In what could only be described as the most ridiculous and hypocritical news of the day, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is threatening a "multi-million" dollar lawsuit over attack ads aimed at his liberal economic policies.
The well-known conservative group, Club for Growth, has come out swinging against Trump in two ads attacking Trump for supporting tax hikes on the so-called "super wealthy" and the government's use of eminent domain, which forcibly takes private property from citizens.
According to The Hill, Trump's attorney's sent a cease and desist letter which threatens, "a multi-million dollar lawsuit against you personally and your organization ... as well as pursue all other remedies available to us at law or in equity."
The irony of Trump's threatening letter cannot be lost on anyone who is paying attention. Trump's entire candidacy has been built on insults, epithets, and empty threats. Who can forget that the story coming out of the very first debate was Trump's personal attacks on Fox News' Megyn Kelly? A feud that continues, at least on Trump's end, even two months after the debate? Or the multiple attacks on Kentucky senator and GOP rival Rand Paul? Or most recently Trump's comments about Carly Fiorina's face?
In the second GOP debate, Rand Paul pointed out what any reasonable human being should have been thinking, “Do we want someone with that kind of character? With that kind of careless language?” Paul said about Trump. “I think there’s a sophomoric quality about Mr. Trump … about his visceral response to attack people on their appearance, short, tall, fat, ugly.”
Of course Sen. Paul is right. Can you imagine a Trump presidency where the first reaction to opposition would be to attack, generally the physical appearance, of those he disagrees with? I can't imagine any Congress, even a GOP led one, bending over backwards to support such an agenda. Leading foreign policy this way would be disastrous, no matter how good of friends Trump claims he would be with Putin.
Maybe the Club for Growth's own response was the best. "Trump’s own statements prove that our ads are accurate. They will continue to run. We suggest that Donald grow up, stop whining, and try to defend his liberal record.”
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Hillary's BIg Problem
Hillary Clinton. The name alone is enough to end a conversation and start an argument. Ask 10 people off the street their opinion of Hillary and you are likely to get strong opinions. "Strong leader", "Butcher of Benghazi", "Liar", "Strong Policy Mind", the list could go on for days.
No one in the presidential race, save Donald Trump, has as much name recognition as Hillary, good or bad. She was first lady, a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and twice a presidential candidate. And for all the ill will her political enemies have towards her, she currently holds a twenty point lead in most national polls over Bernie Sanders, her closest Democratic primary rival. She millions of dollars in campaign funds at her disposal and yet Hillary has a big problem: Hillary.
But Clinton is no stranger to scandal. Even since her early political days in the Arkansas state house, scandals have followed the family. Her time in the White House was no different: Whitewater, Monica Lewinski, and the "vast right wing conspiracy" to name a few.
Her time as Secretary of State may be even more troubling. Between the Benghazi debacle, where four American's lost their lives and which the public still knows very little about, to her most recent and dogged scandal involving the use of unsecured private servers to send and receive official state department emails, many of which were deemed classified, her time as Secretary has definitely been tarnished.
Which is why Hillary's biggest problem has always been Hillary.
Her obstinate and aloof attitude towards the private server email scandal has already cut into her commanding primary leads. She is effectively losing Iowa and New Hampshire now and the threat of a Joe Biden(!) run threatens to cut into her lead even further.
So it's really no surprise that Hillary's camp is looking to reboot her campaign. The problem is, as Al Gore, John Kerry and Mitt Romney know and Scott Walker is finding out, these reinventions rarely work. They work even less effectively the more people know about you. And people know A LOT about Hillary.
So Hillary will go through the motions. She'll do easy interviews with friendly hosts and audiences, she'll show her affable and warm side (presuming such a side exists!), she may even steal some of the populist thunder from Sanders.
The real question will always be: is anybody buying what she's selling? I, for one, am not.
--Ray--
No one in the presidential race, save Donald Trump, has as much name recognition as Hillary, good or bad. She was first lady, a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and twice a presidential candidate. And for all the ill will her political enemies have towards her, she currently holds a twenty point lead in most national polls over Bernie Sanders, her closest Democratic primary rival. She millions of dollars in campaign funds at her disposal and yet Hillary has a big problem: Hillary.
But Clinton is no stranger to scandal. Even since her early political days in the Arkansas state house, scandals have followed the family. Her time in the White House was no different: Whitewater, Monica Lewinski, and the "vast right wing conspiracy" to name a few.
Her time as Secretary of State may be even more troubling. Between the Benghazi debacle, where four American's lost their lives and which the public still knows very little about, to her most recent and dogged scandal involving the use of unsecured private servers to send and receive official state department emails, many of which were deemed classified, her time as Secretary has definitely been tarnished.
Which is why Hillary's biggest problem has always been Hillary.
Her obstinate and aloof attitude towards the private server email scandal has already cut into her commanding primary leads. She is effectively losing Iowa and New Hampshire now and the threat of a Joe Biden(!) run threatens to cut into her lead even further.
So it's really no surprise that Hillary's camp is looking to reboot her campaign. The problem is, as Al Gore, John Kerry and Mitt Romney know and Scott Walker is finding out, these reinventions rarely work. They work even less effectively the more people know about you. And people know A LOT about Hillary.
So Hillary will go through the motions. She'll do easy interviews with friendly hosts and audiences, she'll show her affable and warm side (presuming such a side exists!), she may even steal some of the populist thunder from Sanders.
The real question will always be: is anybody buying what she's selling? I, for one, am not.
--Ray--
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
What's the deal with Chris Christie?
There is little more unappealing in American politics than a candidate that consistently resorts to fear mongering, emotional and illogical arguments. Combine that with the arrogance and anger of a wannabe tyrant and you do not have a recipe for success. And yet, all that and more are wrapped up in a tidy package that resembles a current GOP presidential candidate: New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
Christie, a Republican governor in a Democratic state, wants to be seen as the consensus builder candidate, while in fact, he's only shown himself to be an establishmentarian big government moderate with a decidedly authoritarian streak.
Consider the following:
Exhibit A: In the first GOP debate, Christie and Sen. Rand Paul has a spirited exchange over the NSA collection of meta-data in regards to thwarting terrorist attacks. Paul, the most outspoken opponent of the NSA spying, filibustered the senate for over 13 hours to stop the collection. Christie bragged about all his terrorist prosecutions, all the while repeatedly trying to capitalize on the emotion of 9/11. Even after Paul schooled Christie on the 4th amendment and the need for a proper warrant, Christie continued to beat on the 9/11 horse.
Exhibit B: Just yesterday Christie said that if he were the New York City mayor he would bring back the stop-and-frisk policy. He declared that reforming the controversial and arguably unconstitutional program was a "liberal policy." It appears that anything that protects the individual right to privacy and demands that the government follow the constitution is a liberal policy.
And it only gets worse from there.
Exhibit C: Perhaps Christie's most egregious use of authoritarian language comes when he's fear mongering about the evils of marijuana. In April, Christie said he'd shut down pot "big time" and that he was sick of the addicts and liberals with no self control, as well as needing to enforce the laws "from the White House on down through federal law enforcement."
Exhibit D: Christie is having more than enough trouble in his own home state of New Jersey where he has been embroiled in multiple scandals. From Bridgegate to his most recent pension scandal, Christie has shown that while he claims to stand firm for the rule of law, his personal and staff actions show anything but that in practice.
All of these examples lead me to one question: who is Chris Christie's constituency? Big government moderates already have Bush and arrogant blowhards solidly back Trump. Anti-drug social conservatives have their pick of Cruz, Walker and Huckabee.
Which means that Christie is currently sitting outside the top 10 of GOP candidates at just under 3% and looks like he won't be on the main stage in the upcoming GOP primary debate next week. Which should be a relief to everyone.
--Ray--
Christie, a Republican governor in a Democratic state, wants to be seen as the consensus builder candidate, while in fact, he's only shown himself to be an establishmentarian big government moderate with a decidedly authoritarian streak.
Consider the following:
Exhibit A: In the first GOP debate, Christie and Sen. Rand Paul has a spirited exchange over the NSA collection of meta-data in regards to thwarting terrorist attacks. Paul, the most outspoken opponent of the NSA spying, filibustered the senate for over 13 hours to stop the collection. Christie bragged about all his terrorist prosecutions, all the while repeatedly trying to capitalize on the emotion of 9/11. Even after Paul schooled Christie on the 4th amendment and the need for a proper warrant, Christie continued to beat on the 9/11 horse.
Exhibit B: Just yesterday Christie said that if he were the New York City mayor he would bring back the stop-and-frisk policy. He declared that reforming the controversial and arguably unconstitutional program was a "liberal policy." It appears that anything that protects the individual right to privacy and demands that the government follow the constitution is a liberal policy.
And it only gets worse from there.
Exhibit C: Perhaps Christie's most egregious use of authoritarian language comes when he's fear mongering about the evils of marijuana. In April, Christie said he'd shut down pot "big time" and that he was sick of the addicts and liberals with no self control, as well as needing to enforce the laws "from the White House on down through federal law enforcement."
Exhibit D: Christie is having more than enough trouble in his own home state of New Jersey where he has been embroiled in multiple scandals. From Bridgegate to his most recent pension scandal, Christie has shown that while he claims to stand firm for the rule of law, his personal and staff actions show anything but that in practice.
All of these examples lead me to one question: who is Chris Christie's constituency? Big government moderates already have Bush and arrogant blowhards solidly back Trump. Anti-drug social conservatives have their pick of Cruz, Walker and Huckabee.
Which means that Christie is currently sitting outside the top 10 of GOP candidates at just under 3% and looks like he won't be on the main stage in the upcoming GOP primary debate next week. Which should be a relief to everyone.
--Ray--
Another Highlight of the Failure of the War on Drugs
Early last week, Jeff Mizanskey walked out of prison a free man after 21 years behind bars. This would normally not a be story, except for the extraordinary way Mizanskey wound up in prison. Mizanskey was the victim of the draconian three strike law in Missouri. What did Mizanskey do to earn the three felony charges that would have given him a life sentence? Was it homicide or armed robbery that put him away? Nope. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Try again.
The terrible crimes that put Mizanskey behind bars were three non-violent marijuana related drug crimes. Due to three strike laws and mandatory minimum sentences. Those three crimes put a non-violent offender behind bars. For life.
After years of pleading from his lawyer, the ACLU and pro-marijuana groups, Mizanskey's sentence was eventually commuted by the Missouri governor and the law that put him away for life was repealed, but not everyone is so lucky.
Mizanskey's fate is not an uncommon one in America. It is estimated that over 3,000 people are currently serving mandatory life sentences for non-violent drug related crimes, many of which are simple possession charges.
This case highlights the gross injustices of the war on drugs that have been prevalent since its beginning. Instead of making people safer and drug free, we've created a dangerous black market, given control of it to violent gangs, and put hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders behind bars, wasting billions of dollars in tax payer money in the process.
And the practical failures of the drug war only further highlights the enormous elephant in the room: prohibition doesn't work and it never has. Prohibition didn't work in the late 20's and 30's with alcohol, it just pushed the alcohol trade underground and sparked the golden age of organized crime.
In addition to that, the drug laws unfairly target low income and minority citizens. We are effectively locking up a second generation of non-violent black and Hispanic youths for little more than possession.
In recent years states have taken it upon themselves to change the dialogue. Almost half of the states have legalized medicinal usage of marijuana and 4 states (and Washington, D.C.) have legalized marijuana use for recreation, with more on the ballot in 2015. In the states where marijuana is either legal or decriminalized, violent crime, non-violent drug arrests and teen high school dropout rates have declined. Millions of dollars in tax revenue, most of which goes to public schools, have been collected. There have been bumps in the road for sure, but nowhere has the fear mongering, "sky is falling" scenario so loved by anti-drug zealots played out.
This is the lesson to take away: wherever legalization and regulation has been tried, it's worked. Thankfully, Jeff Mizanskey was freed in time to enjoy the prime of his life, one can only hope that the same fate will be realized for so many more.
--Ray--
The terrible crimes that put Mizanskey behind bars were three non-violent marijuana related drug crimes. Due to three strike laws and mandatory minimum sentences. Those three crimes put a non-violent offender behind bars. For life.
After years of pleading from his lawyer, the ACLU and pro-marijuana groups, Mizanskey's sentence was eventually commuted by the Missouri governor and the law that put him away for life was repealed, but not everyone is so lucky.
Mizanskey's fate is not an uncommon one in America. It is estimated that over 3,000 people are currently serving mandatory life sentences for non-violent drug related crimes, many of which are simple possession charges.
This case highlights the gross injustices of the war on drugs that have been prevalent since its beginning. Instead of making people safer and drug free, we've created a dangerous black market, given control of it to violent gangs, and put hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders behind bars, wasting billions of dollars in tax payer money in the process.
And the practical failures of the drug war only further highlights the enormous elephant in the room: prohibition doesn't work and it never has. Prohibition didn't work in the late 20's and 30's with alcohol, it just pushed the alcohol trade underground and sparked the golden age of organized crime.
In addition to that, the drug laws unfairly target low income and minority citizens. We are effectively locking up a second generation of non-violent black and Hispanic youths for little more than possession.
In recent years states have taken it upon themselves to change the dialogue. Almost half of the states have legalized medicinal usage of marijuana and 4 states (and Washington, D.C.) have legalized marijuana use for recreation, with more on the ballot in 2015. In the states where marijuana is either legal or decriminalized, violent crime, non-violent drug arrests and teen high school dropout rates have declined. Millions of dollars in tax revenue, most of which goes to public schools, have been collected. There have been bumps in the road for sure, but nowhere has the fear mongering, "sky is falling" scenario so loved by anti-drug zealots played out.
This is the lesson to take away: wherever legalization and regulation has been tried, it's worked. Thankfully, Jeff Mizanskey was freed in time to enjoy the prime of his life, one can only hope that the same fate will be realized for so many more.
--Ray--
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Trump and Taxes
You know something is strange is happening when you are the front running GOP presidential nominee and leading liberal voices start agreeing with your tax plans.
Last month, Donald Trump came forward and shared some economic principles that could only be seen as an insight into the policies he would champion should he become president. In an interview on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect," Trump was more than open to the idea of raising the marginal tax rate on the top tier of American earners.
“I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous," said Trump.
Trump doesn't go into specifics on why it is the case that top income earners pay less taxes, though he hints at it when you mentions his focus would be in "simplifying the tax code." It certainly isn't the top marginal rate, which is currently 39.6%. The fact is that the current U.S. tax code, all 70,000 pages of it, is so confusing and convoluted and contains so many built-in lobbied for loopholes, that anyone who can afford top notch tax lawyers and CPA's can avoid most, if not all, taxes. This would apparently include Donald Trump.
I've long been a proponent of simplifying the tax code, eliminating most, or all, tax loopholes and establishing a flat tax with exemptions. This, combined with a balanced budget would greatly reduce the national debt and spark economic growth. The idea that low taxes spark economic growth have long been a talking point of the American Right (though in practice, it is almost exclusively lip service).
Which is why it's so troubling seeing the likes of Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren backing Trump on taxes. If Trump does indeed profess Keyensian economics, like Krugman suggests, it isn't just outside the norm, it is downright frightening.
--Ray--
Friday, September 4, 2015
Take Government out of the Marriage Business
The tsunami of Kim Davis/gay marriage/religious freedom news has created a wake of outrage that everyone seems to have a strong opinion on, one way or the other. The question much less asked isn't whether gays should be able to marry and have those marriages legally recognized, nor is it the role of religious freedom for conservative Christians working in government, though the latter is an interesting question. Nope, the question almost no one is asking is why the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all?
The concept of licensing marriages has been a long debated issue in American politics. Generally, as is the case with most licenses, government-issued marriage licenses have always been used to control access to the institution. As late as the mid-20th century, there were still laws against interracial marriage, even going so far that some states required a blood test before a license would be given! Though those laws have since been abolished and ruled unconstitutional, there remained the ability of the government to limit the access of marriage rights of other groups of people as they saw fit, namely homosexuals.
But all that has since changed and the door has been flung wide open.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that gays could no longer be discriminated against under Section 1 of the 14th amendment, the rules have changed and those who cling to their religious beliefs aren't giving up quietly. See Kim Davis, for example.
On one hand I can understand the government's role in certifying marriages. A marriage is not just a relationship between two individuals who've exchanged vows and share a common bond. Likewise, a marriage is also not just a religious institution. A marriage also has both implied and tangible rights for the parties involved. Inheritance, child care, tax and financial issues all are affected by a legal certificate of marriage. And if I know anything at all, it's that if there is a revenue stream to be found, the government will exploit it for all it's worth.
On the other hand, I would argue that marriage isn't a privilege for the government, in their infinite wisdom, to dole out to those they find deserving, but a right for all free citizens. As such, the government should have no more a hand in regulating marriage as they should have in any other private contract between two parties. Marriage may have become a confusing subject in contemporary American society, but, thankfully, contract law is not.
Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential candidate, in an interview with CNN said, "forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire. What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said.
Rand Paul is a man I admire, and though I don't share his particularly conservative views on certain social issues (gay marriage, abortion) his libertarian stances on many issues make him probably the best the Republicans have to offer (albeit, it is a very short bar to jump).
That said, Paul continued, "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."
Well, Senator Paul, one can only hope...
--Ray--
The concept of licensing marriages has been a long debated issue in American politics. Generally, as is the case with most licenses, government-issued marriage licenses have always been used to control access to the institution. As late as the mid-20th century, there were still laws against interracial marriage, even going so far that some states required a blood test before a license would be given! Though those laws have since been abolished and ruled unconstitutional, there remained the ability of the government to limit the access of marriage rights of other groups of people as they saw fit, namely homosexuals.
But all that has since changed and the door has been flung wide open.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that gays could no longer be discriminated against under Section 1 of the 14th amendment, the rules have changed and those who cling to their religious beliefs aren't giving up quietly. See Kim Davis, for example.
On one hand I can understand the government's role in certifying marriages. A marriage is not just a relationship between two individuals who've exchanged vows and share a common bond. Likewise, a marriage is also not just a religious institution. A marriage also has both implied and tangible rights for the parties involved. Inheritance, child care, tax and financial issues all are affected by a legal certificate of marriage. And if I know anything at all, it's that if there is a revenue stream to be found, the government will exploit it for all it's worth.
On the other hand, I would argue that marriage isn't a privilege for the government, in their infinite wisdom, to dole out to those they find deserving, but a right for all free citizens. As such, the government should have no more a hand in regulating marriage as they should have in any other private contract between two parties. Marriage may have become a confusing subject in contemporary American society, but, thankfully, contract law is not.
Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential candidate, in an interview with CNN said, "forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire. What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said.
Rand Paul is a man I admire, and though I don't share his particularly conservative views on certain social issues (gay marriage, abortion) his libertarian stances on many issues make him probably the best the Republicans have to offer (albeit, it is a very short bar to jump).
That said, Paul continued, "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."
Well, Senator Paul, one can only hope...
--Ray--
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Kim Davis: The New Face of the Christian Right?
Obstinate at every turn, Kim Davis, the Rowan county clerk in Kentucky, has at long last been held in contempt of court and jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in her county.
The federal judge, David Bunning, an appointment of George W. Bush and son of two term Republican Senator Jim Bunning, gave Davis every chance to stay out of jail to no avail. Ever the martyr, Davis refused to allow her deputy clerks to issue the licenses and thus was sent to jail till she either resigns or agrees to the job that she was elected to do.
According to USA Today, "her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he also has deeply held religious beliefs. "Oaths mean things."
I'm not against religious liberty and hold no ill will toward religious people and institutions, in fact, religious liberty is and should be one of our most cherished liberties, but there is no doubt that however deeply she may hold these beliefs, a public official cannot discriminate against those they disagree with. Nor can they only uphold laws which with they do believe in.
This is very different from the cases of Christian bakers being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples or pastors being coerced into officiating gay weddings. In those cases I fully support the rights of religious people to not provide services they disagree with. But these are private citizens, business owners and religious institutions, not publicly elected officials sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.
On the other hand, I struggle with the idea that Kim Davis should be thrown in jail for this offense. As a strong critic of the current police state in which we live, it seems trivial to waste the resources of the criminal justice system with such an affair. Nevertheless, the judge made it clear that fining Davis couldn't put enough pressure on her to fulfill the responsibilities of her job, as she make a good salary and no doubt that supporters would pay them for her anyways.
And so here we are. The judge has already authorized the remaining deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses starting tomorrow as she reflects on the situation from her jail cell. What remains to be seen is whether Kim Davis will disappear from public view or become the new face the Christian right.
-Ray-
The federal judge, David Bunning, an appointment of George W. Bush and son of two term Republican Senator Jim Bunning, gave Davis every chance to stay out of jail to no avail. Ever the martyr, Davis refused to allow her deputy clerks to issue the licenses and thus was sent to jail till she either resigns or agrees to the job that she was elected to do.
According to USA Today, "her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he also has deeply held religious beliefs. "Oaths mean things."
I'm not against religious liberty and hold no ill will toward religious people and institutions, in fact, religious liberty is and should be one of our most cherished liberties, but there is no doubt that however deeply she may hold these beliefs, a public official cannot discriminate against those they disagree with. Nor can they only uphold laws which with they do believe in.
This is very different from the cases of Christian bakers being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples or pastors being coerced into officiating gay weddings. In those cases I fully support the rights of religious people to not provide services they disagree with. But these are private citizens, business owners and religious institutions, not publicly elected officials sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.
On the other hand, I struggle with the idea that Kim Davis should be thrown in jail for this offense. As a strong critic of the current police state in which we live, it seems trivial to waste the resources of the criminal justice system with such an affair. Nevertheless, the judge made it clear that fining Davis couldn't put enough pressure on her to fulfill the responsibilities of her job, as she make a good salary and no doubt that supporters would pay them for her anyways.
And so here we are. The judge has already authorized the remaining deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses starting tomorrow as she reflects on the situation from her jail cell. What remains to be seen is whether Kim Davis will disappear from public view or become the new face the Christian right.
-Ray-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)