Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

Mitt Romney Makes ‘Redistribution’ Argument, Bolstered by Fox News, Conservative Media


Redistribution is a fact of life. The tax code, by it’s very nature, redistributes wealth. It has to, in order “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States“.

The real question is: What kind of redistribution works best for the country?

The republicans have embraced upward redistribution, a strategy that is decimating the middle class. In a consumption economy, this is fiscal suicide.

The Democrats embrace a strategy that funnels more money back into the economy, empowering demand and driving sustainable growth. This is a strategy that built the United States into the superpower it is today.

This image depicts the Territorial acquisition...

This image depicts the Territorial acquisitions of the United States, such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, British and Spanish Cession, and so on. Possible Errors There is a concern that this map could have errors. For discussion, please see the talk page. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is a strategy that predates either modern political party. From the Louisiana Purchase to the Alaska Purchase, tax money has been used for expansion from the very beginning. Land given to farmers and ranchers, schools and land grant colleges.

And the transcontinental railroad, much of it wasted by corporate greed.

The G.I. Bill helped create a golden age of prosperity, even as the rich were heavily taxed.

State agricultural colleges and their extension services made farmers more productive. Hydroelectric dams, the interstate highway system, NASA, DARPA…all created opportunities or entire new segments of the economy.

We would not be who we are if not for the kind of government spending that republicans are opposed to.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Advertisements

September 20, 2012 Posted by | Direction, Governance | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bobby Jindal Appeals Ruling On Bernette Johnson, Black Supreme Court Justice


In a statement released by one of his lawyers, Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court and the federal government should not be involved.

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

 

Jindal is such a republican! Who should serve as the next Chief Justice is exactly the issue at hand. The Question is whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court can be fair and impartial in this particular case. The question of whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court should interpret the state constitution is a red herring. A fallacy of broad generalization. It’s dishonest.

“Johnson was initially appointed to the Supreme Court, not elected”

Let’s test that against the LA Constitution:

“Section 6. The judge oldest in point of service on the supreme court shall be chief justice. He is the chief administrative officer of the judicial system of the state, subject to rules adopted by the court.”

LA State Constitution, 6. Supreme Court; Chief Justice

Point of service, without regard to how that service started.

“Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court”

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

There are two huge, Huge, HUGE problems with that line of thinking.

First up:

“The other members of the current court, who are all white, contend that Johnson does not have the seniority to be the next chief justice.”

The rest of the LA Supreme Court are the PLAINTIFFS in the case. Establishing the plaintiffs as judge and jury (literally) would be spitting in the eye of blind justice. It would be a complete farce.

Secondly:

“Johnson’s colleagues on the court say that her first six years as an appointed justice should not count toward her seniority.”

The other justices have already pre-judged the case, which further disqualifies them – over and above the obvious conflict of interest.

I would say that Jindal’s call for such a travesty of justice must surely violate his oath of office. Funny thing is – the LA Constitution does not require an oath of office.

Jindal is such a republican!

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

September 9, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution | , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: