Donald Trump sent the American people a clear message on Tuesday when he announced an end to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): in Trump’s America it is acceptable to deny people their humanity and deport them from the country they grew up in because they have a different skin color, talk with a different accent, or come from a different part of the world.
Yesterday evening, Monday August 21, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin made a statement that effectively reversed Donald Trump’s campaign promise to close the carried interest loophole.
Congress finally got the message from the American people. And the message they received is clear: major political donors should have more money and more influence on politics.
The strength of any state is its people. To succeed and grow, a state needs its citizens to be engaged, both civically and economically.
When I was young, people knew what “our way of life” meant. And that’s what worries me.
In a previous blog we described “A Pledge to Return Control of the Government to the Citizens.” We now proceed to explore how such a tool could be utilized.
During every election cycle it seems that all anyone can talk about is the necessity for a dramatic change in the political system. Yet, each time a new Congress is sworn in, it seems to be more of the same.
There might be a few legitimate reasons for someone to have a company based out of the British West Indies. Perhaps they happen to be one of the 57,000 people who live there.
In a recent Bloomberg article Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) was quoted saying that he and his colleagues “need to hear from people who are in that business” to get a clearer picture of how to tax carried interest.
For all the noise made about Constitutional originalism when discussing the Supreme Court, the really radical departures from the traditions of our democracy in the last century have come from conservative justices and their stances on political spending.
The Supreme Court’s argument for allowing unlimited campaign expenditures hinges on the differences between political contributions and independent expenditures.
The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United unleashed a tide of money into our political system, placing our democracy in peril.
“Make America sick again,” goes the chant of Democrats around the country to resist the Republican repeal and replace agenda for the Affordable Care Act.
A level playing field, in which all Americans have equal political power, is at the core of everything America is and aspires to be. If “all men are created equal,” then shouldn’t all men, and women, too, have an equal opportunity to influence the political life of our country?
Who has power and who doesn’t? Ultimately the future of our country and the well-being of our citizens rests almost entirely in the answer to those basic questions.
In general Alexis de Tocqueville thought America was indeed a democratic nation. It’s doubtful if he would have that opinion today.
Two hundred and thirty years later, the cancer of money in politics — as epitomized by the gross wealth and political power of players like Rubenstein — threatens to destroy that very same democracy.
We would expect a more serious analysis from the largest newspaper in the Wisconsin, but they missed the fundamental issue.
As global wealth concentrates in fewer hands, the world’s wealthy are shifting trillions to offshore havens to escape taxation, accountability, and publicity.
I talk to my father all the time. At 95, he’s still fighting pork barrel projects in Jacksonville, and writing columns for the weekly paper. And I know he will continue to do so as long as he can breathe, and write, and fight and think. I marvel at how much he has been able to accomplish without having the financial resources available to me. How much more of an obligation do I have, then, to ensure that others have access to the opportunities for success that I have enjoyed?