A simple question regarding Fox News

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday March 11, 2022 · 3:42 PM PST

2022/03/11 · 15:42

This will be short, and I apologize up front if I’m plowing ground others have covered before.

I know there have been efforts in the past to boycott companies that advertise on Fox. My wife asked me today why, if companies are pulling out of Russia because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, then why are the companies not pulling their advertising from Fox. Struck me as a good question. Of course, it is likely that not all of the companies pulling out of Russia advertise on Fox, but I wonder what the effect would be if large number of us were to ask those companies that do if they really, really want to be seen as supported those who support Russia.

Democrats Can Reach More Working Class Voters

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 22, 2021 · 5:17 AM PST

2021/11/22 · 05:17

… is the title of an essay by Rux Teixeira in The LiberalPatriot. I am not familiar with either the site or the author, but his thesis and argument strike meas worth thinking about. It is a fact that Democrats have lost ground with working class voters,and that reclaiming that territory is vital to the long-term success of the party. Teixeira advocates that Democrats reset their “brand” by embracing the following values:

Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.

America is not perfect but it is good to be patriotic and proud of the country.

Discrimination and racism are bad but they are not the cause of all disparities in American society.

No one is completely without bias but calling all white people racists who benefit from white privilege and American society a white supremacist society is not right or fair.

America benefits from the presence of immigrants and no immigrant, even if illegal, should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.

Police misconduct and brutality against people of any race is wrong and we need to reform police conduct and recruitment. But crime is a real problem so more and better policing is needed for public safety. That cannot be provided by “defunding the police”.

There are underlying differences between men and women but discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong.

There are basically two genders but people who want to live as a gender different from their biological sex should have that right and not be discriminated against. However, there are issues around child consent to transitioning and participation in women’s sports that are complicated and not settled.

Racial achievement gaps are bad and we should seek to close them. However, they are not due just to racism and standards of high achievement should be maintained for people of all races.

Language policing has gone too far; by and large, people should be able to express their views without fear of sanction by employer, school, institution or government. Good faith should be assumed, not bad faith.

Teixeira seems to be arguing that Democrats in safely blue districts (1) come across as “woke” (i.e., far left) liberals out of touch with the realities of everyday workers’ concerns, and (2) that these are the ones setting the agenda and speak for the party as a whole. There is a lot of room for argument and differences of opinion on the issues Teixeira raises,and certainly a great deal more nuanced than he could have conceivably addressed in an article of this sort. And yet, even though I identify as someone about as liberal as they come, each of Teixeira’s bullet points strike a chord within me.

More to the point, it seems to me that the Democratic party could use these points of view to frame 90% of their policies and positions.

Getting the Jan 6 Commission Unstuck

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday May 05, 2021 · 8:20 AM PDT

2021/05/05 · 08:20

The news of late, including commentary about the dissension between Liz Cheney and other House Republicans, is that the holdup on getting a commission to look into the Jan 6 insurrection is that the Republicans are insisting that such a study include looking into BLM riots. Democrats (and Liz) rightly argue that the Jan 6 event was a one-off, unprecedented in our history, but Republicans are locked into their support of Trump’s big lie and will not agree. My guess is that the Republicans think the BLM portion of the investigation will find things to embarrass the Democrats. It seems to me much more likely the findings would be mixed, with lots of material the Republicans would not like.

It seems to me there is a way out of this cul-de-sac, and that is for the Democrats to accede to the Republican position, but set the BLM commission up as a separate entity. That would cut the legs from under the Republican position, and allow each study to focus on the disparate issues while eliminating the potential for conflation of irrelevant material.

About the new frontpage . . .

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 18, 2020 · 5:37 AM PDT

2020/08/18 · 05:37

I was only lately switched over to the new front page, so I’m coming late to the party. Here’s the thing that I notice, and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking any particular difference. I am reading fewer stories from this format than the old front page. I wonder how many others find themselves similarly spending less time on Daily Kos for this reason?

Burn it all down

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday July 27, 2020 · 12:50 PM PDT

2020/07/27 · 12:50

In a recent Bulwark article titled “Burn It All Down,” Charlie Sykes argues Republicans who support Trump ought to be defeated this November. I think his framing of the issue ought to be broader, and wrote him the following letter.

DearCharlie,

I agree emphatically with your argument in “Burn ItAll Down.” But my immediate reaction is that the question is whether current Republican office-holders should be voted out because of their cooperation with Trump. As you say, the debate is necessary, but I believe it should be done on a broader basis. There is a widespread attitude of “win at all costs” and “the end justifies the means” within the conservative movement. Or perhaps that should be within movement conservatives since it appears this group has come to dominate the Republican Party. There are a number of examples which undergird this assessment.

The American Legislative Exchange Council provides State legislators model laws and supporting materials. This in itself is not a bad concept even in support of partisan goals. But it becomes harmful when the proposed laws work to favor corporate or moneyed interests rather than the public good.There have been a number of articles on the group’s membership,methodology and advocacy strongly suggesting it is a tool of private interests.

Republicans have turned the principle of small government into anti-government. There is a straight line between Ronald Reagan’s “government is the problem”to Mitch McConnell’s total opposition nihilism. The clearest illustration of the result is the Republican refusal to participate in the development of Obamacare, their continuing readiness to repeal it with no replacement in sight, and, tellingly, their insistence that the law was passed “in the dead of night” with no opportunity for their input.

Since Watergate, “follow the money” has become a catchphrase because it is so revealing. Applied to the Republican Party, look to where most of their candidate’s campaign cash comes from. Look also to where a great many of their policy positions are developed. Then connect to the kind of legislative actions taken. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is one of the more recent examples of an egregious give-away to the wealthy.

Gerrymanders are not the exclusive property of one party; Democrats have finagled distric tlines for their own benefit. But I invite you to consider the relative number of gerrymanders carried out by either party in the last forty years.

Without getting into whether any given Republican is or is not racist, the Party as a whole seems to have a racist tinge. Starting with Reagan’s “welfare queens”and into Trump’s explicitly anti-muslim immigration orders, there is a pattern of Republican rhetoric intended to divide whites from non-whites

The recent kerfuffle around census questions arises from the perception that if certain groups,specifically latinos, can be discourages from being counted, they will be less well represented in the ensuing reallocation of congressional seats.

The crosscheck program,onerous requirements for absentee voting, restrictive voter ID requirements are impediments to voting, and they disproportionately affect lower-income (and supposedly Democratic) voters.

The points above could be expanded and extended by better minds than I, but I think they suffice to show why it is important to “burn it all down.” The evidence supports a conclusion that many Republicans are simply operating in bad faith.(By many, I mean a number such that their actions create the picture of the Party as a whole.) Had it not been for the groundwork they laid, Trump could not have been nominated, much less elected.Defeating them en masse would deliver a smack-down that would force a major recalibration of the Republican Party’s agenda, and, one hopes, their modus operandi.

Keep up the good work!

Harry Lane

About the Lincoln Project . . .

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 23, 2020 · 3:43 AM PDT

2020/07/23 · 03:43

There has been a lot of chatter about the Lincoln Project ads. Some are admiring of the impact of the ads and wish Democrats could do as well. Some cheer them on in a spirit of schadenfreude. Others look upon them and the whole group of Never Trumpers as temporary allies who will shift into opposition as soon as the present crisis is past. All of these views are valid, and yet each could use a bit more nuance.

The easiest and most obvious is the power the ads have. They are cleverly framed and presented, but the most important quality they have is that they pick up on some action Trump has taken, or some aspect of his character that have been in the news. Their effectiveness lies almost wholly in the direct reflection of Trump’s behavior and action. In a sense, Trump writes the ads himself. Wanting the Democrats to do a better job of messaging, as it is supposed that the Lincoln Project ads do, elides the point that effectiveness depends on content. One cannot depend on an opponent being so obliging as Trump is in providing the fodder for the messaging mill. Nor should an ad just make stuff up, but that’s an issue for another article.

I have very mixed emotions about the glee being expressed in response to the ads. On the one hand, it is delightful to see those who have been in opposition to Democratic policy so successfully attacking their own party. On the other hand, it is sobering to think that these folks are taking a stand on principle, and it will cost them. I cannot imagine they will ever be accepted in any fashion by the Trump base. Which leads me to my last point.

Most who decry the Never Trumpers as suspect temporary allies seem to expect they will become instant implacable enemies the instant Trump goes down in defeat (one hopes and prays!) This strikes me as the mirror image of the right wing hate machine, and is equally detestable. If you think about it, the work the Lincoln Project and other Never Trumper activities reveal an implicit recognition the Republican Party has crossed a line. This line crossing includes their indifference to his bad behavior and lying, their enabling of his breaking of norms, their winking at his corruption and, not least, their attitude that anything supported by the Democrats must have originated in the depths of hell. Playing tit for tat with a group like that has no winners; indeed the biggest losers are the American people. So, while it is certainly clear the Never Trumpers will have policy views and goals that differ from, and probably to a large extent are opposed to those of the Democrats, they will at least recognize the legitimacy of our existence. From there it is only a short step to being able to debate issues on their merits and work toward acceptable compromises

I,for one, will cheer them on and welcome them to the table (as long as they mind their manners.)

Regarding a Stone pardon

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 28, 2020 · 7:28 AM PST

2020/02/28 · 07:28

Please excuse me if I missed seeing someone post on this earlier, and for such a brief diary. But I just ran across this article on Politico.

The essential point of the article is that that language of the Constitution contains an exception to the pardon power granted the President. That Constitution explicitly states that the pardon power is limited only “except in cases of impeachment.” In other words, the article argues, once the President is impeached, the Constitution bars pardons for anyone convicted of an offense related to the premise of that impeachment. And, because the Constitution is silent with respect to the Senate action on the impeachment, the President’s acquittal does not nullify this prohibition.

So, Sen Pat Toomey sent me this letter . . . .

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 09, 2020 · 5:47 AM PST

2020/02/09 · 05:47

Some while ago, I wrote Senator Pat Toomey expressing my hope that he would honor his oath asa “juror” in the impeachment of Donald Trump. He replied with an explanation of his decision to vote for Trump's acquittal. As background, I reproduce it in full. My thoughts in response follow

February 7, 2020

Dear Harry,

Thank you for contacting me about the impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate hearing from you.

In 1999, then-Senator Joe Biden posed the following question when he voted against removing President Bill Clinton from office: "[D]o these actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary to justify the most obviously antidemocratic act the Senate can engage in-overturning an election by convicting the president?" It is this constitutionally grounded framework that guided my review of President Trump's impeachment and, ultimately, my decision to join a majority of Senators in opposing his removal from office.

The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." I took this duty during the three week trial of President Trump very seriously. I carefully studied the information presented during the trial, which included video testimony from 13 witnesses, over 28,000 pages of documents (including the House testimony of 17 witnesses), and more than 30 hours of presentations from the House Managers and President's counsel. The Senate is not required to hear from live witnesses (it did not do so in several prior trials), nor in this case was it necessary. As Vice President Biden explained during President Clinton's impeachment, the Senate's "constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachment does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony."

The president's actions were not "perfect." Some were inappropriate. But the question for the Senate was not whether his actions were perfect, but if they constituted impeachable offenses that justified removing a president for the first time and forbidding him from ever holding office.

House Democrats alleged that President Trump briefly paused aid, and withheld a White House meeting with Ukraine's president, to pressure Ukraine into investigating publicly-reported corruption matters. When House Democrats demanded witnesses and documents concerning the president's conduct, he invoked constitutional rights. This resistance to their demands was the basis for the article of obstruction.

House Democrats alleged the president lacked "lawful cause or excuse" to resist their subpoenas. This ignores that his resistance was based on constitutionally grounded legal defenses and immunities that are consistent with longstanding positions taken by administrations of both parties. Instead of negotiating a resolution or litigating in court, House Democrats rushed to impeach.

But as House Democrats noted during President Clinton's impeachment, a president's defense of his legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities is not an impeachable offense.

House Democrats separately alleged President Trump abused his power by conditioning a White House meeting, and the release of aid, on Ukraine agreeing to pursue corruption investigations. Their case rested entirely on the faulty claim that the only possible motive for his actions was his personal political gain. In fact, there are also legitimate national interests for seeking investigations into apparent corruption, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.

Even if House Democrats' presumptions about President Trump's motives are true, additional witnesses in the Senate, beyond the 17 who testified in the House, were unnecessary because the president's actions did not rise to the level of removing him from office. Nor did they warrant the societal upheaval that would occur with his removal from office and the ballot months before an election. Our country is already far too divided and this would have only made matters worse.

As Vice President Biden also stated during President Clinton's impeachment trial, "the Constitution sets the bar for impeachment very high." A president can only be impeached and removed for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." While there's debate about the precise meaning of this phrase, it's clear that impeachable conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.

The Constitution sets the impeachment bar so high for good reasons. Removing a president from office, and forbidding him from seeking future office, overturns the results of the last election and denies Americans the right to vote for him in the next one. The Senate's impeachment power essentially allows 67 senators to substitute their judgment for that of millions of Americans.

Vice President Biden's framework for judging an impeachment was right then and it is right now. President Trump's conduct did not meet the very high bar required to justify overturning the election, removing him from office, and kicking him off the ballot in an election that has already begun. In November, the American people will decide for themselves whether President Trump should stay in office. In our democratic system, that's the way it should be. It is my hope that Congress can now move past this extremely partisan and divisive episode and get back to working on issues that will strengthen our economy and make our communities safer.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

I'm quite sure this is a mass mailing to all who contacted Toomey with regard to his role in the impeachment trial. It is a fine example of wordsmithing, and I say that as one who once enjoyed a modest reputation in that art. The explanations of his vote on each article failed to mention a couple of points that, to me, would have been critical elements that ought to have been considered in reaching a decision.

Toomey excuses Trump's refusal to respond to requests for witnesses and documents as a constitutional “right.” I suppose this is a reference to the fifth amendment. However, Congress' requests for information or testimony from administration officials are not equivalent to law enforcement pursuing evidence in a criminal matter. They are, rather, seeking to exercise their constitutional responsibility to oversee the activities of the executive branch. Had the dispute been about a handful, or even several dozen such specific requests, Toomey's position could be defended on the basis of executive privilege. But that was not the case. Trump mandated that everyone in the executive branch refuse to cooperate with Congressional investigations, and to a great extent succeeded in enforcing that mandate. That blanket refusal to cooperate was an act of bad faith, and is itself a failure to uphold his oath of office. Boiled down to its essence, Toomey seems to be saying that it's OK that Trump acted in bad faith.

Toomey begins his explanation of his vote on Article 1 by saying that Trump's actions were “not perfect” and “inappropriate.” This implies the charges had some merit. He then asserts the House charge was based on a “faulty claim that the only possible motive for his actions was his personal political gain.” But this is the crux of the matter: Was that claim credible? Toomey rightly asserts that investigation of corruption is appropriate. But he fails to address indices that this particular instance might not be. To wit, that the evidence showed Trump's only interest in corruption involved the Bidens; there was a conspicuous absence of evidence that there was an effort being made to address corruption on a systemic basis. Moreover, there was the curious fact that much of the effort to induce Ukraine to undertake the investigation was being made outside regular diplomatic channels. The argument that what Trump did was wrong but did not rise to the level of conviction, which is the argument Toomey is making, is the best possible argument to be made in my view. It is, however,substantially, perhaps even fatally, weakened by significant ommissions such as noted above.

I do not accuse Senator Toomey of acting in bad faith. It is entirely appropriate to question his judgement.

Of Adam Smith, Mitt Romney, and Joseph Stiglitz

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday April 22, 2019 · 5:34 PM PDT

2019/04/22 · 17:34

Joe Stiglitz is always worth reading,and if you missed it, you should go read AKAlib's piece on his advocacy for progressive capitalism. Better yet, follow the link to the NYT oped.

It's easy for anyone remotely liberalto agree with Stiglitz. Then I wondered, why is there so much opposition to policies incorporating these views? Short answer in my view is some mix of ignorance and greed. But the topic is important and deserves an exploration of how we got here.

And to start that exploration, I have to assert a minor quibble with Stiglitz's reference to Adam Smith in the final paragraph of his Oped, that “exploitive capitalism has shaped who we are as individuals and as a society. The rampant dishonesty we’ve seen from Wells Fargo and Volkswagen or from members of the Sackler family as they promoted drugs they knew were addictive — this is what is to be expected in a society that lauds the pursuit of profits as leading, to quote Adam Smith, “as if by an invisible hand,” to the well-being of society, with no regard to whether those profits derive from exploitation or wealth creation.” Bear in mind that Smith's thesis was published in 1776 and was justly celebrated for its insights at that time. It was a simpler time, at least for the branch of scholarly thinking that came to be known as economics. Most market transactions were made where buyers and sellers had direct knowledge of who was offering what, product quality, delivery time, ablity to pay, etc. Or, if not in a position to have direct knowledge, one dealt with a trusted intermediary. To use a term that is currently in vogue,markets were transparent, far closer to the ideal of having all relevant information available to both buyer and seller such that a rational decision can be arrived at.

Thus,the “invisible hand” was a fairly powerful predictor for the time (and indeed had a moral component that in our more enlightened times has been sadly neglected.) But it worked as well as it did only because of the nature of markets of the time. Two problems arose. One was a rather slavish devotion to the notion that unfettered markets always wrought the best outcomes. This is the laissez-faire school of economic thinking. The second is that the idea was so damned attractive that for most people their understanding of economics largely started and ended there.

On a related front, as business became more and more complex, there arose a need for an entity which could subsume the functions of a single proprietor or a partnership, but operate on a vastly larger scale and without the limitations of human lifetimes. Corporations filled that need. We liberals tend to scoff at Mitt Romney's statement that“Corporations are people my friend.” But he was at leas partially correct, in that corporations are an entity created with some of the attributes of a person for a specific purpose. In other words, corporate person hood is a convenient legal fiction. Please note also that corporations are created by state charter, and have at least a theroretical obligation to abide by the conditions of their charter.

These circumstances led to great changes in markets, most of which put the buyer at a disadvantage and which allowed the greedy to push the boundries of fraud, price gouging, and shoddy products. Those who have a historical bent will recall the muckrakers of the late 19^thand early 20^thcentury, who uncovered numerous instances of rapacious corporations taking advantage of imbalanced market power.

So, to return to Stiglitz, his positions and prescriptions are not the far-out socialist dreams our conservative friends would have us believe them to be. So why are they willing to defend “Vulture Capitalism.” My guess is that it is less a matter of conviction regarding free market economics and more a matter of staying in the good graces of the moneyed class.

About that OLC opinion . . .

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday April 22, 2019 · 11:35 AM PDT

2019/04/22 · 11:35

IANAL, but there are lawyers who do not agree with the Office of Legal Counsel’s guidance that a sitting President should not be subject ot criminal indictment while in office. So I will leave argumentation to them and suggest a couple of other points that ought to be relevant.

First off, any political system in which a particular person of office becomes so central to the functioning of said system is deeply flawed and headed for trouble. In the absence of a means of calling bad behavior to account, it is simply a matter of time until someone takes advantage of that lack of accountability to engage in bad behavior.

To be sure, there is a defensible argument that a sitting President ought not be subject to harassment from minor nuisance lawsuits. However, on the one hand, courts have tools to deal with frivolous or malicious suits. And, on the other, if it is truly minor, then the distraction ought to minimal. What then about a situation where the matter is serious and likely to be time consuming (as, for example, were Trump to be charged with obstruction of justice.) I seems to me that there is a tool at hand to deal with such unlikely circumstances — the 25th Amendment. For whatever period of time the matter was under adjudication, the Vice President assumes the powers of the office and assures ongoing matters of policy and administration are attended to.

The cherry on the sundae is that the pernicious effect of the OLC opinion hold sway until challenged and tested in court. It is hard to imagine a set of conditions that would result in such a challenge and test.

Poll

56 votes Show Results

What is your opinion of the OLC opinion?

56 votes Vote Now!

What is your opinion of the OLC opinion?

Belongs in the ashpit of history

39 votes

Ought to be reconsidered

15 votes

It's just fine, I don't see any downside

2 votes

Immaterial; there are far more important matters

0 votes

I got “WE THE PEOPLE” for Christmas!

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday December 26, 2018 · 2:42 PM PST

2018/12/26 · 14:42

This is the title of a little book by Edwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkley School of Law. Since his premise, as stated in the subtitle is “a progressive reading of the Constitution for the twenty-first century,” there is little in his argument to disagree with. Even so, it shines a light on a number of important issues that we in the progressive community ought to be aware of and factor into our thinking about the judiciary in genera land the Supreme Court in particular.

Chemerinsky begins by detailing recent actions of the conservative court and exploring the question of whether judicial review ought to be abolished. He then spends an entire chapter on conservative's claims of value-free judgments,often referred to by the late Justice Scalia as “originalism.” By way of numerous examples, he shows these claims to be false and a little ridiculous. As self-evident as this may be to most of us, itis an important foundation for the arguing specific values that should guide judicial thinking.

Which is a segue into the next chapter,which is the heart of Chemerinsky's thesis that the values of the preamble are emphatically not mere introductory fluff, but bedrock principles which ought to guide understanding of the rest of the document. And indeed, the principle was understood and accepted in the early history of our nation,however imperfectly implemented. I found it striking and disturbing that since the beginning of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court has implicitly and sometimes explicitly ruled that the preamble has no substantive power with regard to the body of the Constitution.

Most of the remainder of the book is devoted to examining how conservative decisions have often worked against the principles of the preamble, and how the application of progressive values would have differed. I note in passing one remarkable assertion that an article of the Constitution might beused to invalidate another; specifically that the Electoral College could be ruled unconstitutional. While this might be academically feasible, I can't see it ever being a practical solution to the problem.

I strongly agree with Chemerinsky's conclusion. He points out that the Constitution of the USSR is quite precise in spelling out the rights of the populace, few of which were actually available under Stalin. The point being that people in power might well be willing to abuse and ignore the provisions of the Constitution (Trump, anyone?), and in the absence of others able and willing to give force to those provisions (AKA the Republican Congress), the document is dead. And we, the people,are the ones responsible for assuring those we put in positions of power are the latter rather than the former.

Evil or Stupid?

hlsmlane

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday December 02, 2017 · 1:47 PM PST

2017/12/02 · 13:47

The passage of the tax “reform”legislation by the Senate would seem to confirm that we are at high risk of becoming an Oligarchy, if not already in that state. It isalso cause to wonder, as George Orwell said in a somewhat similarcontext, whether the ruling elites are wicked or merely stupid.

This is a question for our time because it is in everyone's interest that we maintain a nominally egalitarian society in which there is a least a modicum of opportunity for anyonewith talent and drive to improve their economic and social position. The Republicans' tax plan, which seems likely to emerge in some form from a conference committee, will exacerbate an already powerful trend toward concentration of wealth. It will also contribute to afurther fraying of the social “safety net,” and there is an argument to be made that that is more deliberate than incidental. The longer term effect is to harden the already existing social and economic conditions.

We are told that the poor are always with us, and that is true. However, history teaches that the poo rare not always the same people. Abase and deprive any group long enough and they will rise against their oppressors, and at some point the social and legal structures that permit such oppression will give way. The theory that a rising tide raises all boats would seem to be borne out by the post-WW2 prosperity, and revolution in a contented society is unlikely. Taking the longer view, this tax plan serves nobody's interest.

We know that the motivation behind the push for this perverse “reform” is the return for campaign contributions. Buying politicians is an ancient practice, and has along history even in our young nation. In the present instance,greed – pure indecent love of money – is at the heart of the matter. But one really does have to wonder whether this greed springs from the evil within men's hearts, or is simply a reflection of that particular weakness of mind that results in such shortsightedness.

Newer
Older

RSS