Actually, I think the masses of plain people will do okay this time.
Category Archives: Politics
This Week’s Selective Political Roundup
Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine presents two brief accounts of Republican hypocrisy (there’s a little-known but important fact: Republican politicians are required to solemnly recite a Hypocritical Oath before receiving any financial support from the party).
First, Congressman Paul Ryan has said that he wants to simplify the tax code and isn’t especially interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy.  When asked why he didn’t support a proposal made by a Republican congressman a few years ago that would have done exactly that, namely, eliminate loopholes and deductions without favoring one group of taxpayers over another, he’s unable to come up with an answer. All he can say is that it’s “ridiculous” to worry about which taxpayers would benefit the most from tax reform. It must, therefore, be mere coincidence that the reforms he favors would disproportionately benefit the wealthy (“No Tax Reforms Unless Rich People Get Paid“).
Second, Republican Senators who previously claimed it’s against the rules or common practice to confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of a President’s term are now saying this last-year restriction only applies if Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) wins in November. If one of the Democrats is elected President, it will be perfectly fine to approve Obama’s nominee this year. Their fear, of course, is that President Clinton or Sanders would nominate someone more liberal than Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee. Thus, “the people” should have a role in deciding who gets on the Supreme Court, but the people who vote in November should only have a role if they elect a Republican President. Otherwise, the people who elected Obama in 2012 should have their say after all. Yes, they do indeed swear a Hypocritical Oath (“[Republicans] Demand Supreme Court Vacancy Be Filled by Next President, Unless That President Is Hillary Clinton“).
Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias of Vox says “There’s a Big Problem with Sanders’s Free College Plan“. “Free college” has been one of Senator Sanders’s most popular positions. According to the campaign’s site:
The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country…The cost of this …Â plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators [i.e. on transactions in the stock and bond markets].
Yglesias, however, provides a link to a more detailed “Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act” on his Senate webpage:Â
This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.
Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.
To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
As Yglesias points out, Sanders is relying on the states, including those that refused to accept Federal money in order to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor, to spend more money on education, even though the same states, usually run by Republican governors and legislators, have been cutting their education budgets. In addition, the public colleges and universities in those states would have to institute other reforms in order for their states to qualify for Federal matching grants.
Free college sounds great, and Senator Sanders has a reputation for brutal honesty, but he isn’t telling his supporters the truth about how difficult it would be to abolish college tuition. In Yglesias’s words: “what Sanders has is a plan for tuition-free college in Vermont and, if he’s lucky, California, but not for the United States of America”.
Lastly, two political science professors have an interesting article in the New York Times called “Clinton’s Bold Vision, Hidden in Plain Sight?“. They argue that Hillary Clinton is a throwback to the days when pragmatic Democrats and Republicans worked together to achieve great things:Â
Mrs. Clinton has put forth an ambitious and broadly popular policy agenda: family and medical leave, continued financial reform, improvements in the Affordable Care Act, investments in infrastructure and scientific research, measures to tackle global warming and improve air and water quality, and so on….
A few decades ago, Mrs. Clinton would have been seen as a common political type: an evidence-oriented pragmatist committed to using public authority to solve big problems…. In the middle decades of the 20th century, this pragmatic problem-solving mentality had a prominent place in both parties. Some issues were deeply divisive: labor rights and national health insurance, for example, and civil rights. Nonetheless, a bipartisan governing coalition that included leaders from both business and labor proved remarkably willing to endorse and improve the mixed economy to promote prosperity.
More important, the major policies that this coalition devised deserve credit for some of the greatest achievements of American society, including the nation’s once decisive lead in science and education, its creation of a continent-spanning market linked by transportation and communications, and its pioneering creation of product and environmental regulations that added immensely to Americans’ health and quality of life…. Americans’ income per capita doubled and then more than doubled again, with the gains broadly distributed for most of the era….
Mrs. Clinton is heir to an enormously successful bipartisan governing tradition. Yet this tradition has been disowned by the Republican Party and has lost allure within a significant segment of the Democratic Party; it also runs sharply against the grain of current public sentiments about government and politicians….
In the context of widespread amnesia about what has made America prosper, pragmatism has come to be seen as lacking a clear compass rather than (in the original meaning of the word) focusing on what has actually proved to work in the real world.
Confessions of a Republican – 1964
The Johnson campaign strongly encouraged Republicans who couldn’t stomach the Republican nominee to vote Democratic in 1964: Â
“I tell you, the people who got control of that convention. I mean, who are they?”
He’s Really Taking This FĂĽhrer Thing Too Far
Breaking news:
It appears that the leading Republican Presidential candidate is growing a mustache that, aside from its brilliant orange color, bears a striking resemblance to that worn by an infamous historical figure. These are actual images from a video filmed yesterday in Dayton, Ohio:
Observers are divided over whether this surprising development will help or hurt his campaign for the Republican nomination.
The video and a description of events at the rally are available here. Viewer discretion is advised.
A Modest Proposal Regarding the Flag of New Zealand (They’ll Thank Me)
This has been New Zealand’s flag since 1902. It’s got the Union Jack in the upper left corner and the Southern Cross constellation to the right. It’s almost the same as Australia’s flag (Australia’s has six white stars instead of four red ones).
Although most Kiwis (their national bird is the kiwi) think their flag is fine as it is, there’s been talk about changing it for years. Some would prefer that it not look so much like Australia’s. Some object to the Union Jack, arguing that it’s an anachronistic symbol of New Zealand’s colonial past.
Among the Kiwis who want to change the flag is John Key, the Prime Minister. In addition to getting rid of the Union Jack, he wants the new flag to include New Zealand’s quasi-official national symbol, a silver (or white) fern.Â
So, after two long years of discussion and analysis, including the creation of a flag replacement commission, the country is now holding the second stage of a national referendum on whether to replace the flag. The choice is between the old flag above and one with a big white fern and some black in the upper left corner (black being one of New Zealand’s national colors):Â
Opinion polls suggest that the old flag is going to easily win the referendum. That makes sense, since its proposed replacement has been compared to a beach towel.
Whichever flag wins, of course, a significant number of Kiwis are going to be unhappy. The majority will celebrate and the minority will lick their wounds. That’s where my modest proposal comes in.
When changing something that lots of people care about, it’s always a good idea to consider a relatively small change first. Maybe a small change will address whatever problem exists without upsetting the people who prefer the status quo. Thus, if the people where you work think the communal coffee is too bitter, you try to find coffee that’s less bitter. You don’t immediately replace the coffee with cranberry juice.
Now, since the principal objections to the current flag are that it looks too much like Australia’s, it includes a Union Jack and it doesn’t have a fern, why not simply replace the Union Jack with a similarly-colored fern? To wit:
This flag is clearly different from Australia’s, it replaces the Union Jack with a fern (but not an overwhelmingly large one) and it doesn’t mess with the existing colors. As William Mulholland famously said about the water he’d successfully delivered to Los Angeles, making a desert of the Owens Valley:
There it is. Take it!
Americans might not be able to compromise on anything, but there’s still hope for the Kiwis.
(Note: The compromise flag presented above was created in our WOCS Design Lab. Anyone who wants to use it for any purpose is completely free to do so, especially in New Zealand.)Â
Whereof One Can Speak 🇺🇦 
You must be logged in to post a comment.