Even now, Puerto Rico is not a state

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

1 April 2015


As I've mentioned before on this blog, Puerto Rico, the island and US territory, voted in 2012 to become the 51st state of the union. This would resolve the current difficult situation Puerto Ricans find themselves in: they are considered citizens of the United States, but do not receive the full protection of the constitution unless they move to the mainland.

Julio Ricardo Varela comments on the above recent John Oliver segment, which explicates exactly how absurd the islands continued colonial status is:

For years, Puerto Ricans such as myself have been writing and speaking about the island’s perpetual limbo relationship with the United States; a relationship—formed in 1898 when the US invaded and annexed Puerto Rico at the tail end of the Spanish-American War—that was glaringly lopsided from the start. As US citizens, Puerto Ricans can fight on behalf of America in foreign wars, but they can’t vote for the president who sends them there. They pay taxes, but don’t have a representative in Congress who can vote on how to spend them. It’s definitively anti-American: modern-day taxation without representation.

All these years, we Puerto Ricans both on the island and the mainland (about eight million of us) have tried to convince our fellow Americans to pay attention to the injustices playing out in their own back yard. We are mired in obvious inequities, but are distracted by political status options (statehood, commonwealth, independence) with non-binding status plebiscites leading nowhere (in 2012, Puerto Ricans rejected the status quo and favored statehood). And if that weren’t enough, the island’s neo-colonial economy is about to go bankrupt, too.

James Surowiecki expands on the island's economic troubles:

[Puerto Rico] had been one of the great postwar economic-development success stories, turning itself from a poor, largely rural society into a manufacturing powerhouse with a thriving middle class. But by the nineteen-nineties the economy had slowed, and then it went off the rails. Puerto Rico has been in and out of recession since 2006. Its unemployment rate is around fourteen per cent; forty-five per cent of the population lives below the federal poverty line; and there’s a fiscal crisis—a scramble to restructure debts of seventy-three billion dollars. Last year, the new governor, Alejandro Padilla, said, “We’ve proved that Puerto Rico is not Detroit and not Greece.” As boasts go, that’s hardly encouraging.

Puerto Rico’s difficulties are rooted, in part, in its earlier success. Its path to industrialization was paved with corporate tax breaks. The most important one was Section 936 of the U.S. tax code. (Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory.) This went into effect in 1976, and exempted the profits earned by American companies from federal taxes ... The problem was that the growth depended on that crucial tax break, and in 1996 Congress began phasing it out. It expired completely a decade later, and, as the subsidies disappeared, so did many factories, relocating to places where labor was cheaper and regulation lighter. Between 1996 and 2014, the number of manufacturing jobs on the island fell by almost half. Last year, the island’s Secretary of Economic Development, Alberto Bacó Bagué, said that, once the island’s tax exemption expired, “we kind of disappeared from the map.”

Perhaps resolving the island's status and giving its people full representation in Congress, as they have requested, might help draw some attention to these problems. And there is some sign things are moving forward, as wa recently reported by the Latin American Herald Tribune:

The Puerto Rican representative in Washington and leader of the island’s opposition party, Pedro Pierluisi, proposed on Wednesday the law of the admission process of Puerto Rico as state.

In 2014, the U.S. Congress approved a $2.5 million endowment to finance the holding of the first consultation on the issue in the history of Puerto Rico sponsored by the federal government, provided certain conditions were met.

Pierluisi has proposed a new law that would those funds to once again put the statehood question to a Puerto Rican vote, which, if successful, see the island admitted to the Union on January 1, 2021. The bill has been referred to committee, and Govtrack.us gives a not-encouraging 10 per cent chance of being enacted. Also, there's this:

The party in favor of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st U.S. state is the opposition New Progressive Party, while the ruling Popular Democratic Party wants to maintain the current political status.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: April 1, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

1 April 2015


At stake are losses for manufacturing ($95.4 billion in annual state output), finance ($44 billion) and tourism ($10.3 billion) -- not to mention reputational harm. Arizona adopted a similar religious-freedom bill last year, but “opposition from the state’s business interests led Republican Governor Jan Brewer to veto it.”

Patel was arrested in July 2013 after she went to the emergency room, bleeding heavily, at St. Joseph Hospital in Mishawaka, Indiana. Despite initially denying the pregnancy, Patel eventually admitted to medical authorities that she had a miscarriage and threw the stillborn fetus in a dumpster.

According to Sue Ellen Braunlin, doctor and co-president of the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice, Purvi was most likely 23-24 weeks pregnant, although prosecutors argued Patel was 25 weeks along in the state's opening argument. The prosecution confirmed on Monday that the baby died within seconds of being born.

For one, movements toward racial justice have always attracted a sliver of the young white population with a disposition geared toward radical politics. They are not necessarily representative of their entire generation. Furthermore, with respect to this particular generation, the Millennials, the education these young white people have received have left them ill-equipped to understand the nature of racism and subsequently supplied them analysis that won’t address the problem. As children of the multi-cultural 1980s and 90s, Millennials are fluent in colorblindness and diversity, while remaining illiterate in the language of anti-racism. This may not be the end of the world, if weren’t for the fact that Millennials don’t know the difference between the two.
  • How The Birth of a Nation split liberals over issues of race and free-speech.
In 1915 moral panic over the depiction of crime and vice in such movies as Traffic in Souls and The Inside of the White Slave Traffic was feeding conservative demands for constraints, with Congress already mulling a federal censorship board. The most successful legislation to that point, a 1912 bill to ban interstate sales of boxing films, had a blatantly racist motive: the desire to suppress footage of boxer Jack Johnson defeating “great white hope” James Jeffries. Free-speech advocates fought back against the rising tide. Vetoing an ordinance to introduce movie censors in New York City, Mayor William Jay Gaynor wrote, “Do they know what they are doing? Do they know anything of the history and literature of the subject? Do they know that the censorships of past ages did immeasurably more harm than good?”

It was the early 1970s, and my parents had each arrived in the United States with only a vague sense of what their respective futures held, beyond a few years of graduate studies. They certainly didn’t know they would be repeating these treks in the coming decades, subjecting weary passengers (namely, me) to their own long drives in search of Chinese food. I often daydream about this period of their lives and imagine them grappling with some sense of terminal dislocation, starving for familiar aromas, and regretting the warnings of their fellow new Americans that these were the last good Chinese spots for the next hundred or so miles. They would eventually meet and marry in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois (where they acquired a taste for pizza), and then live for a spell in Texas (where they were told that the local steak house wasn’t for “their kind”), before settling in suburban California. Maybe this was what it meant to live in America. You could move around. You were afforded opportunities unavailable back home. You were free to go by “Eric” at work and name your children after US presidents. You could refashion yourself a churchgoer, a lover of rum-raisin ice cream, an aficionado of classical music or Bob Dylan, a fan of the Dallas Cowboys because everyone else in the neighborhood seemed to be one. But for all the opportunities, those first days in America had prepared them for one reality: sometimes you had to drive great distances in order to eat well.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: March 31, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

31 March 2015


Indy Star front page

It hadn’t been easy for Jones to transition back to a life of freedom. He managed to stick it out, he said, because he was determined not to return to the place where he spent the final eight years of his last sentence: the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo., known more colloquially as the ADX. The ADX is the highest-security prison in the country. It was designed to be escape-proof, the Alcatraz of the Rockies, a place to incarcerate the worst, most unredeemable class of criminal — “a very small subset of the inmate population who show,” in the words of Norman Carlson, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, “absolutely no concern for human life.” Ted Kaczynski and the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph call the ADX home. The 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui is held there, too, along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef; the Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols; the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; and the former Bonanno crime-family boss Vincent Basciano. Michael Swango, a serial-killing doctor who may have poisoned 60 of his patients, is serving three consecutive life sentences; Larry Hoover, the Gangster Disciples kingpin made famous by rappers like Rick Ross, is serving six; the traitorous F.B.I. agent Robert Hanssen, a Soviet spy, 15.

By the turn of the century, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court, a comprehensive system of racial, political and economic inequality, summarized in the phrase Jim Crow, had come into being across the South. At the same time, the supposed horrors of Reconstruction were invoked as far away as South Africa and Australia to demonstrate the necessity of excluding nonwhite peoples from political rights. This is why W.E.B. Du Bois, in his great 1935 work “Black Reconstruction in America,” saw the end of Reconstruction as a tragedy for democracy, not just in the United States but around the globe.
  • The sexism you can't quite prove.
But there is one very clear lesson we should draw from the murk of her case. Pao did not sue just because she felt that Kleiner Perkins fostered a sexist corporate culture. She sued because she felt that the culture prevented her from ascending in the firm, costing her work opportunities and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

@jhinderaker is John Hinderaker, one of the proprietors of the conservative blog PowerLine, and he's peddling a theory that the injuries Reid suffered while exercising in January weren't an accident at all. To Hinderaker the official story is just a cover-up for an incident that involves Mafia violence — likely the fallout of what Hinderaker alleges to be long-running corruption on the part of the Nevada senator and Democratic Senate leader.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: March 27, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

27 March 2015


  • Republicans are for the most part united behind a flat tax.

When Steve Forbes made a flat tax the centerpiece of his 1996 campaign for president, it was met with a certain degree of puzzlement. Here was a guy who inherited a huge fortune, talking about how the rich shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes. (In a weird coincidence, his plan would have saved him a couple of billion dollars in taxes over the course of his lifetime.) But before long, in Republican circles the flat tax became, if not quite dogma, then certainly the default option for candidates.

Bundlers who used to carry platinum status have been downgraded, forced to temporarily watch the money race from the sidelines. They’ve been eclipsed by the uber-wealthy, who can dash off a seven-figure check to a super PAC without blinking. Who needs a bundler when you have a billionaire?
Many fundraisers, once treated like royalty because of their extensive donor networks,are left pining for their lost prestige. Can they still have impact in a world where Jeb Bush asks big donors to please not give more than $1 million to his super PAC right now? Will they ever be in the inner circle again?
House Judiciary Committee press release

  • Mitt Romney talks to himself before going on Jimmy Fallon.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: March 25, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

25 March 2015


“I grew up listening to classic rock and I’ll tell you sort of an odd story,” Cruz explained to CBS This Morning on Tuesday morning (March 24). “My music taste changed on 9/11. And it’s a very strange… I actually find this very curious, but 9/11… I didn’t like how rock music responded, and country music collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me, and I have to say it, just as a gut level, I had an emotional reaction that says, ‘These are my people.’
  • Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan need to keep a better check on their web presence

But other potential GOP presidential nominees need to up their website game. Take Sen. Ted Cruz. Unfortunately for the Texas Republican, long before he ran for Senate in 2012, TedCruz.com had been nabbed by an Arizona attorney who shares his name. Based on a search of the Wayback Machine, an internet archive, the Arizona Cruz's website dates back to at least early 2008, when it was a normal, if slightly Geocities-tinged, business website. "Putting All Your Real Estate Needs In 'CRUZ CONTROL,'" the attorney's tagline said at the time. But sometime within the past year he ditched his law site to instead mock the would-be-president. On a simple black background, in large font, the website screamed: "COMING SOON, Presidential Candidate, I Luv CHRISTIE!!!!!" Attorney Cruz wouldn't say anything to Mother Jones over email except to acknowledge that he has owned the domain for several years. But he deleted the section about loving Christie shortly thereafter. Given the initial message, though, it seems unlikely that the Arizona attorney will be easily persuaded to relinquish control of the domain to the senator.

I discussed the Tax Foundation report with 10 public finance economists ranging across the ideological spectrum, all of whom said its estimates of the economic effects of tax cuts were too aggressive. “This would not pass muster as an undergraduate’s model at a top university,” said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University professor whom the Tax Foundation specifically encouraged me to call.
Here’s why there was a Confederate flag in each of those windows on the second floor in Davis Hall. The school, being as small as it was, had Greek organizations, but rather than having separate Greek housing, they had Greek floors in the dorms where all members lived. The floor with the Confederate flags in the windows was inhabited by the men of Kappa Alpha Order, known as the KAs. Every black person on campus (and those who were attuned to racial insensitivity) knew to stay away from the KAs. They were the good ol’ Southern boys, and the organization itself was founded on loaded terms like “chivalry,” “modern knighthood” (gee, why does that sound familiar?), and the “ideal Christian gentleman.” They list Confederate commander Robert E. Lee as their “spiritual founder,” which still doesn’t really make much sense to me, and though it wasn’t their official emblem, they were very, very fond of the Confederate flag. Those windows and the flags in them belonged to the KAs.

"Pimp My Ride" premiered on MTV in 2004 with a straightforward premise that was beautiful in its simplicity: Take a kid with a beat up car and have the rapper Xzibit orchestrate a massive and ridiculous upgrade. The theme song explained it all in just a few lines: "So you wanna be a player, but your wheels ain't fly / You gotta hit us up, to get a pimp't out ride."

But although the show operated within such a minimal framework, things were a bit more complicated behind the scenes. From cars that would break down in a matter of weeks to fat-shaming a contestant to one MTV employee apparently trying to convince another car owner to break up with his girlfriend, there was a lot more to the creation of this show than Xzibit simply saying, "Yo dawg."


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

The Homer Simpson rule and Donald Trump

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

23 March 2015


Donald Trump

Hello everyone. You might have seen news last week that TV personality and real-estate mogul Donald Trump has formed an exploratory committee to investigate a presidential run. This is further than he got in 2012, when he stoked a lot of speculation about a run, but did not undertake any of the necessary administrative steps to becoming a declared candidate. 

Now that Trump is more formally running in 2016, this is a good opportunity to remind you of the Homer Simpson rule of American politics:

There's an episode from season six of "The Simpsons" in which a young Homer sees Jack Kennedy on TV. Homer's mother suggests to her husband that their son might grow up to be President. Grampa, however, scoffs at the idea. "You, President?" he sneers. "This is the greatest country in the world. We've got a whole system set up to prevent people like you from becoming President."

I think Grampa Simpson had it right. As much as the American system is designed to give members of a party base the power to choose its nominees, there is so much vetting involved that if the party insiders in Fairfax genuinely don't want someone to be a nominee, they won't be.

In other news, the Houston Chronicle is reporting that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas will announce a bid today. Senator Cruz is in a different league to Trump, if only by dint of being an elected politician rather than a joke, but the Homer Simpson rule applies to him, too. There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who don't want Cruz to be their nominee, and that will make it very difficult for him to get the nod.

Finally, when Jeb Bush first announced his interest in running, I said I was skeptical of his chances. Three months later, and my prediction seems to still be up in the air. Bush hasn't crashed and burned, but he hasn't cleared the field either.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: March 19, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

19 March 2015


  • Anwen Crawford reviews Kendrick Lamar's new album, To Pimp a Butterfly.
“To Pimp a Butterfly” is a capacious record, and it will accommodate many interpretations, but it is, importantly, a record about patrimony, both personal and national. The album charts the cultural inheritance of one young American black man, but it also maps the debts still owed to black people in America. Right away, the album lines up its fathers, beginning, on the first track, “Wesley’s Theory,” with the crackle of a vinyl record: the Jamaican reggae musician Boris Gardiner, singing the title song to his soundtrack for the 1974 blaxploitation film “Every Nigga Is a Star.” Then someone yells “Hit me!,” as James Brown once did, and then George Clinton cuts in, amid whomping bass notes and a racket of synthesizers that squeak and shimmy just as they did on Parliament’s “Mothership Connection,” from 1975. Lamar was born in Compton, and he triangulates his West Coast hip-hop heritage with hard funk and jazz poetry. The musical universe of “To Pimp a Butterfly” is precise: the mid-seventies (almost every major sample on the record is taken from a track released in 1974 or 1975), when organized black militancy was in decline but the imaginative possibilities of black popular music were expanding—in Parliament’s case, all the way into outer space. The album is not as an exercise in period style so much as an excavation of a still latent future.
  • Starbucks' terrible idea to have its baristas talk about race with their customers.

The race and class dynamics that put a comfortable white person in the same room with person of color whose employment relies on serving that white person fancy beverages makes these conversations inherently exploitative. You can’t have an honest conversation about race when it’s a conversation imposed or strongly encouraged by a wealthy white man who happens to be your boss. You can’t have an honest conversation about race with people whom you also have to make happy in order to pay your rent. And if you are a barista of color, and you choose to opt out of these conversations, you still have to continue to work in a place in which your experiences as a person of color are being discussed and debated.

And then there’s the 72-year-old Biden, who is mostly left out of this conversation — not because he hasn’t repeatedly signaled an interest in running, but because the handicapping crowd has never taken him all that seriously as a foil to Hillary. Biden has a well-known tendency to get caught up in the moment and say things that are impolitic or even partly untrue, which in Washington tends to make you a figure of ridicule, though in most other places it’s known as having a pulse.
  • Why Obama should not explot a legal loophole if he loses in King v Burwell.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must “set aside” agency action that is “not in accordance with law.” The D.C. Circuit has construed that to mean that an unlawful rule is a legal nullity not just to the parties before the court, but to anyone and everyone in the country. The Supreme Court, however, has never endorsed that interpretation and it’s not obvious that it would.

USA on moon to scale

The USA overlaid on the Moon, to scale


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

You come at Abe Lincoln...

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

19 March 2015


From this Grantland feature, a whole suite of The Wire creator David Simon's shows that exist only in his imagination:

There was a partial adaptation of Taylor Branch’s massive civil-rights trilogy America in the King Years. A collaboration with George Pelecanos on Times Square in the ’70s and ’80s. A “very careful treatment” of the CIA from 1945 to 2001, written with his Wire buddy Ed Burns. And a telling of the Lincoln assassination with “crackling” scripts that “avoided the marble men of Lincoln and Booth who have been written to death” and functioned “as a sort of post-9/11 allegory.” He describes it as a “traumatizing act of terror” followed by “paranoia and military trials with indefinite detention … the smell of rendition in Guantanamo and overreach and wartime fear.”

"Except for the Lincoln project," the article says, and much to my disappointment — it sounds the most fascinating of the lot — "all are technically still alive, if stuck in some lower rung of development hell."

The Simon miniseries that will air later this year doesn't sound half bad though:

The events of Show Me a Hero were set in motion in 1985, when U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand ruled that [Yonkers, New York] had “‘illegally and intentionally’ fostered segregation in its schools and neighborhoods by concentrating all of its public housing in one section of the city.” He then issued a desegregation order and instructed that 200 housing units be built elsewhere in and around Yonkers, including on the city’s largely white east side. This was not the Deep South in the 1950s. This was the liberal Northeast in the ’80s.

At the center of the story is Nicholas Wasicsko, who successfully ran for mayor in 1987 by pledging to oppose Judge Sand’s demands, then reversed course when a federal appeals court upheld the order days before his inauguration. In the excruciating face-off that ensued, Wasicsko had to stand against a dug-in city council majority who fought the order despite fines that amounted to $1 million a day and nearly crushed the city’s operations. Just 28 years old, Wasicsko was the youngest mayor in the country.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Did Obama just suggest America make voting mandatory?

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

19 March 2015


Obama voting

The President and two of his fellow citizens cast voluntary votes 

US media outlets are reporting on something that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the importance of middle class economics, the putative subject of a speech President Obama made at the City Club of Cleveland today. Here's what the Associated Press highlighted, for instance:

They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

Iiiiinteresting. But just how forcefully did Obama back a transition to an Australian-style voting system? Here's the video of the event; the question that inspires the president's musings, about campaign spending limits, begins at the 1:06:58 mark:

Obama begins his response with discussion of the negative affect of money on politics, and the difficulty of overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that made it easier for Americans to donate to parties and candidates. Then he turns his attention to creative ways of overcoming the influence of money:

I don’t think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I’m going to go ahead and say it now. I don’t think we should be making it harder to vote, I think we should be making it easier to vote and — what I haven’t said… I’ve said that publicly before. So my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights; I gave a speech down in Selma, at the fiftieth anniversary that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters, and the notion that in this day and age, that we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense. And at the state and local levels, you can push back against that and make sure we’re expanding the franchise, not restricting it. In Australia and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map of this country. Because the people who tend not to vote, they’re young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. And they’re often the folks who are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class and they’re working hard. There’s a reason why some folks want to keep them away from the polls, but we should want to get them into the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term. In the long term, I think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process about how our financial system works. But realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition.

This isn't exactly a full-throated embrace of the Australian voting system; on the face of it, it's really more of an endorsement of inclusive franchise laws and high turnout elections. Yet the only thing the President mentions here that he hasn't said publicly before is mandatory voting, which he says would be "transformative." He definitely seems to like the idea, but he pitches it as more of a pipe dream than a solid proposal. (On the other hand, when he says "that may end up being a better strategy in the short term," does he mean boosting turnout or actually mandating voting.)

To be clear, there is no way the United States will adopt an Australian-style voting system. For a start, the Constitution gives the states the responsibility of running elections, so the only way to get a nation-wide mandatory voting requirement passed would be for all fifty states to agree to it. Furthermore, there's a very good chance such a law would be unconstitutional; I can see a decent argument that requiring someone to vote would be a form of compelled speech, something the court has previously ruled is a violation of the First Amendment. And, finally, the US's individualistic culture seems a poor fit with a mandatory voting law; I expect that even if one were enacted, it would be so widely flouted that enforcement would be next to impossible. Australia's high turnout rates — and the US's low ones — have as much to do with our respective cultures as our laws. Whether Obama likes it or not, Americans will not any time soon be forced by law to vote.


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

American Daily: March 18, 2015

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

18 March 2015


  • Congressman Aaron Schock has resigned after a Politico probe into his expenses.
[Illinois Representative] Schock billed the federal government and his campaign for logging roughly 170,000 miles on his personal car from January 2010 through July 2014. But when he sold that Chevrolet Tahoe in July 2014, it had roughly 80,000 miles on the odometer, according to public records obtained by POLITICO under Illinois open records laws. The documents, in other words, indicate he was reimbursed for 90,000 miles more than his car was driven.

The new system — which calls for voters to be automatically registered using drivers' license data — was passed after a sharply partisan debate in the state Legislature and has raised many questions in the minds of both average voters and political operatives.

  • Red State: Conservatives need to do better in response to Ferguson.
Even if you read only the parts of the Ferguson DOJ report that come directly from the files of the FPD (which is to say, files that would be most favorable to the Department), the report paints an incredibly damning picture of the Ferguson Police Department. No conservative on earth should feel comfortable with the way the Ferguson PD has been operating for years, even according to their own documents.
  • What would be at stake in a competitive Democratic Party primary?
Yes, there is a lot of consensus among Democrats on the broad economic strokes: Higher taxes on capital gains and inherited wealth to fund middle class tax relief. More investments in infrastructure and education, particularly subsidized community college. Universal child care and early education; national family leave and sick leave policies designed to enhance workplace flexibility. A minimum wage hike. But there are remaining disagreements among core Dem constituencies and among party actors.

Wall Street bonuses v minimum wage earnings


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Next »

Recent Posts

Archive