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

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. 

New York Times: 'Will Hillary Clinton Run for President in 2016?'

Source:The New York Times- Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton (Democrat, New York)

Source:The New Democrat 

"A selection of clips showing how Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to variations of the question: Will she run for president in 2016?" 

From the New York Times

As far back as early 2006, it was not only clear that Democrats would win back Congress that year, at least the House of Representatives with, perhaps, a 50-50 split in the Senate, but that then Senator Hillary Clinton would not only win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 but probably win the general election as well unless the Republican Party was smart enough to nominate Rudy Guliani,  Senator John McCain, or someone else on the Right, but who could win Independents and also beat Senator Clinton in the swing states.

Well, Democrats did win back Congress in 2006 (both the House and Senate) and Senator Clinton served in the majority party in the 110th Congress of 2007-08. But last time I checked, she's not the President of the United States, wasn't on the ballot at all in 2012 and served as Secretary of State in the first Obama Administration. Why is that?  Well,  she lost to then freshmen Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.  Before his great keynote address for Senator John Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, most Americans had never heard of him.

As late as late 2007, then Senator Obama didn't seem to have much of a shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president. It was his great speech at the Thomas Jefferson dinner in Iowa in December of 07 that made him a major player and perhaps carried the Iowa Caucus for him that year.  He was  able to inspire people to get behind a cause for the society as a whole.  This was his theme for president in 2007-08.

I'm not sure if the Clinton presidential campaign was expecting a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination for president but they weren't expecting a major challenger either.  Quite frankly, most of the Democratic Party, including me, as well as most of the national media weren't expecting a strong challenge to Hillary for the Democratic nomination.  At the time, the possibility of being the first female President of the United States, the Democrat who was the most electable, and what people saw as a strong resume seemed to be enough for Hillary Clinton to be President.

I have a prediction for 2015-16: If the Hillary campaign believes the same strategy for winning the nomination and the presidency will work in 2016 even though it failed in 2008, they'll lose and, perhaps, lose big. Not the presidency itself, because, as Newt Gingrich has acknowledged, there isn't a Republican standing who can beat her right now, almost regardless of the campaign she runs, if she avoids major mistakes and nothing emerges from her record that could seriously damage her.  Her lack of a presidential vision and theme provides the opening that Brian Schweitzer, Martin O'Malley or Andrew Cuomo could exploit to defeat her for the Democratic nomination.  Any of those three would have that vision and theme to use against her.

I understand all the yearnings to have the first female President of the United States.  If the best candidate for president is a woman or Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for her. But running for the presidency of the United States is applying for the most important job in the world.  To win that job you not only have to beat out all of the other applicants but you also have to show the country why you are the best applicant and what you intend to do after you are hired.  Hillary hasn't done that yet.  She's still playing it safe as if it were 2007-08 all over again. 

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord: 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative

Source: The American Spectator.

Source: The New Democrat 

1964 is a big year  in 2014, for several reasons.  There are a few huge fifty-year anniversaries coming up, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Barry Goldwater winning the Republican nomination for president and Ronald Reagan coming on the national political scene. The third one is the main point of this post because Ron Reagan is far and away the most popular Republican President in modern American history.

This is why Republicans are always quoting Reagan or calling themselves "Reagan Conservatives" whether they are or not. There are Republicans who call themselves "Reagan Conservatives" and then there are actual Reagan Conservatives or Goldwater Republicans who actually practice what they claim to be their political philosophy.  They are for limited government and individual freedom, not big government intrusion into our personal lives.

John McCain, Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee are all current U.S. Senators who are Reagan Conservatives because they stand by the key Reagan principles of limited government, individual freedom, peace through strength, and individual rights.  Then, there are Republicans who falsely claim to be Reagan Conservatives in order to get elected such as Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Governor Rick Scott of Florida.  They claim to be against big government except when they want Big Brother in our homes and bedrooms.  They associate themselves with Reagan to gain political power.  It is up to voters to validate their claims.
Source:Reagan Foundation

Townhall: Jacob Sullum: Pot, Poker, Prohibition: Do Republicans Really Want to be the Party of Unprincipled Killjoys?

Source:The New Democrat

Yesterday, Matt Welch had a column in the libertarian magazine, Reason, talking about big government paternalists on the Left.  He said that Progressives not only want to manage American's economic lives but their personal lives, as well.  Links to that article and to a post byThe New Democrat will be on this blog.  Welch was basically talking about what he sees as paternalistic and prohibitionist Progressives, people who want to outlaw fun things for Americans' own good.

Today, Jacob Sullum, an editor at Reason, had a column in Townhall talking about prohibitionist, big government, statist Republicans.  They want Uncle Sam to outlaw things that think are dangerous and deny Americans and the states the right to make these decisions for themselves.  Today's Tea Party Republicans like to talk about principles and standing by them.

Before you can stand by your principles you have to have some and you can't abandon them every time  somebody in the private sector or at the state level gets involved in activities that you personally do not like.  If you invoke a Federal solution in such cases, you are putting yourself in the position of some kind of god or something that has the moral judgement and authority to make such decisions for the entire country.  Except for Rand Paul and Rick Perry, you don't see a lot of Federalists in the Republican Party, right now.  

The paternalistic statists on the Left  want to outlaw, at the Federal level, hate speech, gambling, soft drinks, firearms, tobacco, and, perhaps, alcohol.  Some of them want to continue marijuana prohibition and, even, outlaw right-wing media. This statist wing of the Left definitely exists and is the farthest left that the left wing gets, while still believing in some form of democracy.

There are paternalistic statists on the Right as well.  If the crews of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann ever had their way, pornography, gambling, same-sex-marriage and, perhaps, homosexuality would all be illegal at the Federal level with no provisions for options at the state level.  And, of course, marijuana would remain illegal.

Labels and principles have real meanings.  If you are going to call yourself a Federalist and a believer in individual freedom, you should know what those words mean and realize that you live in a liberal democracy where other people have the freedom to do things of which you personally do not approve. You should know, as well, that we are a Federal Republic with the police powers reserved to the fifty states by the U.S.Constitution.  If you don't, then when you put labels on yourself, you are just calling yourself names. 

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: New York, New York: 'What a Progressive City Looks Like'

Source:The New Democrat

This blog talks a lot about political labels, for good reason.  They have real meaning, when they are used correctly, and are a good way to analyze political philosophy.  However they are mis-used so much in American political discourse, especially by people who know as much about liberalism and conservatism as fish know about auto racing, that I want to set out a scheme for separating the schools of  political thought.

I'm thinking of something like a billboard of all of the great ideological politicians in American history, from the far-left to the far-right.  Norman Thomas the great former Socialist Party presidential candidate would represent the Socialists.  President Lyndon Johnson would represent the Progressives.  President Thomas Jefferson or two-time Republican presidential nominee Wendell Willkie, who was actually to the left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil liberties, individual freedom and civil rights, or President John Kennedy could represent the Liberals.

Mr. Conservative himself, Senator Barry Goldwater, could  represent the conservatives. Of course, Ron Paul could represent the Libertarians and Ross Perot, the Independents, people who are not far enough left or right to be Democrats or Republicans, or sufficiently conscious, politically, to know where they are.

It's interesting to see how these labels play out in the real world.  New York City is an interesting political laboratory.  It is stereotyped as one of the most the leftist cities in America.  People who live there will tell you that it's a very far-left, big government, high-taxing, nanny city where jumbo soda and junk food bans can get passed without politicians having to worry about losing their jobs.  How else could someone as far to the left as Bill De Blasio be elected mayor? 

New York City has moved to the left of FDR's  progressive New York toward a socialist utopia where government is responsible for improving people's lives instead of the people having the freedom to do so for themselves, when provided the necessary opportunities by government.  Progressives abhor a government that tries to run people's lives for them.

Real Progressives believe that government must provide or protect certain services and legal rights that are necessary for fully civilized life, e.g., public safety, civil liberties, public health, health care, education, public transportation, physical infrastructure,  economic support for the unable, etc. 

Government should not be involved in the management of the lives of individuals who are capable of succeeding on their own.  This philosophy precludes  government involvement in religion and personal decision-making across the board that doesn't involve individuals hurting innocent people. Like medical decision making, i.e., religious observances, the voluntary ending of life for the infirm elderly, termination of unwanted pregnancy, etc. 

Townhall: John C. Goodman: A Republican Vision For Health Care Reform

Source:The New Democrat

The thing about the Republican critique of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, especially from the Tea Party, that has probably annoyed me the most, is the fact that they've never been able to present an alternative of their own. Even when they took back control of the House of Representatives in 2011, they offered nothing but but repeal and cut. "We'll get rid of ObamaCare or, at least try to, knowing that the Democratic Senate will block it and then we'll start over and do it again (50 times and counting)."  The Keystone Cops were not that dumb. They probably would have stopped at 10.  The GOP message seemed to be. "Let's go back to the old health insurance system, pre-2010, that left roughly fifty-million Americans without coverage and then maybe we'll come up with something better later (Please hold your breath).

Its is now 2014, another election year, with a new Congress and still the same players in charge. A Republican House and a Democratic Senate and over three years later still waiting to see the House Republican Leadership articulate an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.  Had they had that alternative, gee I don't know, maybe back in 2009-10 when they were completely out of power, when voters were saying we don't like ObamaCare yet but we don't like the old system either the  Republicans could have said, "We understand both your concerns and this is the alternative we would offer if we had the power to do it."

We have seen proposals from different Republican groups. including the Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute but without Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor in the House saying,  "This is the way we should go.  Lets assign that bill to the proper committees, have hearings, and even mark it up and maybe we'll get some House Democrats, who are worried about reelection because of ObamaCare, to join us."  But, we're still waiting for the Republican congressional leadership to articulate a health care reform plan. 

Commentary Magazine: Tom Wilson: Leftist Fascism On The March

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who thinks that fascism is only a thing of the right, or even just the far-right, is not familiar with the communist republics around the world today or back in the day in Eastern Europe, especially in the slavic states. There are big government fascist states on the left in Latin America such as Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, and some in Central America.  Of course there are rightist fascist states in Arabia and the broader Middle East such as Syria, and Iran, as well as developing democracies such as Libya and Iraq.

Fascists deny the right of political opposition to exist.  They deny the right of people to speak out  against their government.  We see this in the Republican Party today with the Tea Party and their less than brilliant notion that you are either with them one hundred percent or you are a RINO (Republican in Name Only).  You either believe in our notion of a traditional American family or you are Un-American.

I don't agree with Commentary's Tom Wilson's original title of his piece, "Liberalism Ends at Home." He suggests that Liberals are fascists and against free speech with which they disagree and believe it should be outlawed.  The whole notion of freedom of speech and thought is the core of liberalism.  The founders of America were liberals rebelling against the thought and speech control policies of the British monarchy.  If you support governmental activity to block free speech you are not a liberal.  The idea that government, or your political faction,  always knows best and cannot permit political opposition is an anti-liberal idea.

There's nothing liberal about fascism or statism, the idea that people are generally stupid and need government to protect them, even from themselves. These far-left and far-right big government  politics have nothing to do with either liberalism or conservatism, in its classical sense.  The modern Republican Party has perverted the idea of conservatism.  The English Conservative Party offers an enlightening contrast which current Republicans are probably too stupid to perceive.

Free speech and freedom of thought are exactly that and don't imply agreement with any particular political position. We live in a liberal democracy with the right to speak and believe as we please, even if we offend other people.  That also means having to hear speech with which we disagree.

Statists on the far-left are against free speech and hate speech with which they disagree if it offends groups that they care about. They have a major lack of consistency, as Bill Maher has said on his show (hardly a conservative by the way).  They condone making fun of fundamentalist Christians, especially if they are Anglo-Saxon, southern and rural but condemn making fun of Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims.

I'm a proud liberal, always have been and always will be.  I take it as a compliment when someone calls me a liberal, even if they don't mean it as such.  I have a problem when partisan rightists throw out the word, "liberal" to put people down, as if it is a bad word.  It is clear that they are ignorant of the fact that the U.S.A. was founded by liberals as a liberal nation.

They are either liars or don't have a damn clue about what the hell they are talking about.  Free speech, even hate speech, is a perfect example of that.  Liberals believe that all people have inalienable rights to their own opinions and expressions.