Tag: Democratic Party

Categories
national politics & policies partisanship tax policy

Billionaires Backed Better

billionaire, Democrat, taxes

It’s a cliché of politics that the Republican Party is The Party of the Rich while the Democrats serve the Poor and Downtrodden.

But were that true, why so many Democratic billionaires?

And why is President Biden’s Build Back Better legislation offering the top income quintile a tax cut worth billions and billions?

At issue is a “$285 billion tax cut that would almost exclusively benefit high-income households over the next five years,” write Alyssa Fowers and Simon Ducroquet in the pages of The Washington Post. “The measure would allow households to increase their deduction from state and local taxes from $10,000 to $80,000 through 2026, and then impose a new deduction cap through 2031.”

“It’s the second-most expensive item” — when figured in budgeting terms, not merely in outlays.

True to form, Democrats promise that it would raise revenue, actually — eventually. In time-honored procrastination fashion, the legislation jiggers with the deduction cap over time, decreasing the cap in the future. A typical (and easy to re-jigger) politicians’ ploy.

What this is all about is subsidizing the rich in high-tax “blue states” — politically protecting Democrats in California and New York, to name the most obvious two, allowing them to pretend to “soak the rich” and “help the poor,” and decreasing the incentive in those states for the rich to leave for lower-tax environments, like Texas and Florida.

Arguably, these “SALT” caps are the worst sort of tax break possible, since they are regional (affecting different states differently) and even partisan. Not to mention regressive.

Instead of “Build Back Better,” the Biden plan should be dubbed the “Failed State Bailout.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

billionaire

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

Authoritarian Ardor

Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald calls it a “mountain of data.” 

On his Rumble account, “System Update,” the journalist shows “how authoritarian self-identified followers of the Democratic Party have become.”

While admitting that “authoritarian tendencies” are in every group, Greenwald insists that “when you examine this data . . . and really compile it, and look all at once at it, it is extraordinary — no matter how low your expectations are of Democrats — how authoritarian they have become, particularly in the wake of the Trump years.”

Citing Pew Research from August, the well-known reporter begins by showing how opinions on free speech have diverged over the last three years: while Republicans wanting the federal government to “take steps to restrict false info online” declined from 37 percent to 28 percent, Democratic support rose from 40 percent to 65 percent. 

And the itch to have tech companies do the dirty work for the federal government “even if it limits freedom of info” shows the same spread: R’s went down 9 points and D’s went up a whopping sixteen!

Greenwald also explores Democrats’ enduring affection for corporate media news, how enthusiastic Democratic politicians are for curbing the basic rights of their political opponents, and how much ardor Democrats show the CIA and the FBI.

All the data, Greenwald insists, shows Democrats getting “more authoritarian by the minute.”

Why?

It might best be looked at in an insider/outsider context. Democrats are becoming more authoritarian because it is their hold on power that they are defending, and Republicans are reacting against that stranglehold. An old principle may be at work: outside of power, people tend to demand freedom; inside, they demand more power.

Authoritarianism is more appealing to insiders, viewing themselves as “authorities.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Greenwald

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption Voting

Democrats’ Shadow Play

shadows, Democrats, Democrat Party

There is more than one way to rig an election.

Sometimes all you need is a monkey wrench. A little chaos might help you get your way.

Last February 3, Democrats voted in the Iowa caucuses, placing Bernie Sanders in the lead. But a major “foul-up” occurred. “The state party was unable to report a winner on caucus night,” explains Tyler Pager at Politico, “the mobile app to report results failed to work for many precinct chairs, the back-up telephone systems were jammed and some precincts had initial reporting errors.”

The chaos certainly did not help winner Bernie Sanders, disabled from making publicity hay while the sun shined. There was enough darkness for democracy to die in.

The Iowa Democratic Party commissioned an audit to throw some belated light on the brouhaha, and the results are in: the Democratic National Committee is mostly to blame. 

“According to the report, the DNC demanded the technology company, Shadow, build a conversion tool just weeks before the caucuses to allow the DNC to have real-time access to the raw numbers because the national party feared the app would miscalculate results.” But the DNC and Shadow used incompatible database formats, spawning chaos. 

In a generous mood? Call it sheer incompetence. 

But the mess sure . . . smells . . . suspicious.

“The caucuses are a cherished tradition for Iowans,” reports Reid J. Epstein at The New York Times, “but an increasing number of national Democrats say they are outdated and undemocratic.”

Well, they are when you make them so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents political challengers Popular term limits

The Incumbency vs. Progressives

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

“The Democratic Party leadership is choosing machine politics,” charged Alexandra Rojas, the young executive director of Justice Democrats, “over ushering in a new generation of leaders and the fundamental idea of democracy.”

She specifically assails the DCCC’s blacklist of political professionals working for Democratic Party candidates who dare to challenge Democratic incumbents in next year’s Democratic primaries. 

The Intercept reports that “at least four consultants dropped” challenger Marie Newman’s campaign “under pressure from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new policy to cut off vendors working with primary challengers.” 

Newman is formidable, having come within 2 percentage points of Rep. Dan Lipinski in the 2018 Illinois Democratic Primary. The National Abortion Rights Action League, Democracy for America and other progressive groups are decrying a DCCC “blacklist policy that protects anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, corporate Democrats like Dan Lipinski.”

And progressives have reason for disgust. Lipinski is a protected insider.

For the last 36 years, there has been a Lipinski in Congress. Bill Lipinski, the current congressman’s father, held the seat for 22 years before giving it to his son. And yes, “giving” is correct. 

In 2004, two months before the November election, while running unopposed for a 12th term, the incumbent resigned — too late to trigger a special election wherein voters could make a choice. Instead, Bill’s replacement was hand-picked by the Illinois district’s Democratic Party Committee.

Controlled by — you guessed it! — Bill Lipinski. 

That insider group chose Bill’s son, Daniel, who was then living in Kentucky.

“It was an open process,” claimed the father. 

Today, per the blacklist, “[t]he DCCC says the policy doesn’t discourage primary challengers.”

Well, I guess no one expects truth from a political machine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability government transparency insider corruption local leaders media and media people nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility

Not Fine with Feinstein?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, election, candidate, California, Democratic Party, money, campaign

Could it be that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, may not be liberal enough?

The San Francisco Democrat has ostensibly represented the Golden State in the United States Senate for the last 26 years. Before that, Feinstein spent eight years on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and then a decade as mayor.

Now, after 44 consecutive years as a public official, what does the 85-year-old Feinstein seek? More. That is, another six-year lease on her powerful perch in the U.S. Senate.

But the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party — Feinstein’s Party — just said, “No way!”

A whopping 65 percent of the 333-member board opted for State Sen. Kevin de León, a fellow Democrat seen as more “progressive.” Only seven percent supported endorsing Feinstein.

Keep in mind that Feinstein is already on the November ballot. She was the leading vote-getter in California’s primary last month. Yet, she received only 44 percent of the vote: a majority does favor someone else.

In February, 2,700 activists at the State Democratic Party Convention in San Diego voted 54 to 37 percent for State Sen. De León over U.S. Sen. Feinstein.

“Feinstein, who spends much of her time in Washington, has had a distant relationship with party activists for years,” noted the Los Angeles Times report.

Still, what Democratic Party activists want may not matter so much. Mrs. Feinstein enjoys tremendous name recognition and, according to the Times, has “$7 million in campaign cash socked away as of May, ten times what De León had.”

That money seems to be Sen. Feinstein’s real base of support.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency insider corruption local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Omission of Character

Democratic Party, gubernatorial nominee, governor, Frank Northam, Lt. Governor, Justin Fairfax, racism, politicians

One downside to jumping to the wrong conclusion is that the failure to even look for the correct, accurate conclusion inevitably follows. 

This sleepy odd-year campaign for governor of Virginia has recently been riled by charges of racism. Democratic Party gubernatorial nominee Frank Northam made the “mistake” of “omitting” the party’s candidate for Lt. Governor, Justin Fairfax, from a small printing of literature for union members about the Democrats’ statewide slate. 

Northam is white and Fairfax is black. 

“[A] slap in the face to Justin and to black voters,” is what Quentin James, who runs a PAC working to elect black candidates, called the removal of Fairfax from the literature. He added that it “reeks of subtle racism” and “sends a signal across the state, that we, as black voters, are expendable.”

Noting that black voters make up 20 percent of the state’s electorate, Think Progress dubbed Fairfax’s deletion: “mindboggling.”  

Was this a “dis” and did it really have anything to do with Fairfax being black?

Well, Fairfax labeled it a “mistake,” but his exclusion from the flyer was certainly not inadvertent. It was by clear-eyed design.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA), a $600,000 donor to the coordinated state Democratic campaign, requested that Fairfax be removed from literature their members will distribute. The union is at odds with Fairfax over his opposition to two state pipeline projects the union favors.

So, Northam didn’t throw Fairfax under the bus because Fairfax is black. No sirree. Northam threw Fairfax under the bus to placate a powerful, well-heeled special interest group.

Northam isn’t a racist. He’s just a self-interested, disloyal politician.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Political Regroupings

Democratic Party, Democrats, strategy, principles, big government, leftism, donkey

What’s true for hurricanes is true for the Democratic Party.

After a disaster, it takes a while to regroup, really get a handle on what went wrong. Men and women take some time to absorb new realities.

A few interesting think pieces have come out of the left and center-left, recently, trying to digest what is wrong with the Democrats that they lost so much ground last year — even to someone like Donald Trump. To serious people, the “Russians did it” and “the Deplorables!” are not exactly winners.

Hillary Clinton may be stuck in that mode, but the Democratic Party needn’t be.

The more radical response came from John B. Judis, whose name was big in lefty magazines when I was young. His article “The Socialism America Needs Now,” in his old stomping grounds, The New Republic, tried to make the case for a vague leftism that could be called socialism, if you stretch the term, emphasizing bigger government without seeming too . . . Marxist.

Meanwhile, Mark Lilla has a new book of a somewhat more perceptive nature. Interviewed in Salon, Lilla makes much of the fact that while “smack in the middle” of the GOP’s website “is a list of 11 principles” . . . the Democratic Party could sport “no such statement.” Just a bunch of interest groups.

Interesting. Because, today, I went to GOP.com and saw no such principles list. But I did find a lot of Trump stuff . . . and a bunch of links to “identity groups.”

Talk about regrouping!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

Sorry Not Sorry

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrat, democratic party, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Today, the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia.

Yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, announced her resignation amidst a growing controversy over the DNC’s favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during this year’s presidential contest.

Months ago, Sen. Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, noting her closeness to the Clinton campaign and angered by what his campaign perceived as unfair treatment. To which, Wasserman Schultz had smugly responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

It seems Sanders had a lot better understanding of what the DNC does than she thought.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the American people have also gotten in the know. Last Friday, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from top DNC officials, reportedly snatched by Russian hackers. In the emails, one can read the DNC’s top financial officer suggesting a smear against Sanders over his religion. “AMEN,” responded the DNC’s CEO.

Yes, indeed, the Democratic Party establishment was rigging the process. “The release provides further evidence,” Michael Sainato wrote in The Observer, that “the DNC broke its own charter . . . by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.”

Caught breaking the rules, Wasserman Schultz is out!

Sorta. She’s out after the convention, not before.

Furthermore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still “in.” Mrs. Clinton just offered her a position on the campaign, and said she was “grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia.”

By hook and by crook.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.  

Printable PDF

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrat, democratic party, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

 

Photo credit: Medill DC on Flickr (Creative Commons)

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Debbie Does Democracy

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, collage, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, illustration

“Republicans in Congress are dead-set on rolling back the progress that Democrats like you and I [sic] have worked so hard to achieve,” wrote Democratic Party Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a bizarre pitch letter last week.

They’ve already said that they’re going to try to repeal Obamacare, after more than 50 unsuccessful attempts (and two Supreme Court rulings in the law’s favor). They want to completely defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides necessary health services to women across the country. And if they don’t get their way, they’re just fine with shutting down the government — again!

Well, GOP strategists shouldn’t be fine with the brinksmanship of a government shutdown. That ploy has backfired before. But why? Because everyone seems to think that the Democrats’ “blame Republicans” strategy makes sense.

But it doesn’t.

Say the Republicans in Congress want to defund Planned Parenthood. Democrats want to keep funding it, but . . . the whole federal government spends over revenue — by nearly half a trillion this past year.

So if Republicans fight the spending and Democrats defend it and the government shuts down because of lack of agreement, it’s obvious: both parties shut down the government. Both refuse to compromise.

But for some reason, it’s only those who want to cut spending who get tarred with responsibility for the lack of a budget.

Debbie titled her email letter “This pisses me off.” But those who deserve to be so irked are her opponents, the Republicans, discriminated against in the double standard she perpetuates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, collage, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, illustration

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies Popular

Are Democrats Socialists?

Deer in the Headlights

Does it matter that the chair of the Democratic National Committee doesn’t know if her party is socialist?

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was grilling Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on the meaning of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s popularity within the Democratic Party. Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz responded by boasting that the Democrats “really are a Big Tent Party.” Then Matthews veered out her comfort zone of horse-race politics and self-congratulatory posturing.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?” he asked.

Mrs. W-S chuckled. Uncomfortably.

“I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews went on. “What do you think it is?” Mrs. W-S evaded, blathering on how it is that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is what will really count in the upcoming election.

Karl Dickey, at the Examiner, holds that Democrats, today, are socialists: “one only needs to look at the Democratic Party’s platform to understand that it is a socialistic political party.”

Meanwhile, Juan Williams, discussing the issue on Fox News’s The Five, argues that there is a big difference between Democrats and socialists: Dems just like regulation and redistributing wealth; socialists want to nationalize industry and run everything through a central bureau.

And that is the definition that anti-socialist economists Yves Guyot and Ludwig von Mises settled on. Technically, Williams is right.

But the fact that the head of the Democratic Party waffled on the distinction says more about the party than a definitive answer would have.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Deer in the Headlights