Mediaboss Marketing

As we all know by now, President Donald Trumpnominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia last September. Gorsuch is a conservative originalist (read: reactionary with intellectual pretensions) and he will move an already conservative court further to the right. Twitter went ablaze with progressive outrage and, a few minutes after Trumps announcements, protesters were out in the streets. Democrats promised to mount a spirited opposition to Trumps nominee, in part as retaliation for the GOPs unprecedented yearlong obstruction of President Obamas pick, Merrick Garland. As encouraging as the reaction to Gorsuchs nomination might be, all of this fanfare from the left begs the question: where was all this passion when it actually could have changed the makeup of the judiciary? At Trumps urging, the Senate is likely to employ the nuclear option, eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and rendering all Democratic efforts to block Gorsuch moot. The filibuster for appointees to the lower court is already a thing of the past, thanks to Harry Reid. Thus, the sound and the fury of the left will likely amount to nothing. A generation of conservative dominance of the judiciary is at hand. It didnt have to be this way.

The 2016 presidential election afforded progressives an opportunity to usher in a generation of liberal jurisprudence. But the Supreme Court did not motivate liberals and progressives to vote in the same way it motivated conservatives. An ABC exit poll reveals that of the 21% of voters who claimed the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision, 57% supported Trump while 40% supported Hillary Clinton. Pew polling from shortly before the 2016 election showed that 77% of conservative Republicans, compared to 69% of self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners viewed the Supreme Court as important to their vote. Polls of liberals and conservatives in previous elections reflect a similar disparity, with liberals consistently placing less value on Supreme Court appointments than conservatives. There is no way to guarantee that, had liberals cared more about the judiciary, we wouldnt be confronting the prospect of a Justice Gorsuch today. But in a close election, every percentage point equals millions of votes and it is therefore possible that the issue of Supreme Court appointments played a crucial role in voter turnout on both sides. In particular, it likely contributed to the decision of Republicans-particularly social conservatives-initially skeptical of Trump to >vote for him anyway, because he promised to appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court that would quash gun control and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why didnt even the prospect of a more liberal Supreme Court prove similarly motivating for the left? The lack of weight progressives place on Supreme Court appointments is a puzzling phenomenon considering the far-reaching impact of the judiciary on progressive priorities. Take, for instance, the top priorities of millennials according to Pew in which only 45% of millennials considered Supreme Court appointments very important to their vote. Perhaps this factor, along with a lack of enthusiasm for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, goes some way towards explaining the low turnout of a demographic considered reliably progressive on a range of key issues.

2016 Issue Importance Amongst 18-29 Year Olds

Supreme Court appointments: 45%

Social Security: 57%

Terrorism: 68%

Health care: 66%

Foreign policy: 70%

Trade policy: 50%

Immigration: 68%

Education: 67%

Gun policy: 71%

Economy: 80%

Abortion: 46%

Environment: 54%

Treatment of racial and ethnic minorities: 75%

Treatment of gay, lesbian and transgender people: 50%

Percent of registered voters saying each is very important to their vote in 2016. (Chart courtesy of Ball State Daily)

Millennials relative lack of concern for the Supreme Court is baffling considering that a conservative judiciary will have a detrimental impact on the issues they claim to value most. Gun policy (85%) is now a lost cause for liberals on a national level (the bluest of blue states may be an exception), with federal and state legislatures, along with the judiciary, enthralled with the NRA. On treatment of ethnic minorities (75%), Trumps judicial appointments will likely rule in favor of travel bans and actively work to disenfranchise minorities. A conservative judiciary is also likely to rubber stamp Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions inhumane immigration (68%) policies, just as it stalled into oblivion President Obamas effort to shield the family members of DREAMERS from deportation.

As for the environment (54%), a matter of particular importance to progressive millennials, the judiciary has the power to stay and strike down climate regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions, as it did under President Obama and will likely continue to do under future Democratic presidents long after President Trump departs the White House. And, although only 46% of millennials listed abortion as very important to their vote, they will not take kindly to the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would deprive millions of disproportionately poor and/or minority women of their reproductive rights.

A Trumpian judiciary is unlikely to limit executive overreach on foreign policy (70%), including the growth of the surveillance state, more drone strikes, renewed use of black sites and perhaps even a resumption of enhanced interrogation techniques (read: torture). By ruling against financial regulations and allowing big banks to operate unchecked, the Supreme Court will place the economy (80%) at great risk. And, of course, the Supreme Court can and will oppose campaign finance reform (not listed in the Pew survey, but a priority for many young progressives), as it did with Citizens United and a series of related rulings that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

Given the Supreme Court impacts so many of the issues progressives claim to care most about, why do they consistently assign it less importance than conservatives? Perhaps progressives are inherently disinclined to pursue change through institutions, preferring grassroots organizing and various forms of activism. But alas, all the protesting in the world cannot prevent Donald Trump from stacking the Supreme Court and the lower courts with reactionaries (sorry, originalists) who, unlike legislators, remain in power for life. That means that if Bernie Sandersor some other progressive becomes president in 2020 or 2024, they may be hamstrung by a judiciary hellbent on blocking all progress. And they will have the authority to do it, no matter how many activists take to the streets in righteous (and justified) outrage.

As things stand, we have to hope Clinton, Obama and even Bush-era judges on the Supreme Court and the district courts can act as a bulwark against President Trumps most extreme, authoritarian impulses. But even in a best-case scenario (likely to resemble Paul Ryans Randian wet dream), progressives lose. Even assuming, to put it indelicately, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy live another eight years, Neil Gorsuch will maintain the right-wing status quo of a Roberts Court that has yielded no shortage of ghastly rulings over the past eight years. If even one of the liberal or moderate justices dies or steps down, that means President Donald Trumpcould further transform the courts in his imageor rather, the image of the conservatives who demand far-right justices as their pound of flesh from an ideologically amorphous populist demagogue. Votes, in addition to protests, are needed to avert this nightmare outcome, even if Democratic nominees of the future arent all the progressive saviors of our dreams.

Supreme Court rulings and jurisprudence may not be as sexy (or as comprehensible) as heartfelt activism, but they impact the issues we care most about. In many ways, the makeup of the court sets the horizon for progressive ambitions. And whether he holds the office of the Presidency for four years or eight, Trumps judicial nominees will remain to haunt progressives down the line. When the rising generation of millennials control the levels of power in the legislature, even the presidency, we may be forced to contend with far-right judges selected by and reflecting the values of Donald Trumpand the party that elected him. Our progressive ambitions may be stymied all because we didnt grasp the importance of seizing the judiciary at a pivotal moment in history.

In the years to come, historians will likely expound on the question of how a complacent majority of the population favoring liberal policies allowed a determined minority of the population favoring conservative policies to win a presidential election in a year when the Supreme Court hung in the balance. They will ask how millennials, with the numbers and inclination to shift the country decisively to the left, instead allowed the forces of reaction to emerge triumphant. The protests thus far and protests yet to come, while vital and historic, will not wipe the stain of this monumental error, this terrible missed opportunity, from the history books. It will not erase the devastating human impact of conservative judicial decisions on societys most vulnerable.

But perhaps the horrors of unconstrained conservative jurisprudence will serve as a cautionary tale. Perhaps if Trumps court strikes down Roe v. Wade, eviscerates the social safety net, removes financial regulations, rules against protections for LGBTQ individuals, further dismantles the Voting Rights Act and turns the planet into the carbon-desiccated cesspool of ExxonMobils dreams, progressives will learn to value the judiciary as much as conservatives do. Only by seizing control of institutions, including the judiciary, can progressive maximize the impact of their activism. Let this be a guiding principle in future elections.

Excerpt from:
Progressives Need to Care More About the Supreme Court When It Counts - Paste Magazine

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

From The Week:

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In the Democrats defense, [voting for the bank bailouts] was no easy choice: Either sanction the grossly unjust bank bailouts on the table from Bush, or risk an even more catastrophic collapse while a possible alternative was (maybe) worked out. But thatdoesnt change the factthat Democrats did pass the bank bailouts. And when Obama took over and continued to play ball with the banks, heassuredthe bailouts would be forever politically tied around the Democrats neck.

What the Democrats did next was even worse:The Obama administrationseffortsto provide relief to homeowners through the 2009 stimulus were paltry and fell flat. Nor did Obamareally pushthe Federal Housing Finance Agency to start rescuing underwater homeowners. The executive branchs law enforcersfailedto use charges of rampant mortgage fraud to force the banks to write down homeowners debt. And of course, theydecidedto forego prosecuting Wall Street executives.

Is it any wonder much of America thinks Democrats are in thrall to wealthy elites while ignoring the middle and working classes?

Bannon is right that the titans of finance who cratered the U.S. economy were never held accountable. Hes right that regular Americans were largely ignored in the wake of the crash. Hes right that much of this is Democrats fault. And hes especially right that millions of Americans are still mad as hell about it.

Read the rest here.

Go here to see the original:
The Week: How Steve Bannon Stole Progressives' Anti-Wall ...

Purist objections scuttled Washington States market-friendly carbon tax plan in November. Lets not let that happen at the national level.

Smoke rising from the Eggborough Power Station. (John Giles / PA Wire)

Carbon-tax haters can relax. The proposal for a national carbon tax released on February 8 by high-level Republicans, including ber-GOP consigliere James Baker, isnt going anywhere. Financially and ideologically, the American right is wedded to carbon fuels. Trumpism runs on and reeks of them. Predictably, not a single Republican in Congress, and no one in the White House, has uttered a single positive word about the new carbon-tax plan.

Nevertheless, the proposals intended audience may not be Beltway Republicans but rather those ordinary Americans, majorities in both parties, who say they want action on climate, and who therefore might yet figure in the political equation over climate policy. That group includes progressives. We should pay attention: Carbon taxes matter.

Our long-building climate crisis is already materializing as drowned coasts, punishing droughts, vanishing glaciersand political upheaval. At its root is a century-old lie: market prices for gasoline and other fossil fuels that do not factor in the damage from burning them.

A clean-energy revolution is at last underway, with wind power, solar electricity, and energy efficiency becoming not only cheaper by the day but also easier to deploy. Still, the clean-energy transition will be slowed until prices of coal, oil, and gas reflect their true environmental costs. A carbon tax could do that, if designed properly.

How carbon taxes work is simple enough, at least in theory. Fuel use is infinitely varied and intricately woven into society in ways that regulations such as auto-mileage standards cant fully reach. Clear price signals, on the other hand, can be a nearly magic wand to help billions of invisible hands rapidly reduce and replace fossil fuels.

But with a carbon tax come difficult choices about the vast revenue it will generate. Carbon taxing had a test run at the ballot box last November in the state of Washington, and it ended badly.

Progressives cant just walk away from carbon taxes, the policy tool with the best chance of catching fire globally.

On November 8, voters in the Evergreen State rejected by a nearly 3-to-2 margin what would have been the nations first statewide carbon tax. A win for Initiative 732 would have given the United States a carbon-tax beachhead, like Canadas British Columbia, which has had a small but successful carbon tax since 2008.

Remarkably, the decisive factor in defeating I-732 may not have been money from Big Carbon or even popular aversion to higher taxes, since the initiative was tailored to keep Washingtonians tax burden unchanged. What doomed I-732 was a fissure within the climate movement, with centrist economists and other policy wonks in favor of the initiative and progressive greens opposed.

Stated briefly, climate activists in Washington split over opposing answers to two key questions: What are carbon taxes for, and who gets to design them?

Carbon taxes can cut emissions in two ways. As noted above, they raise the price of carbon fuels, thereby worsening their competitive position vis--vis cleaner fuels. In addition, the tax revenues raised by a carbon tax can be invested in clean-energy infrastructure such as public transit and community solar.

The first paththe price pull of boosting market prices of carbon fuelsis what dazzles economists. The second routethe revenue push of investing in green infrastructureappeals to many ordinary folks, especially on the left. Some progressives actively distrust policies that lean hard on price signals, partly for fear that workers in dirty industries will be penalized as investment migrates to cleaner alternatives.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

For decades, reactionary forces in the United States have been able to block seemingly every new public endeavor by labeling it tax and spend. The Washington State carbon-tax proponents believed they had an antidote: Dont allow the government to spend the revenues from the carbon tax; rather, use those revenues to reduce other taxes. The political assumption seemed to be that going revenue neutral, though it might frustrate the leftbye-bye, public investmentcould placate the right or at least capture the center. And so Carbon WA, as the advocates of I-732 called themselves, fashioned its ballot initiative around cuts to the states regressive sales tax.

Progressive greens recoiled. The Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, a state umbrella group of environmental-justice organizations and mainstream allies, blasted I-732 for starving green jobs and ignoring front-line communities. So did nationally prominent progressive leaders like Naomi Klein and Van Jones. The measures electoral chances, which were never good, could not withstand this split. On Election Day, as Hillary Clinton was besting Trump in Washington State by half-a-million votes, the carbon tax was rejected, 59 percent to 41 percent.

But progressives cant just walk away from carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are the only policy tool that, by slashing demand in a rapid, predictable way, divests our economy from fossil fuels and enables governments, business, and consumers to make investments in the transition to clean energy. Carbon taxes also have the best chance of catching fire globally.

The carbon tax James Baker brought to the Trump White House on February 8 on behalf of the new Climate Leadership Council has a lot in common with I-732: The Councils proposal is also avowedly revenue neutral. But rather than lowering an existing tax, it relies on a so-called tax-and-dividend model: As the state of Alaska does with oil revenues, revenues from the Councils national carbon tax would be returned equally to all American households in quarterly dividends digitally deposited in Social Security accounts. The tax would start at $40 per ton of carbon dioxide.

Earmarking all of the revenue to these dividends creates the political will to raise the tax every year, since the dividends rise in tandem with the tax rate. Ramping up the tax by $5 a year would shrink the use of carbon fuels so drastically that, by my calculations, US carbon emissions in 2030 would be 40 percent less than they were in 2005 (a standard baseline year).

Government policy revolves around trade-offs, and on balance James Bakers carbon tax is worth supporting.

Yet this progress comes with a catch. The council would phase out much of the Environmental Protection Agencys regulatory authority over greenhouse gases and would outright repeal President Obamas Clean Power Plan to cut emissions from electricity generation. It would also immunize fossil-fuel companies from lawsuits for damages done by their productslawsuits such as those bound to arise from the revelations that ExxonMobil and other companies knew for decades about the climate damages their products cause, and lied about it.

But government policy revolves around trade-offs, and on balance the councils carbon tax is worth supporting. After all, well over 80 percent of the Clean Power Plans targeted reductions for 2030 were already achieved by the end of 2016. Thus trading away the Clean Power Plan for a tax that could scour fossil fuels from the entire economy is like swapping an aging ballplayer for the next superstar.

Of course, some people will not see it that way, particularly traditional green groups that helped write the laws and regulations that cleaned up the nations air and water. Some will regard the councils trade as a ploy to undo the EPAs authority to protect not just climatewhere it may be largely ineffectual anywaybut public health.

With Republicans tightly lashed to climate denial, the value of Bakers carbon-tax proposal may be less as a gateway to legislation and more as a spur for progressives and other citizens to take a clear look at carbon pricing.

Will progressives trust the verdict of economists that a revenue-neutral carbon tax can drive the energy transition so long as the tax level is high enough? Or do we support carbon taxes only if the revenues are invested in the clean-energy transition? If so, how do we craft a spending program that reconciles the claims of competing interests? And what is our blueprint for building political power to enact such a carbon tax, when tax remains a dirty word in national politics?

Clear majorities of Americans want climate action. Remarkably, some polls have even found that majorities of Americans support carbon taxes like the Climate Leadership Councils proposal. With the Democrats national defeats last November, the failure of climate activists to unite on the Washington state referendum is looking like an unforced error of cruel proportions. We cant afford to repeat that mistake at the national level.

See the original post:
Progressives Need to Get Over Themselves and Support This GOP-Backed Carbon-Tax Plan - The Nation.

Forbes

Coastal Progressives Score Lucrative Tax Deduction By Funding Bag Tax Lobbying Efforts Forbes Chocolates, jewelry, and flowers may be the last items many New Yorkers carry home in complimentary plastic shopping bags, as a new five-cent bag tax passed by the NYC City Council last year is scheduled to go into effect the day after Valentine's Day.

More:
Coastal Progressives Score Lucrative Tax Deduction By Funding Bag Tax Lobbying Efforts - Forbes

Many people who consider themselves progressive are stoked that Trumps National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned as the result of charges surrounding his discussions with a Russian ambassador while Trump was President-elect.

Congressional Democrats want to use the Flynn story to go after Trump. As Representative Nancy Pelosi said: After Flynn resignation, FBI must accelerate its investigation of the Trump Administrations Russian connection. Even before Flynns resignation, Representative Maxine Waters did a segment on Democracy Now called Trump Should Be Impeached If He Colluded with Russians Ahead of Election.

There are certainly good reasons to want to see Flynn go. He recently put Iran on notice while the White House tried to gin up the case against Iran.

And there are obvious reasons to try to impeach Trumpsee his violations of the emoluments clause.

But its easier, more nationalistic and ultimately horrifying for so-called progressives and others with an alleged interest in peace to be harping on the Russian angle.

The Clinton campaign focused on Russia time and again during the presidential campaignwith disastrous results. Clinton talked about Russia and Trump talked about jobs in the rust belt. Guess who won the presidency?

Democrats are making common cause with the most war-mongering parts of the U.S. establishment. They buttress incredibly dubious notions of U.S. victimology and demonize official enemies that increase U.S. militarism and the likelihood for confrontation with another nation on the planet that could destroy the planet a hundred times over.

Democrats are making common cause with the most war-mongering parts of the U.S. establishment. They buttress dubious notions of U.S. victimology and increase U.S. militarism and the likelihood for confrontation with a nation on the planet that could destroy the planet a hundred times over.

Trump had just reportedly turned down Elliott Abramss bid to be number two at the State Department. That was a good thing. Elliott Abrams was part of the Iran-Contra scandal and needed a Christmas Eve pardon from George H.W. Bush. He backed death squads in Central America. He then did a stint in the George W. Bush administration in charge of democracy promotion and was almost certainly behind still unaccountable horrors by Israel and in Iraq and elsewhere.

But he somehow gets depicted as the voice of reason. In fact, just as the major media were closing in on Flynn, Elliott Abrams appeared on CNN, saying he thought Steve Bannon was behind him not getting the job. Damn that crazy Bannon for apparently blocking a certifiable war criminal.

Trump won the presidency in large part because he was a Republican who could (with minimal credibility) talk about being against the establishment. I didn't buy it, but lots of people did. He won an election that I doubt many in the vast Republican field could have. Trump talked about non-intervention, he talked about preserving Social Security and Medicare.

One upshot of the Flynn resignation is that Vice President Mike Pence, a white Christian nationalist, who is also is a darling of both Wall Street and the neo con interventionists comes out smelling like roses. Trump is a twisted narcissist and a political opportunist. But Pence is more dangerous.

Flynn was compelled to resign in large part because what is euphemistically called the intelligence community apparently had a recording of his dealings with Russian representatives that he allegedly mischaracterized.

This implies that people will be held accountable for falsehoods that upset the CIA or the NSA.

Its worth keeping in mind that when Trump seemed to challenge this part of the permanent government in January, leading Democrat Chuck Schumer said Trump was really dumb for attacking the intelligence agencies. Said Schumer: Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.

And what else did we just see happening as Flynn was resigning? Steven Mnuchin, from the good folks at Goldman Sachs was confirmed as Treasury Secretary. The case against Mnuchin is so massive and his Wall Street / Goldman Sachs / Soros / foreclosure king / Skull and Bones pedigree is so not populist that it's quite remarkable that he was able to get through.

Virtually all the Democrats in the Senate did vote against Mnuchin. But they all knew that that wouldnt stop him. Schumer got to put out some populist rhetoric, conveniently ignoring his own deep ties to Wall Street.

Four of Schumers top funders through his political career are in insurance and finance: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Credit Suisse Group. Heck, he even took money from Mnuchin himself.

Wall Street and other corporate interests are quite firmly in control of the Democrats in Congress and Trump has put them in power in his cabinet. Part of the twisted dynamic now at work in Washington is that the populist / nationalist wing of the Trump administration would disappear if Trump were to make like Flynn, and disappear.

Trump is an obvious con artist and is not to be trusted. Id bet his attempts at a detente with Russia have to do with profiteeringor worse, with trying to go after China. But the criticism to date bares more resemblance to the Republican obsession with Benghazi than with an attempt to meaningfully try to change destructive U.S. policies around the world.

No meaningful critique of Trump can rely on demonizing the other major nuclear power, especially given the litany of examples of illegal U.S. aggression around the world, including such provocations of Russia as violating promises and expanding NATO to Russia's border. Putin makes U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia look like idyllic democratic wonderlands. That is to say, the United States has many unsavory allies.

If only liberals scrutinized Presidents when they want to go to war like they do Trump when he wants to make peace with Putin.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives Need to Think Through Implications of Flynn's Resignation - Progressive.org