Robert Reich Lashes Out Falsely Again

Tonight I reach once again into the bowels of the Huffington Post for an article that I will systematically address, as I am sometimes prone to do. What caught my attention in the headline was the social darwinism part. As most of you know, I am not opposed to social darwinism. I think in many cases it is the proper thing. There are exceptions, but by and large, the survival of the species, according to evolutionary dictates (which I thought Democrats worshiped), demands that we allow the weak to be weeded out of the gene pool. Tonight’s target is Robert Reich. As many of you are aware, Reich served as the US Secretary of Labor and is also a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. I find him to be generally wrong on many things, and his partisan bias is evident in his economic advice. Because he is a strong believer in Keynes principles, I feel he is lost. But when he writes such drivel as below, I feel compelled to call him out on it. For the record, I think that it is authors such as Reich (along with Cesca and Johann Hari) that have rendered the Huffington Post somewhat damaged goods. For every good author and article there will be a clearly partisan and off base one like this.

As is the case with the others I have done this to, I am compelled to tell everyone up front that Reich’s article originally appeared at the Huffington Post and you can view it, and the comments that followed it at their site by following this link:

Republican Economics as Social Darwinism
by Robert Reich

John Boehner, the Republican House leader who will become Speaker if Democrats lose control of the House in the upcoming midterms, recently offered his solution to the current economic crisis: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life.”

Actually, those weren’t Boehner’s words. They were uttered by Herbert Hoover’s treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon, after the Great Crash of 1929.

Reich starts right off with a catchy opening, an effective writing method. Unfortunately he takes Mellon’s words out of context and never offers any history or context to help the reader understand what Mellon was talking about or why he felt that the steps he put forth with some obvious inflammatory language that lacked general tact we the right way to go. The intent here is obvious. Reich wants to paint the GOP position as evil and intentionally aimed at hurting regular Americans. Surprise! Rather than argue the merits, or lack of, in the GOP position, Reich starts out with an emotional appeal to ensure that the reader is conditioned to agree.

But they might as well have been Boehner’s because Hoover’s and Mellon’s means of purging the rottenness was by doing exactly what Boehner and his colleagues are now calling for: shrink government, cut the federal deficit, reduce the national debt, and balance the budget.

Actually they didn’t say the same thing at all. Making government smaller is not anywhere near the same as saying that we should liquidate labor. Cutting the deficit, reducing the debt, and balancing the budget are not even in the same ballpark as liquidating stocks and farmers. And it certainly has nothing to do with leading to a “more moral life.” I hope that you can all see the ridiculousness of Reich’s comparisons. He takes rational measures and tells us that somehow they are a different way of saying the same things that Mellon said. What? Where do you see the similarities Robert? That’s right, you don’t. Your intent was to demonize those positions and this was the only lame way you knew to do it.

What is most interesting in this comparison is that the measures that he lambasts Boehner for, cutting the deficit, reducing the debt, and balancing the budget, are the exact same goals that Reich’s own party, the Democrats ALSO claim they want to do. In fact, as I recall, the entire Democratic campaign in 2008 was focused on the “failed policies of the Bush administration” that resulted in an increased national debt, deficit, and a way out of balance budget. I thought Clinton was great for giving us a Surplus. Now we find out that this is somehow evil in Reich’s book.

And we all know what happened after 1929, at least until FDR reversed course.

You have to love the revisionist history that Reich and the left have attempted to pawn off on us for so long. FDR’s policies did NOT reverse the course of the Great Depression. They simply grew government and created a false economy that continued to falter until the second World War came along and reversed course for the US. And it is important for the progressives to push this false history as true. To do otherwise would be to admit that drastically growing government and increasing debt didn’t work. Then how would they justify their attempts to do so again?

Boehner and other Republicans would even like to roll back the New Deal and get rid of Barack Obama’s smaller deal health-care law.

Personally, I believe that rolling back the New Deal is something that A LOT of Americans would like to see done. Americans took awhile to realize the truth, but many now recognize that many of the federal bureaucracies that FDR created have drastically damaged the US. Many have realized that a gigantic government that invades every single aspect of our lives is simply not sustainable and is as ineffective as hoping you can replace a levee with toilet paper rolls.

As for the health care law, you are damn right we want to get rid of it. Now that people have had some time to read it and digest it, they are beginning to realize what a disaster of a bill the left forced down their throats. Not a single Democrat running for reelection is running on the notion of “I voted FOR the health care bill.” And Dems are now distancing themselves from that faulty legislation quickly. There will be a move to repeal the law because the only ones who still like it are the far, far left and the lobbyists who wrote it.

I want to be very clear to you Robert. The GOP and most Americans don’t oppose the health care bill that was passed because we don’t care about people or because we don’t realize there are things we need to fix and people we need to help. We oppose it because Obama’s health care bill absolutely and completely SUCKS and it will hurt Americans far more than help them.

The issue isn’t just economic. We’re back to tough love. The basic idea is to force people to live with the consequences of whatever happens to them.

The victim mentality of the left pervades once again. The progressive movement never believes that people are capable of controlling their own destiny, that they are the result of the choices that they make in life. Everyone is a victim. Everything is a result of what happens TO people, and has nothing to do with the people themselves. Foreclosures, for example, are what happens TO people, through no fault of their own. Forget that those people chose not to pursue higher education levels, were satisfied with mediocre jobs, and purchsed homes that they couldn’t afford and should not have purchase in the first place. They are victims of the evil rich, and it is government’s job to save them. Progressives find personal responsibility to be a foreign concept.

In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.

And oddly the society in question has consistently declined in terms of its “moral fiber” ever since the late 19th century. Weird.

Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush’s proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded.

Of course Republicans don’t talk openly about destroying Social Security, because it’s so popular. The new Republican “pledge” promises only to put it on a “fiscally responsible footing.” Translated: we’ll privatize it.

First, it is a falsehood that Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since 1935. Their push to reform social security didn’t start until a few decades later, when it became apparent that the system was not looking like it was really going to work the way it was sold. The government for years has used it as its own personal piggy bank and slush fund. It was created under the premise that Americans were too stupid to plan for their own retirement. Well, you have proven that the government is completely incapable of managing money, a budget, or our retirement. Perhaps it is time that you gave the reigns back to us. To use your own party’s analogy, you drove it in the ditch and want us to let you keep the keys.

I am not a Republican, but I will talk openly about destroying social security. I don’t want to privatize it, I want to eliminate it. Create a grandfather rule so that those that paid in get everything back that they ever paid, and not a dime more. New entrants to the work force won’t have the money taken from their earnings and we can move forward being personally responsible for our OWN retirement. Damnit, there is that phrase again. I forgot how much you hate the idea of personal responsibility.

Look, I used to be a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. Believe me when I tell you Social Security is basically okay. It may need a little fine tuning but I guarantee you’ll receive your Social Security check by the time you retire even if that’s forty years from now.

Translated: Look, I know more than you do about Social Security. Don’t listen to those evil GOP liars. Social Security is absolutely fine. TRUST ME, you have nothing to worry about. Look deep into my eyes. YOU HAVE NO REASON TO OPPOSE GOVERNMENT CONTINUING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR EARNINGS UNDER THE FALSE PROMISE THAT WE WILL RETURN IT TO YOU WHEN YOU RETIRE. Come on, Robert, we are not that stupid. The numbers don’t lie. Social Security became a government slush fund quite some time ago, and it has never been safe from that point forward. Why exactly does Congress keep pushing the retirement age further and further out?

Medicare, on the other hand, is a huge problem and its projected deficits are truly scary. But that’s partly because George W. Bush created a new drug benefit that’s hugely profitable for Big Phrma (something the Republican pledge conspicuously fails to address). The underlying problem, though, is health-care costs are soaring.

Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise even faster. In extending coverage, it allows 30 million Americans to get preventive care. Take it away and they’ll end up in far more expensive emergency rooms.

Oh, that’s right, blame all its problems on Bush. Are we still using that tactic, Mr. Reich. Perhaps it is the fact that the costs of Medicare far outpace the available funds for it? Or that the ridiculous regulations and oversight on the pharma companies have made the cost of getting a drug to market astronomical? Nope, you lead with Bush did this, and thus falsely imply that it is the major cause of the failures. But you are right, the underlying problem is rising costs. Amazingly, the cost of Medicare compliance is one of the major causes of those increases in costs.

The second paragraph here is a blatant lie. The repeal would not cause costs to rise even faster. The health care bill did absolutely nothing that will stem the rise in costs in health care. The “preventative care” argument you put forth has already been shown to sound great in theory, but have no basis in reality. Health insurance premiums are set to increase rapidly because of your health care bill. Thanks for that, by the way. It is nice to know that I will pay additional taxes AND additional premiums thanks to you and your pals.

Oh, I know your answer. The only way to really fix things is to go even further in expanding government control over the industries. You guys never quit, despite the absolute failures that continue to plague your “good intentions.”

The new law could help control rising health costs. It calls for medical “exchange” that will give people valuable information about health costs and benefits. The public should know certain expensive procedures only pad the paychecks of specialists while driving up the costs of insurance policies that offer them.

The new law COULD help control rising costs? That is what you are going with. But just a paragraph above you adamantly proposed that a repeal of the law would absolutely cause costs to rise more rapidly. Now you are using carefully placed words like “could”? How was creating a medical exchange a reason to impose this farce of a bill. Couldn’t you have simply created the medical exchange on your own. Heck a single group of five people that you pay 60k a year could run a website that would serve that very purpose. Instead you allocate billions of dollars for such an exchange, which will undoubtedly be a failure as well. After all, it is being done by government. Your track record is not really all that great.

Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed and keeps them from taking available jobs.

That’s absurd. There are still 5 job seekers for every job opening, and unemployment insurance in most states pays only a small fraction of the full-time wage.

That is funny, because some of your own party’s spokespeople are saying that the problem is that the jobs are available, but that the problem is that there are no qualified candidates. Go back and watch the very President that you served under making that very case on Jon Stewart’s show a couple weeks ago. He was advocating a government program to provide money for training and said unemployment would return to normal levels rather quickly.

Eventually, you folks on the left are going to have to pick a story and go with it. You seem to say whatever is needed to pass a particular legislation, and then paint an entirely different picture to pass a different piece of legislation. Don’t get me wrong, the GOP is equally adept at this. But do you really think that no one is going to hear all the different facts your party puts out and realize that you all keep contradicting each other?

Social insurance is fundamental to a civil society. It’s also good economics because it puts money in peoples’ pockets who then turn around and buy the things that others produce, thereby keeping those others in jobs.

Your first sentence is a complete lie. Social insurance is not fundamental to a civil society. MORALS are fundamental to a civil society. A lack of violence is fundamental to a civil society. Laws are fundamental to a civil society. Social insurance violates all three of those premises. Therefore, social insurance is fundamental to an UN-civil society.

It is also bad for the economy, not good. It takes money from one group who would spend it and places it in the hands of another group who would spend it. The two cancel each other out. So your idea tanks. Instead the question is where each group would spend it. The group you are taking it from create industry and produce jobs, thus serving the same purpose of putting money in the hands of others. In your version of the world, we are merely re-distributing wealth, where in mine we are creating MORE wealth. Which sounds more prosperous?

We’ve fallen into the bad habit of calling these programs “entitlements,” which sounds morally suspect — as if a more responsible public wouldn’t depend on them. If the Great Recession has taught us anything, it should be that.anyone can take a fall through no fault of their own.

It sounds morally suspect because IT IS morally suspect. That people feel they are entitled to the fruits of another’s labor in order to survive, is morally BANKRUPT. A responsible public didn’t need entitlements for thousands of years prior to the progressive movement. You dolts have created an entitlement society. Bravo.

If the world prior to progressive movements has taught us anything, it is those who fall are quite capable of picking themselves up without your assistance, without your taking money from the pockets of others to give to them. You live on the premise that a vast majority of people cannot function without your entitlement programs, that without them they would all perish. My premise begins that people are quite capable of caring for themselves if they get off their ass and do so. If they make poor choices, or if their pride prevents them from living in a manner in line with their resources, then they perish. Unless people like you step in and reward them for their poor choices by bailing them out endlessly.

Finally, like Hoover and Mellon, Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.

This defies economic logic. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses aren’t investing and exports can’t possibly fill the gap, and when state governments are slashing their budgets, the federal government has to spend more. Otherwise, the Great Recession will turn into exactly what Hoover and Mellon ushered in — a seemingly endless Great Depression.

Again with the revisionist history. Mellon and Hoover did not usher in the Great Depression. And if it was a “seemingly endless” one, then how can you claim your great progressive leader solved it?

Let’s correct your statement: When businesses are taxes and regulated heavier, businesses aren’t investing and exports can’t possibly fill the gap. Exports cannot fill the gap because there isn’t a large enough market for what we export, because costs for our goods are disproportionately high because of US regulations and tax codes. When states are slashing their budgets, the federal government should ALSO BE SLASHING THEIR BUDGETS. Otherwise the deficit and debt continue to rise with no path to a solution. It is your false logic as espoused above that has gotten us in this mess, because people who think like you have run things for decades, and buried us in debt while turning our citizens into handout seeking minions.

It’s also cruel. Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty.

Oh, there it is. We knew you would come back to the emotional card eventually. The only thing more predictable from your camp is the race card. FAILURE to cut the deficit and balance the budget will subject the ENTIRE COUNTRY to unnecessary hardship and render your little cabal of political leadership impotent (which would be the only positive outcome you can produce with your path forward).

Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon thought their economic policies would purge the rottenness out of the system and lead to a more moral life. Instead, it purged morality out of the system and lead to a more rotten life for millions of Americans.

And that’s exactly what Republicans are offering yet again.

What ridiculous sentiments. And you claim to be a thinking man? To blame the lack of morality and the rotten life of Americans on the other political party is utter nonsense. It simply makes it worse that you are well aware of the inaccuracy of your statement. You are outright lying to the American public. The GOP may be absolutely no better than the Democrats at this point, but let’s not pretend that progressive thought is what put this country in the mess that it is in. When you want to see the culprit Mr. Reich….

…look in the mirror.


  1. TexasChem says:

    This guy sounds like he just fell off the turnip truck and as he was getting up…
    Obama was there with a keg of the kool-aid in one hand and an IV needle in the other…Intravenous kool-aid addiction seems to be the case here ladies and gentlemen…

    • Reich has been a moron since long before Obama was even making kool-aid. He got his kool-aid from FDR and Marx and Keynes.

      • Keynes always made the best kool-aid!

        It was even better than Red Bull

        • Yea, but Red Bull at least is an upper. Keynes Kool-aid LOOKS like its good, and it even tastes good, but it makes you throw up and dehydrate, leading to death if you keep drinking it…

          • I’ve been drinking at least eight cups a day for 27 (REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH) years. For the last couple years, I’ve been mixing it with Red Bull.. frankly I don’t see the (ALL HAIL BIG GOVERNMENT!!) problem.. it’s not like it affects (I ❤ THE FEDERAL RESERVE) my perspective. Really, I just think you're (TAXES SHOULD BE HIGHER) being unfairly biased against something you've (SINGLE PAYER IS THE WAY TO GO!) never tried.

            Here.. have a taste.. just one sip. I promise it won't (WE NEED ANOTHER STIMULUS BILL) hurt you…

            And the best thing is that there are no known side affects.

            • You know, based on your humor/sarcasm and some of your arguments and your alter-ego, I am really doubting you are a liberal anymore Matt. No offense intended by that, by the way. 🙂

              Besides, you like Red Bull, a free market created and developed drink that is way up on the “bad for you” list and would be on the chopping block of the nanny state very early on if they are allowed to get that far along on their path to controlling everyone. Especially if this health care stuff takes, because they will try to justify control as a means to reduce costs.

              • While I certainly think the government needs to exist (with a heavy hand) to protect us from each other, I do not think the government has any right protecting me from myself.

                If I want to kill myself with drugs, alcohol, sky diving, red bull, bacon (mmm.. death by bacon..), et cetera. That is my absolute right.

                Which is why I do not think the government should ban smoking. However, smoking in bars is a different matter since it affects others. Follow?

                I promise you, I’m still a raging liberal.

                • Mathius,

                  Argument (1)

                  certainly think the government needs to exist (with a heavy hand) to protect us from each other

                  Government is not a self-defense entity.

                  It initiates violence.

                  Thus, you are asking the animal which inflicts the most violence on non-violent people to protect you from those that inflict violence on non-violent people.

                  Do you not see that as a contradiction?

                  Argument #2

                  However, smoking in bars is a different matter since it affects others. Follow?

                  No, because it is not your bar.

                  You can leave. You went there voluntarily, and you can leave voluntarily.

                  You coming to my place on your desire does not obligate me to cater to your whim!

                  • Mathius,

                    More on Arg. #2.

                    IF you claim you can obligate me on your voluntary action – then you must agree I can obligate you on my voluntary action

                • Can you list some examples of what we are doing to each other? I get the idea of defense of rights and defense against harm perpetrated by others, but I do not see the need for a heavy hand or much size at all. An ability to bring significant force, perhaps, but not the cost and convoluted size and level of meddling we currently have. Not even the stuff you seem to support…

                  So, in order to understand better, lets have some examples of ways we are harming each other that we need government to help defend against. 🙂

                  In your first example, smoking in bars, I would not deny that the act of smoking around others does harmm others. However, rough sex or a group of people passing around a pipe with whatever in it does the same thing (potentially, at least). So what is the difference? Are the people involved not there voluntarily? If there are situations of non-consent, certainly that is an issue. If there are situations of minors, that is an issue. If there are situations of ignorance, that is a little bit of an issue, at least one that may require a “best effort” approach. Not all bars allow smoking, even in areas where there are no such bans, thus assuming people know there will be smoke is not reasonable. However, anything beyond requiring basic signage or warning labels is an infringement on what people choose to do to themselves or expose themselves to, is it not?

                  Thus, your first example fails, since, while you affect others, you do not affect non-consenting adults or children.

                  What else you got?

                  • I disagree, but it’s lengthy and we’ll have to get into it another time. For now how about a perennial favorite?


                    How, how I hate traffic laws.

                    Yet without them, I would drive much faster. At speeds which are not necessarily safe. Doing so place myself at risk (my problem) and other people at risk (justifies gov’t intervention). You can’t say that they chose to be on the road too and therefore assumed the risk because they need to be able to go on the road.

                    So, should they shoot out my tires in “self-defense” or should we have police enforcing a somewhat draconian and arbitrary and overly-cautious speed limit?

                    In Freedonia, how do you deal with a jerk who likes to drive at 120 mph and does not have sufficient insurance and/or savings?

                    • Fair enough, I look forward to that lengthy discussion at another time. We are already in minor hijack mode on this thread….

                      As for speeding, as far as I am concerned, the owners of the roads have the right to set the rules. If the roads were privately owned, I would expect some roads would still have speed limits, and others may not. People could then drive accordingly.

                      As long as the government owns the roads, which is something I do not have an enormous issue with at first glance, I have no problem with them making the rules. You are using their infrastructure. Now, a road on your own property should not have a speed limit on it. If the state said I could not permit more than 25mph on a private road, I would have a problem with it.

                      If another requirement is insurance, so be it. As long as that insurance is liability only, or proof of ability to pay at least reasonable amounts of damages. It is a condition of the use of the roads. Again, no requirement should be in place for private roads.

                      If driving did not involve the use of another’s property, this would be a different discussion. Back to the smoking thing, I have no problem with government buildings and properties limiting smoking, it is being done because it is a shared property use area, and in some cases people are compelled to be there. There is not a competitor for city hall, so if you have to be there to do something, you should not be subjected to the damaging actions of others.

  2. I am amazed he had the audacity to say the SS trust fund was “basically ok”. Not just because that a non-committal statement about its status. The fact is there is no trust fund. It does not exist. SS funds should be in an investment fund somewhere. Do a FOIA request on government trust funds. One for SS does not exist at all. Its all a paper game.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      The money doesn’t exist?! Whatever do you mean? Are you telling me that the government is playing a shell game?

      I don’t believe it! I just don’t believe it.

      Maybe you wrote your FOIA request incorrectly? I’m sure there’s a very large bank account sitting around somewhere.

  3. And oddly the society in question has consistently declined in terms of its “moral fiber” ever since the late 19th century. Weird.

    Mathius Presents 5 Major Improvements in the Moral Fiber of America Since the Late 19th Century:

    1. Civil Rights*

    2. Women’s Lib*

    3. Some progress with gay rights (give it another decade)**

    4. General improvements in religious tolerance (unless you’re Muslim)

    5. General improvements in racial tolerance (give it another 50 years)

    *Brought to you by Big Government Incorporated

    **Yea, yea, I know.. hindered by Big Government Incorporated, but at least I can take some comfort in blaming the Red Shirts.

    • The Democrat Race Lie

      This whopper deserves all the attention it can get. Again, it shows the ignorance and contempt of the electorate liberals depend on.

      The Democrats gave their website a facelift and whitewash. Check out the screenshot to see what they used to say about their civil rights history compared to now.

      Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

      On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

      March 1, 1875
      Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

      January 10, 1878
      U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

      February 8, 1894
      Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

      January 15, 1901
      Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

      May 29, 1902
      Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

      May 21, 1919
      Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

      August 18, 1920
      Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

      January 26, 1922
      House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

      June 2, 1924
      Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

      June 12, 1929
      First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

      August 17, 1937
      Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

      June 24, 1940
      Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

      August 8, 1945
      Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

      September 30, 1953
      Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

      November 25, 1955
      Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

      March 12, 1956
      Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

      June 5, 1956
      Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        I don’t play partisan politics with anything older than 20 year (and even that is stretching it). The parties evolve and change and, had I been around in the late 1800’s, I probably would have been a member of the Republican party thought my ideology would be little different from what it is today.

        I can’t blame anyone or any party alive today for the actions of their predecessors 100+ years ago. It’s not fair to give the modern Republican party credit for freeing the slaves, or vise versa.

        All I can say is that these were Big Government actions. Red Shirt or Blue Shirt, they were Big Government that made these happen.

        And I damn well can hold the modern Republican party responsible for oppressing homosexuals. But I also hold Big Government Incorporated responsible as well.

        • Matt,

          “at least I can take some comfort in blaming the Red Shirts.”

          Well OK, I blame them too, along with the blue shirts. It does seem to me more women are running, wearing red. I haven’t checked, so could be wrong.

          USW said, “Rather than argue the merits, or lack of, in the GOP position,” Man, does that sound familiar. If you oppose Obamacare, you don’t want kids to have healthcare?

          CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies
          By Matt Hadro

          Are “Mama Grizzlies” who oppose state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) and teachers’ unions unfaithful to their maternal name? CNN anchor Kiran Chetry joined Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday in wondering if that is so. Miller appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” to feature her most recent piece on “Mama Grizzlies,” prominent female conservatives in the vein of Sarah Palin.

          “All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific,” reported Miller, a senior editor for Newsweek. “There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.”

          Miller ultimately concluded that the “Mama Grizzlies” movement will fall short of its political goals, because “the issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not.”

          “Do we really want bears to solve our problems?” Miller quipped at the end of the segment.

          Read more:

          • 239 women
            107 Republican
            132 Democrat


            Record numbers of Republican women are running for House seats

            By Garance Franke-Ruta
            Saturday, May 1, 2010

            Nearly two years after Sarah Palin became the Republican Party’s first female vice presidential nominee, record numbers of Republican women are running for House seats, driving the overall count of women running for both the House and the Senate to a new high.

            The surge in female candidates has taken place largely under the radar. The previous high came in 1992, the Year of the Woman, when the percentage of women in Congress reached double digits for the first time. That year, 222 women filed to run for the House and 29 for the Senate.

            So far this year, 239 women are candidates for the House and 31 for the Senate, according to data from the Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. Among them, a record 107 Republican women have filed to run for a House seat,

    • 1) Civil Rights – Like the unions, this was only brought by government AFTER the people spoke up. MLK and Rosa Parks and others actually brought this stuff about. In this case, the government may have accelerated the process, but then, it seems to have stalled and is now being perpetuated by so-called affirmative action legislation.

      2) Women’s Lib. See above.

      3) Some progress with gay rights (give it another decade)** Yea, definitely a culture change, not government driven. If anything, government is blocking this big time, and its involvement in things like marriage is causing problems that would not exist without its meddling.

      4) General improvements in religious tolerance (unless you’re Muslim) (Or Christian, basically if you are anything other than secular humanist you are considered stupid and are not allowed to do anything according to your beliefs if you work for the government in anyway or walk on a public sidewalk, etc.

      5) General improvements in racial tolerance (give it another 50 years) It does not need 50 years, we just need to stop pointing it out, which will only happen when we get rid of the affirmative action stuff and stop asking for race on government forms. It is the most irrelevant question on any demographic form, and it needs to be eliminated.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        As a Conservative I have always believed in equal rights for all. I did feel however that we had a long way to go still on racial prejudice. One of the things which has caused me to rethink my position was attending the Beck rally on 8/28.

        I was surprised that every time the name of Martin Luther King was mentioned, there was uniform cheering by the predominantly white crowd. Yes, they get it. They cheered the King ideal as they did the Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington ones. People who are suspicious of government and especially large government get it regarding equal rights and I am happy that they do since I never thought we would get this far in my lifetime.

        I don’t think that there is any doubt any more that the vast majority of Americans believe in equality of opportunity. What they don’t believe in is mandated inequality which I would define as special treatment afforded special groups who are “minorities”. I am of Slavic background. There are people and places still in this country where this counts against me. I am a Catholic. There are places and people in the country who would consider me less “American”, less intelligent because of that. As a Roman Catholic, I do not have to look far beneath the surface in public discourse to see myself portrayed as a Papist or superstitious. Those words of course are never used but, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that’s what is being thought and said in a carefully phrased way.

        There will always be prejudice but I think we have gotten far beyond the point where it is practiced by a majority. If you consider that we must be perfect and that it must be eliminated 100%, for us to achieved nirvana, then you are in for a rude awakening. Short of across the board mandatory pre-frontal lobotomies, that’s not going to happen. It certainly can decline further but it will never be eliminated.

        Regarding so called affirmative action, exactly how does the recent throwing out of the NYC Fireman’s Civil Service Examination by a Federal Judge encourage brotherly feelings when the judge himself, as well as the plaintiffs, admit the test was not discriminatory but the results were not what they liked? Considering my son was number 118 on that list and after serving in the Air Force had already waited three years for appointment. He will be over age to be appointed from the next list should it too take three years and no doubt be challenged again.

        • Yes, whether you believe Affirmative Action had its place at one point or not (I tend to think the change in culture that we now see would have happened in the same period of time without it), it is evident that Affirmative Action does more to perpetuate racism and inequality than it does to help it.

          More importantly, does it not even create inequality? By lowering the bar, does it not enforce the stereotypes it was designed to overcome?

  4. October 01, 2010
    Vindicated: The Truth about Conservative Economic Policies
    By John Griffing
    Over the years, conservative economic policies have been the subject of heated attack by liberals seeking to justify punitive taxes and a bloated regulatory state. But far from failing, conservative economic values have delivered on every point.

    Liberal economists frequently claim that tax cuts — the centerpiece of effective conservative economic policies — harm revenues and contribute to deficits. But this claim is patently false. Out-of-control spending, not tax cuts, causes huge deficits.

    President Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28 percent for joint filers during the eighties. During the Reagan expansion, total revenues jumped nearly one hundred percent.

    President Kennedy cut the top rate for joint filers to 70 percent from the confiscatory level of 90 percent under his predecessor. Real revenues in the sixties following the Kennedy tax cuts grew by 60 percent, or 30 percent minus inflation.

    Although blasted in the mainstream media — often without factual validity — the Bush tax cuts achieved comparable success to the Kennedy and Reagan cuts. The terrorist attacks and the 2001 recession were obviously huge blows, but revenues quickly recovered, helped by pro-growth economic incentives. In 2003, revenues were $1.6 trillion. In 2007, revenues were $2.1 trillion, adjusted for inflation. Revenues increased.

    Liberals like Ezra Klein at the Washington Post often rely on CBO budget calculations as a means of undermining tax cuts as a valid economic model, since the CBO always counts tax cuts as revenue losses. But annual federal budget data on actual receipts clearly demonstrates that revenues rise substantially when tax rates are cut and that revenues stagnate, or even fall, in response to increases in the level of taxation. The Bush 41 tax increase resulted in documented revenue loss. Why the heavy emphasis on historically inaccurate CBO calculations instead of easily accessible revenue data published annually in the U.S. Budget?


  5. Would Unemployment Really Have Been Worse Without the Stimulus?

    By John Lott

    Published September 27, 2010


    Would the economy have been in worse shape if the various stimulus packages had never seen the light of day? Or without the creation of the $1.3 trillion plus deficits? President Obama and his economists keep assuring us that his policies have saved us from even higher unemployment and a major depression. Today Obama signed another stimulus bill purportedly aimed at small businesses and he promises more of the same.

    The hallmark of Obama’s stimulus programs is the government, not consumers or private businesses, deciding what money should be spent on. And that applies whether it is the massive new government spending or targeted tax breaks and loans. Small businesses face higher marginal tax rates, but they get some of their money back if they make the kinds of investments that the government wants them to. — In the end, it is the government deciding what makes sense.

    Last week, during his CNBC Town Hall meeting on jobs, the president went so far as to claim that without the stimulus: “we might have lost another 8 million jobs,” implying an unemployment rate of 14.8 percent.

    When Obama became president in January 2009, unemployment stood at 7.6 percent, already a high number by historical standards. But by this past August, it had increased by a full two percentage points to 9.6 percent, with the unemployment rate remaining at least at 9.5 percent for 13 months. Indeed, the unemployment rate rose again slightly in August. The stimulus packages have hardly had the impact on unemployment and growth the Obama administration predicted, and now they are warning us that the unemployment rate won’t be “coming down significantly anytime in the near future.”

    Well, if Mr. Obama and the Democrats are doing such a good job, no matter how bad things are in the US, it must be even worse in other nations, right? After all, few other countries adopted these Keynesian remedies as thoroughly and “creating or saving” millions of jobs should have a big effect. Indeed, in March 2009, the New York Times warned: “the United States has been the most aggressive country so far in its crisis-fighting efforts.” And Time Magazine reported: “European leaders have resisted the call for more stimulus.”Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was particularly outspoken in her opposition. While Obama lectured leaders at the G-20 meeting in March on the need for “concerted action around the globe to jump-start the economy”with more government spending, Merkel argued that she didn’t want the talks wasting time on “artificial discussions” of fiscal stimulus.

    Poland went so far as to slash its top marginal tax rate from 40 to 32 percent in 2009 and actually cut government spending by 6 percent.

    Germans and Poles must be pretty happy right now that they rejected President Obama’s spending spree advice. Just look at how their unemployment rates have changed. From January 2009 to August this year, German unemployment fell by 0.3 percentage points. And in Poland it increased, but by less than half of the increase in the U.S. — it went up by 0.9 percentage points from January 2009 to July this year (the latest month available).

    Even countries hard hit by the financial crisis have fared better than the U.S. This includes Iceland, where the entire banking system suddenly collapsed.

    But these countries are not some isolated examples. According to The Economist magazine, which collected unemployment data for 30 countries in addition to the United States from January 2009 to July 2010, the U.S. increase in unemployment was worse than in 25 of those 30 other countries (see table here). Eight of these 30 actually experienced a decrease in their unemployment rate. On average, unemployment increased by 1.1 percent, about 40 percent less than the U.S. increase.

    And the August unemployment numbers for the United States suggest that the gap between the U.S. and these other countries is only getting larger. While unemployment rates in much of the rest of the world are falling, ours is increasing still further.

    Whether the results of the stimulus are measured against the Obama administration’s own predictions or the results in other countries, the impact of the stimulus doesn’t look good. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Obama’s stimulus made unemployment worse. Moving around nearly a trillion dollars from where people would have spent their money to where the government wanted it spent simply moved around a lot of jobs. And workers cannot instantly find a new job when they lose their old one. The stimulus and all the new regulations generated all sorts of economic chaos.

    Unfortunately, even after the chaos created by the stimulus eventually dies down, Americans will be paying off the huge new debt for generations.

  6. Reich is as myopic as any government dolt. They are all the same.

    He mindfully ignores the 1919 Recession – because that would devastate his economic fantasy.

    When reading thoughts from men about economics, one must hold also in their own minds what is the underlying premise and theory behind this guy’s economics?

    If his premise and theory are faulty, the only way he can be right is by accident.

    Do not bet on the success of an action that requires an accident to make it a success.

  7. After reading most of the comments that are written above, I have to ask all of you – and especially the resident liberals – Just where do our rights actually come from?

    The declaration of Independence states that they come from our “Creator” . . . Do you believe politicians created the Human Race?

    I would also like to point out that both of the major political parties in this country have been heavily infiltrated by those people who like to call themselves “Progressives” – So, in blaming one party or another are they really members of that party or are they some of the infiltrators who are dedicated to progressivism that made the bad choices?

    To be perfectly clear, I am totally against ALL political parties since a candidate will say anything to get elected -(the recent multiple about faces by John McCain can be used as a case in point)- then adhere to the party dictates once in office.

    • Case on point!

      Greetings Patriot,

      How would you feel if you arrived home after work only to hear your two teenage daughters describe the mailing your family received publicly disclosing your Social Security number? And imagine your disgust when you discover the same mailing has just been sent to thousands of homes across Broward and Palm Beach Counties?

      Well, that just happened to me Friday evening.

      My opponent, Incumbent Ron Klein, has just sunk to an unprecedented new low in American politics. Klein and his political cronies have sent my social security number to voters all across Florida’s Twenty Second Congressional District.

      I understand politics is a tough business. I expect to be challenged about my ideas, my beliefs.

      But Ron Klein has clearly crossed a line. Our lawyers are reviewing what legal action is available to my family.

      I’m not sure the potential damage that might come to my wife and me.

      And it makes me sick to think of what could happen to my daughters.

      South Florida has the highest incidents of identity theft in the country – my entire family is now at risk of having our identities stolen, so we have to start the long, complicated, drawn-out process of requesting new Social Security Numbers, and all the troubles that come with that.

      His type of politics must end now. If Klein and his Liberal allies will do this to me and my family, what will they do to each of you?

      This is a despicable act by a desperate politician who is in danger of losing his job.

      I have longed believed the liberals would do anything just to stay in power. But never in my wildest dreams did I believe they would stoop this low.

      Klein has once again aroused my competitive spirit. I am more determined than ever to spread the word of our cause to restore character, honor and integrity to Congress.

      Will you join our cause? Let’s show Ron Klein his below the belt political smears have no place in America.

      I’m ready to fight. Join with us to ensure integrity is returned to politics in America.

      Steadfast and Loyal,

      LTC (R) Allen West.

      • I would join your fight, except for one small and minor problem . . . I just happen to live in Arizona.

        • That’s OK, I live in Pa. I was just supporting your point in your last paragraph. Politics has become far to dirty to consider it as honest or trustworthy. All politicians want is power and money, and I say “screw them!”

          • That’s why I am a member (although not in good standing – no money contributed)of GOOOH!

            I do not contribute ANY money to ANY politicians or wannabe politicians campaign, NEVER have and NEVER will!

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Sorry I haven’t been around much lately… Been terribly busy at work, and my oldest son (now 6) has started Cub Scouts and my younger son (4) has started pre-school.

    Totally off-topic for today, but this weekend I get to cross one item off of my Bucket List! I am attending a game at Lambeau Field! Packers are going to destroy the Lions and make my day on Sunday!

    I have no comment whatsoever on the Reich article… why comment on drivel written by an idiot?

    • The Lions? I’m ashamed!

      Kathy, I’m out for the weekend but I’ll have the radio on tomorrow. I’ll almost be able to hear the roar of Spartan Stadium. I’ll check in Sunday pm.

      Run, Sparty, Run ! 🙂

      • Wisconsin sweeps Michigan!



        Start warming up now for “On Wisconsin”!

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Boy Scouting is always a legitimate excuse!!!! “Be Prepared”

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Oh, and stop insulting idiots.

      • Thought for the day:

        Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

        Have a nice weekend everyody!

    • Hey PeterB – have fun at the (not yet frozen) tundra!

  9. Strangely, there is much that I agree with in this article. It also causes some contradiction as to my thoughts and feelings towards government. Our Federal Government, for lack of a better term, “sucks”! Robert Reich is a moron compared to this author:

    545 PEOPLE — By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then
    campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
    against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and
    high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

    You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
    The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court
    justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly,
    legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems
    that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was
    created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional
    duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private,
    central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They
    have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a
    congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if
    they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the
    power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is
    the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he/she votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what
    they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless
    of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount
    of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood
    up and criticized the President for creating deficits…. . The President
    can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
    responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
    appropriations and taxes. House members, not the President, can approve any
    budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his
    veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace

    545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and
    irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not
    traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain
    truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it
    must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..

    If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan
    not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire
    and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they
    can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from
    whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the
    belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,”
    inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an
    oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

    They, and they alone, have the power..

    They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.


  10. Short on time but what a doofus Reich is!

  11. Common Man,

    Have you been playing on ZH?


  12. This looks interesting. Off Topic…

    Click to access how-an-economy-grows.pdf

  13. Reich again? He’s like ants at a picnic – unwanted but always showing up!

  14. Some airport humor, since airports are so consumer friendly.

    While taxiing at London ‘s Airport, the crew of a US Air flight departing
    for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a United
    An irate female ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming:
    “US Air 2771, where the hell are you going? I told you to turn right onto
    Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know it’s
    difficult for you to tell the difference between C and D, but get it
    Continuing her rage to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting
    hysterically:”God! Now you’ve screwed everything up! It’ll take forever to
    sort this out! You stay right there and don’t move till I tell you to! You
    can expect progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour, and I want
    you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you! You
    got that, US Air 2771?”
    “Yes, ma’am,” the humbled crew responded.

    Naturally, the ground control communications frequency fell terribly silent
    after the verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging
    the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in every
    cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high. Just then an unknown
    pilot broke the silence and keyed his microphone, asking:

    “Wasn’t I married to you once?

    Happy Friday Night!

  15. Eating crow for dinner – grilled, not too bad all things considered!

    • WoooHoooo!!!!!! While you ate crow I was busy with my porterhouse & grilled onions. A perfect ending to a fun day. I’ll admit to a few “take that Kathy” statements 🙂 to which my friends said “who’s Kathy?” I’ll give you the Lions but of course I must say:

      GO GREEN :mrgreen:

      • Go green? So you are really a troll here pushing that green crap? Or do you mean Green and Gold as in the Pack?

        • Oh no you don’t. Stay on topic and take your beating. Don’t worry, we’re at Michigan next week so we’ll probably have identical records again!

  16. The Progressive Socialist Marxist Liberals Are Distroying America.

    The path we are on is not sustainable. The economy is falling apart, and somebody better wake up and do something before even more Americans find themselves drowning in poverty. The following are 20 signs that the economic collapse has already begun for one out of every seven Americans…..

    1. The Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in 51 years of record-keeping.

    2. In the year 2000, 11.3 percent of Americans were living in poverty. In 2008, 13.2 percent of Americans were living in poverty. In 2009, 14.3 percent of Americans were living in poverty. Needless to say the trend is moving in the wrong direction.

    3. In 2009 alone, approximately 4 million more Americans joined the ranks of the poor.

    4. According to the Associated Press, experts believe that 2009 saw the largest single year increase in the U.S. poverty rate since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.

    5. The U.S. poverty rate is now the third worst among the developed nations tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    6. Today the United States has approximately 4 million fewer wage earners than it did in 2007.

    7. Nearly 10 million Americans now receive unemployment insurance, which is almost four times as many as were receiving it in 2007.

    8. U.S. banks repossessed 25 percent more homes in August 2010 than they did in August 2009.

    9. One out of every seven mortgages in the United States was either delinquent or in foreclosure during the first quarter of 2010.

    10. There are now 50.7 million Americans who do not have health insurance. One trip to the emergency room would be all it would take to bankrupt a significant percentage of them.

    11. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.

    12. There are now over 41 million Americans on food stamps.

    13. The number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program increased a whopping 55 percent from December 2007 to June 2010.

    14. One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.

    15. California’s poverty rate soared to 15.3 percent in 2009, which was the highest in 11 years.

    16. According to an analysis by Isabel Sawhill and Emily Monea of the Brookings Institution, 10 million more Americans (including 6 million more children) will slip into poverty over the next decade.

    17. According to a recently released Federal Reserve report, Americans experienced a $1.5 trillion loss in combined household net worth in the second quarter of 2010.

    18. Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

    19. Median U.S. household income is down 5 percent from its peak of more than $52,000 in 1999.

    20. A study recently released by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College University found that Americans are $6.6 trillion short of what they need for retirement.

    How anyone can look at those numbers and think that things are about to “get better” absolutely boggles the mind. It is time to wake up. Things are not going to get better. Things are only going to get worse. The United States is rapidly becoming a nation where poverty is absolutely rampant. As poverty continues to spread, crime will not be far behind.


    • How can anyone look at those numbers and think things are geting better? I can tell you. They’ve been indoctrinated by the Left. My boyfriend is one of them. He’s totally brainwashed into Big Government thinking. The worse things get, the more convinced he is that his president is fixing Bush’s mess. Sad part is, he isn’t alone. Not by a long shot. There are a lot of sheep still high on the Hopium.

%d bloggers like this: