Clinton Library: President Clinton's 58th News Conference (1994)

Source:Clinton Library- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001)

Source:The New Democrat 

President Bill Clinton's 58th press conference covering mostly foreign policy especially relating to China and Korea. The situation going on in between the North and South in Korea and what is called MFN or Most Favored Nation trading status with the People's Republic of China. President Clinton essentially making the case that trading and talking to the Communist Regime in China is a better path forward in how to deal with them instead of isolating them. I wish President Clinton had the same strategy with the Communist Republic of Cuba, but that is my take.
Source:Clinton Library

James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson Signs 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:James Miller Center- President Lyndon B. Johnson, signing the 1964 Civil Right Act at the Oval Office.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, using more than 70 pens.  He handed the pens out to those at the ceremony, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Attorney General Robert Kennedy." 

From the James Miller Center

President Lyndon Johnson signing of the 1964 Civil Rights is one of the most important moments in American history. Because he signed a law that granted access to millions of Americans who were simply denied that access simply because of their race and for no other reason than that. 

And what it meant was that not only do all Americans have the same constitutional rights under law, but that they have to be enforced equally for all Americans. And if the states aren't willing to do that and leave Americans in the dark because of their race, then the Federal Government will step in and enforce those laws and rights for them. 

Because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act millions of African-Americans are now able to own homes, get loans from banks, get good employment. Because they're no longer denied those opportunities simply because of their race and complexion. 

Which is what they were pre-1964 CRA and the broader civil rights movement of their 1950s and 1960s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant that Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, complexion, or gender would now be treated equally under law. 

The New Republic: Dean Starkman: Closing The Racial Wealth Gap

Source:The New Democrat

It is true that even since the American civil rights movement that even though African-Americans are doing much better than they were pre-civil rights that they still have a large income gap compared with Caucasian-Americans. And if anything they have even lost ground to Asian and Latin Americans as well. So what does that mean? I would argue for both more opportunity and personal responsibility for the African-American community especially when it comes to men. Government can't force people to do the right thing. Only punish them when they break the law. But they can put policies in place that leads to better opportunity for Americans who are struggling regardless of race.

We have a one-trillion dollar and growing when it comes to infrastructure in this country. Here's a wild idea, how about we fill that hole especially for underserved communities that need that investment. So business's would want to locate there. Lets build new schools and and fix up old schools. And give Americans period again regardless of race the option of where to send their kids to school with their parents making that decision. So our students no longer are sent to school based on where they live, but what is the best school for them. And stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead based on what they need to be successful.

Lets make walking out on your kids whether you are a father or mother illegal and make that crime punishable by having to pay for your kids childhood. So we no longer have single parent single income families unless one of the parents actually died. And lets make education and job training universal for all low-skilled adults whether they are working or not. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. As well as make college universal and affordable for all qualified for college high school graduates. And how we would do that is really the subject for another blog.

There are a lot of things that we could do as a country to close the wealth and achievement gap in this country. And we wouldn't have to raise income taxes on anyone. Or redistribute wealth from the top to take care of everyone else. We could simply do these things as part as annual infrastructure bill that Congress is supposed to pass anyway by law. And pay for these things the way we pay for infrastructure investment in this country which is with energy taxes. And we could tax alcohol, tobacco, junk food and soft drinks or even marijuana is the prohibition is ever repealed to fund these investments.

I'm not a fan of race-based policies as a Liberal because I like to look at what is best for the country and the individual as a whole when it comes to public policy. Just one reason why I do not support reparations for any community that has been discriminated against. But the fact is that African-Americans tend to struggle more than the country as a whole. And these investments would probably benefit them more than anyone else except for perhaps American-Indians. So they would benefit a lot from this, but not based on their race, but because they need these investments more.

The Washington Post: EJ Dionne: The Vital Incoherent Center

Source:The New Democrat

Again it depends on what you mean by liberal and conservative and you do lump Religious Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Libertarians in with Conservatives on the Right and do you lump in Progressives and Socialists, or Social Democrats in with Liberals on the Left. If that is how you do that then Conservatives will be the largest voting block in America. Because that includes the Bible Belt, with the Libertarian West and the Neoconservative large military at call costs traditional American Neoconservatives.

With Liberals or Centrists coming in second because when it comes to American politics Americans tend to have strong feelings on the issues one way or the other and are not stuck in what is called the mushy middle when it comes to Centrists. And Socialists whether they self-define their politics as socialist or not do not make up a very strong voting block in this country. 10-15 percent at best the religious-right badly outnumbering them.

But that is not how I define political labels or make up my mind which political camp people fall in. What I do instead of saying "someone is on the Left so they are automatically are liberal. And someone who is on the Right they are automatically conservative". What I do is look to see how far to the Right are they. If they are center-right, I call them conservative. A little further Right I call them libertarian. Lets say far-right people who I could call big government Republicans or rightists people who want to impose their social values on the rest of the country through government, I call them Religious Conservatives or Neoconservatives.

Same thing with the Left. Center-left such as myself would be the Liberals. A little further Left people who are a little more government oriented, but do not have a new government program or tax increase to solve all of our problems for us, I would call Progressives. People who are lets say on the far-left  people who believe in big centralize government is the only way to ensure economic, social and racial equality and tend to have big government ideas to solve all of our problems for us. And tend to like high taxes and tend not to like the military or law enforcement, I call people of these politics Socialist or Social Democratic. Occupy Wall Street comes to mind or the Green Party.

If you just looked at the center-right and center-left in America and people who tend to not be against government all together, but who do not want government trying to run their lives for them from either a personal or economic perspective you would see that is where a solid majority of the country is. Whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives, or even Conservative Libertarians. And based on that I would say Liberals and Conservatives make up the overwhelming largest voting blocks in the country. With Independents who may consider themselves to be Centrists but have similar views as Liberals and Conservatives. That they don't want big government, but they don't want an ineffective government either.

Americans tend to want government to do the basics that we can't do for ourselves, or that we need them to do as well to see that certain things get done that need to be done. Like protecting the country, protecting the streets, seeing that everyone gets an education. Funding infrastructure, helping people in need get on their feet. These are not big government or small government ideas, but limited good government policies that Americans tend to support whether they are liberal or conservative. And that is where Americans tend to be and we tend not to like the fringes on the Left or Right.

Detroit Pistons Official:Unforgettable Moments: The Jordan Rules

Source:The New Democrat

The Jordan Rules was a Detroit Pistons defense that was designed to stop the great Michael Jordan from the Chicago Bulls. It was created by the great Pistons point guard Isaiah Thomas and one of the Pistons assistant coaches. I believe Brendan Malone and this defense was designed to let anyone else beat the Pistons besides Michael Jordan. Which meant anyone else from the Bulls could beat them and have big games which of course didn't happen pre-1991. Whether it was Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright whoever it might be.

This all came about because in the late 1980s the Pistons and Bulls, Detroit vs. Chicago which is a great sports rivalry because of those two big cities to begin with and that they are fairly close together and they met in the NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs four straight years from 1988-91. Two very physical and good defensive teams meeting in the playoffs to go to the NBA Finals. So these series always meant a lot and this was a time when the Pistons were looking to win their first NBA Championship after coming very close in 1987 and 88. With the Bulls looking to take their place and jump ahead of them.

The Jordan Rules itself were fairly simple. Again anyone but Jordan can beat them meaning anyone besides Michael can take open shots and get good looks at the basket. Now they still have to execute and take advantage of those opportunities. But when MJ has the ball at least two guys on him every time he tries to drive and keep him off of the wings where he got most of those incredible dunks. Force him into the lane and to go up against the Pistons big men where he would either take a hard foul. Or would just be stopped with the Pistons getting the ball back.

And the other thing being make MJ work on defense. Whoever he is guarding in the Pistons backcourt. Or if he's guarding Mark Aguirre the Pistons small forward. Make MJ run through a lot of hard screens from either Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, James Edwards or Dennis Rodman. And give Jordan's man a lot of shots and good looks at the basket. So MJ doesn't have anytime to rest on the court. And pre-1991 before Scottie Pippen became the great player that he became the Jordan Rules was the only successful defense against Michael Jordan.

Constitution Daily: Danielle Allen 'Traces Equality in the Declaration of Independence'

Source: Constitution Daily- Danielle Allen, giving a speech about the Declaration of Independence.

"Political philosopher Danielle Allen will join Chris Phillips, Senior Education Fellow at the National Constitution Center, to take a fresh look at the Declaration of Independence—a document that changed the course of the modern world in 1,337 words—with an eye to its promise of equality."

From Constitution Daily

"BEYOND GOOD INTENTIONS: What's the difference in actual results [A] when we aim for freedom, versus [B] when we aim for equality?" 

From Herald Institute

Source:Herald Institute- Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in 1978 about liberty and equality.

Freedom vs. equality which I guess has been an ongoing debate between Progressives and Libertarians perhaps for an indefinite time now. And this whole discussion is really relates to what is called income inequality. And the Progressives concerns with it and Libertarians there to say that “people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. And even if they make a lot more money than their fellow Americans because they earned that success”. With Progressives there to counter that “if we don’t look out for struggling Americans then that affects everyone because of the lost purchasing power. But also because the social costs that come from it”. But also because they believe society has a role to essentially take care of the less-fortunate among us.

As the great libertarian Economist Milton Friedman said “without freedom there isn’t any equality”. Why, because if people don’t have the freedom to do as much for themselves as they can and have the ability to take care of themselves as much as possible, than they won’t. So yeah if you encourage people not to be successful by taxing most of their money way from them to take care of others you may reach equality. A country that has a lot of struggling people in it where most of the country struggles. And very few Americans having much if any freedom at all. But that is not the society that most Americans want.

Americans tend to want to be as successful as they can and you accomplish that by making sure people have the freedom and tools so they can do that. It is not a freedom vs. equality issue for me as a Liberal. But how you get to a society and an economy where as many people as possibly can have the tools to get the freedom they need to be successful in society and not need public assistance to financially survive. And to get there instead of having government take so much from the successful and people who live in freedom we empower as many people as possible who want to work and be successful in life to get themselves the tools to be able to accomplish that for themselves.

Which means things like expanding education and job training for low-income adults whether they are working or not. And making those opportunities for anyone who needs it. And having an education system that produces more high-skilled students and workers. The question for me at least is not freedom vs. equality. To that is a false choice like choosing between food or water.

To me it is how you produce a society where many people as possible that is people who want to live in freedom and would work hard for it, how are they able to accomplish that for themselves which is living in freedom. And then allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor or at least the most of it so they are encouraged to be successful in the future as well. That is how you have a society that is both free and equal. Not take from the very successful to take care of the rest of the country. 

The New Republic: Danny Vinik: 'How President Obama's Promise Not to Raise Taxes On The Middle Class Makes Governing Harder'

Source:The New Democrat

I'm just going to be real here and say that Socialists have this belief that if government especially the federal government or central government (depending on the country) is not doing something or running something that is supposed to benefit the country than that program or policy is not 'substantial'. They also believe that there's no such thing as a bad tax increase except for maybe when it comes to the poor. Because all taxes and tax increases benefit the people because it goes to government to serve the people. Now whether you call yourself a Socialist or not and I doubt Danny Vinik from The New Republic does, these are socialist beliefs.

So when Danny Vinik says that anything that President Obama does that doesn't increase taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy, or is not a Federal Government run program is not 'substantial' as Mr. Vinik says in his New Republic column today he is just making that point for me about how Socialists view taxes and the role of government especially the national government. If you want paid family leave in this country is very simple to do without raising taxes on anyone. It is called a paid family leave law and you have a paid sick leave law as well. You just pass a law that requires to pay their employees these benefits once they are eligible for them. Instead of having a new government program to run them.

As far as raising taxes on the middle class. The last thing you want to do in a struggling economy especially with a struggling middle class is to make the lives of these people even harder and make it harder for them to pay their bills. Especially as they see their income falling and their bills and cost of living rising. Which is exactly what would happen with a middle class tax increase either through the income tax or payroll tax. And neither Democrats or Republicans are interested in doing this at least at the leadership level. And only the socialist left believes this would be good policy.