Arthur Brooks: 'Love Your Enemies: Be An Authoritative Leader'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks: the idealist hippie?

"If you’ve turned on the TV or scrolled through social media lately, you know that being nice isn’t in fashion. But is it also a losing strategy? In the last of three video lessons on how to subvert the culture of contempt, Arthur Brooks reveals the surprising effect of kindness on leadership and job performance and shares how we can elevate better leaders in our society."

Source:American Enterprise Institute

At risk of sounding insulting here and I respect and even like what Arthur Brooks trying to accomplish here and the message: but we wouldn't have nasty, partisan, hate TV on cable or on social media if it didn't sell. It's the hold Henry McCarthy quote ( also known as Billy The Kid ) when he was asked why he robs banks and he answered because that is where the money is: why do people go to the kitchen or restaurants when they're hungry: because that's where the food is. Why do we have nasty, partisan, hate TV and hate on social media and not hate necessarily in the sense in a bigoted or racist sense, but hate in the sense where you have two competing ideological factions who literally hate each other simply because they disagree with each other and look at the country differently, because it sells!

You can talk about the need for less partisanship in Congress and in government generally, or on TV and that cable news shouldn't have a panel of so-called experts there who are simply there to talk about why the other side sucks so much and instead have bipartisan panels of experts who are there to  present different viewpoints who disagree with each other, but aren't there to destroy the other side and even listen to what the other side says and the intelligently responds to their points.

But at the end of the day FNC and MSNBC, and to a certain extent CNN which is less partisan than the other two, but they have their own share of partisan panels and shows of people who represent one side of the isle and aren't bipartisan, but in the end these cable networks are all for-profit companies that have to make profits in order to stay in business.

And as long as partisan news is profitable and straight, hard news isn't where the so-called experts there aren't partisans, but are simply there to give intelligent analysis about what they know, as long as straight up hard news isn't profitable, cable news will just get more partisan. And as a result we'll have a less informed public, because we'll still have this large population in the country that are getting news based on their partisan viewpoints and not where's the best sources of news and information.

Cable news and news in general is never any better than the people that consumes its information. We have a partisan news age now simply because we have a very partisan population. And again all of these news outlets have to make money to stay in business and have present the news in the most profitable way possible even if that means being less truthful and even honest than they have in the past. Which is bad for their industry and bad for the people they represent, because it leaves their viewers less informed.

But if there is any bright side here and I'm coming from the viewpoint as someone who just wants actual news and intelligent, nonpartisan commentary: there will always be a market for people who simply want straight, hard news and could care less about what the partisans think of the actual real news. Which is why I believe network news, big city and big market newspapers, and big national newspapers will always be in business, because there will always be that group of Americans who are simply interested in what the hell is going on in the country and world, regardless of which party it may hurt or help. Even if the market for partisan news is always greater.

American Enterprise Institute: Welfare Reform- Why? 1976

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Paul MacAvoy: member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. 

"May 20, 1976: This AEI Round Table brings together four experts to discuss whether major modifications are needed in the American public welfare system. Why have welfare costs skyrocketed in recent years? Do these rising costs prove that our welfare machinery is defective? Are there more efficient and more equitable ways to provide for the nation's poor? Can our present programs be improved by minor changes or is a sweeping overhaul required? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the negative income tax? And can proposals to reform our welfare system win political acceptance?

Panelists:
Wilbur J. Cohen — dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan
Barber Conable, Jr. — Representative (R-New York)
Paul MacAvoy — a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers
Abraham Ribicoff — Senator (D-Connecticut)

Moderator:
Robert Bork — solicitor general of the United States

Host:
Peter Hackes"

From the American Enterprise Institute

This is the perfect debate that we should be having now today especially when we now have Socialists and socialism on the rise in America in and outside of the Democratic Party, who believe that people shouldn't be forced to work and not just that, but that we should even pay people ( meaning taxpayers ) to not work and pay them well if they choose not to work. Even if they simply don't want to work and would refer to stay home and collect a public assistance check. When what we should be doing instead is not just encouraging low-income and low-skilled Americans to not just work, but get a good education so they can get themselves a good job and not need any type of public assistance at all to pay their bills.

I'll give you just one example of why Progressive is different from Socialist and why Progressives are different from Socialists, and why progressivism is different from socialism, even though there are many of examples of why these two ideological factions are different. And they're not the same political faction with just two different labels. That Conservative is actually different from Libertarian, Theocrat, and Nationalist. And that Progressive is different from Socialist and Communist.

Welfare and poverty in general are the perfect issues to talk about when you're talking about what it means to be a Progressive, because if you're actually a Progressive you believe not just in progress, but creating progress through government action. So if you have a large population of poor people in your country and have a lot of poverty and you're a Progressive, you want to see some progress there. You want poverty to go down dramatically assuming you can't actually eliminate it altogether. Instead of having people in poverty with a public assistance check and other public assistance checks which was the system before the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, you want to actually move people out of poverty and no longer be eligible of public assistance, simply because they make too much money and no longer live in poverty.

I'm not saying that solving the poverty issue in America is easy because if it were it would've solved in the 1960s and we no longer have 1-5 Americans who are eligible for public assistance whether they're working or not. But if we empower not just encourage, but empower low-income Americans to not just work, but to go to school and finish or further their education and even help them get themselves a good job after they now have the skills to get themselves a good job, you'll see poverty go down in America, because you'll now have a well-skilled workforce in your country and there would be no reasons for people to live in poverty, other than that they're lazy or perhaps just irresponsible and simply don't want a good education and a good job. But those people we shouldn't be subsidizing as taxpayers anyway and instead subsidize Americans who don't have what they need right now to live a quality, independent life, but want to be able to do that for themselves.

For people who view themselves as fiscal Conservatives, ( which seems to be a dying breed in Washington right now: fiscal Conservatives ) who are concern about the budget deficit and national debt, you should  be interested in not just welfare reform and welfare to work, because with a lower and low poverty rate in America, you would not just have more people working in America, but more people paying income and payroll taxes and fewer people collecting public assistance. And a lesser need for people to not just work to take care of themselves and their families, but to also subsidize people who either don't work, or work but don't earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families.

Today, we have a budget deficit and national debt that are too big, but we have an economic deficit as well that's part of the income gap in the country where we have too many people who are simply too poor to be able to support themselves in this country and as a result are dependent on both private and  public charity, and being able to work multiple jobs ( if they're working at all ) in order to support themselves.

These are all reasons why we should not only encouraging people who are physically capable of working at all, but going back to school and getting themselves a good jobs. These are all things that we can do with the current public assistance system in this country. Which would be great for our economy have 50-60 million more Americans with good skills and good jobs in this country. But long-term would also be much better for our fiscal outlook. But the best thing of all would be to have all of these people who now have good skills and good jobs. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

AEI: What is Pluralism?

Source:AEI- From The American Enterprise Institute. 

Source:AEI

From Merriam Webster:

"4a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization. b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state."

The question has been asked over and over and has been debated over and over what kind of country is America and what type of government that we have. Are we a republic, are we a democracy, are we a liberal democracy, are we a pluralist society, etc when the fact is there's no wrong answer here.

Source:Slide Share- A pluralist society 

America, is a republic, but we're a certain type of republic. Egypt and China are republics, but we're certainly not Egypt or China. They have authoritarian societies and government's, we obviously don't.  Republic by itself doesn't equal democracy or freedom, it just means that the country is governed by civilians and not the military or a monarchy or some theocracy. America, is a democracy at least in the sense that we elect our political leaders and our political leaders are held accountable by the voters in free and fair elections.

The fact is America is a pluralist society and federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy. The largest most diverse melting pot in the world, the largest and oldest liberal democracy in the world where power is very decentralized unlike Egypt, China or Russia. Governmental power is decentralized through three levels of government. Federal, state, and local, but also with the people because we live in a  free society where the people have the freedom to manage their own personal affairs without having government trying to monitor their activities simply because they see them as enemies of the government or disapprove of their personal activities.

In a pluralist society like America, you don't have one dominant ethnic group. Roughly 7-10 Americans today are still of European background, but we don't have one dominant ethnic group in America unlike Britain, where roughly 8-10 Brits are ethnic English or Germany where roughly 9-10 Germans are ethnic German or go to Asia where most of Japan is ethnic Japanese. But 3-10 Americans aren't of European background. We have large African-American population, a major Asian-American population, a significant Middle Eastern population and I could go on. America is both multi-racial and multi-ethnic which is still one of the great and exceptional things about America.

My personal politics here: I'm not colorblind, anyone who actually says that they're  colorblind and can't even tell what the color of their clothes are, or is simply just blind. I'm not race or ethnic blind, back to my point about color, because anyone who has even decent vision or can see with glasses can see someone's race or ethnicity. What I am is what I could call at least pluralist and individualist. I look at and judge people as individuals, not as members of a particular racial or ethnic group. That old but still great Dr. Martin King quote, where he has a dream that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, I actually believe that and just wished more Americans both on the Right and Left believed that as well. Instead of looking at people as members of groups who should be judged that way.

AEI: Ramesh Ponnuru- Up From Illiberalism

Source: Bloomberg News-

Source:AEI:

I'm not going to argue here that anyone who is not a Liberal and is on the Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, but who are lets say small d democrats and people who believe in at least some democracy and believe in things like limited government, rule of law, individual rights, free press, property rights, etc, are illiberal. Because small d center-right democrats if anything believe in liberal values. Free speech, freedom of choice, right to privacy, property rights, checks and balances at least in government, free press, rule of law, etc.

My argument is that there illiberal's on the Right and on the Left. Far-Right and Far-Left, people who are so hard-core in their own political beliefs and believe they have all the right answers and that any form of opposition is not only a threat to them and to the people they claim they want to serve. People on the Far-Right who view a free press and open democracy as a threat to their political power. People on the Left who see free speech and individual choice as dangerous things because to means people may be offended and may make bad decisions with their choices. But if you look at Venezuela which is supposed to be a democracy and yet you have a socialist government there that also sees free democracy and a free press as threats to their regime and have clamped down on democracy and free press.

Illiberal means someone who is opposed to liberal principles. Like restricting free thought which is free speech or free behavior. The ability for people to live in freedom and make their own decisions. Someone who is intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened. Again, that covers people on the Far-Right like Nationalists in Russia and in other Slavic countries., theocrats and monarchs in the Middle East. But also Socialists in Venezuela, as well as Communists in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

Conservatives and Libertarians on the right, believe in free thought, free assembly, free choice, individual rights, free press, checks and balances, rule of law, limited government, democracy. Democratic Socialists believe in democracy at least, but also in a free press, but also at least some individual rights like privacy and even property rights in the sense they don't want government running the entire economy, unlike Marxists.

Where Democratic Socialists would differ from Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, is that they tend to value what they would call welfare rights over individual rights. They believe everyone is entitled to well-being and see the government as having the main responsibility in seeing that everyone is able to live well. Even if individual freedom and free choice is restricted to see that everyone can live well.

This discussion about illiberalism which generally gets to around what's going on in Turkey and Russia right now which both are at best illiberal democracies where free press and democracy at are best heavily restricted there and where people in both countries have been arrested there simply for opposing the current government's in both countries, is not about Liberals versus everyone else.

But people who believe in liberal values like free speech, free assembly, free choice, privacy, free and fair and elections, free press, rule of law, limited government, versus people who don't. And people on the Center-Left like Liberals and Progressives (at least in the classical sense) and people on Center-Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, share these liberal values. Whereas people both on the Far-Left and Far-Right, Nationalists, Communists, and now Neo-Communists like in Venezuela, are the people in the world who are illiberal and practice illiberalism as a tool to accomplish their political objectives. And see their job as crushing the opposition by all means in order to accomplish their political objectives.

Source: Audio Pedia 

Audio Pedia: Illiberal Democracy

AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- 'If You Want Government to Spend Like a Nordic Nation, it Also Has to Tax Like One'

Source:The New Democrat- American Socialists or European Socialists?

"One difference between these two candidates’ [Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders] platforms and the social-democratic agenda in your book is that both are talking a lot about raising taxes on the rich, while in the Nordic countries, the middle and working classes pay more in taxes, too.

The tax strategy that these countries have tended to pursue is to spread the tax burden around, and in fact, their overall tax systems are pretty much flat. Almost everybody pays roughly the same share of their pre-tax income in taxes. You have a progressive income tax, but that’s offset by regressive payroll taxes, and especially regressive consumption taxes, which are very large in these countries." 

AEI Ideas 

"Self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders on his 2016 presidential primary challenge against Hillary Clinton."  

Source:ABC News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But not the only Socialist in Congress.

From ABC News

One thing with having a not only a Democratic Socialist, but a self-described Democratic Socialist running for president for the Democratic Party and doing well, (Bernie Sanders is not the first Democratic Socialist Democrat to run for president) is that you have someone with the political guts to say, ‘taxes will not only go up if I’m president, but they’ll go up on the middle class.’ 

Bernie Sanders, is a very smart guy whatever you think of his politics. He knows that there’s only so much that you can tax the rich and only so much the IRS will ever see from that for a couple of reasons. The rich won’t want to pay all of these new taxes, especially to pay for the cost of living of middle-income workers. And they’ll send their money oversees to countries where they wouldn’t be taxed as high. Senator Sanders, knows this, but the question is will he share that with voters.

So of course middle class taxes would go up in a democratic socialist administration, if somehow a President Sanders could get his programs through Congress. A new Democratic Senate wouldn’t be enough, he would need a new Democratic House as well. With a lot of new so-called Progressive Caucus members, or Democratic Socialists being elected to both chambers, which won’t happen. I mean Paul Ryan will be Speaker of the House in the next Congress. Even if Democrats win back the Senate in the next Congress. 

But putting that aside voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders, especially middle-income and lower middle-income, people making lets fifty-thousand-dollars a year, or less, need to know what voting for a Democratic Socialist for president comes with. A bigger more centralized government in Washington. With a smaller private sector and higher taxes on everyone.

As Jim Pethokoukis mentioned in his blog post, taxes in Scandinavia even if their welfare states are progressive, are regressive. They’re roughly flat and come with high sales and payroll taxes, to go along with flatter income taxes. Where everyone pays taxes including lower-income workers. So forget about the ten-percent tax rate in America which is our lowest tax rate. That would be more like 20-25, maybe, 15, would be probably be the best to hope for. 

But if you’re making forty-thousand-dollars a year right now and are lets say a teacher, or police officer, you’re currently paying ten-percent. Under a President Sanders if he got his economic plan through Congress, that worker would at least be looking at a fifty-percent tax increase. With the promise of better public services. Even if they can no longer make those decisions for themselves in the private sector.

Socialists (so-called Progressives in America) point to Scandinavia all the time that there high tax, big centralized government, big welfare states work so well over there. So we should do that here. While always leaving out some really huge facts. Let's take Norway and Sweden: physically big countries roughly, especially Sweden which is roughly the size of Turkey and Afghanistan. But in Sweden’s case only have about ten-million people. Sweden is also a large energy producer with oil and gas, the same thing with Norway. They’re not just large energy producers, but large energy exporters. 

Scandinavia government’s bring in a tone of revenue for their government’s and can afford to be very socialist and generous’ with their taxpayers money. America, huge country with a huge population, that still imports energy from other counties. We can’t afford to that generous with our taxpayers money.

For the life of me I don’t understand why Hillary Clinton is not making this argument with blue-collar voters. Whether it was in Iowa, or New Hampshire and wouldn’t she then take that to South Carolina and Nevada. And tell voters in these states that they would be looking at steep tax increases even if a President Sanders could get his economic plan through Congress. That this plan is not just radical, but it's unrealistic, but it also wouldn’t work. 

American companies and foreign companies, would conclude that America is simply too expensive to invest in. But not only that, because their workers, who still have jobs, because their employers managed to stay in the country, don’t have to spending money to buy our products anyway. And then Hillary should say she has a much better plan for the middle class. That is about higher wages and job creation. Not higher taxes and bigger government. But maybe this is what she’s struggling right now. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

American Enterprise Institute: Arthur Brooks: 'Why America’s Best Interests Lie Within The Conservative Heart'

Source:The New Democrat

Arthur Brooks, the President of the center-right conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, here in Washington, has a new book called The Conservative Heart. The basic point is how conservative policies can help people in poverty move up and get out of poverty and live in economic freedom. Where most of the country lives. He argues that the old progressive New Deal and Great Society War on Poverty has failed. But that Conservatives, have never offered a real alternative to address poverty in America so that we don’t have so many Americans living in poverty. He argues that we should get past the debate of government trying to do everything for people who are struggling, versus government should do almost nothing.

I actually agree with a lot of what Brooks is saying here and is what The New Democrat argues all the time from the Center-Left. That we need a bridge between the democratic socialist model, that says government should do practically everything for people and the conservative libertarian model that government should do practically nothing for people, even people who are struggling. That government should butt out and let the free market work its will.

But we don’t need a so-called Third Way, that is more centrist minded. There are really good liberal and conservative policies that would help reduce poverty in America. Liberal policies built around education, job training and infrastructure. To help people in poverty whether they are working, or not, to finish and further their education, so they can get themselves a good job. Conservative policies built around economic development in low-income communities.

It’s good to hear a Conservative like Arthur Brooks, or Representative Paul Ryan, especially when the right-wing in America is so dominant by the Tea Party and Conservative Libertarians, say that not only does government have a role to help reduce poverty in America, but it can play a positive role as well. That people who are physically and mentally able, should work in America, unless they are already economically independent. That people shouldn’t be allowed to collect public assistance indefinitely, simply because they aren’t educated, or have kids, or a combination of both. Liberals and Conservatives, actually agree on this. But that low-skilled adults in America should have a pathway to prosperity in America. The ability to improve themselves, learn a trade and get out of poverty all together.

AEI: James Pethokoukis: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare Subsidies

Source:The New Democrat

With the U.S. Supreme Court making the right decision in ruling in favor of the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, (at least in my view), the Republican Party, at least in Congress will now have an opportunity to do something positive when it comes to health care reform in America. They know now that repealing the law either through Congress, or through the Supreme Court, is not happening at least in this Congress and while Barack Obama is still President. At least their leadership in the House and Senate knows that. Whether their Tea Party members in and outside of Congress understand that, or not, probably not likely. But their leaders know this.

Now, Congressional Republicans will have the opportunity, even though they’ve had it all along, to work with Congressional Democrats in both chambers, to improve a law that they know is here to stay. At least until there’s another Republican President and Congress. Waiting for that as more Americans benefit from the ACA and get health insurance and can now afford it, will make repeal even more difficult. Without costing them seats in Congress. But even Democrats have problems with the law, which gives Republicans an opportunity to work with them when it comes to the medical device tax and small business’s covering their employees. As well as add things to the law the Republicans at least use to like. Like expanding health savings accounts for moderate and low-income workers. And giving low-income workers a private option when it comes to Medicaid.

The fact is, Republicans both in the House and Senate, haven’t offered a plan, other than John Boehner’s substitute to the ACA, when he was still House Minority Leader back in 2009, which only covered seven-million people according to the Congressional Budget Office, because they don’t have a plan. They prefer the old system, but perhaps don’t want to admit it. They don’t have a problem with health insurers dropping patients simply because they need health insurance, get sick, or have a pre-existing condition. They simply call that capitalism and the free market. They don’t believe taxpayers should help cover the health insurance of people who make too much money for Medicaid, but can’t afford private health insurance. Which is what the ACA subsidies are about. Which is why I at least believe they still don’t have an alternative to the ACA and probably won’t offer one anytime soon.

American Enterprise: Arthur Brooks & Robert Doar: Welfare Reform & Lessons From The United Kingdom

American Enterprise: Blog: Arthur Brooks & Robert Doar: Welfare Reform And Lessons From The United Kingdom

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t agree with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions on much if anything. But C-SPAN was covering the Senate Budget Committee markup yesterday and I saw part of that as the committee was voting on amendments to Senate Republicans budget plan for this year. Senator Sessions Republican from Alabama had a Welfare amendment to the Republican budget. And his basic point which I think is sound was that its been about twenty-years since Congress passed Welfare Reform. And twenty years since they worked on major reforms to our social insurance system. And its time for Congress to reexamine our federal Welfare programs.

When Republicans won back the House of Representatives in 2010 and took over in 2011 there was that famous Ryan budget. Offered by Representative Paul Ryan then Chairman of the House Budget Committee and now he’s Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. A big part of House Republicans deficit reduction strategy had to do with the American safety net. They argued that since the Great Recession America has spent billions of dollars on our public assistance programs. And these programs have grown so much in size and since we now have this deficit and debt, its time to cut back on them. Of course not realizing or acknowledging that the reason for the growth in those programs has to do the Great Recession itself. Not because Americans have quit work to jump on Welfare.

I’m all for reducing the size and need of our social insurance system. But you don’t do that by cutting and running or slashing and burning. You just make the problems worst and make people desperate who are simply looking to survive. What you do is you move those people off the those programs and into the workforce with good jobs. You make work pay and pay more than not working and that means increasing the minimum wage for workers and making that higher than what would someone get whose on Welfare and is not working. You don’t just make education and job training available for low-income workers and non-workers. But you make them requirements that if you’re on Welfare that part of what you’re going to do while you’re on Welfare is finish your education. Whether you’re working or not.

The way to reduce Welfare spending is to have fewer people in poverty. You do that by having a larger middle class and more people who are economically independent. That comes through things like more economic development and infrastructure investment in low-income communities. Education and job training for low-income workers and non-workers. Making work pay and pay than not working. Increasing today’s minimum wage for workers and applying the old minimum wage to non-workers on Welfare. Which will send a great message to people especially with kids. That they can make more money working than not working even at service jobs and still collect the public assistance they need. Including education to be able to move up and get out of poverty. That is how you reform Welfare.

AEI: Alex Brill: Representative John Delaney's Infrastructure Fund Proposal: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

AEI: Blog: Alex Brill: Representative John Delaney's American Infrastructure Fund: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Source:The New Democrat

One thing that actually has bipartisan support in Congress and in the rest of Washington is the need for infrastructure investment. Except for perhaps Libertarians everybody wants to do it and understands the needs for it and it really is just a matter of how to finance it. Because now need in the trillions of dollars in new infrastructure investment in this country according to the U.S. Core of Engineers. And that number just gets higher and more expensive the longer we wait or simply do nothing because of gridlock.

I like Representative Delaney’s idea of huge new infrastructure investment and we need to go real big and into the trillions in one bill. And do that over a 5-10 year period, because again we are going to have to pay for this upfront and if that means new revenue, you want to stretch that out so you don’t have raise a lot of new revenue real fast. And take a lot of money out of the economy upfront when the economy finally starting to recover fast. You also want to raise the money in a way so more jobs are sent out of the country as a result to avoid paying taxes.

So I don’t like Representative Delaney’s way of paying for infrastructure for a couple of reasons. One, it would send more jobs oversees by raising taxes on business’s. Two, it’s not just business that uses our infrastructure. We all do as a country and because of that we should all pay for it. And pay for it in a way that it doesn’t hurt people especially the less-fortunate in the country. I like the idea of bringing in business to finance these projects. But not through taxation and instead incentivize them to invest in infrastructure projects.

Which is why I’m in favor of what is called a National Infrastructure Bank. Which would be a non-profit independent corporation that would be in the sole business of prioritizing infrastructure projects and deciding what should be built and repaired. And then going to the private sector to get people to invest in the projects that the investors would get back in profits from the people who use the projects. The bridges, roads, airports, schools and everything else.

We should have a two-track plan to rebuild America. One that is upfront and takes care of current and older infrastructure needs. Which could be financed from oil and gas revenues, alcohol, tobacco and hopefully one day soon marijuana taxes. And that could be handled through Congress simply passing a large highway bill that would cover those projects and costs over that 5-7 year period.

And then long-term we need to finance infrastructure as well and that is where the NIB could come in. And could handle anywhere between 100-200 billion-dollars a year in infrastructure in this country. And when was the last time America invested that much money in infrastructure. The 2009 American Recovery and Investment Act, which was emergency legislation to deal with the Great Recession.

AEI: Frederick M. Hess: The Right Way to Start Fixing No Child Left Behind

AEI: Blog: Frederick M. Hess: The Right Way For Conservatives to Fix No Child Left Behind

Source:The New Democrat

There’s obviously not a lot that I agreed with President George W. Bush on and not much I liked about his presidency. And I even consider him to be the worst president of my lifetime. I actually like his father as president even though I would’ve voted against him twice if I was eligible to vote in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But one thing that I liked and respect about President G.W. Bush was his push for real education reform and push to deal with poverty in America.

President Bush saw education as the civil rights issue of the 21st Century and said things like the dangers of soft-bigotry of low expectations. Now I don’t like No Child Left Behind, because as the late great Progressive Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone said back in 2002 when the laws was past, “NCLB has mandates in it that Congress will never fund and will devastate states and localities that have to try to make up for the lack of funding to deal with these new federal mandates.” But at least the effort was there from the Bush Administration to deal with education and poverty in America.

A new federal education bill should be about fixing low-income and low-performing schools. Where a lot if not most of our low-income students attend school every year and eliminating the school to prison pipeline in America. Build off of Race to The Top and Common Core from the Obama Administration and reward schools that have high standards. And support things like public school choice including charter schools. And set up a new federal funding stream to help finance public schools in America. So states and localities can move away from regressive property taxes to finance schools. And so we can get adequate funding into low-income schools.

The teachers unions say that the problem with public education is that we underfund it and spend too much on corrections in America. And what they would do is essentially spend more money in a the current bad system that doesn’t produce enough high school graduates let along college graduates. And the school choice crowd on the Right will say the problem with public education is that government is involved in the first place. At least at the federal level and with Libertarians saying the problem with public education is that it is public in the first place.

They are both wrong and with lets say the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party they are completely wrong. Spending more money on a bad system will just make that system worst because the people in it won’t feel the need to reform. Eliminating federal funding and standards will mean low-income schools in America won’t even get the resources that they are currently getting for education. And they are already underfunded. Education is one of the top three sectors of the American economy and that alone makes to a federal issue. We have to have people with the skills to do well in America. And need to know what is working and what isn’t.

This is not about spending more money on a bad system or eliminating public education funding even at the federal level all together. It is about making public education as strong as it can in America with the feds playing their limited part and seeing that public schools are as good as they possibly can be. You do that with more funding for low-income schools. Paying good teachers more and well and encouraging highly qualified people to go into education and teach in low-income areas. And giving parents the option to send their kids to the best school for their kids. Instead of the central office doing that for them. So public schools know they need to do a good job in order to get new students every year. So public education works for everyone in America who goes through it.

American Enterprise: James Pethokoukis: Reward Work,

American Enterprise: AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis: Reward Work, Not Just Make it More Miserable to be Unemployed

Source:The New Democrat

I like James Pethokoukis ideas that he listed as far as not only the Earned Income Tax Credit which along with Welfare to Work are two of the best anti-poverty programs ever created, but also as far as expanding the EITC for low-income workers. I would do that and add things like health insurance, education, job training, savings, retirement and even housing to the EITC. So these workers could actually put some money away and finish their education so they can leave their low-income low-benefit job and get themselves a good job. And leave poverty for the middle class.

If you want fewer unemployed adults in America whether they are educated or not and at least since the Great Recession there’s a mixture of both types of unemployed worker, working simply has to pay more than not working. Which is the whole point of the EITC. Money that low-income workers get back so they don’t have to pay federal income taxes. So that means increasing the minimum wage to the point that a minimum wage worker makes more money and earns that money, than someone not working at all and collecting Welfare Insurance. Because they simply do not have enough skills to get a good job.

So minimum wage 10-12 buck and hour with a thirty-percent tax break for employers. And index the minimum wage for inflation so it keeps up with inflation. And apply today’s federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to people on Welfare and index that for inflation as well. So the person on Welfare even if they have kids would get the message that they could get more money working than not working. As well as get assistance in order to finish their education and get themselves a good job. And be able to leave public assistance all together.

AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America

AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America

I've seem some of the reactions from so called progressive publications like Salon and the AlterNet about Representative Paul Ryan's anti-poverty programs reform plan. Representative Ryan is of course the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee so he has solid knowledge of these issues because of the information he has to this subject because of his positions in the House. The reactions from Salon and others were typical of far-left publications when any poverty reform plan comes around that isn't about more cash assistance. But instead about empowering people to take responsibility over their own lives. Calling the Ryan plan cold and mean-spirited.

Libertarian publications like Lew Rockwell and the Economic Policy Journal called this plan big government and nanny statist. Which again are typical reactions from libertarian publications that see any reforms that aren't about eliminating public programs as big government. I don't agree with the reactions from either the far-left or libertarian-right because Representative Ryan's ideas are fairly mainstream. What he wants to do is reform the job training programs so more low-income adults can have access to college and finish their education. So they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance.

The other idea that Representative Ryan had was expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit so low-income workers have more incentive to work and not quit and go on public assistance all together. The block grant proposal which would essentially turn the public assistance programs over to the states and locals to run is a bit controversial and comes with risks. But can be very effective as long as they come with conditions. That the money for the programs are used for exactly that and not used to build roads or tax cuts, but go to the people that the programs are for.

The one lump some approach which would be to essentially turn all of the public assistance into a credit to cover all of the people who are on the programs bills. I have a big problem with and can't support. Because instead of having public housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance, Welfare and whatever else you would give people a credit that covers the assistance of each of these programs. It would essentially be on public assistance check to cover all of these bills for people who are eligible for these programs. Which invites people to make bad choices with the money and use that money to pay for things that the credit isn't intended for.

All in all I believe Representative Ryan takes a good approach and a positive step to seriously dealing with poverty in America. That is more about empowering people in poverty to get out of poverty instead of just leaving people in poverty with a few extra bucks funded by taxpayers. But it is not something I would support completely, but would incorporate in a broader public assistance reform plan to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance and living in freedoms supporting themselves.

Arthur Brooks: A Conservative Vision For Social Justice

I'm trying to think of a conservative vision for social justice and it's hard. Because it almost sounds like creating an Oxymoron. And what I mean by that is that social justice or economic justice tend to be socialist terms. It's Social Democrats running for office in this country and in other countries who say "I'm fighting for social justice"! Which is something that frankly makes Conservatives or people who are supposed to pass as today's Conservatives (which is different) want to puke. Because when they hear social justice people in the Tea Party and Libertarians talk about social justice they automatically think that is wealth redistribution.

But just to take the conservative vision of social justice seriously for a minute for the purpose of this blog (if nothing else) I guess Newt Gingrich would be the best spokesperson for it because it was something that he was truly interested in at least when he was Speaker of the House and throughout his congressional career. And something he talked a lot about post-Congress and when he ran for President in 20011-12. The 1996 Welfare to Work Act was an example of that where they took the best of liberal and conservative ideas to empower people on Welfare to get off of Welfare into the workforce.

Speaker Gingrich when he ran for President was constantly talking about what government of all things could do to empower people on Welfare and Unemployment Insurance to get themselves the skills so they can get themselves a good job. He was constantly talking about the amount of time that someone on Unemployment Insurance spends that they could use that time to get degree at a community college or a bachelors degree. Instead of trying to look for a job with the current skills that they have.

I mean if you are truly Conservative who believes in social justice that is empowering people at the bottom so they are no longer on the bottom and trapped in poverty, (and I'm trying to say this without laughing at least based on the Tea Party and libertarian-right) then you believe government has some role here unless you are simply only interested in wrecking the safety net in America. And that role from a conservative perspective is about using market values in government to empower people to be able to make it on their own. Getting good skills to pay the bills to use a pop culture analogy.

That instead of saying that "the problem is the rich are too rich, or just rich period and what government should do is take most of their money to take care of everyone else". Which is basically the socialist, or social democratic vision of social justice that "we as Conservatives should instead say wealth and work is a good thing in America and good thing about our system. And that these things should be encouraged not discouraged and that the problem is not that we have rich people or too many. But not enough and what we need to do as a country with government playing a role, but not the only role is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to become successful and even rich on their own."

AEI: Opinion- Charles Murray- The Trouble Isn't Liberals, It's Progressives

Source:AEI

Charles Murray hit it on the head in his AEI article about liberalism and how that is different from today's so-called progressivism. Even though even what is supposed to pass as progressivism today is really not progressivism either. But some form of leftist fascism and statism. A true Progressive is not a fascist and doesn't believe in unlimited government to serve or take care of the people either. But today's so-called Progressives seem to do and have an unlimited view of what government can do for people.

As a Liberal myself I'm finding everyday that I have more in common with real Conservatives. Not the big government religious fundamentalists, but real Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world or Libertarians. Because we tend to believe in similar things. That it is not that Americans have too much freedom both economically and personally. But that we don't have enough in too many areas and tend to agree on things like the failed War on Drugs. Criminal justice reform, the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex. That these two areas need to be reformed and that when people are educated they are much more qualified to run their own lives than government.

Of course I as a Liberal do not agree with Conservatives on economic policy in general. I would invest a lot more in infrastructure than they would and do not want to over regulate business, but believe they need to be regulated to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Conservatives in general tend to believe that regulations are a bad thing. And perhaps would privatize infrastructure all together in this country. But real Liberals and real Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians tend to have similar goals when it comes to these economic issues, but with different policies. And tend to have similar positions when it comes to social issues as well. That these things should be left up to the individual.

It's not Liberals that are the problem to paraphrase Charles Murray. But people on the Left who are called Liberals because the so-called Liberals either self-define their politics that way. Or the media is too dumb to tell the difference between a statist or fascist or Socialist or Communist even from a real Liberal. People who truly do believe in individual freedom and individualism and that there is a limit to what government can do for the people especially the central government.

It's not the Liberal that is alway trying to expand the state and eliminate all disagreeing points of the view to what the far-left preaches in America. About equality and collectivism at all costs. And that "freedom is dangerous even from a personal perspective and that we big central government to manage the social welfare of the country for the good of the country". But the far-left in America whether you want to call them collectivists or statists or even Democratic Socialists people who believe in the collective and collectivism and that individualism and freedom is dangerous and needs to be limited who believe in these ideas.

American Enterprise Institute: Nicholas Eberstadt- The Government vs. the American Character

Source:American Enterprise Institute

I agree with Nicholas Eberstadt on the growth of the entitlement state in America. . We use to be a society in which you took care of yourself as much as you could and when you couldn't, your friends, family and private charity helped you get by.  The Great Depression really changed that.  When it once was commonplace for millions of Americans to retire without a pension and be taken care of by their savings and their kids and for nobody to have health insurance, that doesn't work anymore.

Our economy has matured.  Healthcare technology is vastly improved, increasing life expectancy, and is much more expensive.  In our capitalist economic system, we now need insurance for people who hit  rough times.

In comparison with Canada and Europe, our public social insurance system is very modest. We shouldn't have an insurance system that takes care of everyone because that would incentivize welfare over work and encourage people to not do as much for themselves as they can. All we have is a safety net for people who can't pay their bills and survive any other way.

American Enterprise: James Pethokoukis: The New Marxism

AEI: Opinion: James Pethokoukis: The New Marxism

Winston Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest." This logical form can be applied to other systems as well.

It works fairly well in economics, e.g., "Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the rest."  Capitalism has many forms.  In one, Laisssez-Faire economics, government has no role in the economy and all capital is controlled by the private sector with no rules on how to operate. Whatever government exists is funded by trade tariffs.  This form was found seriously wanting and discarded at the end of the 19th century.

The beauty of capitalism, in whatever form, is that individuals are not guaranteed wealth.  They have to earn it.  This incentivizes them to get a good education and be productive in life so that they don't need public assistance to take care of them.  In a good capitalist economic system, as many people as possible are able to get the skills needed to be productive and successful in life.  Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives and Socialists have been arguing about this at least since the New Deal.

Even Socialists in Europe and in America now acknowledge that capitalism and private enterprise are here to stay.  The Marxists have lost, so the question now is what type of capitalist economic system should we have. I went into this on my blog yesterday but as a Liberal I believe in liberal capitalism or liberal economics.  Some on the far-left would call this "Neo-Liberalism" (because it is not Socialism). But it is is an economic system where, ideally, everyone has an opportunity to attain the  education needed to succeed in life.

In such a system, the role of government is to protect workers and consumers not from themselves but from predators who would hurt them and to help people who fall though the floor of the system.  The  safety net exists to give them temporary financial relief and a hand up.  This is the outline of liberal capitalism.

American Enterprise: Michael R. Strain: A $4 Minimum Wage Can Get People Back to Work

American Enterprise Institute: Opinion: Michael R. Strain: A $4 Dollar an Hour Minimum Wage Can Get People Back to Work


Sure, you could pay someone $4.00 an hour and that would encourage companies to start hiring again and they would probably hire a lot more people again, people who haven't finished high school and are not even old enough to drive or vote. And I'm sure adults would take some of these jobs too, but not if they have bills to pay and this $4.00 hour job was their only source of income, because that wouldn't pay the bills for them in most areas in the United States.

If people haven't eaten in a while for whatever the reasons, you could give them cat food and as much cat food as they could eat for an indefinite amount of time. And if they were able to keep all of that cat food in their bodies and not cabinets for their cats and didn't vomit the cat food, you could prevent them from starving as well. If someone needed to get to work and didn't have a way of getting there by automobile, bus, or taxi and, let's say, they live 10 miles from work, you could tell that person to wake up really early every morning and walk the whole way to work so they were able to get to work every day and not miss any work.

My whole point here is that there are good ways to solve problems, there are bad ways to solve problems, and, as in this column from the AEI today, there are ways to solve problems that may solve the intended problem but create new problems as well. The idea is to solve the problem without creating new ones, and when you are talking about creating jobs for the long-term unemployed, you want them to have jobs that pay their bills so they no longer need public assistance and not jobs that pay a little more than half the minimum wage so that they are not only in a low-income job but are also collecting a hell of a lot of public assistance and private charity just to survive.

American Enterprise: Video: Arthur Brooks: Why Conservatives Should Care About Social Justice

Arthur Brooks talking about creating a positive agenda instead of Republicans just saying what they are against. He’s arguing and has argued that Republicans need to offer what they are in favor of. His argument is and has been that Republicans and Democrats Conservatives and Liberals tend to want similar things when it comes to the economy. That both sides both want economic opportunity, freedom, economic mobility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. But that both sides have different plans in how to accomplish those things. And what the Right needs is to have a plan that attempts to at least move low-skilled and low-income workers as well as the low-skilled unemployed into the middle class where they can live in economic freedom. And they don’t seem united in how to accomplish that yet. Lets say the New Gingrich/Paul Ryan wing of the Right seems to believe that empowering low-income adults whether they are working or not with educational and job training opportunities is a good way to close the income gap in America. But the GOP as a whole is not united behind that.

American Enterprise: Phillip Swagel- Four Ways We Can Improve the Economy in 2014

American Enterprise: Phillip Swagel- Four Ways We Can Improve the Economy in 2014  

Just to start out before I go any further. I believe there’s a better shot of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series in 2014 or the Redskins winning the Super Bowl with Dan Snyder as the majority owner, than I see any bipartisan cooperation in this divided Congress. When it comes to economic growth, but just for the sake of this post if not for just the hell of it, if both sides actually worked together, this is what I believe they could get done based on what both parties in Congress want to do and where there’s already agreement.

1. Infrastructure
Let’s put a five-hundred billion dollar to one-trillion dollar national infrastructure plan over five-ten years. Including a National Infrastructure Bank that would be independent of the Federal Government. A public/private corporation that would run itself and not by government. That would fund a lot of these infrastructure projects all over the country. With private funds by brining in private investors who would make money off of these completed projects. That economic Conservatives should like this because we would be using private capital and private principles. That is about what is the right thing to be doing to rebuild this country.

2. National Energy Policy
We already have a Bipartisan consensus when it comes to renewable energy sources in this country. And a bipartisan consensus when it comes to oil and gas. The fact that we need to produce a lot more of both at least in the short-term to get off of foreign oil. The reason energy independence is now on the horizon for America, is because we’ve produced a lot more oil in the last five years. If we were ruled by commonsense, we would be doing these things creating millions of jobs in our domestic energy sector. But as Senator Chuck Grassley says, "Washington is an island immune from reality".

3. Tax Reform
For short to long-term economic and job growth I’m just talking about business tax reform. And greater tax relief for individuals and business’s to expand economic and job growth. So this would be part of my long-term tax reform plan as well. But short-term we spend somewhere around fifty-hundred-billion dollars a year on corporate welfare. When we also have a corporate tax rate of thirty-five percent, higher than both Canada and Germany. Germany the only large country in Europe with a strong economy now. Let’s lower the corporate tax rate two twenty-five percent on all profits made inside the United States. In exchange for either eliminating most of the subsidies. Or changing corporate welfare to corporate workfare and invest in things like.

A. Health insurance for employees.

B. Life insurance for employees.

C. Pensions for employees.

D. Job training for low-skilled workers and educated veteran workers who need additional skills.

E. Investing in America by either expanding or creating new factories, plants, offices and creating jobs inside the United States.

4. Immigration Reform
Pretty simple at least as far as policy. Bring in the workers that we need to do the jobs where we do not have enough skilled workers for those jobs. And bring in the workers that we need to do the jobs that Americans won’t do whether they are qualified for them or not. Bring in the 10-15 illegal immigrants in this country so they can pay their fair share of taxes. And fine for being in the country illegally based on how long they’ve been in the United States illegally. And no longer be abused by their current employers.

Just to be completely straight up. I sure as hell hope Democrats at least keep the majority in the Senate that they have now. Which I believe is possible and possible simply because their candidates and incumbents are better. And they won’t have a wildcard factor to deal with. Meaning far-left candidates trying to run for office either statewide or in swing districts. Unlike Republicans who still have these problems with their far-right and will have them in 2014. And would love to see House Democrats pick up forty seats. Not going to happen but whatever the Congressional makeup is in 2014, this is what I believe could get done without the partisanship from both sides based on what they already agree on.