Right Wing Think-Tank Cato Institute Takes Aim at Trump's Buy American Trade Policy

by Nomad

Cato, Then and Now

As a humble peasant, it always fills me with awe when billionaires with agendas begin to lob insults at one another. I don't have to particularly agree with one or the other, it's just nice to believe there are some cracks in a global conspiracy against the little guy.

If you are unfamiliar with the Cato Institute,  here's the run down for you.
Founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the brothers Koch, Cato is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington. By and large, it has promoted policies that uphold "the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."
The Koch family has donated more than $30 million dollars to the organization, according to the New York Times as of 2012. In March of that year, there was a falling-out when the Kochs filed a lawsuit against Cato to gain control.

The Cato Institute wields a tremendous amount of influence among conservatives. In addition to its advocacy of far right positions, it has become a substantial funder of other "like-minded" think tanks For all those reasons, Cato is an organization that any president ought to take seriously. tanks around the U.S.

Any endorsement of criticism of Mr. Trump and his policies should be understood to come solidly from the conservative right.

Refuge of Scoundrels

On many subjects, such as climate change denial, school privatization, privatization of government services and anti-taxation, the Cato Institute's position and the Trump administration's agenda seem to dovetailed pretty tightly.

That's why a recent article by Cato's Daniel Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, seems so counter-intuitive. Are these power-hungry Republic-destroying fat cats supposed to be working together?

Con-Artist Conservatives and The Great Hoodwinking of America 2/3

by Nomad

In Part One we looked at how, despite the evidence, Americans by and large still believe in socio-economic mobility. At the same time, even while conservatives are reducing opportunities for the middle class, they are still promoting the American Dream.

In Part Two we turn to the parallels between the worlds of conservative politics and the world of professional fraud.

When you look over the profile of your average con artist, you'd be forgiven for thinking he could do well in the field of politics. In a perfect world, swindlers and politicians would be absolute opposites.

Politicians, Con Artists and Personality Disorders

Generally speaking, like politicians, swindlers are experts at gaining the trust of their victims and can also be extremely intelligent and highly creative. Their sense of understanding of human nature exceeds the rest of the population. They can even be considered charming. Whereas these would be admirable characteristics typically, such qualities are dangerous.

Of all of these traits, one stand out as being a political advantage. Con artists "thrive on the knowledge that people tend to believe only what they want to believe." 
Anybody who has spent any time attempting to disprove all of the nonsensical disinformation discriminated by Fox News or the other propaganda machines of the Far Right knows how futile it can be.

Are there other similarities between swindlers and conservative politicians? 

Psychologists tells us that many con-artists suffer from a condition called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Such people tend to be excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, with power, and the prestige that go with power. The behavior is ruled by an exaggerated feelings of self-importance.

Being  exploitative by nature, they tend to see the world in terms of their own egoes and are mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing.  

How ALEC, The Koch Brothers and the Tea Party Congress Tried to Destroy the Constitution

by Nomad

The issue of "state's rights" is not at all new. In fact, the debate goes back before the founding of the nation. However, when Tea Party House members drafted the Repeal Amendment, courtesy of Koch-funded ALEC, it threatened to unravel the union that holds the United States together. And despite George Washington's warning, they very nearly succeeded.

Back in 2010, after taking over the House of Representatives, the Tea Party faction of the GOP proposed a "states' rights" change in the Constitution. Sponsored by Utah's Rob Bishop, the proposal was called the Repeal Amendment. It was designed to give states the authority to veto federal laws and regulations. Under this proposed amendment, supporters aimed “to push back the federal government's encroachment on sovereign states rights." 

Any federal law, like healthcare, abortion or gun control laws and even civil rights legislation, would be up for a vote in state legislatures. The resolution read:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

The Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank and another 501(c)3 organization, supports the idea saying:

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

Of course let’s not forget that the Cato Institute was co-founded by Charles Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party. So enthusiastic support for challenging the authority of the federal government shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

It is in fact a fundamental change to the balance of powers and not merely a corrective measure. In effect, it would invalidate the “united” part of the “United States” since state legislatures would have final say-so on the law of the land. The United States would, therefore, become about as united as say, the United Nations. 

In addition, the legislative branch in Congress would suddenly become irrelevant, since the eventual application of any congressional law would be subject to a vote in each state. The structure of the two houses of Congress prevents smaller less-populated states, most of which happen to be red states, from having undue influence or from dictating to the more populated states what national policy would look like. Under this proposed change, all that would change. 

The implications and the ensuing unnecessary complications are mind-boggling.

Faux Pas at the John Locke Foundation: Racist and Homophobic but Totally Apologetic

by Nomad

In an example of the dangers of crossing that invisible line between mere poor taste and into something mean-spirited, and socially unacceptable, I found this news item from North Carolina.

The Meck Deck, an official blog of the Art Pope-funded conservative John Locke Foundation, this week published racially-charged and homophobic imagery of President Obama in a piece this on the president's opposition to North Carolina's proposed anti-gay marriage amendment. The post, which claims Obama is merely pandering to gay voters, is accompanied by an image of Obama in apparent drag while sitting next to a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

In her defense, I have made my fair share of Photoshop-jokes and some of them might have crossed the line from amusing into poor taste. However, I can't recall any of my efforts that were quite as offensive as what appeared on that post.

American Dreams: My Father, Karl Marx and the Man who Sold the Rope 1/2

by Nomad

Let’s Begin With My Father

My father, born in 1929, grew up in the midst of the Great Depression, in what most people would consider extreme poverty. His father died one week after his birth leaving his widowed mother to raise her five children alone. Had it not been for a productive farmland, it is doubtful they would have survived. “We didn’t have two nickles to rub together,” he’d often tell me,”but we never even realized we were poor. Everybody we knew was in the same situation as we were.”

In 1951. he left the farm to join in the Korean War to fight the spread of the Communist threat. The Red Menace- China- was on the verge of expanding across the border into Korea. Following that, he received credit from a GI loan which allowed him to buy a very humble mobile home to start his married life.

In the economic boom of the 1950s, my father found employment as a precision sheet metal worker at a aircraft manufacturing plant. Along with thousands of other unskilled workers returning from Korea, the company trained my father with the idea of steady long term employment. In turn, my father worked at the company for thirty years. He did not particularly desire to rise up in the hierarchy of the company. He told me that he’d prefer not to have the stress that went with the responsibility. He preferred to spend more time at home at the end of his shift. There was also the goal that he knew that his children would, by his hard, boring and unsatisfying labor, have a better life than he did. It was an attainable goal. Through the use of collective bargaining of his union or the rare labor action, my father’s wage steadily increased.