Sosbee.com

Now we know who the real enemy is. It is the “totalitarian left” which, according to Charles Krauthammer, “specializes in the intimidation and silencing of political opponents.” What’s more, this goes back to “20th century fascism and communism”. So, all this time, we’ve been worried about the legacy of Hitler and Stalin shaping American politics of the left. If only we had been aware of this little-known fact, how much differently would we have voted.

Kathleen Parker’s op-ed of March 14, 2016, pretty well described “The Donald”, using only six unflattering adjectives. It is a stretch, however, to imply that he reflects “our society”. Thankfully, Trump is a reflection of the Republican Party itself, not society as a whole. How could we possibly live in a society where everyone was a Republican like Trump.

If there is one thing America is ready for it is CHANGE! And one thing can safely be said about Donald Trump: he is different. No worries about “more of the same” here. In fact, Trump, being the consummate Republican himself, constitutes the most valid representation of Republican ideology, certainly more than any of the other candidates. Why, else, would he gather so much more support than any other candidate?

Here is a challenge for all those “liberal” Democrats who think Bernie Sanders’ ideas are “pie in the sky”: name one, just one, of Bernie’s proposals that is not logical, doable, desperately needed and simply the right thing to do. Name one.

Donald Trump is the image in the virtual mirror where the Republican party is viewing its true reflection. Apparently, party leaders don’t like what they see, even though there is no one else to blame.

Scalia’s dead! Sad as that is for family and friends, it should be acknowledged that some people will literally be dancing in the streets. Because, now, without a guaranteed right-wing majority, the Supreme Court might start acting like a true Supreme Court, and render impartial, emphasize “impartial”, decisions. For an overview of the Roberts court, and to see what we’ve been living with these past ten years, pull up any one of the analyses of the court published by magazines and newspapers in recent years. A good example is “The Nation” magazine, issue dated October 12, 2015. Download it. Read it!

Paul Krugman’s op-ed today reminds us that “idealism” must include “realism”. The problem is: neither the former nor the latter can be described in a way that both progressives (idealists) and conservatives (realists) can agree on. To a progressive, Medicare for All is not in any way idealistic. It is, in fact, simply the most efficient and least costly way to deliver health care to an entire population. But to the conservative realist, it is a nonstarter as long as there is the slightest chance the “other side” would get any credit. A living wage is not only “ideal” but only the right thing to do. Conservatives will fight it all the way which makes it realistically difficult to achieve. Inequality is a curse that idealists are most hopeful can be some-what mitigated by a more progressive tax code. Realistic conservatives are perfectly happy the way things have been since the Reagan/Bush tax cuts, which are, by the way, the cause of both the increase in the national debt and the shameful inequality that has grown steadily worse since Reagan. If there is to be a choice between idealist and realist in this election, make it idealist. The scourge of conservative Reaganism has had its “realistic” hold on America long enough.

Harding McCrat (January 24, 2016) bemoans the likelihood that if we build more bike paths they will only fill up with more bikes the way wider highways soon fill up with more cars. Okay. But is that bad? Seems to me that every person who switches to the bike because new and better bike paths are built represents one less car on the road. And isn’t that what we want?

MYTH: “A higher minimum wage will cause low-level jobs to vanish.” FACT: ” There will always be work to be done by someone: hotel rooms to clean, lawns to mow, burgers to flip, etc.” So who will do these jobs? And how much should they be paid? Some will say “pay them as little as you can get away with. Their poverty is not our concern. A successful business requires all costs to be kept under control.” Others will say: “it’s not only immoral to squeeze the workers this way, it’s not even good business. A living wage not only attracts and keeps better employees, it cuts down on other unnecessary costs such as on-the-job injuries, pilferage, employee mistakes caused by fatigue when people are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive. What kind of staff would you prefer: well-intentioned, well-paid, and wide-awake; or resentful, struggling, and worn out?

People who object to the idea of a higher minimum wage all use of the same dodge: ” it will kill jobs.” You hear it primarily from those who traditionally hire people at coolie wages and charge prices that will produce the amount of profit they need to stay in business. I personally heard of a business man who declared that if there is any hike in the minimum wage, he will simply close up his business altogether. The question is: would he be missed? Other companies will continue to operate and will still have the same ( or possibly even more) customers to serve, and will need people to perform the work that creates the desired profit at that level of business. The question here is: how much will prices need to to be raised in order to stay in business? How much general inflation will occur? The answer is: nobody knows and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. All of the dire warnings and “chicken little” predictions are worthless speculation. The notion that low level jobs “will vanish overnight” assumes that there will be no more hotel rooms to clean, no burgers to flip, no lawns to mow, and you name it. Such an assumption is patently false. If McDonald’s disappeared overnight, where would their customers go?