Listen now (5 min) | The must do it when they return to Washington after July 4 recess. If they don't, why should anyone vote for them in the midterms?
If the "FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT " (H R-1) is not already in place early enough before the MIDTERM ELECTIONS this November, then Republicans will win TOTAL CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
IF THAT HAPPENS, Republicans will REVERSE everything that President Biden has accomplished including the "BUILD BACK BETTER ACT" (Should it become law before then)
And Republicans will STOP the investigation into the Jan 6, insurrection claiming that the attack on the capital was completely legal.
Then Trump or someone just like him will be back in the white house in 2024.
I DEMAND that all Americans with websites and media platforms who believe in DEMOCRACY and the RULE OF LAW must immediately urge Americans to PEACEFULLY take to the streets in protest to protect our voting rights and to REVERSE Republican anti voting laws before it is too late to do anything about it.
And because our voting rights are being stolen by Republicans who are viciously passing anti voting laws---many more Americans are going to lose the right to vote.
Without our right to vote we will lose many of our precious rights and freedoms.
Trump-Republicans are attacking our Democratic norms. They want to control who gets to vote, who counts the votes, and who declares the winners.
As an American who loves the precious freedoms of the United States, I cannot sit back and watch our FREEDOM TO VOTE disappear without doing everything I can to help stop this from happening.
Because of the URGENCY of this situation, and with all due respect, I must demand that you ADD to your website's agenda to: PLEASE URGE YOUR READERS TO PEACEFULLY TAKE TO THE STREETS TO PROTECT OUR VOTING RIGHTS IMMEDIATELY.
And because Republicans have passed Anti Voting laws into their favor, including the right to DECERTIFY AND OVERTURN AN ELECTION, they will illegally win in all future elections.
SO FAR Republicans have passed over 400 new anti-voting laws in 49 states using false allegations of voter fraud. Making it much harder for people to vote..
THEY are using the FILIBUSTER to continue to block our CIVIL LIBERTIES. Including VOTING RIGHTS, HEALTHCARE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, ANIMAL RIGHTS, GUN SAFETY, LGBT RIGHTS, SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION, TAXING THE RICH, ETC. ETC. ETC.
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS have said that they will OVERTURN any election that does not go their way.
WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT???
Without the FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT, all parties (except The Republican party) will no longer be able to win elections.
The "Freedom To Vote act" will REVERSE all Republicans ANTI VOTING laws and PROTECT our right to vote.
And if the filibuster still stands in the way, then it must be abolished.
Please push for peaceful mass protests to protect and restore our voting rights before Trumps Republicans succeed in an AUTHORITARIANISM TAKEOVER of the United States.
Something I have not heard mentioned is Amendment XIV Section 2, which clearly states that if any State denies the right to vote to any (male) inhabitant.......the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such (male) Citizens.... Male was over ridden by Amendment XIX which gave the vote to women. Under this Amendment, any State which denies the right of any Citizen to vote MUST lose Representatives (Congress persons). Why should this not be enforced on Florida, Texas and all States which have passed legislation to specifically prevent certain Citizens from voting? The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the ACLU, and other interested organizations can and should file action to uphold this Amendment.
I hope you’re on to something here Fay. But we seem to be tied up in knots and not taking any of this serious enough. Why is it preposterous to hold a “so-called” former president who helped commit a deadly sedition, in prison while awaiting trial.
Much of the voter suppression measures are designed to avoid outright denying the "right" to vote. They make it difficult & costly enough to dissuade people from getting ID cards, or Native Americans from getting property addresses, or people getting to the one distant voting location in a rural county without public transit options, or allowing others to give water to people waiting in multi-hour lines. And, districts are gerrymandered so their votes won't matter at the district level; just at the state level
You are correct about the wording, however, young activists could overturn a lot of that by assisting people to obtain ID cards, and working with the USPS, to get physical street addresses. Vote by mail is, or was a Federal mandate for people who had difficulty getting to voting sites. In California in the late 60's early 70's we organized carpools to help get people to the polls. I'm aware of the no water or other refreshments laws, but are they really enforceable? How many activists are the local police willing to arrest to prevent charitable donations of water. I would hope they also provide waste receptacles for empty bottles. Also a really good lawyer could prove certain restraints (like the physical address) apply only to specific groups of people.
Biden needs to oust DeJoy from the USPS and install someone committed to making vote-by-mail reliable, and making USPS truck fleets eco-friendly
I'm not familiar with all the efforts to suppress the Native American vote, but I doubt working with USPS, while DeJoy is still there, will be productive.
If President Biden could oust DeJoy he would. The USPS was first formed in the 1770's as a Department of the Government with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General. It continued as a Department of the Executive branch for 200 years. Then in 1970 Nixon, in a typical Republican temper tantrum over a postal strike in New York, privatized it. The USPS today is a quasi-Governmental agency. The Federal Government can recommend appointees to the Board of Directors. They (the Board) decide who is the Postmaster General. As usual the Republicans payed more scrutiny to these details than the Democrats (Same as with the appointment of Federal Judges nationwide) The only way to get rid of DeJoy - who is the slime at the bottom of the barrel, just like trump - is to convince the Board of Directors to get rid of him. On a related matter, President Obama appointed 334 Federal level Judges, of these he withdrew 7 and 215 were never voted on, thanks Mitch. Trump got 470 approved including the 3 to the Supreme Court, thanks Mitch. We Democrats have to pay more attention
Biden can't fire DeJoy. The board of governors at the USPS are the only ones that have that power and we have the people in place that can do that now. The question is, why aren't they doing what's right and firing this unfit capitalist pig immediately?
Mitch ; All the things they are doing are barriers to the vote and should be called out as such. The A.C.L.U. The league of Women Voters and NAA.C.P. Could file action to uphold Amendment XIV Section 2 also. Maybe a class action suit by the voters of this country could be mounted too!
Dale, Because I value your perspective and commitment, I write simply to ensure you get your facts right.
To start, H.R.1, drafted back in 2019 and passed in the House in early 2021, is the For the People Act. Because no one expected this extraordinarily progressive legislation to advance in the Senate, a group of Senators that included Joe Manchin drafted an edited down version of For the People and named it the Freedom to Vote Act. Though not nearly as progressive, this legislation did ensure 1) that all eligible voters easily would be able to register and stay registered and 2) that eligible votes would be cast, counted correctly, and certified without interference and without their being diluted through partisan gerrymandering.
You might recall a second piece of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, also was introduced and passed in the House in 2021. As with the Freedom to Vote Act, it, too, had remained stalled in the Senate. It’s important you note, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act, whose provisions would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations, that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive and therefore could not overturn state laws that already had passed. I mention this because the Senate, at some point, could try to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act as a stand-alone bill.
Setting aside the foregoing, fast-forward to January, 2022 when Democratic Senate leadership tried to pass a combined bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Though Manchin and Sinema supported the bill, they, in turn, voted with the 50 Republican Senators, who opposed a modest filibuster rule change that eventually would have allowed for an up or down majority vote.
As a final point, please note that State Legislatures in 49 states have introduced some 400 or so voter suppression/nullification provisions. To date, some 29, give or take, have become law.
Carol, In short, this past January, Schumer was able to work through the House and nail down a procedural maneuver that precluded a Republican filibuster on the motion to proceed, thus allowing Schumer to bring the newly combined Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to the floor for debate and a vote. When the vote (50-50) failed, as expected, to meet the 60-vote threshold, Schumer called for a second vote for filibuster reform. Dems settled upon a modest change in the rules that would have allowed each side 100 speaking hours before getting to an up or down majority vote. Still, Manchin and Sinema voted with the 50 Republican Senators to oppose this rule change.
As an aside, many of us formally expressed our deep disappointment that Biden did not call out Manchin’s and Sinema’s mere support for voter protection safeguards as hollow and performative, absent their resolve to do their part to figure out how the filibuster could be modified to pass the combined voter protection bill under regular order, even if it meant taking a long time to get an up or down majority vote.
Another option is to click on the 3 dots to the right of the word "collapse" -that's the edit option and try again. If that fails, go to the top of the page, look to the left of the search bar-there's an incomplete circle w/an arrow @ the end-that's the refresh option. Click on that and you may be able to do the "Heart"
My pleasure, Carol. Frankly, from the outset, I have viewed exchanges with one another as opportunities to work more effectively to bring about the kinds of change we’re all seeking.
LUCKILY: _rumplicans still only number around 30% and falling of people living in America. EVEN IF they are able to steal the midterms, we Americans only have to wait out until 2024 when Herr F_hrer will no longer be among the living and the party will collapse in on itself. (I find that name fitting, as _rump "cleansed" America of OVER A MILLION OF HIS OWN SUPPORTERS during the pandemic.)
Daniel-there's a new idea floating in reactionary circles that has decided that the states can change voting options called the Individual States Legislature theory that would prevent the state judiciaries from ruling on election cases, leaving the state legislatures being the only ones who decide who counts the votes. That will come before SCOTUS in the next session-the case is Moore v. Harper and a few of the SCOTUS majority have expressed interest in it . Essentially it would allow the states to do what #45, Eastman, and Jeff Clark wanted to do-election subversion. For background, please read: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-moore-v-harper-supreme-court-case-voting-rights-2022-7
Don't count on luck. Republicans are working HARD to steal the election mechanisms nationwide. It won't matter if TFG is alive or not -- in fact, if he's not, it could be worse because he'll be enshrined as a hero.
I nominate Robert Reich for President! [1]He has Bernie Sanders' progressive ideas and policies, but [2] unlike Bernie, is not grumpy and scolding and humorless,[3] He is very friendly, easy to like, easy to trust, and knows how to talk to White "blue-collar" voters. [4] He has much more knowledge and understanding of government and politics than almost all politicians. [5] He speaks the truth to power.
I agree. I was describing the impression he makes for many. In any case, Bernie would not make a good president. But I'd like him in the Cabinet, or as a leader in t he Senate.
"Bernie would not make a good president." Why not?
I think he'd be stronger on domestic issues than international ones, but he's smart enough to choose good advisors and non-egotistical enough to listen to them.
Robert may be a little tired after all the years of public service he has put in, but he has two sons, are either of them imbued with your fire, Dr. Reich?
Your comments are bullshit. The Democrats do NOt have a majority. Think-the Senate is in theory 50:50. Actually it’s 48 Democrats and 50 Republicans and 2 Senators- West Virginia snd Arizona - whose votes are up for grabs. ONLY if they vote Democratic will VP Kamala Harris’ vote be required or relevant. Do you see that happening any time soon??? Prof. Reich is wrong when he says Democrats are in control. The numbers say “yes” - but the actual votes or lack thereof say -no- AND Mitch McConnell knows this just as much as Senator Schumer and Prof. Reich know it. McConnell and Joe Manchin control the Senate. A sad truth so quit blaming President Biden and Democrats generally . Biden has been dealt an impossible task. Just VOTE to help him or his final two years of this term will be a nightmare just like that President Obama was dealt by McConnell who swore nothing Obama proposed would ever happen while he controlled the Senate.
I don't like t admit it but my heart fell when results were in and I saw we gave Democrats a nominal 50/50 tie in the Senate with VP Kamala Harris as a possible tiebreaker. Turns out though that Manchin and Sinema are DINOs, Democrats in name only. Worst of all possible outcomes: Democrats don't actually have a majority and can't get anything done, but the public thinks Democrats do have a majority and are grossly incompetent. Better for Democrats to have lost decisively, Biden would be better off now.
Bob Palmer - I agree with you. Democrats have no chance, whatsoever, of passing legislation right now.
However, I also agree with Reich. Democrats can and should get all house and senate members, both Republican and Democrats on record voting for - or against - abortion, gun, environmental protection and voting rights.
That said, I agree with myself. Independence and self-reliance appeals to Manchin's voters and he plays them like a fiddle. As long as Manchin remains a Democrat, every vote he makes against Democrat's legislation makes him look even more independent minded, and self-sufficient. If Manchin switched parties, he'd look like a sheep to his voters and they would kick him out of office in a heartbeat.
Democrats are like a herd of cats and take way too much personal pride in marching to the beat of their own personal drummers, thinking and acting independently etc. and so on, ad nauseam. In this regard, Manchin is a Democrat to the bone. As the biggest contrarian in the party, he will stay in office. Sinema is following Manchin's lead and it seems to be working just as well for her.
Sinema selling out to lobbyists provides cover for Manchin to do McConnell's bidding. In DC, Biden & the Dems are scared of upsetting Manchin & Sinema.
CA's Newsom is onto something important by running attacks ads against FL's DeSantis. Newsom has much more freedom to attack. He needs to start running ads in AZ supporting "real freedom lovers" like Mark Kelly, and implicitly attack Sinema selling out. Let Newsom run ads in AK demanding to know which Senate candidates would have opposed the raped 10-year old Ohio girl from getting an abortion, and what they will do about future cases.
You're talkin' to a guy contending with Jim Jordan. I also suggest in an earlier discussion that NV Dems should register Republican and vote for her in whatever the hold as a primary election. (Better the devil you know when your only rational alternative is another devil.) Indeed, I just heard that IL Democrats are resorting to that strategy to see to it that a real "Tweety-wanker" gets elected in the primary, that they think they can trounce when they go back to votin' Democrat in the general election. In my original statement about supporting Cheney, I said such a strategy was risky, and the IL Democrats seem to have adopted it in the riskiest way possible.
Call you a turncoat? How is that possible, since I don't know you from Adam, except at this juncture, you seem to have a high regard for yourself with a >total< stranger.
Thanks for your effort RC. People seem to be getting snippy in this discussion. DW asks elsewhere in this discussion if there's a full moon out today. DW must've noticed it, too.
I don’t know which Adam you are referring to Adam Clayton Powell? By the way! I was referring to the majority of Democrats not the literal majority. Neither here nor there.
It's an old-time expression that's clearly not part of your cultural heritage. I'm talking about the biblical Adam. I still don't know you from Adam, but you're still clearly taking intentional umbrage to something I said having nothing to do with you, and for which I'll not apologize in this or any other lifetime.
Oh my reactionary friend I am a lifelong democrat. Biden is doing a heck of a good job. We have a technical majority but it does no good to quibble about that. It’s a sad side note. So vitriolic for a Democrat. What I said is that the dems lack passion and guts. Like Liz Cheney has in spades.
AOC lacks guts..come on, man - reallyAND Nancy Pelosi - she’s a woman with real fight left in her. It’s Chuck Schumer and the Senate but others have already pointed out what little Schumer can do with 2 rogue Democrats vs McConnell’s unrelenting tight control over his Republicans. Mitt Romney of Utah might free himself from that control but it would be political suicide for him to do that remembering that Mike Lee is Utah’s senior Senator, Utah is ultra and I mean ULTRA conservative and Lee is a devotee of Donald Trump. Further, Liz Cheney, whom I personally admire, has nothing to lose and everything to gain in this ‘power play’. Maybe every Democrat in Wyoming (there must be one or two in a population of about 700,000) will be enough but not if nasty Kevin McCarthy from my home state (sadly) has his way. But more to your point, just exactly what is it you expect Democrats to do given the very weak spot they’re in? What????
I would also be very interested in hearing why you aren't addressing the student loan crisis. It seems like a no-brainer for Biden to cancel student loan debt for folks who have held this for 20+ years and to reform it for younger folks. A bill was recently introduced in the Senate to refinance all student loan debt at zero percent interest. This is great for the young ones (including my daughters who both are paying off debt for master's degrees in social work and physicians assistant), but not so helpful for their parents who have accumulated obscene amounts of debt because of the daily interest accruing on student loans. We have a spousal consolidation loan from the late 1990s that has quadrupled from $50k to almost $200k in spite of regular payments. Our meager retirement will be plagued by student loan debt that we can't possibly repay during the rest of our lifetimes. Please comment on this and the possible benefit canceling this debt will have for the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.
The lack of free public education in the United States is deplorable. A lot of this is thanks to ALEC that wrote legislation for States making higher education unaffordable to any but the wealthy and then topped it off, by deregulating the loan industry to allow predatory lending for student loans.
...and Republicans have been pushing the idea of diverting public education K-12 funds to private/religious schools and home schoolers. They've done it here in NH under the umbrella of School Vouchers and do little if any monitoring of how the money is spent and don't require actual certified teachers One of the ideas is a for-profit group called Prenda-the people they use are called "guides" and aren't required to have any training in how to teach. After the Republican legislature did this, it then further cut public ed funds even more. The original budget was $130K-it's already 5000% over budget in less than a year. When the voucher bill couldn't be passed due to a LOT of public input against it, the legislature hid it in the state budget and the Republican governor gladly signed it. The underlying problem is that a lot of the public ed funds come from property taxes and disproportionately hurts poor towns. The NH Supreme Court said it was unfair but the NH legislature won't change the laws for public ed funds-this has been going on for TWENTY YEARS.
How horrible for you. I suppose they've already gerrymandered and election lawed themselves into permanent position. And now, of course, you can't even rely on the courts to protect you
For the same reason those same tax dollars are supposed to give pothole free paved roads, sewage, and all other services, THE COMMON GOOD. All children deserve as much education as their intellect, desires, aptitudes, and needs allow them. Trades people (electricians, repair service, carpenters, etc) are deserving of the same respect as any other profession. The 19th century concept that only the children of the wealthy are deserving of higher education, wasted the brilliant minds of children from less moneyed classes. Intelligence, like physical beauty is not inherited like wealth is. Nor is the ability to invent great things or create great art. Look at the wastrels in the royal families, the useless celebrities of inherited wealth in our Country. Would you deny an Einstein, a Mozart, a Ben Franklin an education just because their parents lack sufficient funds to send them off to college? Speaking personally. I grew up in Canada, and was a citizen there from 1933 to 1958. In high school we had to purchase our own school text books, paper, pencils, etc. Even this was difficult when my parents combined monthly income was $250 per month and there were three children. I dropped out of high school after the 11th grade (there were 13 grades at the time) I went to work for $17/week. There was no chance of a college education, tuition alone was $800/semester. So you can imagine my gratitude to the State of California when I went to Community College for the cost of text books and $20/ year for student Union dues. The State College from which I graduated with a BA double major in Biology/Chemistry and a MA in Physiology, charged $85 semester tuition, $20 for parking and of course text books. The Federal and State governments at that time (1964 through 1977) saw education as an investment in future taxes, which they certainly got from me. Meanwhile, as California Governor Ronald Reagan once infamously said 'taxes should hurt' at the same time, the wealthy Ronald Reagan was paying $0.00 in State and Federal taxes. Student loans are an abomination, and a result of greed, They should be abolished, period, I don't care how much privately owned institutions of higher education charge, publicly funded schools from preschool through graduate school should be free for all who desire it and qualify. No person who graduates from college should be unable to buy a house, EVER, an affordable vehicle, EVER, or have to live paycheck to paycheck, EVER, so those at the top of the food chain (the Elon Musk's, Koch Bros, etc can buy an extra mansion, an extra yacht or just stuff their fortune in off shore accounts.
I don't necessarily support tax-payer payback of student loans, but your response moves me to reply. Unfortunately, in our country, work compensation doesn't match job value to our nation and the public good. Teaching, for example, doesn't pay enough to repay today's tuition and loan interest charges, but the success of a country depends heavily on educated citizens. There's a reason why Trump claims to love the poorly educated. Education teaches the critical thinking skills that are important, for example, for recognizing corrupt, self-serving political candidates and their misleading statements. That fact, alone, makes teaching critical to democracy. There are reasons also why the arts are important to the success of a nation, yet many careers in the arts that require advanced degrees tend to be low-paid. Just as taxpayers must contribute to the country's infrastructure, it wouldn't be totally wrong to require them to support educating people who do socially valuable yet low-paid work. However, those valuable workers wouldn't require so much financial support if it weren't for price-gouging by for-profit and poorly run schools, predatory lenders, and other aspects of a badly organized system for advanced education. Part of the public is responsible for that broken system -- specifically, those who vote for politicians who put corporate greed and dysfunctional education policies ahead of our nation's success. Despite that, however, those price-gouging and/or broken schools and lenders are even more directly responsible and, therefore, I think, should be the first ones charged for fixing the problem. If government also has benefitted by predatory lending or other harmful practices, then it bears some responsibility. Responsibility belongs to whomever has created a system where education costs more than a resulting career can reasonably support, because the scope of education should not depend on capitalism -- on supply-and-demand wages -- but on what is truly good for a successful nation. The marketplace is not a good indicator of that value. A highly paid sports star, for example, is not worth many times more to our nation's good than a teacher is. If cost of education mirrored marketplace value, we might have no problem -- if it weren't for price-gouging in the "education industry." But education is not priced by career value, and price gouging does exist, so there are problems. Imo, they should be solved by entities who have unjustly reaped the most profit from the situation and by voters not electing politicians who support greedy and otherwise dysfunctional education systems. I also think that "liberals" are not the worst enemy in the matter. They might present potential hazards, but their opposition will cost us all a lot more.
I like your statement. I taught school in California for 18 years. During that time I was paid relatively well for the economy. You are correct about teacher pay today, it is much worse in today's dollars. Also in some States, especially in the deep south it was substandard even when I taught. Student loans are a different matter. They are and have been since the 90's out of control as has the price of going to public colleges. Dr Reich explained this because of a switch in thinking about the value of higher education. But worse than that, the higher cost occured at the same time as the lowering of middle class income, rising of great wealth for fewer people, increase in tax rates for middle income and great reduction in taxes for extremely wealthy
You presume that the choice to attend college does not involve hard work and sacrifice. For people like me, who were not born with a silver spoon, getting a college education meant many years of living in poverty while working more than full time AND attending college full time. I then continued to work hard throughout my career and lived frugally, paying off my student loans - which thankfully were at low interest rates, unlike today. You appear to be clueless that a large number of college students today are so financially strapped that they are homeless, and living in their cars. Stop lecturing others about sacrifice, because you don’t know squat, and stop making excuses for the apparently dreary lifelong consequences of your own youthful lifestyle choices.
Robert, I agree fully with what you wrote. We do not need the self-fulfilling prophesies of stating we’ll lose when the other party supports the deadly seditionist attackers. If they sound worried about that, just move aside & we’ll put in progressives. The hearings are powerful. Rely on it, reference it!
I’m constantly adding the name republican to reasons for slaughters, climate damage etc.
The Dems in power must give their base (us) fist pounding fights and wins NOW!
And the hearing with Cassidy Hutchinson should have been on in Prime Time! WTF?
I know you’re extremely busy Robert, but could we send you to the oval office to direct Biden and staff?
There was a mass murder in a suburb in IL today! Republican-blood-on-their-hands traitors did not help ban these murder weapons. Start repeating this ad nauseam everyone!
Someone pointed out that Democrats form "circular firing squads", and I think that's true. Democrats are always at each others' throats over who is too progressive, or not progressive enough. One thing the Republicans have been really good at is putting aside differences and massing together in solid blocks. Democrats NEED to do that, and Democrats NEED to promote people who are actually "electable". That said, the basic issue of the economy is key, and, as my spouse says, "getting what they can"...and that means learning how to compromise with each other and then in Congress.
"America is in Denial," said Mitt Romney. I would add that Democrats in Washington are in denial that Republicans have a plan to end democracy. Otherwise, they would mobilize against it in any way they can while they have the power to do so.
Dr Reich, I completely agree with your impatience. Be advised, though. Even if the Democrats can manage forcing through Abortion Rights and other key legislation, that leaves unaddressed the associated civil rights SCOTUS just did the fandango on, and they've just begun "a'whistlin Dixie" - the tune to which they dance. Besides, it'll be the same SCOTUS that will turn around and strike down any Democratic legislation that attempts to extend Federal authority, citing that it violates states' rights under the 10th Amendment, while completely >ignoring< the Supremacy Clause in the body of the document - just as they did in 1850. The 10th Amendment is the bugger-all that the Union Republicans should have fixed between 1860 - '64, that the Confederacy planted the flag of their cause on, and continues to do so to this very day. I'm afraid ol' Tweety's lap-dog voters have no idea what they've brought onto themselves and their children for at least a generation - not to mention everyone else! Although I respect if not totally agree with everything you say, I think this time the stage was set back at the end of Obama's administration. Anything else in this political environment is bound to be "a day late & $1 short." Even if all Republicans were to be voted out of office in '22 & '24, their shadow will >still< loom large over this nation long after they're gone and forgotten.
3. Elect people who will codify good and override bad SCOTUS decisions.
The FF's meant the Legislative Branch to be primus inter pares, but Reps and Sens alike are too busy staying in power to care about their responsibilities.
Yeah! That'll happen! I like your proposed remedy, but you'll please excuse me if I don't hold my breath. Besides, what d'ya think'd happen if the Democrats didn't hold on to their seats, huh? It looks like they're all "white knuckles" on their seats as it stands - and that's not even discussing the Democrats facing the uphill battle over unseating an ensconced wank-publican opponent. Sometimes the representatives we >need< in place >must< do what it takes, and criticizing what they must do to stay there or gain a seat in the discussion comes from a rather naïve, over-simplified, and inappropriately moralistic understanding of the political reality we face. How does the old saying go, about walking a mile in the other's shoes?
If Dems who aren't doing squat don't hold on to their seats, so bloody WHAT?! Are you saying we'll be WORSE off? We should vote for gutless non-entities to keep the seats warm?
That's the problem. They want to hold on to their seats. They would like it if Republicans would play nice and let them do what they want, but I don't see many who are willing to take risks or make hard choices.
Imo most of your comment is just a variation of why the end justifies the means -- and "the end" is "I want to stay here. Not I "must" stay here. You either have principles or you don't. If you don't, the slippery slope is easier to navigate. For awhile.
I don't care whether you hold your breath or not. If you like my proposed remedy, why are you sneering at it? Seems contradictory to me.
So what are you proposing as an alternative? I only hear castigation, but no remedy. Besides, there are only 2 self-proclaimed Democrats that really fit your description, and they're both well-known turncoats that even ol' Chins McConnell recognizes as wank-publicans so clearly that he's already invited them to a seat on his side of the aisle. Like the lady says above. In the Senate, there are 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 turncoats, and those 48 Democrats are going to have a devil of a time keeping those seats Democratic, and a nearly impossible task of gaining 2 to 4 seats to counter the turncoats. As to your question, if you interpret expressing skepticism as equivalent to sneering, then there's not much left to say - but >that< perception is yours and yours alone.
And I couldn't "heart" you back. I doubt any law would pass with that clause because legitimate legal issues might come up, but you're on the right track with the need to safeguard (some) laws imo.
There is an important phrase in Amendment 10 that is being ignored "OR TO THE PEOPLE." Plainly spoken, the powers granted to the States were not meant to be exclusive, the Citizens have an absolute voice - they just need to use it.
True enough. When you or I become SCOTUS justices, we'll read it that way. I'd probably pay more attention to The Supremacy Clause, though. Now, about "the people." Who d'ya think is making law in the states that recognizes the people being referred to in that passage, huh? Who d'ya think is in place to decide the constitutionality of election laws, huh? The same kind of justices who, under Scalea ruled that it's not unconstitutional to execute an innocent man, as long as he has "due process." And who d'ya think ultimately defines due process, huh? Why they're the same ones who ruled that corporations are a person and money is free speech - only they've now taken over the court overwhelmingly! Just sayin'.
Just as I finished this comment, I got email spamming me on obtaining "Concealed Weapons Certification" online. THOSE are the justices I'm talkin' 'bout that made it all possible!
And I >know< knives are deadly weapons, too. If guns were strictly regulated, a murderous nut job could just perch himself atop a building and create mayhem with his knife - or even a bow with a quiver of arrows could do a bit of damage!
A journalist for Le Monde, a French news source, said in The Week: "The extremist Catholic majority on the court is the product of 'the tyranny of a minority permitted by an electoral system outrageously favorable to the most conservative states.' Donald Trump was defeated in the popular vote, yet became president anyway. He then nominated three ultraconservative justices who were confirmed by a Senate whose makeup is permanently skewed to favor rural voters at the expense of the Democratic majority." This is how Europe sees us. Weak. Because the country is weak. We need a strong Democratic party and strong president to take charge and serve the will of the majority while it can. As you said, Dr. Reich, "Democrats still have the power to effectively overrule the Supreme Court on reproductive rights and the environment. They must now pass a national abortion rights act which will preempt state laws banning abortions, and a Clean Power Plan that will eliminate the Supreme Court’s argument that Congress never authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to do this." In addition, Democrats need to set term limits on the Supreme Court, expand the court, revise the outdated electoral college, and protect the right to vote, while we the people work to vote the spineless Republican lackeys in Washington out of office. The ultraconservative members of the Supreme Court think they can force the country to accept their notions that women have no right to make choices for themselves and that pollution that has been building over the past 150 years isn't anything to worry about. And they're not finished. Ultimately, their goal is to create a white fundamentalist christian nation intolerant of anyone that doesn't fit their mold. Citizens who care need to rise up and say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Chuck Schumer thinks that his job as Senate Majority Leader only involves standing at a podium, reading in a monotone drone, over the top of his glasses, from a pile of papers, to a room full of empty chairs, while wringing his hands to show his angst. He hasn't got the backbone of a Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Katie Porter in the House.
Time for Chuck to pass the torch. Hand off to Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
I agree, I am angery that so many will state that the Democrats are loosing the the midterm. It is self fulling proficiency, we can win if we just get out & work to get people to vote Blue. If they understood that if the Republicans win the Majotity we loose Democercy & law freedoms. I live on Social Security & the Republicans want to take that & Medicare from us. I’d be in the streets if that happened.
If the "FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT " (H R-1) is not already in place early enough before the MIDTERM ELECTIONS this November, then Republicans will win TOTAL CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
IF THAT HAPPENS, Republicans will REVERSE everything that President Biden has accomplished including the "BUILD BACK BETTER ACT" (Should it become law before then)
And Republicans will STOP the investigation into the Jan 6, insurrection claiming that the attack on the capital was completely legal.
Then Trump or someone just like him will be back in the white house in 2024.
I DEMAND that all Americans with websites and media platforms who believe in DEMOCRACY and the RULE OF LAW must immediately urge Americans to PEACEFULLY take to the streets in protest to protect our voting rights and to REVERSE Republican anti voting laws before it is too late to do anything about it.
And because our voting rights are being stolen by Republicans who are viciously passing anti voting laws---many more Americans are going to lose the right to vote.
Without our right to vote we will lose many of our precious rights and freedoms.
Trump-Republicans are attacking our Democratic norms. They want to control who gets to vote, who counts the votes, and who declares the winners.
As an American who loves the precious freedoms of the United States, I cannot sit back and watch our FREEDOM TO VOTE disappear without doing everything I can to help stop this from happening.
Because of the URGENCY of this situation, and with all due respect, I must demand that you ADD to your website's agenda to: PLEASE URGE YOUR READERS TO PEACEFULLY TAKE TO THE STREETS TO PROTECT OUR VOTING RIGHTS IMMEDIATELY.
And because Republicans have passed Anti Voting laws into their favor, including the right to DECERTIFY AND OVERTURN AN ELECTION, they will illegally win in all future elections.
SO FAR Republicans have passed over 400 new anti-voting laws in 49 states using false allegations of voter fraud. Making it much harder for people to vote..
THEY are using the FILIBUSTER to continue to block our CIVIL LIBERTIES. Including VOTING RIGHTS, HEALTHCARE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, ANIMAL RIGHTS, GUN SAFETY, LGBT RIGHTS, SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION, TAXING THE RICH, ETC. ETC. ETC.
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS have said that they will OVERTURN any election that does not go their way.
WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT???
Without the FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT, all parties (except The Republican party) will no longer be able to win elections.
The "Freedom To Vote act" will REVERSE all Republicans ANTI VOTING laws and PROTECT our right to vote.
And if the filibuster still stands in the way, then it must be abolished.
Please push for peaceful mass protests to protect and restore our voting rights before Trumps Republicans succeed in an AUTHORITARIANISM TAKEOVER of the United States.
THEY HAVE ALREADY JUST ENDED
ROE V. WADE
Something I have not heard mentioned is Amendment XIV Section 2, which clearly states that if any State denies the right to vote to any (male) inhabitant.......the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such (male) Citizens.... Male was over ridden by Amendment XIX which gave the vote to women. Under this Amendment, any State which denies the right of any Citizen to vote MUST lose Representatives (Congress persons). Why should this not be enforced on Florida, Texas and all States which have passed legislation to specifically prevent certain Citizens from voting? The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the ACLU, and other interested organizations can and should file action to uphold this Amendment.
I hope you’re on to something here Fay. But we seem to be tied up in knots and not taking any of this serious enough. Why is it preposterous to hold a “so-called” former president who helped commit a deadly sedition, in prison while awaiting trial.
Hey! Not a bad idea!
Seeking Reason ; He is a flight risk, but if he goes to Russia, Putin would put up with him for maybe 5 minutes. Maybe that would not be so bad....
Much of the voter suppression measures are designed to avoid outright denying the "right" to vote. They make it difficult & costly enough to dissuade people from getting ID cards, or Native Americans from getting property addresses, or people getting to the one distant voting location in a rural county without public transit options, or allowing others to give water to people waiting in multi-hour lines. And, districts are gerrymandered so their votes won't matter at the district level; just at the state level
You are correct about the wording, however, young activists could overturn a lot of that by assisting people to obtain ID cards, and working with the USPS, to get physical street addresses. Vote by mail is, or was a Federal mandate for people who had difficulty getting to voting sites. In California in the late 60's early 70's we organized carpools to help get people to the polls. I'm aware of the no water or other refreshments laws, but are they really enforceable? How many activists are the local police willing to arrest to prevent charitable donations of water. I would hope they also provide waste receptacles for empty bottles. Also a really good lawyer could prove certain restraints (like the physical address) apply only to specific groups of people.
Biden needs to oust DeJoy from the USPS and install someone committed to making vote-by-mail reliable, and making USPS truck fleets eco-friendly
I'm not familiar with all the efforts to suppress the Native American vote, but I doubt working with USPS, while DeJoy is still there, will be productive.
https://www.narf.org/biden-report-native-voters/
If President Biden could oust DeJoy he would. The USPS was first formed in the 1770's as a Department of the Government with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General. It continued as a Department of the Executive branch for 200 years. Then in 1970 Nixon, in a typical Republican temper tantrum over a postal strike in New York, privatized it. The USPS today is a quasi-Governmental agency. The Federal Government can recommend appointees to the Board of Directors. They (the Board) decide who is the Postmaster General. As usual the Republicans payed more scrutiny to these details than the Democrats (Same as with the appointment of Federal Judges nationwide) The only way to get rid of DeJoy - who is the slime at the bottom of the barrel, just like trump - is to convince the Board of Directors to get rid of him. On a related matter, President Obama appointed 334 Federal level Judges, of these he withdrew 7 and 215 were never voted on, thanks Mitch. Trump got 470 approved including the 3 to the Supreme Court, thanks Mitch. We Democrats have to pay more attention
Biden appointed 5 of the 11 USPS Board members. A 6th, appointed by Trump, is listed on wiki as a Democrat recommended by Schumer.
Too bad we can't get a large group of people to tar and feather folks like DeJoy who want to block the mail in votes.
Biden can't fire DeJoy. The board of governors at the USPS are the only ones that have that power and we have the people in place that can do that now. The question is, why aren't they doing what's right and firing this unfit capitalist pig immediately?
Mitch ; All the things they are doing are barriers to the vote and should be called out as such. The A.C.L.U. The league of Women Voters and NAA.C.P. Could file action to uphold Amendment XIV Section 2 also. Maybe a class action suit by the voters of this country could be mounted too!
Yep.
Fay Reid ; Thank you for this!
Dale, Because I value your perspective and commitment, I write simply to ensure you get your facts right.
To start, H.R.1, drafted back in 2019 and passed in the House in early 2021, is the For the People Act. Because no one expected this extraordinarily progressive legislation to advance in the Senate, a group of Senators that included Joe Manchin drafted an edited down version of For the People and named it the Freedom to Vote Act. Though not nearly as progressive, this legislation did ensure 1) that all eligible voters easily would be able to register and stay registered and 2) that eligible votes would be cast, counted correctly, and certified without interference and without their being diluted through partisan gerrymandering.
You might recall a second piece of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, also was introduced and passed in the House in 2021. As with the Freedom to Vote Act, it, too, had remained stalled in the Senate. It’s important you note, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act, whose provisions would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations, that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive and therefore could not overturn state laws that already had passed. I mention this because the Senate, at some point, could try to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act as a stand-alone bill.
Setting aside the foregoing, fast-forward to January, 2022 when Democratic Senate leadership tried to pass a combined bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Though Manchin and Sinema supported the bill, they, in turn, voted with the 50 Republican Senators, who opposed a modest filibuster rule change that eventually would have allowed for an up or down majority vote.
As a final point, please note that State Legislatures in 49 states have introduced some 400 or so voter suppression/nullification provisions. To date, some 29, give or take, have become law.
Thank you for your information. One question: How did the combined bill not pass, since Manchin/Sinema supported it?
Carol, In short, this past January, Schumer was able to work through the House and nail down a procedural maneuver that precluded a Republican filibuster on the motion to proceed, thus allowing Schumer to bring the newly combined Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to the floor for debate and a vote. When the vote (50-50) failed, as expected, to meet the 60-vote threshold, Schumer called for a second vote for filibuster reform. Dems settled upon a modest change in the rules that would have allowed each side 100 speaking hours before getting to an up or down majority vote. Still, Manchin and Sinema voted with the 50 Republican Senators to oppose this rule change.
As an aside, many of us formally expressed our deep disappointment that Biden did not call out Manchin’s and Sinema’s mere support for voter protection safeguards as hollow and performative, absent their resolve to do their part to figure out how the filibuster could be modified to pass the combined voter protection bill under regular order, even if it meant taking a long time to get an up or down majority vote.
Either my computer or Substack is being persnickety and won't let me "Like" your comments here, so thanks for the clear explanations.
Another option is to click on the 3 dots to the right of the word "collapse" -that's the edit option and try again. If that fails, go to the top of the page, look to the left of the search bar-there's an incomplete circle w/an arrow @ the end-that's the refresh option. Click on that and you may be able to do the "Heart"
I’ve sometimes had that problem, but if I keep hearting additional comments, they may all suddenly come on.
Thanks. That one worked anyway. 😋
Thank you for explaining this!
My pleasure, Carol. Frankly, from the outset, I have viewed exchanges with one another as opportunities to work more effectively to bring about the kinds of change we’re all seeking.
Good idea. I think you’re right.
I couldn't "heart" Barbara Jo.
I would add "This law is not subject to further judicial review."
Right. Don’t beg. DEMAND.
Ok
LUCKILY: _rumplicans still only number around 30% and falling of people living in America. EVEN IF they are able to steal the midterms, we Americans only have to wait out until 2024 when Herr F_hrer will no longer be among the living and the party will collapse in on itself. (I find that name fitting, as _rump "cleansed" America of OVER A MILLION OF HIS OWN SUPPORTERS during the pandemic.)
Daniel-there's a new idea floating in reactionary circles that has decided that the states can change voting options called the Individual States Legislature theory that would prevent the state judiciaries from ruling on election cases, leaving the state legislatures being the only ones who decide who counts the votes. That will come before SCOTUS in the next session-the case is Moore v. Harper and a few of the SCOTUS majority have expressed interest in it . Essentially it would allow the states to do what #45, Eastman, and Jeff Clark wanted to do-election subversion. For background, please read: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-moore-v-harper-supreme-court-case-voting-rights-2022-7
Don't count on luck. Republicans are working HARD to steal the election mechanisms nationwide. It won't matter if TFG is alive or not -- in fact, if he's not, it could be worse because he'll be enshrined as a hero.
What do you mean by saying Trump has only 2 years to live?
Right.
See comments by Barbara Jo Kreeger below.
IMHO her version is feasible. I would add "This law is not subject to further judicial review."
I nominate Robert Reich for President! [1]He has Bernie Sanders' progressive ideas and policies, but [2] unlike Bernie, is not grumpy and scolding and humorless,[3] He is very friendly, easy to like, easy to trust, and knows how to talk to White "blue-collar" voters. [4] He has much more knowledge and understanding of government and politics than almost all politicians. [5] He speaks the truth to power.
Bernie isn't grumpy, he's righteously pissed off, as should more politicians and Americans be.
I agree. I was describing the impression he makes for many. In any case, Bernie would not make a good president. But I'd like him in the Cabinet, or as a leader in t he Senate.
"Bernie would not make a good president." Why not?
I think he'd be stronger on domestic issues than international ones, but he's smart enough to choose good advisors and non-egotistical enough to listen to them.
Yes, but I don’t think dear Bernie is grumpy; he has the right to scold. What else are he, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and others supposed to do?
I like Bernie! I was simply describing how he comes across to many people.
Well, maybe he really comes across to other people as well as he comes across to you. If he annoys people, they’re the ones who deserve it.
Yup!
Robert may be a little tired after all the years of public service he has put in, but he has two sons, are either of them imbued with your fire, Dr. Reich?
Bernie Sanders is "grumpy and scolding and humorless?" Other than that, it seems to me that points [1] to [5] are his exact portrait.
Yes, pretty much the same!
🤣🤣🤣
Fuck, it's this dipshit again.
I agree! Tired of the inaction of dems. Seem like the majority have no guts! Democrats seem to have no passion! Defeating themselves.
Your comments are bullshit. The Democrats do NOt have a majority. Think-the Senate is in theory 50:50. Actually it’s 48 Democrats and 50 Republicans and 2 Senators- West Virginia snd Arizona - whose votes are up for grabs. ONLY if they vote Democratic will VP Kamala Harris’ vote be required or relevant. Do you see that happening any time soon??? Prof. Reich is wrong when he says Democrats are in control. The numbers say “yes” - but the actual votes or lack thereof say -no- AND Mitch McConnell knows this just as much as Senator Schumer and Prof. Reich know it. McConnell and Joe Manchin control the Senate. A sad truth so quit blaming President Biden and Democrats generally . Biden has been dealt an impossible task. Just VOTE to help him or his final two years of this term will be a nightmare just like that President Obama was dealt by McConnell who swore nothing Obama proposed would ever happen while he controlled the Senate.
I don't like t admit it but my heart fell when results were in and I saw we gave Democrats a nominal 50/50 tie in the Senate with VP Kamala Harris as a possible tiebreaker. Turns out though that Manchin and Sinema are DINOs, Democrats in name only. Worst of all possible outcomes: Democrats don't actually have a majority and can't get anything done, but the public thinks Democrats do have a majority and are grossly incompetent. Better for Democrats to have lost decisively, Biden would be better off now.
Bob Palmer - I agree with you. Democrats have no chance, whatsoever, of passing legislation right now.
However, I also agree with Reich. Democrats can and should get all house and senate members, both Republican and Democrats on record voting for - or against - abortion, gun, environmental protection and voting rights.
That said, I agree with myself. Independence and self-reliance appeals to Manchin's voters and he plays them like a fiddle. As long as Manchin remains a Democrat, every vote he makes against Democrat's legislation makes him look even more independent minded, and self-sufficient. If Manchin switched parties, he'd look like a sheep to his voters and they would kick him out of office in a heartbeat.
Democrats are like a herd of cats and take way too much personal pride in marching to the beat of their own personal drummers, thinking and acting independently etc. and so on, ad nauseam. In this regard, Manchin is a Democrat to the bone. As the biggest contrarian in the party, he will stay in office. Sinema is following Manchin's lead and it seems to be working just as well for her.
Good insight! Keep agreein' with yourself.
LOL... I don't always agree with myself, but in this cause, I will take your advice.
Thanks for the giggles.
What I've been sayin' using different words. Agreed!
Sinema selling out to lobbyists provides cover for Manchin to do McConnell's bidding. In DC, Biden & the Dems are scared of upsetting Manchin & Sinema.
CA's Newsom is onto something important by running attacks ads against FL's DeSantis. Newsom has much more freedom to attack. He needs to start running ads in AZ supporting "real freedom lovers" like Mark Kelly, and implicitly attack Sinema selling out. Let Newsom run ads in AK demanding to know which Senate candidates would have opposed the raped 10-year old Ohio girl from getting an abortion, and what they will do about future cases.
>That's< what I'm talkin' 'bout!
And, Newsom should run ads supporting Liz Cheney's re-election efforts, to show (AZ & other states) he's not a one-sided CA liberal
You're talkin' to a guy contending with Jim Jordan. I also suggest in an earlier discussion that NV Dems should register Republican and vote for her in whatever the hold as a primary election. (Better the devil you know when your only rational alternative is another devil.) Indeed, I just heard that IL Democrats are resorting to that strategy to see to it that a real "Tweety-wanker" gets elected in the primary, that they think they can trounce when they go back to votin' Democrat in the general election. In my original statement about supporting Cheney, I said such a strategy was risky, and the IL Democrats seem to have adopted it in the riskiest way possible.
2 turncoats!
How dare you call me a turncoat!
Surely he meant WV/AZ senators (all friends here)...
Call you a turncoat? How is that possible, since I don't know you from Adam, except at this juncture, you seem to have a high regard for yourself with a >total< stranger.
(Proud Democrats, all...!)
Thanks for your effort RC. People seem to be getting snippy in this discussion. DW asks elsewhere in this discussion if there's a full moon out today. DW must've noticed it, too.
I don’t know which Adam you are referring to Adam Clayton Powell? By the way! I was referring to the majority of Democrats not the literal majority. Neither here nor there.
It's an old-time expression that's clearly not part of your cultural heritage. I'm talking about the biblical Adam. I still don't know you from Adam, but you're still clearly taking intentional umbrage to something I said having nothing to do with you, and for which I'll not apologize in this or any other lifetime.
There is nothing wrong in having high regard for oneself. It’s not a crime.
Clearly, ol' Tweety would agree.
Oh my reactionary friend I am a lifelong democrat. Biden is doing a heck of a good job. We have a technical majority but it does no good to quibble about that. It’s a sad side note. So vitriolic for a Democrat. What I said is that the dems lack passion and guts. Like Liz Cheney has in spades.
AOC lacks guts..come on, man - reallyAND Nancy Pelosi - she’s a woman with real fight left in her. It’s Chuck Schumer and the Senate but others have already pointed out what little Schumer can do with 2 rogue Democrats vs McConnell’s unrelenting tight control over his Republicans. Mitt Romney of Utah might free himself from that control but it would be political suicide for him to do that remembering that Mike Lee is Utah’s senior Senator, Utah is ultra and I mean ULTRA conservative and Lee is a devotee of Donald Trump. Further, Liz Cheney, whom I personally admire, has nothing to lose and everything to gain in this ‘power play’. Maybe every Democrat in Wyoming (there must be one or two in a population of about 700,000) will be enough but not if nasty Kevin McCarthy from my home state (sadly) has his way. But more to your point, just exactly what is it you expect Democrats to do given the very weak spot they’re in? What????
As Bob pointed out there is still a lot Dems can do. Read his comments. There is always a way to do more. Just ask the Ukrainians.
I would also be very interested in hearing why you aren't addressing the student loan crisis. It seems like a no-brainer for Biden to cancel student loan debt for folks who have held this for 20+ years and to reform it for younger folks. A bill was recently introduced in the Senate to refinance all student loan debt at zero percent interest. This is great for the young ones (including my daughters who both are paying off debt for master's degrees in social work and physicians assistant), but not so helpful for their parents who have accumulated obscene amounts of debt because of the daily interest accruing on student loans. We have a spousal consolidation loan from the late 1990s that has quadrupled from $50k to almost $200k in spite of regular payments. Our meager retirement will be plagued by student loan debt that we can't possibly repay during the rest of our lifetimes. Please comment on this and the possible benefit canceling this debt will have for the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.
The lack of free public education in the United States is deplorable. A lot of this is thanks to ALEC that wrote legislation for States making higher education unaffordable to any but the wealthy and then topped it off, by deregulating the loan industry to allow predatory lending for student loans.
...and Republicans have been pushing the idea of diverting public education K-12 funds to private/religious schools and home schoolers. They've done it here in NH under the umbrella of School Vouchers and do little if any monitoring of how the money is spent and don't require actual certified teachers One of the ideas is a for-profit group called Prenda-the people they use are called "guides" and aren't required to have any training in how to teach. After the Republican legislature did this, it then further cut public ed funds even more. The original budget was $130K-it's already 5000% over budget in less than a year. When the voucher bill couldn't be passed due to a LOT of public input against it, the legislature hid it in the state budget and the Republican governor gladly signed it. The underlying problem is that a lot of the public ed funds come from property taxes and disproportionately hurts poor towns. The NH Supreme Court said it was unfair but the NH legislature won't change the laws for public ed funds-this has been going on for TWENTY YEARS.
How horrible for you. I suppose they've already gerrymandered and election lawed themselves into permanent position. And now, of course, you can't even rely on the courts to protect you
.
And please restore our pensions.
For the same reason those same tax dollars are supposed to give pothole free paved roads, sewage, and all other services, THE COMMON GOOD. All children deserve as much education as their intellect, desires, aptitudes, and needs allow them. Trades people (electricians, repair service, carpenters, etc) are deserving of the same respect as any other profession. The 19th century concept that only the children of the wealthy are deserving of higher education, wasted the brilliant minds of children from less moneyed classes. Intelligence, like physical beauty is not inherited like wealth is. Nor is the ability to invent great things or create great art. Look at the wastrels in the royal families, the useless celebrities of inherited wealth in our Country. Would you deny an Einstein, a Mozart, a Ben Franklin an education just because their parents lack sufficient funds to send them off to college? Speaking personally. I grew up in Canada, and was a citizen there from 1933 to 1958. In high school we had to purchase our own school text books, paper, pencils, etc. Even this was difficult when my parents combined monthly income was $250 per month and there were three children. I dropped out of high school after the 11th grade (there were 13 grades at the time) I went to work for $17/week. There was no chance of a college education, tuition alone was $800/semester. So you can imagine my gratitude to the State of California when I went to Community College for the cost of text books and $20/ year for student Union dues. The State College from which I graduated with a BA double major in Biology/Chemistry and a MA in Physiology, charged $85 semester tuition, $20 for parking and of course text books. The Federal and State governments at that time (1964 through 1977) saw education as an investment in future taxes, which they certainly got from me. Meanwhile, as California Governor Ronald Reagan once infamously said 'taxes should hurt' at the same time, the wealthy Ronald Reagan was paying $0.00 in State and Federal taxes. Student loans are an abomination, and a result of greed, They should be abolished, period, I don't care how much privately owned institutions of higher education charge, publicly funded schools from preschool through graduate school should be free for all who desire it and qualify. No person who graduates from college should be unable to buy a house, EVER, an affordable vehicle, EVER, or have to live paycheck to paycheck, EVER, so those at the top of the food chain (the Elon Musk's, Koch Bros, etc can buy an extra mansion, an extra yacht or just stuff their fortune in off shore accounts.
You captured it to a "Tee. Much better to invest in our youth than squander it on unnecessary wars.
I don't necessarily support tax-payer payback of student loans, but your response moves me to reply. Unfortunately, in our country, work compensation doesn't match job value to our nation and the public good. Teaching, for example, doesn't pay enough to repay today's tuition and loan interest charges, but the success of a country depends heavily on educated citizens. There's a reason why Trump claims to love the poorly educated. Education teaches the critical thinking skills that are important, for example, for recognizing corrupt, self-serving political candidates and their misleading statements. That fact, alone, makes teaching critical to democracy. There are reasons also why the arts are important to the success of a nation, yet many careers in the arts that require advanced degrees tend to be low-paid. Just as taxpayers must contribute to the country's infrastructure, it wouldn't be totally wrong to require them to support educating people who do socially valuable yet low-paid work. However, those valuable workers wouldn't require so much financial support if it weren't for price-gouging by for-profit and poorly run schools, predatory lenders, and other aspects of a badly organized system for advanced education. Part of the public is responsible for that broken system -- specifically, those who vote for politicians who put corporate greed and dysfunctional education policies ahead of our nation's success. Despite that, however, those price-gouging and/or broken schools and lenders are even more directly responsible and, therefore, I think, should be the first ones charged for fixing the problem. If government also has benefitted by predatory lending or other harmful practices, then it bears some responsibility. Responsibility belongs to whomever has created a system where education costs more than a resulting career can reasonably support, because the scope of education should not depend on capitalism -- on supply-and-demand wages -- but on what is truly good for a successful nation. The marketplace is not a good indicator of that value. A highly paid sports star, for example, is not worth many times more to our nation's good than a teacher is. If cost of education mirrored marketplace value, we might have no problem -- if it weren't for price-gouging in the "education industry." But education is not priced by career value, and price gouging does exist, so there are problems. Imo, they should be solved by entities who have unjustly reaped the most profit from the situation and by voters not electing politicians who support greedy and otherwise dysfunctional education systems. I also think that "liberals" are not the worst enemy in the matter. They might present potential hazards, but their opposition will cost us all a lot more.
Imo you pegged it with "education industry." Education shouldn't be viewed as an industry.
I like your statement. I taught school in California for 18 years. During that time I was paid relatively well for the economy. You are correct about teacher pay today, it is much worse in today's dollars. Also in some States, especially in the deep south it was substandard even when I taught. Student loans are a different matter. They are and have been since the 90's out of control as has the price of going to public colleges. Dr Reich explained this because of a switch in thinking about the value of higher education. But worse than that, the higher cost occured at the same time as the lowering of middle class income, rising of great wealth for fewer people, increase in tax rates for middle income and great reduction in taxes for extremely wealthy
You presume that the choice to attend college does not involve hard work and sacrifice. For people like me, who were not born with a silver spoon, getting a college education meant many years of living in poverty while working more than full time AND attending college full time. I then continued to work hard throughout my career and lived frugally, paying off my student loans - which thankfully were at low interest rates, unlike today. You appear to be clueless that a large number of college students today are so financially strapped that they are homeless, and living in their cars. Stop lecturing others about sacrifice, because you don’t know squat, and stop making excuses for the apparently dreary lifelong consequences of your own youthful lifestyle choices.
Are you talking about tax dollars going into student loan packages or the coll. grad not repaying the loan?
Robert, I agree fully with what you wrote. We do not need the self-fulfilling prophesies of stating we’ll lose when the other party supports the deadly seditionist attackers. If they sound worried about that, just move aside & we’ll put in progressives. The hearings are powerful. Rely on it, reference it!
I’m constantly adding the name republican to reasons for slaughters, climate damage etc.
The Dems in power must give their base (us) fist pounding fights and wins NOW!
And the hearing with Cassidy Hutchinson should have been on in Prime Time! WTF?
I know you’re extremely busy Robert, but could we send you to the oval office to direct Biden and staff?
There was a mass murder in a suburb in IL today! Republican-blood-on-their-hands traitors did not help ban these murder weapons. Start repeating this ad nauseam everyone!
I applaud the idea of Robert advising the Biden Administration, he could even do it remotely.
I've been thinking the same thing, SeekingReason! The Oval Office could definitely use a shot in the arm (or another part of its collective anatomy).
Right. Without the rough language, but otherwise, right.
Wish I knew what to tell Susan Collins re what will happen to her silly old ass if she doesn't vote to carve out on filibuster.
Someone pointed out that Democrats form "circular firing squads", and I think that's true. Democrats are always at each others' throats over who is too progressive, or not progressive enough. One thing the Republicans have been really good at is putting aside differences and massing together in solid blocks. Democrats NEED to do that, and Democrats NEED to promote people who are actually "electable". That said, the basic issue of the economy is key, and, as my spouse says, "getting what they can"...and that means learning how to compromise with each other and then in Congress.
Right you are, Robert! Now will you please stop saying you and I and other 70+ people are on “our last legs”? Hello? What did you just DO?
"America is in Denial," said Mitt Romney. I would add that Democrats in Washington are in denial that Republicans have a plan to end democracy. Otherwise, they would mobilize against it in any way they can while they have the power to do so.
https://www.fieldteam6.org/
Absolutely. They are at the top of my list of activist organizations.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-fires-broadside-against-the-constitution/ar-AAZbPI2?infiniteIframe=1
Dr Reich, I completely agree with your impatience. Be advised, though. Even if the Democrats can manage forcing through Abortion Rights and other key legislation, that leaves unaddressed the associated civil rights SCOTUS just did the fandango on, and they've just begun "a'whistlin Dixie" - the tune to which they dance. Besides, it'll be the same SCOTUS that will turn around and strike down any Democratic legislation that attempts to extend Federal authority, citing that it violates states' rights under the 10th Amendment, while completely >ignoring< the Supremacy Clause in the body of the document - just as they did in 1850. The 10th Amendment is the bugger-all that the Union Republicans should have fixed between 1860 - '64, that the Confederacy planted the flag of their cause on, and continues to do so to this very day. I'm afraid ol' Tweety's lap-dog voters have no idea what they've brought onto themselves and their children for at least a generation - not to mention everyone else! Although I respect if not totally agree with everything you say, I think this time the stage was set back at the end of Obama's administration. Anything else in this political environment is bound to be "a day late & $1 short." Even if all Republicans were to be voted out of office in '22 & '24, their shadow will >still< loom large over this nation long after they're gone and forgotten.
1. Expand SCOTUS.
2. Craft cases that are aimed at specific points.
3. Elect people who will codify good and override bad SCOTUS decisions.
The FF's meant the Legislative Branch to be primus inter pares, but Reps and Sens alike are too busy staying in power to care about their responsibilities.
Yeah! That'll happen! I like your proposed remedy, but you'll please excuse me if I don't hold my breath. Besides, what d'ya think'd happen if the Democrats didn't hold on to their seats, huh? It looks like they're all "white knuckles" on their seats as it stands - and that's not even discussing the Democrats facing the uphill battle over unseating an ensconced wank-publican opponent. Sometimes the representatives we >need< in place >must< do what it takes, and criticizing what they must do to stay there or gain a seat in the discussion comes from a rather naïve, over-simplified, and inappropriately moralistic understanding of the political reality we face. How does the old saying go, about walking a mile in the other's shoes?
If Dems who aren't doing squat don't hold on to their seats, so bloody WHAT?! Are you saying we'll be WORSE off? We should vote for gutless non-entities to keep the seats warm?
That's the problem. They want to hold on to their seats. They would like it if Republicans would play nice and let them do what they want, but I don't see many who are willing to take risks or make hard choices.
Imo most of your comment is just a variation of why the end justifies the means -- and "the end" is "I want to stay here. Not I "must" stay here. You either have principles or you don't. If you don't, the slippery slope is easier to navigate. For awhile.
I don't care whether you hold your breath or not. If you like my proposed remedy, why are you sneering at it? Seems contradictory to me.
So what are you proposing as an alternative? I only hear castigation, but no remedy. Besides, there are only 2 self-proclaimed Democrats that really fit your description, and they're both well-known turncoats that even ol' Chins McConnell recognizes as wank-publicans so clearly that he's already invited them to a seat on his side of the aisle. Like the lady says above. In the Senate, there are 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 turncoats, and those 48 Democrats are going to have a devil of a time keeping those seats Democratic, and a nearly impossible task of gaining 2 to 4 seats to counter the turncoats. As to your question, if you interpret expressing skepticism as equivalent to sneering, then there's not much left to say - but >that< perception is yours and yours alone.
I couldn't "heart" Jan and DZK.
Add "This law is not subject to further judicial review."
And I couldn't "heart" you back. I doubt any law would pass with that clause because legitimate legal issues might come up, but you're on the right track with the need to safeguard (some) laws imo.
There is an important phrase in Amendment 10 that is being ignored "OR TO THE PEOPLE." Plainly spoken, the powers granted to the States were not meant to be exclusive, the Citizens have an absolute voice - they just need to use it.
True enough. When you or I become SCOTUS justices, we'll read it that way. I'd probably pay more attention to The Supremacy Clause, though. Now, about "the people." Who d'ya think is making law in the states that recognizes the people being referred to in that passage, huh? Who d'ya think is in place to decide the constitutionality of election laws, huh? The same kind of justices who, under Scalea ruled that it's not unconstitutional to execute an innocent man, as long as he has "due process." And who d'ya think ultimately defines due process, huh? Why they're the same ones who ruled that corporations are a person and money is free speech - only they've now taken over the court overwhelmingly! Just sayin'.
Just as I finished this comment, I got email spamming me on obtaining "Concealed Weapons Certification" online. THOSE are the justices I'm talkin' 'bout that made it all possible!
And I >know< knives are deadly weapons, too. If guns were strictly regulated, a murderous nut job could just perch himself atop a building and create mayhem with his knife - or even a bow with a quiver of arrows could do a bit of damage!
To say nothing of weapons ban!
Thank you for excellent paths forward, and your powerful voice.
A journalist for Le Monde, a French news source, said in The Week: "The extremist Catholic majority on the court is the product of 'the tyranny of a minority permitted by an electoral system outrageously favorable to the most conservative states.' Donald Trump was defeated in the popular vote, yet became president anyway. He then nominated three ultraconservative justices who were confirmed by a Senate whose makeup is permanently skewed to favor rural voters at the expense of the Democratic majority." This is how Europe sees us. Weak. Because the country is weak. We need a strong Democratic party and strong president to take charge and serve the will of the majority while it can. As you said, Dr. Reich, "Democrats still have the power to effectively overrule the Supreme Court on reproductive rights and the environment. They must now pass a national abortion rights act which will preempt state laws banning abortions, and a Clean Power Plan that will eliminate the Supreme Court’s argument that Congress never authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to do this." In addition, Democrats need to set term limits on the Supreme Court, expand the court, revise the outdated electoral college, and protect the right to vote, while we the people work to vote the spineless Republican lackeys in Washington out of office. The ultraconservative members of the Supreme Court think they can force the country to accept their notions that women have no right to make choices for themselves and that pollution that has been building over the past 150 years isn't anything to worry about. And they're not finished. Ultimately, their goal is to create a white fundamentalist christian nation intolerant of anyone that doesn't fit their mold. Citizens who care need to rise up and say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Chuck Schumer thinks that his job as Senate Majority Leader only involves standing at a podium, reading in a monotone drone, over the top of his glasses, from a pile of papers, to a room full of empty chairs, while wringing his hands to show his angst. He hasn't got the backbone of a Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Katie Porter in the House.
Time for Chuck to pass the torch. Hand off to Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
I agree, I am angery that so many will state that the Democrats are loosing the the midterm. It is self fulling proficiency, we can win if we just get out & work to get people to vote Blue. If they understood that if the Republicans win the Majotity we loose Democercy & law freedoms. I live on Social Security & the Republicans want to take that & Medicare from us. I’d be in the streets if that happened.
https://www.fieldteam6.org/
Is it a full moon?
But is it a Moon River? https://genius.com/Audrey-hepburn-moon-river-lyrics
Not for long if the Republicans get either Chamber in November.
On >some< planet it is! LOL!
Right you are. Considering the date a better metaphor would have been a reference to fireworks.
Had to look it up, it is not.