The Young Turks: Michael Shure- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch- 'Poor People Don't Pay Enough Taxes'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah) talking about poor people not paying taxes.

"Republican Senator Orrin Hatch argued that top income earners pay too much in taxes while the bottom 51% of Americans don't pay enough. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Senator Orrin Hatch who by the way is the Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee (the lead minority member of that committee) So hopefully he has some idea of what he's talking about when it comes to taxes. (Perhaps vague, though) 

Apparently Senator Hatch came out on Thursday for tax hikes on low-income people. I don't know the Senator personally but known of him for about twenty years now, since the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Senator Hatch is still a member of that committee and has served as both Ranking Member and Chairman of that committee. He's been in the Senate so long that he's had both of those jobs twice. 

I don't know Senator Hatch personally, but what I've learned about him personally and politically, is that he's a very honest Conservative Republican. As a Liberal myself, you might be able to count on one hand and not need all five fingers, to count the number of things that we agree on. But what I've respected about him (and yes I mean that in past tense) is his honesty: you know where the Senator stands on all the issues. 

Senator Hatch has had sorta of a take it or leave it, this is who he is sort or  approach to politics. The same thing that Ted Kennedy had and why Conservative Republicans had so much respect for him. And the same thing can be said about Orrin Hatch with Liberal and left-wing Democrats. Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch are two of the most honest people to ever serve in the Senate as well as Congress as a whole. And one reason why I believe they were such close friends and worked so well together. 

So when Senator Hatch comes out for tax hikes for low-income people and protecting tax cuts for high- earners, when Senator Hatch who also supported the Earned Income Tax Credit in the past, a tax credit that I believe was created by President Reagan of all people, it tells me that Senator Hatch has more than fiscal policy on his mind but his political future as well. 

Senator Bob Bennet one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served, lost the Republican primary in Utah in 2010, which is why he's no longer in Congress, because he wasn't conservative enough and caught working with Liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. That sounds simplistic, but thats most of the truth. 

There's talk that Senator Hatch who's up for reelection himself in 2012, will face a primary challenge from the Far-Right as well and we are talking about Utah. So thats about as conservative as conservative gets and I believe that Senator Hatch believes the best way of getting reelected to the Senate and going back to Congress, is to not face a primary challenge and win it if he gets one and look as far to the right as possible especially on fiscal policy. Even if that means taking positions he doesn't believe in and wouldn't take normally. 

I believe that Senator Hatch coming out for tax hikes on low-income people is pure politics and not leadership. One thing leadership is about taking positions that you believe in whether they are popular are not, because you believe in them and believe they are the right thing to do. Once a politician takes a position just for popular support, they are no longer a leader but a puppet for popular will.

Mike Stark: 'James Clyburn- On Deficit Commission, Means-Testing Social Security'

 

Source:Mike Stark- House Majority Whip James Clyburn, talking about Social Security.

"The number three Democrat in the US House of Representatives is widely perceived as being fairly liberal.  Here he says he has confidence in the President's deficit commission, does not believe that a Value-Added Tax is on the table and that social security should be means tested." 

From Mike Stark

Jim Clyburn who's one of the members of Congress in both the House and Senate that I respect the most in both party's, has this exactly right: Democratic Socialists in Congress and around the country should jump all over this potential deal. 

Means-testing for Social Security and Medicare and reforming it in a way for people who actually need it, meaning wealthy people paying more into Social Security and collecting less if anything and giving more benefits to the retirees who actually need Social Security income to pay their bills, making the program more of a Welfare Insurance program for the people who actually need it and eliminating early retiree income for high-earners as well, would save Social Security and Medicare.

We should also be reforming Medicare in a way that reforms it for the people who need it by increasing Medicare taxes on high-earners and having them pay more in premiums. In exchange Democrats would get an excise tax on millionaires as well as substantial, somewhere in the ballpark of 70-100B$ a year in defense cuts. 

Conservative Republicans are already on board for defense cuts and some of them are already on board tax hikes, but they would probably have to start at around a million dollars a year, not 250K$. They would probably also need tax reform including corporate tax reform, that eliminates tax loopholes and lowers rates. 

This for me would be a grand bargain for Democrats and their left-wing (if not Far-Left) base, because they would get a millionaires tax and serious defense cuts. Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, but not in a way that hurts anyone who needs it but helps us get our deficit and debt under control. 

Anyone who's truly interesting in moving the debt ceiling as well as the broader deficit and debt issue past us, so we can concentrate mostly on the economy again and bringing our troops home, should take this deal. Anyone who just wants this issue to fire up their base will of course say no. 

President Obama wants to make this deal, I believe House Speaker Boehner wants to make this deal and I believe Senate Leader Reid wants to make this deal. 

If people on Social Security and Medicare who need those programs aren't hurt by it, which they wouldn't be and then he could sell the deal to the Senate Democratic Caucus. The question is will the fringe bases in both party's allow the deal to happen or not.

Big Think: Katrina Vanden Heuvel- 'On The Modern Liberal'

Source:Big Think- The Nation Magazine publisher Katrina Vanden Heuvel, actually talking about modern Socialists. (Or Social Democrats, if you prefer)

"Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Modern Liberal" 

From Big Think

People who are called "Modern Liberals" today are actually Democratic Socialists and are not Liberals at all, really. Even though they have liberal leanings on social issues which I commend them as a real Liberal. 

People who would be called "Modern Liberals", call themselves that or Progressives. Instead of Democratic Socialists, even though Senator Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist and obviously the Democratic Socialists USA in America, views themselves as Democratic Socialists.

And if you look at the issues, people who call themselves Democratic Socialists and people who call themselves Modern Liberals, agree on almost everything. Especially the role of government and especially the role of the Federal Government. 

I can understand why Democratic Socialists who aren't comfortable with that term, because of how unpopular the term socialism is in America and the negative stereotypes that come with that. But thats a political calculation on their part, rather than a accurate description of their politics.

As an actual Liberal myself and not a Democratic Socialist or a Socialist in any form, I don't use the term Socialist or Democratic Socialist as a negative term or a partisan term. But a description of their politics. Whatever one's politics are and wherever they are on the political spectrum, they should know exactly what they are and be honest about it. If they are articulate and intelligent enough to sell their politics so to speak, to win popular support whether their political views are popular at the time or not.

If people can sell their politics, because they are articulate and intelligent, they'll at the end of the day be able to sell their political views and policies and win popular support. Because voters at the end of the day will look at them and say:"You know what, I didn't like this persons policies before, because I used to think this about them, but they actually make sense to me and I'll vote for them."

Liberalism (classical or modern or in between) is about freedom and responsibility for the individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as limited government, equal opportunity for all. It's not about collectivism and the welfare state, which are socialist values. Democratic socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology's, not one in the same.

A few things that I like about what Katrina Vanden Heuvel said about liberalism is that its about equal opportunity, empowerment, equal justice, free thinking. That people should be able to think for themselves and not feel the need to agree with everyone or anyone else even if other people hold the popular views at the time. These values don't sound socialist at all. These are true liberal value and if The Nation Magazine and other New-Left social democratic publications actually held these views and promoted these values, then they would be truly liberal publications.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'Heartland Institute Kicks Off Climate Change Denial-a-Palooza'

Source:The Ring of Fire- Mike Papantonio, talking about the Heartland Institute and climate change.

"The conservative Heartland Institute is holding their annual climate change summit, where they hope to convince those in attendance that climate change is just a liberal hoax. It should come as no surprise that Heartland was founded and is funded by some of the biggest polluters in America. Mike Papantonio talks about what's really driving Heartland's climate change denial with Brendan DeMelle, executive director and managing editor of:Des Moq." 

From The Ring of Fire

I don't believe anyone in their right mind believes that there's no such thing as climate change. Of course I'm not a mindreader but thats my feeling. All you have to look at the weather to see that, with longer summers and colder winters and with ice melting in areas with frigid weather. 

The question is at least from the United States point of view is, what should we do on our part about it to fix it. Should we pass cap and trade and force American business's to live under regulations and taxes that foreign business's don't live under, or should we do something that would make us more competitive in the energy industry both at home and globally, that would also benefit our economy. 

As a Liberal who believes in primate markets and capitalism, I lean towards making us more competitive, economically but that would also make us more competitive when it comes to energy policy as well as our foreign policy. A national energy policy for America, that moves us towards energy independence and finally off of foreign oil, would accomplish three things by doing several things. 

First, it would benefit our economy in multiple ways, because we would open up new energy industries which would create good jobs. 

It would get us off of foreign oil, because would be relying on domestic energy instead, which would create jobs. But it would also create more competition in the energy sector, because of just oil, gas and electricity which are the three main energy industries right now. 

With a comprehensive national energy policy, there would also be a solar industry, wind industry, natural gas would be bigger in America, nuclear would be bigger in America and so would clean coal. We will need to still drill for oil and gas in America for at least ten years after we create an energy policy. But at least we would be drilling for American oil and gas and no longer importing it. 

A comprehensive national energy policy would benefit our economy because of the good jobs it would create. It would benefit our foreign policy because countries that we are currently importing oil from. We would no longer have to do that, giving them lest leverage over us. And it would benefit our environmental policy because we would be finally using cleaner sources of energy. 

If we are going to have some climate Change policy, it should be a global treaty, so that everyone is operating under the same rules.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Why Does Cenk Criticize President Obama?'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur, taking on President Barack Obama.

"MSNBC/The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur addresses the people who despise the fact that he's critical of President Barack Obama." 

From The Young Turks

President Obama said in his press conference on Wednesday afternoon that leaders should lead. My response to the President would've been that starts with you, buddy! Now perhaps I wouldn't of called him buddy, don't know that for a fact, perhaps I would've said: "That starts with you, Mr. President! We'll never know and there's no point in discussing it. 

But my point is the same leaders have to lead or nothing gets done, successful President's don't sit on the sidelines and let others work it out and then weigh in later to see what the people who actually did the work came up with. Leaders don't look to compromise right off the bat, like the President's sorry excuse for a budget back in January. 

What leaders do when they know they have to compromise in the end to get anything done. Which is what President Obama obviously has to do with a divided Congress is put on the table what they want to do: "This is my plan, if you don't like, come up with your own plan." Then the other side puts down a counteroffer and lays out what they want to do if they had all the power. And then both sides come together at the end of the day and work out a final agreement. 

This is what lawyers do and this is what skillful negotiators do and this is why successful President's are successful. This is what President Clinton, President Reagan, President Eisenhower, President Truman, President FDR did and why they were able to accomplish so much in their presidency's. 

You don't sit on the sidelines laying out goals with no plan to accomplish it. Which is what the President has been doing on the deficit reduction and other issues since he's been President. Health care reform would be another one. President's have to be President, leaders have to lead or nothing gets done. 

President's are the chief executives for a reason because the buck actually does stop with them, its not just an expression. And that means taking a stand once in a while and taking heat for it to do what's right for the country at the end. And then they get rewarded for their right decisions.

Thom Hartmann: Mark Williams- 'Taking Back America'

Source:Thom Hartmann- author Mark Williams book: Taking BackAmerica.

"Progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann hosts Mark Williams, National Radio, television, print and on line news/commentary / Former Chair-Tea Party Express / Author, "Taking Back America...One Tea Party At A Time", as they discuss "What is the Tea Party plan to take over the GOP?". If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From the Thom Hartmann Show

If the Tea Party Movement and that's what it is right now a political movement not a political party, is truly about limited government not just about expanding economic freedom (for wealthy people and corporations) and fiscal conservatism, as well as protecting individual liberty, not just economic liberty (for wealthy people and corporations) but individual liberty in general which includes personal freedom, the ability for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom, then the Tea Party has a real future in American politics. Either as the conservative-libertarian wing of the Republican Party, or merging with the Libertarian Party.

If the Tea Party is not about discriminating and punishing people because they are gay or are single parents or divorced or are interested in pornography and want more limitations to the First Amendment and want to make the adultery illegal, all things that the Christian-Conservatives in America want to do, then the Tea Party has a big future in American politics as either the Libertarian or Conservative- Libertarian faction of the Republican Party. 

Perhaps the Tea Party merges with the Libertarian Party in the future or or creating their own political party thats about individual liberty and protecting constitutional rights and limited government. Things that the Republican Party was truly about up until twenty years ago or so. And not about corporate welfare, then the Tea Party movement could have a bright future in American politics. 

But if the Tea Party is not about conservative-libertarianism and instead is in bed with the Christian-Right but with an economic message, like the Michele Bachman's, Sarah Palin's, Jim DiMints's of the World, then they will just be seen as another fringe movement by voters outside of the GOP. 

But if the Tea Party is truly about limited government and conservative-libertarianism and just anti- regulation and fiscal conservatism, then the Tea Party movement could do what the Libertarian Party has never been able to do in American politics which is be taken seriously by Independent voters and by Republicans and Democrats. 

Independents tend to be somewhat liberal to libertarian on social issues and don't like to be told by government how to live. And want their low taxes and want government to be fiscally responsible and not waste tax payer money. Things that the Libertarian Party have always been in favor or but never been able to get across to Independent voters, up until Ron Paul of the last few years. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?'

Source:The Young Turks- The five Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to strike down an Arizona law that gave public financing to political candidates to match what rival candidates were raising over the spending limit." 

From The Young Turks

How Chief Justice John Roberts makes the argument that a state matching campaign contributions of political candidates as unconstitutional, because it limits what third-party Groups can do, is beyond me. And sounds like more of an ideological argument to me than anything else. 

What Chief Justice Roberts is essentially saying here: "Look, we really don't have a credible justification for our case and this is the best we can come up with. We are really making this argument because this is how we want things to be but we don't want to say that at least in public." It's sort of a because I said so argument (no offense mom and dad) that you make when you can't think of anything else to say. 

I'm really sick in tired of hearing the states rights argument, especially from so-called Conservatives who don't believe a damn thing that they are saying. And only make the argument to prevent the Federal Government from making them do something that they don't want them to do. Whether it's constitutional or not and they use it purely as a convenience and nothing else. 

When states pass a law that right-wingers don't like, like with the Arizona campaign law, they throw the states rights argument in the trash and come up with whatever argument they need that they feel will suit their needs and interests at the time. Especially as a Liberal myself who believes in states rights (as a Federalist) but actually understands what states rights is. (Which is federalism) That the States essentially have the authority to pass any law that they want as long as it complies with the U.S. Constitution. 

As a Liberal I'm not a big fan of centralization and the establishment and prefer to see more diversity with power and lean towards more personal liberty. Every time a court strikes down a campaign reform law it's just more evidence to me that the only campaign reform that could ever be passed and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. 

Full-disclosure, meaning that political candidates and incumbents as well as third-party groups, would have to disclose where they are getting the financing for their activities. Because every other reform that restricts campaign financing, generally gets struck down by some court. Whether the argument is credible or bogus.