of any American whose house lacks a car elevator, the Republican budget plans—which will include a repeal of the president's healthcare reform law—offer a serious opportunity for Democrats, if they take advantage of it. Imagine the following event televised from the White House lawn: President Obama is surrounded by smiling citizens—all of whom are grateful that Obamacare allowed them to get health insurance—and they cheer as he vetoes the Republican attempt to take it away from them. Multiply that by 16.4 million—the number of previously uninsured Americans who got coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act—and you've got a population that will be highly motivated to get out and vote in order to keep it.

Please motivate on over the fold for more.

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site