“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
New York Times Editorial Board: Race, Politics and Drawing Maps
The Supreme Court Hears an Alabama Case on the Voting Rights Act
As long as politicians are entrusted with drawing legislative maps, they will use their pen to gain partisan advantage. Courts generally do not interfere with that process, but there are limits to this where race is involved. The problem is figuring out which motive – race or partisanship – underlies the redistricting. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court considered this issue in a thorny case that could have significant implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act.
The main legal question before the justices was whether Alabama lawmakers had paid too much attention to race when they redrew the state’s district lines.
The 1965 voting law requires states to create districts where minorities can elect candidates of their choice, specifically in places where whites and blacks tend to pick different candidates. That’s clearly the case in Alabama, where, in 2008, Barack Obama received 98 percent of the black vote and 10 percent of the white vote.
Paul Krugman: China, Coal, Climate
It’s easy to be cynical about summit meetings. Often they’re just photo ops, and the photos from the latest Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting, which had world leaders looking remarkably like the cast of “Star Trek,” were especially cringe-worthy. At best – almost always – they’re just occasions to formally announce agreements already worked out by lower-level officials.
Once in a while, however, something really important emerges. And this is one of those times: The agreement between China and the United States on carbon emissions is, in fact, a big deal.
To understand why, you first have to understand the defense in depth that fossil-fuel interests and their loyal servants – nowadays including the entire Republican Party – have erected against any action to save the planet.
It’s easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary Clinton’s inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC’s game of thrones, she’s about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the few unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely inspiring gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.
That she’s the beneficiary of dynastic succession – who may very well be pitted against the next heir in line from the regal Bush dynasty (this one, not yet this one) – makes it all the more tempting to regard #HillaryTime with an evenly distributed mix of boredom and contempt. The tens of millions of dollars the Clintons have jointly “earned” off their political celebrity – much of it speaking to the very globalists, industry groups, hedge funds, and other Wall Street appendages who would have among the largest stake in her presidency – make the spectacle that much more depressing (the likely candidate is pictured above with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at an event in September).
But one shouldn’t be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances…
David Sirota: Wall Street Takes Over More Statehouses
No runoff will be needed to declare one unambiguous winner in this month’s gubernatorial elections: the financial services industry. From Illinois to Massachusetts, voters effectively placed more than $100 billion worth of public pension investments under the control of executives-turned-politicians whose firms profit by managing state pension money.
The elections played out as states and cities across the country debate the merits of shifting public pension money-the retirement savings for police, firefighters, teachers and other public employees-from plain vanilla investments such as index funds into higher-risk alternatives like hedge funds and private equity funds.
Critics argue that this course has often failed to boost returns enough to compensate for taxpayer-financed fees paid to the financial services companies that manage the money. Wall Street firms and executives have poured campaign contributions into states that have embraced the strategy, eager for expanded opportunities. The election results affirmed that this money was well spent: More public pension money will now likely be entrusted to the financial services industry.
Robert L. Borosage: More Than the Minimum: Obama’s Next Executive Action
With a stroke of the pen, the president can have a dramatic effect on the lives of Lewis and millions of workers, leveraging not only the $1 trillion in spending on federal contracts, but setting an example that will accelerate similar action at the state and local level.
The choice here is a simple one. President Obama has held up Costco as an example of a good jobs employer that is remarkably successful. It pays its workers a decent wage with good benefits, doesn’t reward its CEO obscene bonuses, and respects workers’ rights. In stark contrast, Walmart pays its workers so little that taxpayers end up paying billions to subsidize their low wages and lousy benefits. Clearly, the federal government should be standing on the side of good employers rather than rewarding exploitative ones that layoff part of their costs on taxpayers.
Last week’s election showed that Americans are unhappy with a recovery that does not include them. A Hart poll for the AFLCIO showed that more than four out of five voters (87 percent) reported that they were sinking or treading water in this economy.
Democrats paid the price for that discontent. The big winners, even in red states like Arkansas and Nebraska, were initiatives to raise the minimum wage and guarantee sick leave.
Richard (RJ) Eskow : Bill Clinton’s Out of Touch Economically — and That’s a Big Deal
He’s eloquent, he’s popular … and he’s out of touch with the daily lives of most Americans. Bill Clinton’s economic worldview spells trouble, both for a party that’s still reeling from defeat and for a nation where millions of people struggle just to make ends meet.
Hillary Clinton, the heavily-favored contender for the Democratic nomination, has made Bill’s presidency and her role in it an essential part of her resume. But “Clintonism,” the Wall Street-friendly economic ideology of a bygone era, has passed its sell-by date. The former president’s latest remarks confirm that.
The 1990s are over. This is a different country now, both economically and politically. But the presumptive nominee’s partner and most important colleague still holds views which are sharply at odds with both economic reality and the nation’s mood. That’s a big deal. His opinions could have a profound impact on our political and economic future.
If Hillary Clinton disagrees with the former president’s views, she hasn’t said so.
Recent Comments