The New York Times: Germany & The Minimum Wage: A Sensible Approach to an Income Floor

Source:The New Democrat

More evidence that Germany is not as socialist as it get's stereotyped. The German Bundestag which is the lower chamber of the German Federal Parliament which is like the U.S. House in our Congress passed a sensible minimum wage law last week. 8.50 Euros which would be $11.60 in American dollars assuming the the upper chamber of parliament in Germany the Bundesrat which would be like the U.S. Senate in the U.S. Congress passes this law as well. This is not a twenty-five dollar and hour minimum wage that American so-called Progressives want. But $11.60 which is less than half.

$7.25 and hour is way too low for a minimum wage in America especially with our high cost of living. And then you add the fact that it is also unfairly too low when you consider that grocery store cashiers and fast food cashiers and cooks are vital employees to their employees. Without these workers these companies would be out of business. So paying them a wage that doesn't allow them to come close to being able to pay their bills and having to rely on taxpayers in order to financially survive is not fair to the workers, but also not the taxpayers who have to pick up their employers tab.

My first offer when it comes to raising the minimum wage in America would be ten-dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break for small employers. And then index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost if living. But I could go to twelve-dollars and hour without much convincing needed with the same thirty-percent tax break. Or even fifteen-dollars an hour with a 30-40 percent tax break. Which would be benefit taxpayers because their taxes wouldn't be needed as much to fund public assistance. It would also help our debt and deficit situation because again fewer Americans would need public assistance. And it wouldn't hurt small employers because they would get that money back in a tax cut.

EJ Dionne: It's Time For Progressives to Reclaim the Constitution

Source:The Washington Post-

Source:The New Democrat

I guess it depends on what you mean by a Progressive and I would certainly include EJ Dionne as an actual Progressive. But today's so-called Progressives seem to believe and are constantly arguing that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and outlived it's usefulness. And it should be scrapped for something else and we should perhaps even scrap our federal form of government and become a social democracy with a unitary government that is common in Europe.

Today's so-called Progressives aren't Progressives really and not center-left Democrats. But are really further left and people who would be called Social Democrats or Socialists in Europe. If anything they would scrap the Constitution all together and go to a complete majoritarian rule society where the majority always rules. But if you want to talk about real Progressives, or EJ Dionne, or Lyndon Johnson who I believe is a better example of a real Progressive better than Franklin Roosevelt, then we can talk about what a progressive Constitution looks like.

I blog a lot about the differences between Liberals and Socialists and even to a certain extent the Liberals and Progressives. But here is one area where Liberals and Progressives both agree on. We both at least generally support the United States Constitution and our federalist form of government. That limits government especially the Federal Government. We both believe in most if not all of the amendments to the Constitution. And we both believe the Constitution needs to be interpreted in a way that makes sense with modern American life and keeps up with the times.

To me as someone who wouldn't technically qualify as a Progressive at least today, but I'm definitely a Liberal which again is different, I guess the idea of a progressive Constitution is something that protects the rights of all Americans equally. It doesn't say some people have more rights other than the Constitution than others especially organizations over individuals. And that the Welfare Clause covers society and gives government the ability to look after society as a whole including individuals.

Progressives are more federal and nationally oriented than Liberals. But that doesn't mean that they are unconstitutional, meaning they are against the Constitution. It just means they believe the Federal Government has  a major role to address all the concerns of the country. And not just leave it up to states, locals and private sector. And under the Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause you can make a case they are within the Constitution. As long as they are simply not trying to nationalize every organization and government program that has something to do with society's welfare.

And under this if you are a real Progressive it is not so much that you want the the Federal Government to do everything and try to manage the affairs of Americans lives. But that you believe the Federal Government has a role and responsibility to address the needs and concerns of Americans lives in more of a supportive role. And has a role, but not the only role when it comes to concerns that country as a whole. And to me at least this would be the view of a progressive not social democratic or socialist view of what the U.S. Constitution is and should be.
Source:The Nexus Institute

Thom Hartmann: 'We The People Are The Ultimate Arbiters!'

Source:Thom Hartmann with We The People.

Source:The New Democrat

"Thom reads Thomas Jefferson's words - We The People should have the final say on constitutionality of law!" 

From Thom Hartmann

So under Thom Hartmann's theory, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton that was passed by a Republican Congress that SCOTUS had no constitutional authority to do that. 

By the way, DOMA was a law making it illegal for same-sex marriages to be recognized by the Federal Government. Which to me at least is unconstitutional on its face and deserved to be thrown out. But under Mr. Hartmann's theory SCOTUS had no business touching that bill.

Thom Hartmann making what would be called a strict-constructionist argument about the constitutional authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Which means to put it simply, that if the actual words do not exist in the Constitution for individuals or governments or organizations to do X or Y, then those rights and powers do not exist. 

To use as an example of strict constitutional constuctionism: since the word privacy does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, Americans do not not have a constitutional right to privacy in the United States even under the Fourth Amendment. That would be a strict-constructionist argument.

I hate to break it to anyone who is not aware of this especially people on the further left in America (to be nice), but America is not a social democracy and we never have been. We are a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy which is different. And just because there's a popular majority that says Congress should pass X or Y and Congress does pass X or Y, doesn't mean Congress does actually pass that law in the first place. 

But even if Congress does pass the law that doesn't mean that law stays in place forever. And that is where the Supreme Court comes in to decide not if laws are well-written or are good laws. But to decide on the constitutionality of them and nothing more.

Salon Magazine: Robert Reich: 'Hillary's Appeals to the Middle Class Are Tone-Death'

Source:The New Democrat 

Wow I actually agree with Robert Reich on something. That Hillary Clinton is tone-death. Wait that is not exactly how he put that, but she does seem to have a hard communicating to people about what she actually believes. And that could mean that she's a bad politician. Or less flattering she doesn't know what the hell she believes about anything at least when it comes to controversial issues. Or even less flattering she doesn't want to take an official stand on anything that may cost her support with people she believes she needs to win an election. Which would make her a weak and somewhat corrupt politician.

To give Hillary the benefit of the doubt (just to be polite if nothing else) I'm going to say that she's a bad politician. Not corrupt, but someone who doesn't know how to communicate what she actually believes in a way that garners the most support possible. Or doesn't have this Ronald Reagan quality as someone who comes off as credible and genuine that says what they believe. And leaves Americans in place as saying, "you know what I don't agree with that person on everything, but enough to support them. And at least they say what they believe unlike their opponents".

I also agree with Bob Reich on another thing and this might be the last time I agree with him on anything this summer. That Hillary Clinton's wealth or her husband's wealth is not a problem either. Just as long as the money they've made post-White House was made legally and legitimately. That they earned all of that money and again as Reich put it we've had several very wealthy presidents. Actually maybe even a majority of our presidents have been very well off before becoming President of the United States. We don't see a lot of career teachers or police officers or truck drivers making it as President. Our presidents tended to have come from successful wealthy families or made a lot of money in the private sector.

That doesn't disqualify wealthy people from running for President. As long as they have a message that appeals to common folk. (For lack of a better expression) And then can communicate how they became so wealthy and what plans do they have so average and struggling Americans can make it in America as well. Something to the effect "look I've made it in this country by getting myself a good education. Working hard, being very productive and producing a quality affordable service that has made me a lot of money. And so can you and this how you can be successful as well". Not sure if Hillary is capable of speaking to average Americans that way, but we'll soon see.

LBJ Library: President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society Speech at the University of Michigan - 5/22/1964

Source:The New Democrat

Whatever you think of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society speech whether you love it or hate it, or like it, or dislike it, this is one of the best and most important speeches in American history. Because it laid out a vision of what a Great Society would look like with everyone living in freedom and living out of poverty with access to a good education and being able to make a good life for themselves. That was the vision of this speech and what LBJ wanted to create for America.

The problem I have with this speech and perhaps the only problem I have with this speech is how much faith he put into government to create this society. Especially the Federal Government almost as if it not completely that the Federal Government would build this speech by itself for us. What came after this speech was the Great Society Federal social insurance system all really from the Federal Government. Instead of laying out an agenda of how can the country including government, but the people themselves and even the Federal Government together can create this society for America.

Isaiah Poole: Transportation Crisis: Republicans Looks For Hostages, Not Solution

Source:The New Democrat

One of the advantages of being able to talk about solutions and issues and offer ideas to solve those issues when you know you don't have a shot in hell in being successful is that you can offer and write any plan you want and just wing it. Why not because you know it won't pass anyway, so what do you have to lose. Which is how I'm going to focus on infrastructure investment because even though the Democratic Senate may reach some compromise before the end of this Congress. The Republican House is not interested in really passing anything right now and only interested in trying to investigate the Obama Administration.

Back in the day (and yes I'm old enough to remember this) when cooler and smarter heads were running Congress the House would pass their infrastructure bill every year with the funding to pay for it. And then send it over to the Senate which was already working on their own bill. And they would either take the House bill or add an amendment to it like something to do with how to fund the bill. Or adding new infrastructure projects to it. Because back then members of Congress especially the leadership knew the importance of infrastructure for the economy. Plus they wanted to get reelected and wanted to give their constituents reasons to reelect them. "Hey I got us this new road or bridge" etc.

Take the Tea Party out of the House of Representatives and that is how Congress would still be operating today. Either under the old Republican Leadership in the House or under Democratic Leadership. And they would work with the Senate from either party and we wouldn't have this one-trillion-dollar debt or more according to the U.S. Core of Engineers. (hardly socialist radicals) Because Congress would've kept up with the construction and repairs of our current roads, bridges, airports etc. As well as funding new projects that the country needed.

Funding infrastructure investment in America from a practical and even political point of view with a majority of the country is fairly simple. These projects are generally funded through gas taxes. If there isn't enough money in the transportation fund to pay for them. Then you can either raise those taxes. Pass a tax on oil, tax alcohol, increase tobacco taxes to pay for these projects. You can tax things that wouldn't hurt people especially alcohol and tobacco things that people don't have to have. In order to pay for the infrastructure. This would be my plan to finance infrastructure investment in a partisan climate where there's probably a better chance of watching sharks fly then for this plan to become law.

Democracy Journal: Mike Konczal: 'The Voluntarism Society Myth'

Source:The New Democrat

I was waiting to read from Mike Konczal in his piece some call for nationalizing private charity and completely nationalizing private charity all together and giving the Federal Government complete control over the charity system in the United States. He stopped short of that and instead proposed to nationalize the retirement system and completely turning Social Security into the sole source when it comes to retirement in this country. As well as call for nationalizing Medicaid, which is another bad idea. But that is a different topic. But apparently there are even limits that the most socialist amongst us put on government.

A problem that Socialists have in America is that they are collectivists living in a very individualistic society. And they don't trust people to do the right things when it comes to their own lives. Especially from an economic point of view and charity would be one example of that. But even to a certain extent a personal point of view as it relates to their prohibitionist policies as it relates to what Americans should be able to eat and drink.

The fact is Americans donate a lot of money to charity every year. And every time there is some humanitarian crisis in the world the rest of the world tends to look at America first. And we always respond both with our government assistance. As well as our private charities stepping up and individuals either volunteering their time, or money and sometimes both to help people in need either in this country, or in another country. Private charity has worked very well in America and if anything should be expanded and encouraged even more. Not messed with by government.

Not making the argument that private charity would be a suitable replacement to public assistance. Just making the case that we need to do both. One to encourage Americans to do what they can for struggling Americans. Because there actually is a big limit to what can government can do well for the people. But there is also a limit to what Americans can do for each other especially in a struggling economy that shrunk in the last quarter. And you need government to step in and try to make up the difference.