 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
October 28, 2008
By: That Tape From 2001 I spent part of last night trying to find a way to actually listen to the audio of Obama's interview with Chicago Public Radio. Unfortunately, I couldn't get it to work. So, unfortunately, I'm going to have to base my comments on Fox News' transcript, which is the most complete version I could find. It's plainly not a very good transcript -- it seems quite rushed (e.g., it's full of uncorrected spelling mistakes, abbreviations that it seems unlikely that the speakers actually used, etc.) I would normally listen to the audio to check its reliability, but as I said, it was not to be. So take what follows with the appropriate caveats. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Some of Obama's points have been made more often by conservatives than by liberals. For instance: "i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that" It's just disingenuous to interpret Obama, in this passage, as saying that it's a tragedy that the Court did not pursue redistribution of wealth. The "tragedy", according to Obama, is that the civil rights movement focussed too exclusively on the courts, rather than on organizing. Conservatives have said for ages that liberals have too often tried to use the courts to bring about changes that ought more properly to be made through legislation. In this passage, Obama is agreeing with them. As for this passage: "but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical" I agree with noted hard-left socialist Orin Kerr: "Based on the audio posted, however, I find it hard to identify Obama's normative take. When Obama says that he's "not optimistic" about using the courts for major economic reform, and when he points out the practical and institutional problems of doing so, it's not entirely clear whether he is (a) gently telling the caller why the courts won't and shouldn't do such things; (b) noting the difficulties of using the courts to engage in economic reform but not intending to express a normative view; or (c) suggesting that he would have wanted the Warren Court to have tried to take on such a project. Moreover, if you read the transcript, the "redistribution" Obama is talking about does not seem to involve expropriating wealth from some people and giving it to others. The specific examples of redistribution under discussion are: first, ensuring that welfare recipients have hearings before they are denied benefits, and second, trying to achieve equal funding for different school districts. The point of the second is explicitly supposed to be not equal wealth, but equal opportunity: "a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being redistribtion how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those" Unequal funding for school districts has always been a huge problem for people who care about equal opportunity. Suppose you think that ideally, every kid ought to have an equal shot at success, and that while it's fine if some kids do better than others because they are more talented, willing to work harder, etc., we should try to minimize the extent to which kids are deprived of opportunity just because they were born to poor parents. (Note: minimize does not mean eliminate completely. That would be impossible. It just means doing your best to create a level playing field, when this can be done legally, and without interfering with some other important value, like the right of parents to decide how to raise their kids.) And suppose you think that while money is not by any stretch of the imagination all you need to make your school system good, not having nearly enough money can prevent you from having anything like the school system your kids deserve. If you thought this, you'd think that the fact that we fund education locally presents us with a problem. Some cities and towns are richer than others. Those cities and towns will be able to provide much better schools for their kids. And this means that kids from poor towns will be likely to have many fewer opportunities than kids from rich towns. If you care about equality of opportunity, you'll probably think that this is a problem. One natural solution would be for states and the federal government help to fund education: in this way, funding levels for different school districts could be made more equal. But this involves, horror of horrors, redistribution: money from taxpayers who live in richer communities is being given to school districts in poorer communities. The thing is: that's what Obama is talking about. He's not talking about cutting checks for the poor; he's talking about trying to equalize funding across school districts. And his reason for doing this is specifically to "create equal schools and equal educational opportunity", not to equalize wealth. *** Personally, I can't wait for this election to be over. I'm tired of writing about disingenuous arguments in which people note that Obama used a word like "redistribution", pay absolutely no attention to what he actually seems to have been talking about, and infer that appearances to the contrary, he's a socialist (or a Black nationalist, or a Muslim, or whatever.) I don't expect that this sort of thing will vanish once the election is over, but I do hold out some tiny hope that there will be less of it. —Hilzoy 12:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)Comments
"I'm tired of writing about disingenuous arguments in which people note that Obama used a word like "redistribution", pay absolutely no attention to what he actually seems to have been talking about, and infer that appearances to the contrary, he's a socialist.." Get used to it. The Republicun Party is now the officila Stupid Party. Worse, its members are proud to be stupid. Posted by: CT on October 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK"I'm tired of writing about disingenuous arguments in which people note that Obama used a word like "redistribution", pay absolutely no attention to what he actually seems to have been talking about, and infer that appearances to the contrary, he's a socialist.." Get used to it. The Republicun Party is now the official Stupid Party. Worse, its members are proud to be stupid. Posted by: CT on October 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKMe too. I'll be so happy when this is over. But thanks for your fantastic blogs--they help keep me sane. Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View" just offered up yet another giant leap downward toward dumbness re: Socialism and the fears of Obama and how his policies are a step away from Marxism..And then went on to say it's dangerous if we have so many Dems in with a possibility of six new judges being picked.. Why doesn't anyone bring up that it was Reagan who introduced the earned income tax credit and that it was Roosevelt who introduced our progressive tax system? (David Gergen pointed this out yesterday on CNN--that the Obama campaign is not speaking to this whole issue well enough). It really irks me they let Hasselbeck dominate with her manic like spewing of ignorant talking points. No wonder she loves Palin so much--the two of them together are like the Valley girl version of dumb and dumber, yet they are dangerously propelled by their zealous intent to stamp out all choice and voice with their extreme right wing agenda. Think this is the last we'll see of disingenuous arguments? Remember Harry and Louise? Posted by: David in NY on October 28, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKAll the Palin crowd offers is time-wasting options, to put it generously, and we are all getting sick of wasting our time. Posted by: Kenji on October 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKObama will not propose anything like "redistribution" because even if he wanted to, the idea would be extremely unpopular. Most people pay income taxes, and I suspect many do not want to fund anything like a "handout." Welfare is still pretty unpopular. Just my 2 cents Posted by: airron on October 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKdon't expect that this sort of thing will vanish once the election is over, but I do hold out some tiny hope that there will be less of it. Don't be silly, the election is just the preamble. It will make the Clinton years look like a pillow fight. I'm waiting to see who will be Obama's Vince Foster. Posted by: martin on October 28, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKThe state of Vermont tried very hard to level the playing field of school funding. In a nutshell, the state collected all the money from all the school districts and then funded education on a per student basis - each kid in each school was funded at the same amount. So, the poorer schools got much more funding, while the wealthier school districts were cut. Lots of whining in the wealthy school districts. Lots. Posted by: gifgrrl on October 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKMaking liberals more aware is a good thing but it won't do anything to change these freaks on the right wing. It won't be over after the election as all their time then will be spent on demeaning the Obama presidency. We should be taking names and making our own lists of the winger base while defeating republicans at every level of government. We couldn't have done any better at identifying the sickest among us by noting the McCain/Palin supporters than if we held up a sign and said hold up your hands if you are non-thinking mentally/emotionally sick depraved individuals. Anti goodness and humanity is not an American trait but a large minority has identified itseklf with it. If the person is not a complete a-hole and still claims to be republican then they are just uninformed and there is a chance they can change by learning more. Otherwise...that is the condition of the hopeless republican base and they are easily identified. Joe the plumber-a-hole; Tito the builder-a-hole; and Joe six-pack as defined by Palin,-a-hole. BTW...Tell those that mention "spread the wealth around" that when you give tax breaks to the middle class who are the largest "spenders" they then spend more and spread the wealth around to others (like leaving bigger tips more often to Wanda the waitress from eating out more often. That's how you "spread the wealth around"). Joe plumber is just dumb and all you hear is his comments and not any rebuttal that shows how ignorant he is. Same with the rest of the screamers(scream over explanations debunking their statements) who just refuse to listen, get mad and start name calling. They will never learn or get passed their pre-formed opinions that they must fit all new information into or just reject it. Posted by: joey on October 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKOne thing that irks me is the complaint by McC/S-Pal that a slightly higher graduated income tax (not even having versus not) is "socialist." Hey, when are those who say they don’t like “redistribution” by tax rates, going to prove your honesty by opposing a cap gains rate which is lower than the tax on people who, ironically, actually did work hard to produce new value and earn the money directly? (In advance of inflation indexing, which I support - I mean, the base CG tax rate before any “time” adjustments.) I don’t want my earned income to be redistributed to mostly worthless traders/traitors! And regarding just employee income: consider that employers can offer higher gross pay to offset taxes anyway. If net pay is the actual "sale" of the labor from being the "observed quantity" - that likely means that higher-earners aren't even losing out in relative terms compared to without the taxation. Few appreciate this issue. Haven't you wondered, how companies can complain about "worker salaries" making them uncompetitive for export, but still paying so much to CEOs? The pressure to do so derives from corporate Boards not really paying for value in a free market. In a true market economy, purchasers must allocate (as money, a zero-sum game at a point in time) from their own scarce buying power. If I spend my own money, I won't pay $400 for a haircut unless it is damn good for me, because I'd have $400 less to buy other things. But the Board members don't use their own personal money! They use control to allocate company funds - if they decide to pay the CEO 10 M instead of 5M, no skin off their personal backs. They still have whatever they earn as members regardless. Hence there is no responsible pressure for thrift as there is for a genuine market buyer. Finally, does "capitalism" require letting companies do as they please? No, it doesn't. Regardless of how much "natural freedom" individuals may have to buy and sell including of labor, corporations are artificial entities given rights, from the government, of limited liability and limited (and not by enough) legal personhood. Groups like that, versus individuals, do not have such rights by natural law or whatever source you think offers them to individuals. Hence government/society has the right to demand conduct according to some permitted rules and charter for corporations, including how much to pay, etc. I can't prove that individuals (like tree-trimmers asking householders for work) are subject to such a quid pro quo, but corporations certainly are. Note of course that nothing in the argument "of principle" over taxation and regulation rights proves that high rates or many regulations etc. are good. It only shows that taxation and regulation have a right and foundation for their very existence. Posted by: Neil B on October 28, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKActually I think things are going to get much, much worse. In the same way the right-wing hatchet men & women went after the Clintons with endless conspiracy theories, they'll do that to Obama. Except it's likely to be much, much worse. And I wouldn't be surprised if it had a violent edge to it - almost inciting violence against his person. In other words, expect what we've seen on the campaign trail to be the start, not the finish. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I no longer believe that the right believes in the concept of the "loyal opposition." Posted by: MichMan on October 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINKI don't expect that this sort of thing will vanish once the election is over, but I do hold out some tiny hope that there will be less of it. Fat chance. Posted by: Gregory on October 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
