“Pondering 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 “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
New York Times Editorial Board: Republican Threats and the Supreme Court
On Monday, John Cornyn, the senior Republican senator from Texas, warned President Obama that if he dares to name a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, the nominee “will bear some resemblance to a piñata.”
Violent imagery has been commonplace in political statements for a long time, but even so, it is disgraceful for a senator to play the thug, threatening harm to someone simply for appearing before Congress to answer questions about professional accomplishments and constitutional philosophy.
On Thursday, during the first Senate Judiciary Committee hearing since Justice Scalia’s death last month, Mr. Cornyn and his fellow Republicans found themselves in an unenviable position. By refusing to do the job that every previous Senate has done, they look like deranged obstructionists. On the other hand, they know that if they give the president’s nominee a hearing, it will become nearly impossible to portray that person as unqualified.
Jeb Lund: The Republican debate sounded reasonable. That doesn’t mean it was
Just because it’s quieter doesn’t make it any smarter.
Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate in Miami – one of what physics tells us could theoretically be millions – was a subdued affair, especially compared to the flailing, hair-pulling, spitball-shooting daycare fight of last week. But the best thing you can say about it is that a controlled and even-toned insane statement can be just as menacing and just as insane.
The immediate concern for the other Republican candidates is that the beast seems to be learning. Donald Trump’s opening statement actually sounded as if it had been prepared and considered, a disciplined departure from his previous free associations about winning, doing the opposite of not-winning, then getting sick of it. Now that the finish line is in sight, the raw, ravening animal that is the spirit of the Trump campaign appears willing to play at looking tame if it will snooker more squares on the way to the ballot box.
Elizabeth Warren: Senate Republicans: Do Your Job
There’s a vacancy on the most important court in America, and the message from Senate Republicans is crystal clear: forget the Constitution. For Senate Republicans, it does not matter who President Obama nominates because they will allow no votes and will hold no hearings on that nominee. Their response to one of the most solemn and consequential tasks that our government performs is to pretend that the nominee — and President Obama himself — do not exist.
At the same time that they are blocking all possible Supreme Court nominees, Senate Republicans are in a panic because their party appears to be on a path to nominate one of two extremists for president — extremists who attack the legitimacy of their political opponents and demean millions of Americans. Senate Republicans worry that, if either candidate is selected to be the party’s standard-bearer, the Republican party will lose in November.
Republicans’ stance on Supreme Court nominees and their response to the extremists at the top of their party’s ticket are the same issue. And the solution is simple. If Republican Senators want to stand up to extremists running for president, they can start by standing up to extremists in the Senate. They can start by doing their jobs
Paul Krugman: Trade and Tribulation
Why did Bernie Sanders win a narrow victory in Michigan, when polls showed Hillary Clinton with a huge lead? Nobody really knows, but there’s a lot of speculation that Mr. Sanders may have gained traction by hammering on the evils of trade agreements. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, while directing most of his fire against immigrants, has also been bashing the supposedly unfair trading practices of China and other nations.
So, has the protectionist moment finally arrived? Maybe, maybe not: There are other possible explanations for Michigan, and free-traders have repeatedly cried wolf about protectionist waves that never materialized. Still, this time could be different. And if protectionism really is becoming an important political force, how should reasonable people — economists and others — respond?
To make sense of the debate over trade, there are three things you need to know.
Nancy Altman: The Pro-Social Security Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget
Of all the FY 2017 proposed budgets, the Congressional Progressive Caucus People’s Budget is by far the best on Social Security. It deserves the support of everyone who supports Social Security.
What makes the CPC budget so strong is what it doesn’t do: It does not include Social Security. Finally, a budget that follows the law!
Pub. L.101-508, title XIII, Sec.13301(a), Nov. 5,1990,104 Stat.1388-623, unambiguously states that Social Security “shall NOT be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of – (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, [or] (2) the congressional budget.” (Emphasis added.)
The reason for the law is clear. Private employers who sponsor pension plans are legally required to keep plan income and assets segregated from the company’s general operating fund. Under the same principle, the law requires that Social Security’s income and assets be kept segregated from the general operating fund of its plan sponsor, the federal government.
Too many Americans believe that their Social Security contributions have been stolen by their government, diverted to some unauthorized purpose. All the proposed budgets but the CPC’s inadvertently reinforce the false impression that the people’s pension monies – the Social Security trust funds — are not being properly managed. The other budgets treat the funds as commingled in a so-called unified budget — despite the clear requirements of the law to do the contrary. In contrast, the CPC budget makes it perfectly clear that Social Security’s funds are held in trust, separate and apart from the general fund.
Recent Comments