Daily Archives: March 23, 2017

Atlas holding the world at Rockefeller Center. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is an honored favorite for many in the GOP. (Flickr CC 20.0 /GmanViz)

The one question you never hear journalists ask Republicans is why?

Why do so many Republicans want to throw 24 million struggling Americans off the health insurance rolls? Why does the allegedly populist Trump administration submit a budget that slashes job training programs for the very same jobless white folks he claimed to represent?

Why cut Meals on Wheels, child care, after-school programs and learning centers for the poor, affordable housing and aid to the homeless? Why zero out occupational safety training and economic growth assistance in distressed communities in Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta (more Trump constituents)? Why slash legal aid and medicine and food for the sick and hungry in the developing world, among many others?

the real and simple question they should be asking is a moral one: Why do Republicans seem intent on hurting the most vulnerable among us?

Journalists ask Republicans about policies, mechanisms and money, but those are technical questions when the real and simple question they should be asking is a moral one: Why do Republicans seem intent on hurting the most vulnerable among us?

Unfortunately, the answer may just be, to paraphrase Clint Eastwoods Dirty Harry on why serial killers murder: because they like it.

Sure, we know the rote answers. Republicans love to talk about choice and freedom and markets and deficit reduction and personal responsibility and all sorts of ideological claptrap that seems to slap principle on what really is punishment. At best these are smokescreens, at worst traps that have succeeded in entangling the media, Democrats and Americans generally in arguments about tactics or priorities rather than arguments about motives and their real-life consequences.

There was a time when Republicans worried they might be perceived as being on the wrong side of morality, even if that worry didnt move them to get on the right side. They used to dress up their cruelty not only in those old Milton Friedman free market clichs but in new ones like compassionate conservatism, because even as they knew there was nothing compassionate about it, they also knew that most Americans werent buying into letting the poor fend for themselves. That wasnt American. That wasnt human.

Some of that window dressing remains in the Trump era, but not much. Republicans still feel obliged to declare that their health care plan will cover more Americans at a lower cost, but everyone knows they are lying. By one report, when the White House ran the numbers, it predicted 26 million would lose health coverage 2 million more than the Congressional Budget Office figure.

BY Neal Gabler | March 13, 2017

Speaker Paul Ryan was more than sanguine about those sufferers. He flashed a vulpine smile in recounting the CBO numbers, actually saying they were better than he had thought, which is to say that the American Health Care Act, as they call it, may have been intended to deny coverage, just as Trumps budget clearly was intended to hurt the most vulnerable, including those vulnerable supporters of his. To my mind, these werent collateral effects. They were the very reasons for the AHCA and the budget.

So, again, why? What kind of people seem dedicated to inflicting pain on others?

It is not an easy question to answer, since it violates all precepts of basic decency. I suspect it comes from a meld of Calvinism with social Darwinism. From Calvinism, conservatives borrowed both a pinched and unsparing view of humanity as well as the idea of election namely, that God elects some folks for redemption, which, when rebooted for modern conservatism, has an economic component. Plain and simple, rich people are rich because they are better than poor people.

By the same token, poor people are poor because they are worse. This is Gods edict, so to speak. (The so-called Calvinist revival has an awful lot in common with Trumpism.) From social Darwinism, they borrowed the idea that this is the way the world should be: winners and losers, those who can succeed and those who cant. It is a world without luck, except for tough luck.

Plain and simple, rich people are rich because they are better than poor people.

From this perspective, conservatives may not really think they are harming the vulnerable but instead harming the undeserving, which is very different. In effect, conservatives believe they are only meting out divine and natural justice. Its convenient, of course, that this justice turns out to be redistributive, taking resources from the poor and middle class and funneling them to the wealthy, who happen to be the benefactors of conservatism as well as its beneficiaries. (Just note how Republicans howl about redistribution when it is the other way around.) Where many of us see need, they only see indolence and impotence. It is, by almost any gauge, not only self-serving but also plainly wrong moralistic rather than moral.

But if Republicans see their moral duty as denying help to the weak, that denial is part of a larger and even uglier social equation. In a recent New York Times column, Linda Greenhouse recalled an exchange 30 years ago between Robert Bork and Illinois Sen. Paul Simon during Borks confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. Simon asked Bork about a speech he had given two years earlier, in which the judge said:

when a court adds to one persons constitutional rights, it subtracts from the rights of others.

The senator asked, Do you believe that is always true?

Yes, Senator, Judge Bork replied. I think its a matter of plain arithmetic.

Sen. Simon: I have long thought it is kind of fundamental in our society that when you expand the liberty of any of us, you expand the liberty of all of us.

Judge Bork: I think, Senator, that is not correct.

Remember that although (or perhaps because!) his Supreme Court nomination failed, Bork is a conservative deity. As far as conservatives and Republicans are concerned, to give anything to the less fortunate is to subtract it from everyone else a zero-sum game between the rich and the rest of America.

This isnt politics. This is bedrock conservative philosophy. And it may have no more eager avatar than Donald Trump, who is all about winning and losing. Trump has always professed to want to blow up the system. He is like a child knocking down a tower of blocks, only in his case the blocks are American democracy and decency.

But with the AHCA and his Draconian budget, one that even a few Republicans no doubt fearing voter retribution blanched at, Trump may not have blown up the system so much as he has blown the Republicans cover. He even seems to have emboldened some of them to come out of hiding and admit that any assistance for the poor is too much.

This we always suspected. What is harder to parse is the joy conservative Republicans seem to get in hurting the weak, making the GOP not just the punishment party, but also the schadenfreude party. Or put in different terms: Conservatism didnt create meanness, but meanness sure created conservatism.

We might be able to understand that sense of smug moral and social superiority from doctrinaire Republicans who spout Ayn Rand and detest those whose hurdles are the highest. We all know hate can be intoxicating. But these past two weeks Ryan and Trump have been gambling on something else that many of their fellow Americans agree with them, that these Americans share a deep and abiding hostility to those who need government assistance. Whether Ryan and Trump are right may very well determine the fate of this administration and the country.

So the second big question, alongside why Republicans and conservatives seem to luxuriate in cruelty, is why any other ordinary American would. There have been predictions on the left that once those ordinary Americans feel the sting of losing health care or job training or work safety regulations or clean water and air, they will revolt, and Trump will be dust. But there is no certainty to this. A recent New York Times piece on this very issue indicated that at least some Trump supporters know they will suffer from his budget and still support him.

Another Times article, by Eduardo Porter, quoted a Harvard economist suggesting that the white working class feel they get so little benefit from the so-called welfare state that they see things through the same zero-sum prism as Bork, Ryan and Trump. Whatever the poor gain, the white working class loses.

When you think how much the government does for so many across such a wide spectrum, you wonder what world these people are living in. Indeed, a signal achievement of conservatism, decades in the making, has been pitting the have littles against the have nots while the have lots stayed above the fray. Of course, by that calculation, you might think the struggling white working class would be on the loser side of the ledger, sentenced to defeat by their own deficiencies in our Darwinist world. But in another neat trick, Republicans have managed to convince them they are victims of twin demonic forces, government and liberal elites, that disrupt the natural order of things. In this way, many Republicans helped turn many Americans into brutes and our American community into a state of nature. There couldnt have been a President Trump without it. There couldnt have been an ACHA or a Trump budget either.

This, then, is a vital moment for American morality and, to the extent the two are intertwined, American democracy. You cant pretend Trump and his Republican pals are trying to achieve good ends by different means. They arent. You cant act as if they give a damn about the millions of poor and working-class Americans. They dont.

But even as their cover is blown, someone needs to keep asking them the fundamental question again and again and again: Why?

Follow this link:

Has the Trump Budget Blown Republicans' Cover? - BillMoyers.com

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

3

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

House Speaker Paul Ryan was inspired to become a politician when he read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

NorthJersey 1:17 p.m. ET March 21, 2017

House Speaker Paul Ryan was inspired to become a politician when he read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.The premise is simple: There are makers and there are takers.The makers create wealth and provide jobs. The government taxes the makers and gives the money to the undeserving takers. Whenever government does this, the takers call it entitlements.The Republicans call it welfare, class warfareand a redistribution of wealth.

The rush to repeal and replace Obamacare is a masquerade. It is a huge tax cut for the wealthy, disguised as health reform. Republicans cannot pass more tax cuts for the rich by a simple majority in the Senate unless they do so in a way that doesnt add to the deficit.By cutting money for Medicaid and Obamacare, they will able to reduce the federal deficit and thus can move to tax reform where the lions share of tax cuts will again go to the wealthy.

Die-hard conservatives Ryan, Clarence Thomasand Ben Carson are all Ayn Rand devotees.All have benefited from government largess. Ayn Rand, herself, was recipient of both Social Security and Medicare near the end of her life.

JohnnieNajarian

River Edge, March 20

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2mMr1WW

0) { %>

0) { %>

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: Ayn Rand's influence in the rush to repeal Obamacare - NorthJersey.com

A sea of daffodils blooming in Hyde Park in London on March 1, 2017.

In the Arguable e-mail newsletter, columnist Jeff Jacoby offers his take on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day. Sign up here.

Spring has sprung

Happy vernal equinox! Today is the official start of spring, the date when night and day are each 12 hours long, right? Actually . . . wrong.

Two parents are better than one

Last year, 140 million babies were born around the world. About 15% of them were born out of wedlock. While it is still almost unheard-of in many Asian and African countries for unmarried mothers to have a baby, in much of Europe and the Americas it has become only too common.

Advertisement

In a new study published by YaleGlobal, demographer Joseph Chamie notes that of the 35 leading industrialized nations, only five Greece, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey still have out-of-wedlock birth rates below 10%.

By contrast, writes Chamie, who was formerly the head of the UN Population Division, In the large majority of more developed countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, more than one-third of all births take place out of wedlock. And within individual countries, there are often wide differences between population subgroups.

In the United States, for example, significant differences in out-of-wedlock births exist among major social groups. While the national average for the United States in 2014 is 40 percent, the proportions of births out of wedlock for whites are 29 percent; Hispanics, 53 percent; and blacks, 71 percent.

This weeks newsletter from columnist Jeff Jacoby.

Chamie doesnt expressly judge the desirability of children being raised by only one parent Im sure he was conditioned long ago to stay away from that highly-charged debate. In many circles, political correctness and moral nonjudgmentalism make it virtually impossible to discuss the explosion in out-of-wedlock births what used to be called illegitimacy with candor.

The closest Chamie comes to acknowledging the risks parents take when they choose to bear children without providing an intact family setting is in his final paragraph:

Advertisement

In too many instances the children born out of wedlock are disadvantaged and fail to receive the necessary protections, support and assistance to ensure their health, development, and well-being. Unfortunately, this challenge, too often ignored to the detriment of the children, communities, and countries, must be addressed.

Few topics in modern discourse are as emotionally, politically, and ideologically fraught as the choices people make in forming families. When the subject turns to raising children without two parents, civility often boils away in heated self-righteousness. This isnt new: Think of the outraged reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihans 1965 report on the breakdown of the Negro family, or the uproar over the Murphy Brown sitcom during the 1992 presidential race.

Of course not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama is a perfect example. He was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, yet rose to remarkable heights of power and influence. But as Obama himself stressed more than once, exceptions like him dont disprove the rule. The data arent in question.

Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty, Obama said at a Fathers Day event in 2010.

Theyre more likely to drop out of school. Theyre more likely to wind up in prison. Theyre more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Theyre more likely to run away from home. Theyre more likely to become teenage parents themselves. And I say all this as someone who grew up without a father in my own life.

As a rule it takes two parents to raise a child, however un-PC it has become to say so. The old stigma against unwed motherhood wasnt always fair or kind. But it was realistic. And it was certainly better than blithely accepting a society in which 40% of American children are raised without knowing the love of two parents, or being sheltered in the home they make together.

Got Grammar?

Probably it was never literally true that for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. But it is indisputably true that for want of a comma, a $10 million class-action lawsuit against the Oakhurst Dairy Company of Portland, Maine, was lost.

For Oxford comma sticklers like me, last weeks ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a thing of grammatical joy. The dispute involved Maines overtime statute, which exempts specified tasks from overtime pay. Among those exempted functions were these:

Oakhurst Dairys drivers claimed they were owed overtime pay for distribution of the companys products. The company argued that the statute only exempted those involved in packing for shipment or distribution not the drivers doing the actual distributing. If lawmakers had included a comma before the or, all would have been clear: Drivers employed in distribution would not be entitled to overtime pay. But without that final comma known as a serial or Oxford comma ambiguity was unavoidable. In resolving it, the appeals court ruled that the drivers had the better case, and so Oakhurst Dairy is out $10 million.

As far as Im concerned, the case for the serial comma has always seemed obvious. I cant understood why anyone would advise leaving it out as a matter of routine. A classic demonstration of the need for the serial comma is this (doubtless apocryphal) book dedication: To my parents, Ayn Rand and God. Without a comma before the conjunction, the author seems to be crazy or blasphemous enough to imagine that the author of Atlas Shrugged and the Almighty were his mother and father. But add a single comma To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God and clarity reigns.

The story reminded me of one of those great exchanges that for years made William F. Buckleys Notes & Asides the column in which he regularly reproduced his exchanges with colleagues, readers, and other correspondents the best part of National Review. From December 1972:

A ukase. Un- negotiable. The only one I have issued in seventeen years. It goes: John went to the store and bought some apples, oranges, and bananas. NOT: John went to the store and bought some apples, oranges and bananas. I am told National Reviews style book stipulates the omission of the second comma. My comment: National Reviews style book used to stipulate the omission of the second comma. National Reviews style book, effective immediately, makes the omission of the second comma a capital offense!

Among the responses was this lament from D. Keith Mano, a National Review columnist, to the magazines managing editor, Buckleys sister Priscilla:

I have read with dismay WFBs ukase on the serial comma. I cant do it. No way. Its just plain ugly. WFB says this is un-negotiable. . . . How serious is he? Can I arrange a dispensation?

Look: Ill compromise. There should be peace in the family. Instead of John went to the store and bought some apples, oranges, and bananas how about if he just buys oranges and bananas? Or a head of non-union lettuce. You see what this sort of restriction leads to. And they ask me why fiction is dying. Erich Segal, I bet, uses the serial comma.

You may tell WFB that, from now on and as ordered, I salute the red and white.

OK, OK, maybe you have to be a grammar nerd to bliss out to this kind of thing. Back in the day, I confess, I was the sentence-diagramming champion of Mrs. OBriens 7th-grade boys English class at the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland. But even you dont know a gerund from a present participle, you ought to be careful about commas. Leave one out, and it could cost someone $10 million.

Or, perish the thought, even worse.

The cost of feminism

What would you pay for a plain white cotton T-shirt, printed with the words We Should All Be Feminists? $7? $17?

In fact, at Saks Fifth Avenue, that Dior T-shirt will set you back $710. Or would, if it werent already sold out. A sucker really is born every minute, and some of them are women. Dior is happy to take their money and let them think theyre making a social statement.

How to be a jerk with snow

Perhaps you saw the story over the weekend by the Boston Globes Steve Annear, who described how a snow plow driver in Brockton, Mass., went out of his way to be a schmuck and lost his job as a result.

Out of spite and rudeness, the driver deliberately plowed a heap of slushy snow into the end of a driveway that a 21-year-old resident had nearly finished clearing. Then the driver backed up, reloaded, and shoved even more snow on the pile. Then he did it again. The resident, it seems, had made the mistake of asking the snowplow operator to bypass the driveway because he was trying to clear the way so his father to leave. The driver decided to teach the young shoveler a lesson not to mess with the plow man.

Happily, the driver swiftly got his comeuppance. His abusive behavior was captured on a cellphone video, posted to Facebook, and shown to Brocktons mayor. Long story short, the snowplow driver was tracked down and fired. Good riddance.

But snowplow operators with an attitude arent the ones out there who are jerks about snow removal.

Almost as boorish and inconsiderate as the plow driver in the Globes story are property owners who cant be bothered to clear the snow from their sidewalks after a snowstorm. Shoveling isnt optional; its a legal requirement, like paying property taxes and fixing known hazards. Clearing the snow and salting against ice arent mere niceties, either. All it takes is one or two selfish non-shovelers to make an entire block impassable and to inflict misery on a parent pushing a stroller . . . or a handicapped senior struggling with a walker . . . or someone confined to a wheelchair.

Homeowners, landlords, and shopkeepers who ignore their obligation to make their sidewalks passable often leave pedestrians no option but to walk in the street, which can be unpleasant, dirty, and dangeorus. When sidewalks are blocked by snow or ice, people often are left with no choice but to take to a busy roadway made even more congested and perilous by the snow massed along the curbs, along with the blaring of drivers horns and the constant threat of being drenched by slush and icy water.

Non-shovelers are a menace to their neighborhoods, and city hall should throw the book at more of them. Start with stiff fines for the first couple of offenses. If that doesnt do the trick, perhaps some jail time will.

Only 364 days until the next wearin o the green

He was kidnapped at age 16 by pirates, he was forced into slavery as a shepherd, he is the patron saint of Nigeria . . . and other interesting things you never knew about St. Patrick.

Looking backward

My column yesterday argued that the only meaningful way to replace and repeal Obamacare is to pull the law up by the roots and then keep going. Two generations of health-care reform have wrecked what could be a robust free market in medical care and health insurance, with vendors and providers competing to offer better and better products at lower and lower prices.

In Wednesdays column I noted that climate-change models have been consistently wrong. If scientists cannot yet make accurate predictions about the degree to which climate will change, the logical conclusion is that their understanding of the science is still incomplete. I agreed with Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator, who told an interviewer that we need to continue the debate and . . . the review and the analysis before making irrevocable changes to the economy.

Wild Wild Web

Whats a scary sight? Dwight Eisenhower in a bathing suit is a scary sight.

Love padlocks on fences and bridges are lame. Umbrellas on trees are cool.

This video is not in reverse:

The last line

But they never learned what it was that Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which had to do, for there was a gust of wind, and they were gone. Madeleine LEngle, A Wrinkle in Time (1962)

Arguable will be back next Monday. Have a great week!

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

Read more:

Arguable: Welcome, vernal equinox - The Boston Globe