Tentherism is an anachronistic Constitutional theory embraced by a slate of GOP candidates bent on dismantling 100 years of progress.
By The Progress Report
Posted on October 25, 2010
More than seventy years ago, the Supreme Court abandoned a brief, disastrous experiment with "tentherism," a constitutional theory that early twentieth century justices wielded to protect monopolies, strip workers of their right to organize and knock down child labor laws. This discredited constitutional theory is back -- with a vengeance -- endangering Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage and even the national highway system and America's membership in the United Nations. For the first time in three generations, the right is fielding a slate of candidates convinced that any attempt to better the lives of ordinary Americans violates the Constitution -- while a number of sitting lawmakers such as Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL) are already actively pushing tentherism from within the Congress. Make no mistake, this agenda threatens all Americans, from the youngest schoolchild to the most venerable retirees.
SLAMMING SCHOOLHOUSE DOORS: Tentherism's core tenet is that the 10th Amendment must be read too narrowly to permit much of the progress of the last century. Thus, for example, because the Constitution doesn't actually use the word "education" -- it instead gives Congress broad authority to spend money to advance the "common defense" and "general welfare" -- Senate candidates like Ken Buck (R-CO) and Sharron Angle (R-NV) claim that the federal Department of Education is unconstitutional. That means no federal student loan assistance or Pell Grants for middle class students struggling to pay for college, and no education funds providing opportunities to students desperately trying to break into the middle class. And that's hardly the worst news tenthers have in store for young Americans. Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller wants to declare child labor laws unconstitutional -- returning America to the day when ten-year-olds labored in coal mines.
THANKLESS LABOR: Tenther candidates have even worse plans for working age Americans. Miller and West Virginia GOP Senate candidate John Raese both claim that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional -- a position the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in 1941. If you're a person of color or a woman or a person of faith than you are also out of luck, because Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul agrees with Justice Clarence Thomas that the ban on employment and pay discrimination is unconstitutional (don't try to get a meal on your lunch break either, because both men feel the same way about the ban on whites-only lunch counters). Significantly, the constitutional doctrine which supports the minimum wage is the same one which supports child labor laws and bans on discrimination, so when a candidate comes out in opposition to any one of these laws, it is likely that they oppose all of them. To top this all off, Alaska's Miller even claims that unemployment benefits violate the Constitution, so Americans who are unable to find work in the new tenther regime will simply be cast out into the cold.
AN IMPOVERISHED RETIREMENT: Social Security may be the most successful program in American history. Without it, nearly half of all seniors would live below the poverty line. Yet, because words like "retirement" don't specifically appear in the Constitution, tenthers think that Social Security is forbidden. Indeed, Social Security has not just been labeled unconstitutional by specific GOP candidates, the Republican Party's "Pledge To America" embraces a tenther understanding of the Constitution which endangers both Social Security and Medicare. Tenthers respond to claims that they would abolish America's entire safety net for seniors by pointing out that state governments could still create their own retirement programs, but such a state takeover of retirement programs is economically impossible unless America forbids its citizens from retiring in a different state than the one that they paid taxes in while working. Some tenther candidates have also suggested that Social Security can survive so long as it is privatized, but privatization would impose significant new risks on seniors, create new administrative costs, force benefit reductions and cost more money than the present system. In other words, the right has a simple plan for American families: making sure that everyone at the dinner table is completely on their own.
Showing posts with label GOP Pledge to America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP Pledge to America. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Republicans at War with America
A Party of Refuseniks and Obstructionists
By DON MONKERUD
Under the Republican Party's new blueprint for America, BP will no longer be required to clean up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the F.D.A. will not restrict the new diabetes drug Avandia just because it's unsafe, and donors will be required to keep their contributions to political campaigns secret.
These positions, based on recent votes in Congress, foretell how the Republicans will govern if they win in the upcoming November elections.
Republicans would prevent the unemployed from receiving Medicaid; prevent treatment, screening or compensation for Americans who assisted during the 9/11 attacks on the WTC; eliminate extensions of unemployment insurance; allow the oil industry to write their own rules for oil exploration and clean up; open all off shore areas to oil wells; and stop funding state governments to stimulate the economy.
Senate and House Republicans recently voted to prevent bills from reaching the floor, or took positions, that would: bar homosexuals from the nation's military; allow the ash from burning 136 million tons of coal to be dumped into the nation's waterways; ignore greenhouse gases and the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, fire tens of thousands of government employee; and drastically cut welfare, food stamps, health care for children and other government programs to aid the poor.
Long-term goals of the GOP include eliminating unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, Social Security and Medicare, most government regulations, consumer protection laws, and federal aid to education, along with many other government programs they consider detrimental to corporate-business control of the country. Republicans that are even more radical want to make Christianity the state religion, declare war on Islam, assign the death sentence for performing an abortion, and bomb and invade Iran.
Small government, lower taxes and no regulation, mantras of the Republican Party since the Reagan era, are enshrined in new promises to "take America back". The party's so-called road map-Pledge to America-attempts to win new votes for the party and put them in control of Congress, even after their policies led to the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
At every turn, Republicans hamstring the Democrats to create a totally dysfunctional governmental process. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office lists over 300 bills passed by House Democrats that cannot make it to the Senate floor due to Republican opposition. Democrats overcame major Republican opposition to pass bills, often with the aid of only one or two Republicans who switched positions to vote with the Democrats.
While there are no estimates of how many of the 300 bills are progressive, a number of them involve significant changes in the areas of most concern to voters: economic recovery and job creation, consumer protection, assistance to homeowners, affordable health care, clean energy jobs, fiscal responsibility, and national security.
In the Senate, the Democrats again convinced one or two Republicans to join in passing major bills signed into law by President Obama. These laws include: a $30 billion lending program and $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses; stimulus funds to save 3.5 million American jobs; a new manufacturing enhancement act; extension of unemployment benefits; estate tax relief that protects inheritance for 99.8 percent of citizens; Wall Street reforms; a credit cardholder bill of rights; health care extension for 11 million children; and the creation of 1.7 million jobs in clean energy. Republican opposition was almost unanimous.
"It's hard to compromise with people who are against government solutions," said Congressman Sam Farr of California, a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Republicans pushed for the election of ultra-conservative ideologues who don't want to cooperate because they don't think the government should be doing education, fire protection or jails; they want to contract out government jobs to the private sector."
The principle of democratic government-majority rule-is being turned on its head. Minority rule is especially troublesome in the Senate, where the GOP holds up bills passed by the House and threatens to filibuster every Democratic proposal. They also refuse to confirm over 240 Obama appointees, in an effort to paralyze government.
Historians haven't seen such minority obstructionism since 1917. In the 1960s, 8 percent of major Senate bills were subject to filibusters: Today Republicans filibuster 70 percent of major Senate business. Senators with few constituents are behind many of the filibusters, which point to systemic problems. For example, a California senator represents 18 million voters, while one from Wyoming represents 260,000 voters.
The country is in a deep depression, trying to recover from four large items that President Bush put on our national credit card-tax cuts for couples making over $250,000 a year, two wars, and a prescription drug program-in addition to the collapse of the housing bubble. Republicans hope their negative stance will drive voters away from the polls and allow conservative ideologues to put them in office.
Whether Americans fall for the Republican refusenik stance that's full of contradictions, negativity and faulty logic remains to be seen. The new Republican roadmap to prosperity doesn't add up. Republicans are not only at war with logic, but they are also at war with America.
By DON MONKERUD
Under the Republican Party's new blueprint for America, BP will no longer be required to clean up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the F.D.A. will not restrict the new diabetes drug Avandia just because it's unsafe, and donors will be required to keep their contributions to political campaigns secret.
These positions, based on recent votes in Congress, foretell how the Republicans will govern if they win in the upcoming November elections.
Republicans would prevent the unemployed from receiving Medicaid; prevent treatment, screening or compensation for Americans who assisted during the 9/11 attacks on the WTC; eliminate extensions of unemployment insurance; allow the oil industry to write their own rules for oil exploration and clean up; open all off shore areas to oil wells; and stop funding state governments to stimulate the economy.
Senate and House Republicans recently voted to prevent bills from reaching the floor, or took positions, that would: bar homosexuals from the nation's military; allow the ash from burning 136 million tons of coal to be dumped into the nation's waterways; ignore greenhouse gases and the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, fire tens of thousands of government employee; and drastically cut welfare, food stamps, health care for children and other government programs to aid the poor.
Long-term goals of the GOP include eliminating unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, Social Security and Medicare, most government regulations, consumer protection laws, and federal aid to education, along with many other government programs they consider detrimental to corporate-business control of the country. Republicans that are even more radical want to make Christianity the state religion, declare war on Islam, assign the death sentence for performing an abortion, and bomb and invade Iran.
Small government, lower taxes and no regulation, mantras of the Republican Party since the Reagan era, are enshrined in new promises to "take America back". The party's so-called road map-Pledge to America-attempts to win new votes for the party and put them in control of Congress, even after their policies led to the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
At every turn, Republicans hamstring the Democrats to create a totally dysfunctional governmental process. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office lists over 300 bills passed by House Democrats that cannot make it to the Senate floor due to Republican opposition. Democrats overcame major Republican opposition to pass bills, often with the aid of only one or two Republicans who switched positions to vote with the Democrats.
While there are no estimates of how many of the 300 bills are progressive, a number of them involve significant changes in the areas of most concern to voters: economic recovery and job creation, consumer protection, assistance to homeowners, affordable health care, clean energy jobs, fiscal responsibility, and national security.
In the Senate, the Democrats again convinced one or two Republicans to join in passing major bills signed into law by President Obama. These laws include: a $30 billion lending program and $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses; stimulus funds to save 3.5 million American jobs; a new manufacturing enhancement act; extension of unemployment benefits; estate tax relief that protects inheritance for 99.8 percent of citizens; Wall Street reforms; a credit cardholder bill of rights; health care extension for 11 million children; and the creation of 1.7 million jobs in clean energy. Republican opposition was almost unanimous.
"It's hard to compromise with people who are against government solutions," said Congressman Sam Farr of California, a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Republicans pushed for the election of ultra-conservative ideologues who don't want to cooperate because they don't think the government should be doing education, fire protection or jails; they want to contract out government jobs to the private sector."
The principle of democratic government-majority rule-is being turned on its head. Minority rule is especially troublesome in the Senate, where the GOP holds up bills passed by the House and threatens to filibuster every Democratic proposal. They also refuse to confirm over 240 Obama appointees, in an effort to paralyze government.
Historians haven't seen such minority obstructionism since 1917. In the 1960s, 8 percent of major Senate bills were subject to filibusters: Today Republicans filibuster 70 percent of major Senate business. Senators with few constituents are behind many of the filibusters, which point to systemic problems. For example, a California senator represents 18 million voters, while one from Wyoming represents 260,000 voters.
The country is in a deep depression, trying to recover from four large items that President Bush put on our national credit card-tax cuts for couples making over $250,000 a year, two wars, and a prescription drug program-in addition to the collapse of the housing bubble. Republicans hope their negative stance will drive voters away from the polls and allow conservative ideologues to put them in office.
Whether Americans fall for the Republican refusenik stance that's full of contradictions, negativity and faulty logic remains to be seen. The new Republican roadmap to prosperity doesn't add up. Republicans are not only at war with logic, but they are also at war with America.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Paradox of Middle-Cass Aspiration
Is it the enduring myth of the American dream that persuades so many to support tax cuts they will never earn enough to enjoy?
by Sadhbh Walshe - Thursday, September 30, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
One thing we can thank the Great Recession for is that it has finally drawn attention to the growing inequality in American society. Any study or report you care to look at leads to the same sorry conclusion: the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class are disappearing. These trends have accelerated since 2000, but they have been in place for decades; yet, a large percentage of people who are suffering as a result of the inequality seem to favour, or at least tolerate, the policies that perpetuate it.
Real wages have been stagnating and income inequality has been steadily rising in the US since the 1970s, even during periods of sustained economic growth. But we are now reaching a point where economists are panicking about middle class erosion. The recent census report showed that the median income of $50,221 was down about 4% last year from the start of the recession in December 2007. At the same time, the number of families earning less than $25,000 increased by 1%.
The average American family that used to aspire to a comfortable existence that included annual vacations, college education for their kids and home ownership is now battling just to hold on to that home and stay afloat. At least no one is in denial about this. Whatever news channel you tune into you, be it right or left of the spectrum, you will hear cries of help for the ordinary Americans. It is the form of help that is on offer, and the complacency with which we are accepting that 'help' that is perplexing.
The Republican party recently unveiled their "Pledge to America" in which they outline their plans to address the economic anxiety of the majority of Americans by awarding a $700bn dollar tax cut extension to the wealthy who are thriving and cutting spending on programmes that benefit the rest of the country who are not. What is surprising about this is not the lack of imagination (or shame) displayed in the GOP's approach to improving prosperity for all Americans, but that so many people who are not themselves well-off support this generous gift to the rich.
According to a recent AP-gfk poll, 44% of the country is opposed to raising taxes on the highest earners. And, by a margin of 46 to 41%, people want Republicans steering the economy. This is unfortunate considering that according to research compiled by Larry M Bartels of the department of politics at Princeton, income inequality rises under Republicans, whose policies favour the rich, and falls under Democrats, whose policies favour the not-rich, yet more people want Republicans running the show. This perhaps explains, though does not excuse, why the Democrats, in a classic display of what the New York Times calls "timidity", have deferred dealing with the tax cut issue until after the mid-term election – when it may be too late.
The generally accepted explanation of why many Americans, even those that are poor, are opposed to raising taxes for the rich is the enduring belief in upward social mobility or that they may one day be rich themselves. We still believe America is the land of opportunity. You can be born in the ghetto and rise to super stardom. A welfare recipient from a broken home may become president. But the truth is, for the vast majority of people, these dreams are out of reach and, in fact, the US actually has the lowest social mobility of any industrialised nation.
This was one of the more startling findings in a recent book called The Spirit Level, written by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The main conclusion the authors came to, after examining examined decades of research from reputable sources, was that everyone fares better in a more equal society. Countries like the US and Britain and Australia that are very unequal have higher crime rates, lower educational standards and generally more social ills than more equal countries like Sweden and Japan. All this seems pretty self-evident, but the findings have come under attack from rightwing groups in Britain and the US, who are perhaps unnerved by the book's widespread popularity.
We seem to be determined to support politicians and policies that do not serve our best interests regardless of the outcome. At some point, we have to address this trend and not allow delusion to dilute the dream. The middle-class erosion and levels of poverty we are currently experiencing have not yet reached levels where social unrest is the inevitable outcome, but we are headed in that direction.
by Sadhbh Walshe - Thursday, September 30, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
One thing we can thank the Great Recession for is that it has finally drawn attention to the growing inequality in American society. Any study or report you care to look at leads to the same sorry conclusion: the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class are disappearing. These trends have accelerated since 2000, but they have been in place for decades; yet, a large percentage of people who are suffering as a result of the inequality seem to favour, or at least tolerate, the policies that perpetuate it.
Real wages have been stagnating and income inequality has been steadily rising in the US since the 1970s, even during periods of sustained economic growth. But we are now reaching a point where economists are panicking about middle class erosion. The recent census report showed that the median income of $50,221 was down about 4% last year from the start of the recession in December 2007. At the same time, the number of families earning less than $25,000 increased by 1%.
The average American family that used to aspire to a comfortable existence that included annual vacations, college education for their kids and home ownership is now battling just to hold on to that home and stay afloat. At least no one is in denial about this. Whatever news channel you tune into you, be it right or left of the spectrum, you will hear cries of help for the ordinary Americans. It is the form of help that is on offer, and the complacency with which we are accepting that 'help' that is perplexing.
The Republican party recently unveiled their "Pledge to America" in which they outline their plans to address the economic anxiety of the majority of Americans by awarding a $700bn dollar tax cut extension to the wealthy who are thriving and cutting spending on programmes that benefit the rest of the country who are not. What is surprising about this is not the lack of imagination (or shame) displayed in the GOP's approach to improving prosperity for all Americans, but that so many people who are not themselves well-off support this generous gift to the rich.
According to a recent AP-gfk poll, 44% of the country is opposed to raising taxes on the highest earners. And, by a margin of 46 to 41%, people want Republicans steering the economy. This is unfortunate considering that according to research compiled by Larry M Bartels of the department of politics at Princeton, income inequality rises under Republicans, whose policies favour the rich, and falls under Democrats, whose policies favour the not-rich, yet more people want Republicans running the show. This perhaps explains, though does not excuse, why the Democrats, in a classic display of what the New York Times calls "timidity", have deferred dealing with the tax cut issue until after the mid-term election – when it may be too late.
The generally accepted explanation of why many Americans, even those that are poor, are opposed to raising taxes for the rich is the enduring belief in upward social mobility or that they may one day be rich themselves. We still believe America is the land of opportunity. You can be born in the ghetto and rise to super stardom. A welfare recipient from a broken home may become president. But the truth is, for the vast majority of people, these dreams are out of reach and, in fact, the US actually has the lowest social mobility of any industrialised nation.
This was one of the more startling findings in a recent book called The Spirit Level, written by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The main conclusion the authors came to, after examining examined decades of research from reputable sources, was that everyone fares better in a more equal society. Countries like the US and Britain and Australia that are very unequal have higher crime rates, lower educational standards and generally more social ills than more equal countries like Sweden and Japan. All this seems pretty self-evident, but the findings have come under attack from rightwing groups in Britain and the US, who are perhaps unnerved by the book's widespread popularity.
We seem to be determined to support politicians and policies that do not serve our best interests regardless of the outcome. At some point, we have to address this trend and not allow delusion to dilute the dream. The middle-class erosion and levels of poverty we are currently experiencing have not yet reached levels where social unrest is the inevitable outcome, but we are headed in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)