Tag: Politics

By on

I try not to read too much news as I find it depressing and unhelpful. I am sorry but there is only so much time I am willing to give to Donald Trump’s shenanigans. There has to be more life than complaining about him so I was struck by a friend’s post in Facebook about Trump. I missed it and it was indeed shocking. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, prostrated himself before Donald Trump in order to ensure that his company is exempt from Trump’s tariffs.

This isn’t the way government is supposed to work. Trump’s whole theory behind the tariffs is that he wants to bring back jobs to American workers. Yet, Cook, a large company with a large contingent of Chinese labor, bends the knee, buys a present for Trump and is now free from the high tariffs on Chinese manufacturing. Cook supposedly agreed to house more manufacturing in USA but the details don’t sound very promising. It sounds like a lot of paperwork on how Trump’s Team defines foreign made for Apple while allowing Apple to continuing making its phones in China.

So what did American Labor get out of this deal? Vague promises. All Cook had to do was throw a little gold Trump’s way and then, in public, kiss Trump’s abundant ass which I am pretty sure was the most unpleasant part of the whole deal for Cook. I am sure he would have preferred a much quieter deal without the cameras and the transfer of the gold present.

But that isn’t the way Trump operates. He doesn’t think tit for tat is wrong, he doesn’t think accepting gifts from anyone may be suspect, and he likes people to bow before him. I am not naive enough to think this doesn’t happen. It probably does. What is troubling is that Trump fails to see the problem with his behavior and that Cook consented to such a naked display of corruption.

By on

One of the enduring mysteries of American Tax laws is why do the Rich need so much help.

Let me start with tax laws because this is where the Rich do their best to milk the rest of us. A tax bill is money owed the government for services provided. Now you may not like to pay taxes (who does?) but the political institutions that guide our communal living has determined this is the money a person owes. Citizens have an opportunity to change these laws by electing people of a similar mind in the frequent elections held in this country.

It is the price for living here in the USA — the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? But the Rich are constantly complaining that they need more money in order to juice the economy and if you give them more money it will actually help everyone else because the Rich will be spending money on their businesses. So since the election of Reagan in 1980, taxes have been routinely cut and tax breaks have been instituted to such a degree that many rich people and companies presently pay absolutely no income taxes.

How is this working for everyone else? Have the rich fulfilled their promise to make the rest of us rich with their selfless spending. Surely the Americans must have the richest poor people on the face of the earth. They must be swimming in luxury — great health care, cheap housing, good public education.

But this isn’t the story. Why hasn’t all this largess to the Rich had any effect? Hmm. Let me think about this. Perhaps they haven’t been juicing the American economy. How could this be? They claim to love this country so much, why hasn’t all this love and money translated into a more stable economic situation for everyone else. What could be wrong?

The Rich do have an answer. They just need even more tax cuts. They just haven’t been given enough money to juice the economy. This means everyone else will have to suck it up when cutting government funded programs for the poor and the middle class. The American taxpayer simply can’t afford to help everyone and it is vital that the Rich get even more money then, and only then, will the rich have enough money to spend the rest of us into prosperity.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if, instead of giving money to the rich, we gave it to poor and the middle class. They will buy groceries, cars, air conditioners, and a whole array of products that, you got it, will juice the economy. In fact, because there are more just plain folk than there are rich people, it might just juice the economy better and faster than giving money to the rich. I don’t know but I would like to give it a try. Giving to the rich hasn’t exactly worked as promised.

But the budget. We haven’t collected enough in taxes to pay for all this help. Right. Because we are giving the Rich so much back in tax reduction, we are going into debt and unable to afford actions that might help everyone else. Get out your handkerchiefs. Why is it that the only time the Republicans care about the budget deficit is when it involves expanding programs that help the poor. They don’t give a damn about the budget deficits when they are cutting taxes for the Rich which has exactly the same effect — budget deficits.

The whole premise of helping the rich in order to help the poor is so demented. It is a topsy turvy Alice through the looking glass view of living. Our most economically secure citizens — the people with the most money, the best healthcare, luxury vacations, personal airplanes and such — always need our help while we can’t help our least economically secure citizens who don’t have money, or healthcare, or even a safe place to lay their head at night. Helping the poor is always seen as bad while helping the rich is necessary. How does this make sense?

That this story keeps being told, with a straight face no less, is depressing. Years of low taxation and cuts in social services have shown, it to be patently false. But hey ho, I’ve got mine.

Until I don’t.

By on

I don’t know why Russiagate is such a big deal. It may be a little shady but it falls within the acceptable shadiness of American politics. I know Republicans want to arrest Barrack Obama and the Democrats are calling Tulsi Gabbard a liar. Gabbard is talking about Russia’s ability to hack voting machines while Democrats are talking about campaign money going to Trump or, at least, anti-Democratic PACS. Republicans will investigate and prosecute and will be disappointed.

The idea that the Russians were using cash to influence the 2016 election seemed like a weak argument to begin with. I agree that the Russians aren’t supposed to spend money on American politics but if they did and their candidate wins, I’m not sure where the problem is. The American people voted and, sadly, found the Russian propaganda more convincing. That is on the Democrats. They choose a terrible candidate and ran a shitty campaign.

Then again the Democrats accusing Trump of being a Russian mole is hardly refuted here. If the Russians contributed cash to anti-Democratic organizations, they were clearly hoping for a Trump victory. The Democrats have every right to tell the story and make the charge of Trump being a Russian asset. They may be wrong but when has hyperbole been absent in a political campaign. For example, Trump called Zoran Mamdani a Communist. Mamdani, by any reasonable assessment, is a Socialist but calling him a Communist makes hims sound so much more horrible. Trump knows it and that is why he used the word Communist.

It would be easier to consider Gabbard’s accusations against the Obama Administration’s use of government agencies against his political opponents if Donald Trump was a model of probity but he most certainly isn’t. Trump gleefully threatens anyone who opposes him with government investigation. Why is it OK for Trump to investigate and Obama can’t? Isn’t this just regular campaign malfeasance?

It is just more screaming about nothing that matters to the average man and woman on the street. It won’t convince Trump supporters to abandon him and it won’t elect Democrats to office. It is political noise. Distractions from the tariffs and Medicaid and anything that has an actual effect on people’s lives. This meaningless noise will absorb media attention until it doesn’t.

Oh yes, then there is the Epstein files. I pretty sure that the Democrats will be disappointed with any release of the Epstein files. If the Biden White House had evidence that Trump was having sex with underage girls, I am fairly certain they would have released it during the 2024 campaign. They may have evidence that he had been to Epstein’s island and that he was friends with Epstein but I doubt there is any smoking gun because if they had that evidence why in God’s name didn’t they release in the 2024 campaign? I mean not releasing it would be some serious campaign malpractice.

And don’t say it is because Democrats would never do that shit because I don’t believe you.

By on

The Texas Legislature is about to redraw the district boundaries for the US Congress in their state. Something, by the way, they just finished doing after the 2020 census. The problem is that the Republican majority in Congress is so small that Trump is trying to get Republican leaning states to gerrymander their district boundaries in order to gain more seats in 2024 election. All of this is perfectly legal and will probably happen.

California Democrats have threatened to redraw the congressional districts in their state if Texas follows through with their plan. Again all perfectly legal. In the meantime, real problems are being ignored in order to jerry rig Congress into something easier to control. Of course, this has to be done because the present political climate is so poisonous that achieving anything that resembles compromise is now impossible. Indeed, it is easier to redraw district boundaries than to work with one another for the good of their constituents.

Just one more distraction from all the real troubles of our country. Sadly it is both important and a colossal waste of time, money, and energy.

By on

Trump wants to resume using racist names for Washington’s football team.

I never understand why people clung to the Redskins name. It is obviously a racist name. Now, Donald Trump may not view it that way — mostly because he is White, and even if some Native Americans view Redskins as OK, other Native Americans do not. The only reason to resume the argument regarding the Redskins is to piss off people which is Trump’s whole game.

A sports team’s name would seem to be a low priority item to piss people off about but that is rarely a problem for Trump though he has an incredibly weak case to make. Tradition. Jesus. Americans used to have slaves. Women didn’t have the vote. Would tradition be a justifiable case to keep these two practices? Just because people have been calling the team a racist name for 100 years doesn’t mean we should continue — particularly when people have a problem with it.

But Trump wants to rumble about this and when he wants to rumble, there is no stopping him. It seems like a big waste of time. What harm occurs to the people who can no longer call the team the Redskins? None as far as I can see. The team still plays. The fans still watch. The only thing that is different is the name. “Go, Commanders” instead of “Go Redskins.”

Why not avoid aggravating people who object? But Trump doesn’t have an ounce of grace in him, he enjoys pissing people off. He has one speed — bull in china shop. At the end of his term, Trump will stand among the broken shards, gleefully proclaiming look what I have done. Quite an accomplishment — breaking everything. Quite another to build and to repair.

In the meantime, forget about Gaza, or tariffs, or healthcare, or immigration or homeless people or any one of a million more important things facing the country, let’s reopen an argument about the name of a football team.

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

By on

I remember when a lot of liberals thought George McGovern was going to be president because he was winning all of the Democratic primaries in 1972. I was also devastated when Richard Nixon crushed him the general election. Liberals, based on absolutely no real evidence, think that all the Democrats have to do is become even more liberal than they are presently are. And when the more liberal candidate got beaten, money was the problem.

There just wasn’t enough money to win. If liberals only had enough money, the people would vote sensibly. Donald Trump has proven the money theory wrong. It is about noise and media attention. Trump used very little of his own money instead he created a media feeding frenzy in which he made headlines every day saying outlandish things and the press would slavishly report them.

Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, may have the right stuff to get elected but I am yet to be convinced that he is the answer to the Democratic Party’s problem getting elected. I have been burned too many times — George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson while more conservative Democrats seem to do better – think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There is a perception problem that liberals fail to see. Liberals see a young energetic well polished candidate. Other people might else sees a Muslim Communist.

This is why I am being cautious in my enthusiasm:

  1. New York City has a fundamentally different electorate. It is a different group than what one would find in Missouri or Ohio. Test driving well in New York, doesn’t mean he will test drive well in the rest of the country. Just because the most liberal candidate won in New York doesn’t mean this translates to the rest of the country.
  2. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent, was a severely wounded candidate. He had to resign his last post because of credible reports of sexual harassing his employees. There is also growing evidence that he mishandled the AIDS crisis in his state. A lot of people didn’t like him and weren’t going to vote for him.
  3. In first round voting, Mamdani’s opponents got 57 percent of the vote. So even with a more liberal electorate than the rest of the United States, an awful lot of people voted for other candidates.
  4. Now that he is the Democratic candidate, the knives are out for Mamdani. His socialism becomes communism. His support of the Palestinians becomes his support of terrorism. People thought Obama was a Muslim without any evidence whatsoever what can the Republicans do with an actual Muslim.
  5. Making fun of establishment Democrats might be a lot of fun now but, in order to win, the Democrats need to keep everyone on board. There might be two former Democrats in the general election — Adams and Cuomo. Plausible alternates for people who might be afraid of Socialism. Gloating about your win is unseemly and irritating. A better use of Mamdani’s time, particularly now, would be reaching out to Cuomo and his supporters.

I wish Zohran Mamdani all the luck in the world. Right now, I am thinking he can win but a lot of work needs to be done to make that happen. Assuming Mamdani is going to win just because he is the Democrat in an overwhelming Democratic town is short sighted (see Guiliani, Rudy).

By on

I generally support Israel. I want to continue to do so but the behavior of the Netanyahu government is troubling.

Here is what I am grappling with:

The Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map. Or, at least, remove them from their present location. This is impossible. There are close to 10 million Israelis who don’t want to be moved. The Palestinians believe the 1948 partition of Palestine was wrong. The problem is it did happen. Israel is now a fact of life. Removing 10 million people isn’t going to be easy or peaceful so the Palestinians who oppose Israel are at choice here.

Sadly, they have chosen terribly. They are still trying to scare the Israelis out of the region. It isn’t working. Everything they have done has caused the Palestinians to loose more lives, to loose more land, and to loose more autonomy. They are worse off now than they were in 1948, 1967, 1971, and will you get the point. They keep coming out of each confrontation with Israel in worse shape. The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Killing Israelis is clearly not working to change the dynamics in Palestine. The only thing that has occurred is a growing list of Palestinian martyrs to a seemingly hopeless cause.

Israel doesn’t care about world opinion. Or, at least, they care more about their own survival than world opinion. And the world doesn’t appear inclined to help the Palestinians much more than utter some rather meek criticisms of Israeli actions. Israel continues to bomb away while Palestinians continue to die. The world is standing by, waiting to see what happens but don’t count on much more.

The side getting the shit kicked out of them normally surrenders their army and their weapons in order to stop their children from being killed. Hamas isn’t willing to do this so Israelis continue to bomb the shit out of Gaza. The sad fact is Hamas is more than willing to let these children die rather than surrender. Killing children will not change anyone’s mind (see Sandy Hook shooting).

Why Israel continues their campaign is beyond me. The idea that they will eliminate every bit of Palestinian resistance is just as foolish as the Palestinians believing that sacrificing their children to Israeli will somehow change World Public opinion. It just isn’t going to happen. Adding extra Hamas hit men to an already high body count has reached a point of no return, Israel has won all that it can win and they continue to hold the upper hand in the region. Yes there is a danger of Hamas regrouping and staging another attack. But then that is always going to be a danger, given the animus Palestinians hold against Israel. They are as safe from Hamas as they possibly can be, why not see what diplomacy can do now.