|
The Oppressive Nature of "Small Government" |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:27 |
|
Intro: "The spat Kentucky's junior US Senator had with the TSA this week ignited a flurry of news coverage on his supposed refusal of a full pat-down and subsequent confrontation with law enforcement. ... The response has been an opportunity for Libertarians to score political points, cheerleading Senator Paul for standing up to that big, bad federal government for intruding on his privacy. ... The most ironic part of this whole story? The fact that Rand Paul was actually on his way to the March For Life, where he was scheduled to speak in favor of big-government regulation of women's bodies."
Rand Paul was detained 'indefinitely' after refusing a full body pat-down in Nashville. (photo: John Shinkle/POLITICO)
The Oppressive Nature of "Small Government"
By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News
26 January 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
 and Paul isn't a Libertarian, he just plays one on TV.
The spat Kentucky's junior US Senator had with the TSA this week ignited a flurry of news coverage on his supposed refusal of a full pat-down and subsequent confrontation with law enforcement. Paul's spokesperson said he was "detained." The TSA said he was escorted out by law enforcement. In any case, Paul booked another flight and got through security without incident.
The response has been an opportunity for Libertarians to score political points, cheerleading Senator Paul for standing up to that big, bad federal government for intruding on his privacy. And the whole debacle will undoubtedly make good stump-speech fodder for Ron Paul's campaign against big-government regulation.
The most ironic part of this whole story? The fact that Rand Paul was actually on his way to the March For Life, where he was scheduled to speak in favor of big-government regulation of women's bodies.
For two men who claim to love personal freedom and Libertarian values, it's incredibly hypocritical for those same two men to oppose a woman's right to do what she wants to with her own uterus. Especially for two men who campaigned on getting government out of the lives of private citizens.
Like most others on the left, I admire Ron Paul for his advocacy of tightly regulating the Fed, ending the wars and foreign occupations overseas, and ending the war on drugs in America. And on those three issues, Ron Paul is the best candidate by far.
But as a president, whose only real power is to sign and veto legislation put on his desk by Congress, Ron Paul wouldn't be able to accomplish any of those goals. However, the current Congress would undoubtedly approve of the rest of his platform, including privatization of education, the enabling of state-level extremism, cutting Social Security and Medicare, cutting food and drug inspection, rolling back workers' safety and wage protections, and repealing clean air and water regulations.
Ron and Rand Paul dislike big-government regulations that forbid logging companies from destroying national forests, laws that forbid oil companies from drilling in the habitats of protected wildlife, or statutes that keep coal companies from dumping waste in a community drinking-water supply. The small government the Paul family fantasizes about is one small enough to be incapable of regulating the private sector when it intrudes in the lives of private citizens. It's a government so small that any corporate accountability would be left up to the people - in the courtrooms. And anyone suing for pollution of drinking water, deadly prescription drugs, tainted food, unsafe working conditions, wage theft, or any other wrongdoing would lose every time in battles of attrition against corporate giants using lawyers paid for with bottomless profits.
Ron and Rand Paul won the hearts of voters with rhetoric about hearkening back to the days of the founding fathers, who were guided by the Constitution they had written. But the Paul family and their right-Libertarian following would do well to remember that the Constitution written by the founding fathers also viewed people as property, and didn't allow women the right to vote.
Politicians who claim the Libertarian mantle should not only oppose government intervention in Americans' lives, but should also push for policies that protect Americans from private-sector oppression. And they should be equipped with enough common sense to know that throwing out the rulebook won't make a habitual rule-breaker suddenly start playing fair.
Carl Gibson, 24, of Lexington, Kentucky, is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. He graduated from Morehead State University in 2009 with a B.A. in Journalism before starting the first US Uncut group in Jackson, Mississippi, in February of 2011. Since then, over 20,000 US Uncut activists have carried out more than 300 actions in over 100 cities nationwide. You may contact Carl at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
 |
|
FOCUS | Obama's Words |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:02 |
|
Marc Ash writes: "Last night's 2012 State of the Union address was most significant in that President Obama was kind enough to send fairly clear signals about where he intends to go. We have a road map. So that's a start."
President Barack Obama greets Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner prior to delivering the 2012 State of the Union address on Capitol Hill, 01/24/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Obama's Words
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
25 January 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
 ast night's 2012 State of the Union address was most significant in that President Obama was kind enough to send fairly clear signals about where he intends to go. We have a road map. So that's a start.
If you were looking for social responsibility, Obama's comments on labor, trade, taxes, regulation of financial institutions, consumer protection, and education were on point rhetorically. Be aware that every time he said to the members of Congress, "If you send me a bill ... I will sign it," that statement incorporates the word "if," so that may not qualify as a plan of action.
The "other" side of Obama, however, was in attendance as well, and that President Obama appeared to drag some pretty substantial compromises with him to the podium.
Trouble on the Environmental Front
In the face of real community concern about allowing Hydraulic Fracturing, commonly known as "fracking," as a method for extracting natural gas, Obama seemed remarkably detached. He touted natural-gas extraction as the greatest thing since the Hoover Dam and pointed to a 100-year supply as justification.
Yes, he also touched on "green themes," renewable energy, fuel efficiency and all of that. But the environmentally responsible remarks were overshadowed by Obama's enthusiastic embrace of natural gas exploration "on public lands." That might easily equate to fracking in the nation's national parks and most cherished wild places.
Obama addressed environmental concerns about fracking only in a non-specific reference to mandating that energy companies involved in gas exploration be forced to "disclose the chemicals they use." Such information could be useful in constructing an epitaph for the North American ecosystem, but it's a poor substitute for protecting and conserving.
On the Warpath?
Big concern were Obama's remarks on Iran, both for their gratuitous bravado and conspicuous lack of understanding. Not much daylight there between Bush and Obama's logic, or oratory. Obama's a bit more reserved than his predecessor about initiating large-scale US military intervention in the affairs of other nations - so far - but if he makes the wrong call on Iran nothing he's done to date will matter.
On the whole it kind of sounds like he means well, but he's trying to please all the members of Congress all the time.
So much for Obama the realist.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
|
FOCUS: Who Is Sheldon Adelson, What Has Newt Promised Him? |
|
|
Wednesday, 25 January 2012 12:03 |
|
Reich writes: "Forget the Lincoln Bedroom. The Adelsons and their kids will have the run of the White House, including the Oval Office. Hey, they'll take over the Old Executive Building next door and turn it into a casino."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Who Is Sheldon Adelson, What Has Newt Promised Him?
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
25 January 12
 heldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner, is now the poster boy for what's terribly wrong with our campaign-finance system. Adelson, you may recall, had, before the South Carolina Republican primary, donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich Super Pac "Winning Our Future" - giving Newt a pile of money for negative advertising against Mitt Romney in South Carolina.
Adelson has done it again. He and his wife Marian have cut another $5 million check for Gingrich to go negative on Romney in Florida. The money won't go as far as it did in South Carolina - TV ads cost a lot more in Florida - but it's enough to give the Grinch a solid footing.
And, who knows? The Adelsons are billionaires. They might decide to put in another $5 million or perhaps $20 million into Gingrich's Super Pac. The point is, there's no limit.
Do you know who Sheldon and Marian Adelson are? Do you know what Gingrich has promised them, or what they think they'll get out of a Grinch presidency? I don't. But if Newt becomes President of the United States, they'll be singularly responsible. And we better find out, because Newt will owe them big time.
Forget the Lincoln Bedroom. The Adelsons and their kids will have the run of the White House, including the Oval Office. Hey, they'll take over the Old Executive Building next door and turn it into a casino.
Never before in the history of American politics has a single couple given more money to a single candidate and had a bigger impact - all courtesy of the Supreme Court and its grotesque decisions that speech is money and corporations are people under the First Amendment.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
|
Romney's Taxes |
|
|
Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:12 |
|
Intro: "Just about what we expected. He really needs to provide earlier years, if only to clear up suspicions that he began sanitizing his portfolio in preparation for his presidential run."
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Romney's Taxes
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
25 January 12
 ust about what we expected. He really needs to provide earlier years, if only to clear up suspicions that he began sanitizing his portfolio in preparation for his presidential run.
The right-wing apologetics now focus on the claim that Romney's taxes aren't really low, because we should impute the taxes that corporations effectively paid on his behalf. But there are at least two things wrong with this argument.
First, $13 million of the total was carried interest, which gets taxed like capital gains but is really just commissions that receive special treatment for no good reason. No profits taxes were paid on that income; right there, a minimally defensible tax code would have levied $2.6 million more in taxes on Romney.
Second, just the other day the usual suspects were calling for big cuts in corporate taxes, arguing that these taxes don't really fall on stockholders, they fall mainly on workers and consumers. Now, suddenly, the taxes fall on stockholders after all. Interesting.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is signalling that it's going to try to spin this as "he pays lots of taxes"! How stupid do they think we are? Actually, don't answer that.
Again, the point here is not that Romney did something wrong by paying the low rates current tax law lavishes on people like him. It is, instead, that in an election campaign that will be in part about issues of inequality, the likely GOP candidate is a living, breathing, coupon-clipping example of how favorable our system is to the very rich; and he also happens to be advocating policies that would greatly benefit people like him, while hurting the poor and the middle class.
PS: Yes, my tax rate is a lot higher than Romney's. And I support policies that would raise it further.
|
|
