Tag: progressives
Why Smart Progressives Should Love Elon Musk

Why Smart Progressives Should Love Elon Musk

Nearly everything Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted about Elon Musk was wrong. Scratch the word "nearly." Everything was wrong.

Last month, the senator from Massachusetts tweeted, "Let's change the rigged tax code so the Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else."

Some background: The founder of Tesla had just been anointed the richest human on earth, and Time Magazine named him Person of the Year. Three months before, SpaceX, which he also founded, sent the first all-civilian crew into space.

Musk tweeted back to Warren, "And if you opened your eyes for 2 seconds, you would realize I will pay more taxes than any American in history this year." He's put the number at something north of $11 billion, which, if true, would be more taxes than any other American paid ever.

Whether Musk's tax bill should have been higher can be subject for debate. We can agree that $11 billion is a healthy tax bill, but it's not an unseemly sum for one enjoying a net worth of around $243 billion.

Warren's implication that Musk doesn't pay taxes at all, however, is ignorant. The charge that he's "freeloading" — if you look at how he made that money — is awe-inspiring dumb. Musk has done more than any person on earth to replace cars run by the internal combustion engine, a significant factor in the climate crisis, with clean electric vehicles.

In 2020, when General Motors and Ford were closing factories because they couldn't find enough specialized computer chips, Tesla took the chips that were around and rewrote software to make them work in its cars. So while Ford, GM and Stellantis (Fiat Chrysler merged with Peugeot) sold fewer cars in 2021 than the year before, Tesla sold 87% more.

Six years ago, when the major U.S. carmakers were wondering whether or not to go big on electric, Tesla was building a huge battery factory in Nevada. The others are now in the game major league, and Tesla can be credited with pushing them

.But in the marathon race to win the electric vehicle market, Adam Jonas, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, said, "Tesla is in the lead at mile number 21. Everybody else is at mile 2 or still tying their shoes."

So Musk is full of himself. He has reasons.

What bothers some 20th-century progressives is that Musk is an unapologetic capitalist who mocks them for obsessing on his wealth.

Leading the pack is Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator's brain has long been stalled on the subject of billionaires whom he once said shouldn't exist. When he tweeted, "We must demand that the extremely wealthy pay their fair share. Period," Musk trolled him: "I keep forgetting that you're still alive."

Musk may not be volunteering to pay more taxes than he has to, but we who think the superrich should pay more must understand that the solution is not them, but the tax laws. The tax code is the creation of Congress.

Back to Warren. "As we face the existential threat of our time — climate change," she wrote as a presidential candidate, "Wall Street is refusing to listen, let alone take real action."

Wrong again. Actually, Wall Street has been moving away from investments in fossil fuels — to the point that Texas passed a law banning companies that refuse to finance oil ventures from state contracts.

It is Wall Street that rewarded Musk for accelerating the changeover to electric vehicles. (Tesla also has a thriving solar panel business.) If helping save the planet let Musk edge out Amazon's Jeff Bezos as the world's richest person, well, where's the problem?

Article reprinted with permission from Creators.com

Why Liberals -- And Conservatives -- Should Back Romney’s Child Bill

Why Liberals -- And Conservatives -- Should Back Romney’s Child Bill

It may be coincidence that the best policy idea to come out of the 117th Congress was offered by the one guy who has demonstrated the integrity to brave harassment and death threats to do what's right vis a vis former President Donald Trump. Mitt Romney has an excellent plan to reduce child poverty.

This country has a serious child problem. Our birth rates are low and heading lower, which endangers the prospects for Social Security and Medicare for our large elderly population. Also, old countries tend to lack dynamism, which has always been an American specialty. Some couples are happy with their small family sizes, but most Americans want more children (2.7) than they are likely to have (1.8).

About 20% of American kids live in poverty compared with 13% among all OECD countries. Part of the reason our kids are struggling is due to changes in family structure. Though the marriage norm has declined nearly everywhere, the U.S. holds the dubious distinction of leading the developed world in unstable adult relationships. Child Trends reports that the 2017 poverty rate for children in married couple families was 8.4%. For kids in single mother homes, the poverty rate was 40.7%.

Clearly, a return to the two-parent norm (updated to include same-sex marriages) would be ideal. But that is a complicated cultural matter that governments have limited capacity to affect — except, as the Romney Family Plan envisions, we can at least stop doing the things that penalize marriage. Our system of getting aid to children is convoluted. Because we Americans love to disguise spending as "tax policy," we offer a "child care tax credit" along with a child allowance included in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The poorest families receive TANF. The way the EITC is structured, an analysis for the Niskanen Center demonstrates, can cost couples between 15% and 25% of income if they marry. Also, the child care tax credit, which the Biden administration's proposal would expand, serves as a pass-through to increase prices for providers without helping the average family choose the kind of relative-provided or local child care arrangements that most families prefer. It also preferences paid day care over parental care.

The Romney proposal would sweep away TANF, the tax credits and the rest in favor of a simplified and more generous child allowance of $4,200 per year for children up to age 6, and $3,000 per year for children ages 6-17.

Conservatives worry about the disincentive to work inherent in traditional welfare programs, which reasonable. But part of the old "poverty trap" was not the child allowance per se but the implicit high marginal tax on earnings as parents reentered the workforce. Niskanen points to Canada's experience with a direct child allowance, finding that labor force participation actually increased after their child allowance was increased in 2016.

Another benefit of Romney's approach is that it respects the wishes of parents. There's a weakness on the left for the idea of clean, bright day care centers staffed by Ph.D.s. But a quick glance at the local public school should be enough to raise doubts about the supply of "high quality" care. In fact, most day care arrangements are far from ideal. Here again, Canada's recent experience is instructive. Quebec instituted a $5 per day universal day care in 1997. The number of families placing preschoolers in care jumped by 33%. But a study published in 2015 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found some disturbing results. Compared with kids from other provinces, Quebec's kids were less healthy and less satisfied with life. Most strikingly, Quebec experienced a spike in crime among the teenagers who had been in day care as children.

The direct child allowance gives parents the flexibility to make decisions about care. Some will use professional daycare centers, others will opt for help from relatives and friends, and still others will use the extra income to permit one parent to stay at home while the kids are little.

Romney's proposal is also pro-life. Family incomes tend to decline in the second half of pregnancy, so Romney's child allowance would begin four months before a child's birth. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, some 28% of abortion patients cite financial worries as one of the reasons for terminating a pregnancy.

Poverty isn't good for anyone, but arguably child poverty is more damaging to society than any other kind. An Institute for Social and Economic research paper found that for every 1% increase in unemployment during the Great Recession, there was a 25% increase in child neglect. This effect was muted in states with more generous safety nets. Niskanen estimates that Romney's proposal would reduce child poverty by one-third and cut deep poverty in half. It would accomplish this without adding to the deficit since the proposal contains offsets (specifically, eliminating the state and local tax exemption that mostly benefits wealthy individuals in high tax states).

This is what policymaking is supposed to look like. With any luck, Romney's proposal will at least spark debate on a critical challenge for our country. A few years ago, that would have been normal. In 2021, it would be nirvana.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her most recent book is "Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense." To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Progressives, Advocacy Groups Demand Impeachment Hearings

Progressives, Advocacy Groups Demand Impeachment Hearings

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

After Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 400-page report detailed numerous instances in which President Donald Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice, progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups on Thursday made the case that it is the duty of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.

Mueller’s report is clear in pointing to Congress’ responsibility in investigating obstruction of justice by the president,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “As such, I’ll be signing onto Rashida Tlaib’s impeachment resolution.”

Formally introduced last month, Tlaib’s resolution directs the House Judiciary Committee to immediately begin investigating whether Trump “committed impeachable offenses.”

Ocasio-Cortez went on to acknowledge the political tensions surrounding the impeachment issue, but concluded Mueller’s report “squarely puts this on our doorstep.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s call for an impeachment probe—which was joined by Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Al Green (D-Texas), and others—came after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) quickly dismissed the growing demand for impeachment proceedings, saying they would “not be worthwhile at this point.”

The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent denounced Hoyer’s remarks as “straight-up abdication” and “dereliction of basic duty.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has previously said moving to impeach Trump is “just not worth it,” announced following the Mueller report rollout that the House Democratic caucus will hold a conference call Monday to discuss the special counsel’s findings.

Progressive advocacy groups argued there’s no reason for delay.

“We will not treat this as normal,” MoveOn said in a petition that has garnered nearly 160,000 signatures. “And politicians in Washington must not continue to conduct business as usual. Everyone in Congress must look in the mirror and decide how they will fulfill their oath to defend our Constitution—and which side of history they want to be on.”

 

Credo Mobile echoed this call in a petition of its own, demanding that House Democrats “immediately act to defend our democracy” by launching impeachment hearings against both Trump and Attorney General William Barr, who was accused of acting as the president’s personal lawyer during a press conference ahead of the Mueller report’s release.

“Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have a choice to make, and the path they choose will speak volumes about their commitment to our democracy and to the communities Trump threatens every day: Will they continue to play politics as usual or will they step up to use their power to impeach both Donald Trump and William Barr?” Credo’s petition reads.

In an open letter to House Democrats on Thursday, The Intercept‘s Mehdi Hasan argued Mueller’s findings provide “a clear and detailed road map for impeaching Donald Trump.”

Citing the Mueller report’s statement that “Congress has authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” Hasan wrote: “[T]he time for waiting is over. And the moment for impeachment hearings has arrived.”

“Look, I get it. You’re afraid,” he added. “You’re afraid of the backlash from your Republican counterparts. You’re afraid of losing in the Senate, where—right now—you lack a majority to convict Trump. You’re afraid that impeachment hearings will distract from your party’s 2020 presidential campaign. But your job, first and foremost, is to preserve democracy and protect the rule of law. That’s the job assigned to you by the Constitution and also what’s expected of you by the American people. You cannot walk away from it.”

Liberals Find Community — And That Could Be Big

Liberals Find Community — And That Could Be Big

During the presidential campaign, many Hillary Clinton voters in Atlanta’s suburbs thought they were alone. That was an easy conclusion to draw because few felt comfortable putting Clinton signs on their front lawns or expressing their political preference at parties. Their neighbors seemed overwhelmingly Republican.

It took the presidency of Donald Trump to shock them out of their quietude. They emerged from the bunkers, blinking and surprised to find they had so much company. Many are now harnessing their distress to their newly discovered numbers and going activist. They are thus giving a 30-year-old novice named Jon Ossoff a fighting chance to win the congressional seat recently vacated by Republican Tom Price, Trump’s secretary of health.

This wouldn’t be happening without Trump. Today’s scenes of environmental degradation and Russian infiltration — under the tweeting fingers of a possibly mad emperor — would wake the political dead. They have electrified a left prone to battling itself over deviations in liberal scripture but also a center wanting nothing more than a day of normal news.

In other times, #resistance might come off as a bit melodramatic. Trump world has made it feel downright mainstream.

Trump has thus transformed the liberal ranks from stray cats to packs of dogs. Dogs act bolder when traveling in numbers. Dogs want community.

Participants in the women’s marches in January recall the events not so much for stoking anger but for providing comfort. The throngs of peaceful marchers overwhelmed the few radicals ready to rumble. Their sense of well-being came from communing with so many ordinary women — and men — who felt as they did.

Like the Tea Party right, liberals are flocking to their own media campfires for warmth, talking points, and calls to action. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is now edging out the troubled king of right-wing palaver, Bill O’Reilly, in total audience. (She has long dominated him in the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic.)

On CBS, Stephen Colbert has become the go-to guy for smart and witty late-night commentary from a liberal perspective. As such, he is bringing younger audiences back to network TV.

And in a shoutout to “CBS Evening News,” let us praise anchor Scott Pelley. His willingness to tell what’s really happening with minimal dramatics and apparently little concern about being attacked by the right is refreshing.

The surprise hit podcast of 2017 — “Pod Save America” — stars three luminaries from the Obama administration. It offers lively and interesting political chat — but nothing that would have seemed earth-shattering before Nov. 8. Now it’s vacuuming up audiences and advertising.

Speaking of which, it was interesting to see how quickly major advertisers deserted O’Reilly’s show after reports of the host’s penchant for serial sexual harassment. In doing so, they must have considered the perils of displeasing his avid fan base. On the other hand, how many millions of women were marching?

The Tea Party’s membership was never huge in numbers, but the movement knew how to turn communal passions into political clout. Members jeered politicians and joined enthusiastic protests. But their real power came from marching as a group to party primaries and other elections that less engaged voters ignored.

Democrats hope to use that strategy in the special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Ossoff is currently running against several Republicans. Should he get more than 50 percent of the vote, he’d take a storied seat once inhabited by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Political revolutions don’t happen on Twitter. They happen when like-minded citizens join to vote.

As jazz poet Gil Scott-Heron famously vocalized, “The revolution will not be televised…The revolution will be live.”