Sometimes I agree with Ann Coulter. This is one of those moments. She admitted recently that Republicans have to let go of some of their sacred cows since they lost the election — and risk losing any influence with the public going forward. From my latest column:
Americans support gay rights and increasingly believe that same sex couples should be able to marry. Most Americans think that Wall Street CEOs should not pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Culture wars and class warfare in America? Conservatives built that. And lost.
Read the rest here. It’s a fun one.
In my latest essay for the Fox News website, I try to clarify the massive misconception plaguing Democrats and Republicans at the moment:
After the Great Depression and in the lead up to World War II, the United States debt to GDP ratio was over 100%. And what did we get for that? Not only the resolution of a major world conflict but the New Deal, a package of government stimulus programs that rebooted the economy and created two generations of broadly shared prosperity in America.
Today, the debt to GDP ratio is 60%. So what exactly is the crisis?
I go on to look at other economic measures and dispel them… and then look at what the real crisis is at this moment in history. Check it out and help share it online.
Politico’s Arena asked, “Should the GOP break their anti-tax pledge?” And I responded:
Elected officials should make pledges to the American people, NOT special interests in Washington.
Not only are Republicans right to abandon Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, but they never should have voluntarily shackled themselves to it in the first place.
Want to read the rest? It’s here.
Does Grover Norquist think that letting a tax cut lapse is the same thing as increasing taxes? Depends on which Grover you ask…
This week, Grover Norquist has been all over the place attacking the idea that President Obama would use his mandate to stand firm on the highly-popular idea of letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year. When asked what his agenda for the fiscal showdown was, Norquist told The Washington Post, “You want to stop any tax increases, so continue any tax cuts that lapse.”
In other words, allowing a tax cut to lapse equals a tax increase, eh? Not so fast says … Grover Norquist.
In a July 2011 meeting with The Washington Post editorial board, Norquist said, “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase.”
Please read my latest essay for the American Prospect here.
From my latest piece for the Fox News website:
It is stunning to hear Republicans, who mere months ago boasted about how likely the president was to be defeated, now minimize the significance of the president’s victory and suggest he does not have a mandate….
Republicans can do all the finger pointing they want — at Mitt Romney, his campaign, Hurricane Sandy, whatever — but the fact is that with a weak economy and sagging approval ratings, President Obama was highly vulnerable for defeat if Republicans could propose popular alternatives. But this election proved those Republican alternatives wildly unpopular.
Read the rest here — and share it around!
Here are clips of two segments I did late on election night on Fox News:
Video courtesy of Fox News Channel.
From my latest:
Despite baseless Republican assertions to the contrary, Barack Obama has sought from Day One to take responsibility for his actions as President. So, after three and a half years in which Republicans have blocked every piece of legislation Obama has proposed and generally been as uncooperative as possible — economic recovery be damned — Obama repeated this weekend what he has said before: “I take full responsibility for everything that we do.”
And yet Mitt Romney still refuses to take responsibility even for his own tax returns.
Read the rest here and join me in mourning the erosion of maturity in politics.
On the heels of Mitt Romney insulting half of the nation, an excerpt from my latest for Salon:
Increasingly, I’ve come to think this debate is not really about conservative faith in trickle-down economics, which all real-world evidence gleaned over decades now proves just doesn’t work. Instead, I think Mitt Romney and many conservatives simply believe that the wealthy are more deserving and the poor are lazy. Therefore, we should reward the rich with whatever they want — lower tax rates, unlimited campaign spending, you name it — and punish the poor.
Read the rest here.
At a recent campaign stop, Paul Ryan repeated a common conservative talking point in this election: “Government’s job is not to pick winners and losers in the economy.” No, but apparently Republicans think it’s their job to pick winners and losers in society more broadly — which is exactly what their new party platform does.
Republicans apparently welcome an expansive and intrusive role for government in engineering and re-engineering our social norms and relationships. Nowhere is that more clear than in the proposed 2012 Republican Party platform, which one platform committee member boasted is “the most conservative platform in modern history”. Here’s a look at who should win and who should lose in America, according to the Republican Party:
Losers: Gay people
The Republican platform committee rejected the input of gay Republican groups and embraced the extremist language of conservative hate groups to write that the battle over marriage equality is “an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values”. And rather than hiding behind a feigned moderate position that gay rights issues should be left to the states, the draft platform activists “applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so”. The Party also embraces altering the United States Constitution to take away rights from loving, same-sex couples. The platform section then goes on to insult not only gay families but single-parent households before ending with an ironic assertion that “all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity” — an assertion wholly undercut by the platform itself.
Winners: Fertilized eggs
While the Republican Party platform would take rights away from loving gay couples, the party would give more rights to fertilized eggs — promoting a constitutional “personhood” amendment to declare that, at the moment of conception, a microscopic fetus has the same legal rights and protections as living, breathing human being. The consequence of such a measure would be to not only to ban all abortions but restrict certain forms of birth control and fertility treatments and, potentially, subject women who even inquire about abortion services to criminal penalties. And despite the fact that over three-quarters of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or some cases, the Republican Party platform bans all abortions outright with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
Losers: Women in the military
Not only are women directly affected by the Republican platform’s draconian, anti-choice positions, the draft platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military and would move to keep women soldiers off the front lines of combat. Notably, the platform committee tried to paint this as an effort to protect women’s rights: “We support the advancement of women in the military…[and] We support women’s exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” It’s very kind of the Republican Party to want to support women to not get hurt by bumping their heads on the glass ceiling of opportunity by, benevolently, moving opportunities for women further out of reach.
Winners: Military contractors
Apparently not reluctant to “socially engineer” the United States Constitution, the Republican Party platform endorses a constitutional amendment that would make it infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, for our government to raise taxes. Yet, while the anti-choice amendment does not include any exceptions in cases of rape or incest, the tax amendment does include an exception — for military spending. And so while the Republican Party wants to downgrade the rights and liberties of women who have been raped and gay couples, it wants to protect the ability of military contractors (and donors) to bilk taxpayers. How else would the supposedly deficit-cutting GOP be able to propose increasing defense spending during a recession, as Paul Ryan does in his House budget plan.
Losers: Police
Of course, if you don’t allow the government to raise taxes — ever — then it becomes hard to pay for vital public services like police and firefighters, for which many cities and states rely on federal spending to subsidize. This is a problem for unemployment, which despite over 29 months of consistent private sector job growth, has remained high largely because of public sector layoffs. What’s more, especially in tough economic times, not only are Americans more reliant on public spending like food stamps and unemployment checks, but cutting public jobs means cutting the spending that those workers put into our communities and small businesses. But certainly, in the wake of so many mass shooting incidents, Republicans must see the need for police and first responders who can make sure our kids get to school safely without needing to pack heat, right? Wrong…
Winners: Gun vigilantes
Although many police oppose so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws, the GOP platform embraces such laws and supports federal legislation to extend carry laws. And, in a sign that conservatives are more allegiant to ideology than facts, the head of the Family Research Council secured a plank in the Republican platform that would expand gun rights in the District of Columbia — in spite of the fact that the FRC was the recent target of a shooting. While even the vast majority of NRA members and other gun owners support basic, common sense gun laws, the Republican platform would put more guns in more people’s hands and let them use them in more legal ways — and yet limit the number of cops ensuring public safety.
In the Republican Party vision for the future of America, there are very clear winners and losers. This isn’t hyperbole. This isn’t a misrepresentation. This is the draft Republican Party platform, the clearest statement of the party’s priorities, crafted by its most prominent and celebrated leaders. If Republicans really object to government picking winners and losers, they should stop enshrining social castes in their party platform. And if Republicans really object to being labeled extremists, they should stop pursuing such an extremist agenda.
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
SOCIALIZE WITH ME!
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLS
Make a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
