NYT: Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Donald Trump is a man who dwells in bigotry, bluster and false promises.

• Editorial: Hillary Clinton for President

Sunday Review

How Can America Recover From Donald Trump?

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The message of hatred and paranoia that is inciting millions of voters will outlast the messenger.

• Douthat: The Virtues of Reality

• Dowd: An Open Letter From Mr. Trump

• Kristof: This Land Is My Land (And Yours, Too!)

Election 2016

In Trump’s Empire, Hazy Ties and $650 Million in Debt

By SUSANNE CRAIG

• A Times investigation into the financial maze of Donald J. Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt.
• That is nearly twice the amount apparent in his federal election filing.

Top Republicans still refusing to endorse Donald Trump

Aol.com Editors

Aug 13th 2016 5:00AM

X

Donald Trump was officially named the Republican presidential nominee during July's Republican National Convention--but some party leaders are still not on board with his candidacy.
During the week long gathering in Cleveland, while names the likes of Chris Christie and Mitch McConnell tossed their political weight behind the billionaire businessman, a number of prominent GOPers not only skipped the convention but have refused to endorse the party's ticket.
Perhaps the most high-profile political snub of the 2016 election cycle came at the hands of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was promptly booed after failing to endorse Trump during his prime-time address at the RNC.
Click through to see Republicans who refuse to support Donald Trump:

SEE PHOTOS

9 PHOTOS

Following the controversial speech, Cruz said he is "not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father."

"Wow, Ted Cruz got booed off the stage, didn't honor the pledge!" Trump tweeted following Cruz's speech. "I saw his speech two hours early but let him speak anyway. No big deal!"
While Cruz made an appearance at the RNC, a few of Trump's defeated primary rivals skipped the big Cleveland event, including the governor of The Buckeye State John Kasich.
When asked if he would support the Republican nominee, Kasich said, "Why would I feel compelled to support someone whose positions I kind of fundamentally disagree with?"
Previous Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has also refused to endorse the former reality TV star, even making a point to make speeches voicing his disappointment with the GOP candidate. "Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University," Romney said in March.
Trump fired back at Romney saying he "understand losers, you can make a lot of money with losers," adding that Romney's 2012 presidential run was a failure because the former Massachusetts governor "choked like a dog, he's a choker."
Not only haven't previous Republican presidential nominees not backed Trump, but both living former Republican presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have abstained from supporting the 2016 GOP ticket.
George W. Bush, who has supported every GOP ticket since leaving office, has said he is worried he may be "the last Republican president." While George H. W. Bush has made it clear that after campaigning for his son Jeb Bush, who also refuses to back Trump, he has no plans to endorse.
Paul Ryan is one big-name Republican who eventually threw his support behind Trump after initially saying he was "not there right now" when asked if he would endorse the billionaire businessman.
Trump recently returned the favor by saying he was "not quite there yet" when regarding the endorsement of Ryan in the Wisconsin primary.

"I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country."

Trump Assails Media While Detailing Gifts to Veterans

Top News

Election 2016

Trump Assails Media While Detailing Gifts to Veterans

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ASHLEY PARKER 8:43 PM ET

• Donald J. Trump lashed out at those reporting on his candidacy with a level of venom rarely seen from the standard-bearer of a major political party.
• He was responding to questions about a fund-raiser he held, while skipping a G.O.P. debate, to benefit military veterans.

More in Politics

• Critic’s Notebook: Trump Pounds His Chest, Raging at News Media 5:40 PM ET

• California Governor Endorses Clinton Ahead of Primary 8:42 PM ET

Who Donald Trump taught me to fear truly to be afraid

(Brennan Linsley/AP)

Richard Cohen

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Tuesday, May 31, 2016, 5:00 AM

What word comes to mind when you see the name Donald Trump? For some people, it might be “anger,” since he provokes it and stokes it. For others, it might be “ignorance,” since he knows so little and, like many unburdened by knowledge, is untroubled by facts. Some might say “fear,” since it would take some scary police tactics to push 11 million people over the border to Mexico. For me, none of those words suffice. I’d choose “betrayal.”
It is the word that comes to mind almost on a nightly basis when I see some Trump surrogate defend his position on one of the cable news shows. How can you? I want to ask. Do you believe that the government should apply a religious test to let people into this country? Christians? Yes. Jews? Sure. Buddhists and Hindus, step this way. Muslims? Not so fast.
Do the people who support Trump realize that they are betraying not merely Muslims but the principles that America stands for? We don’t apply religious tests to anything. In that way, we are different than some other countries. In that way, we are better.
It is the same with what Trump said about Mexicans being “rapists.” It was an ugly, bigoted thing to say — and, of course, wrong as hell. So when some Trump supporter breezes right by that statement on the way to whoopee support of restricted trade or allowing Japan and South Korea to get nuclear weapons, I feel betrayed. I can abide policy differences but I cannot abide indifference to bigotry. And neither should any of Trump’s supporters.
Richard Dreyfuss calls Donald Trump’s famous supporters ‘whores'
I felt that same, awful feeling of betrayal when Trump mocked a physically disabled reporter for the New York Times. Did Trump’s people notice? Did they care? How about the way he insulted John McCain? The man was tortured and Trump belittled it. The man was in solitary for two years, and Trump belittled it. I thought Americans would never stand for that. This was John McCain, son of an admiral, grandson of an admiral, United States senator. How much redder can a man’s blood be?
Donald Trump has taught me to fear my fellow American. I don’t mean the occasional yahoo who turns a Trump rally into a hate fest. I mean the ones who do nothing. Who are silent. Who look the other way. If you had told me a year ago that a hateful brat would be the presidential nominee of a major political party, I would have scoffed. Someone who denigrates women? Not possible. Someone who insults Mexicans? No way. Someone who mocks the physically disabled? Not in America. Not in my America.
When I see these Trump supporters on television, I have to wonder where they would draw the line. Nowhere. They want to win. They want to beat Hillary Clinton, a calling so imperative that sheer morality must give way. Muslims and Mexicans are merely collateral damage in a war that must be fought. What about blacks or Jews? Not yet.

16 photos view gallery

Anti-Trump protests turn violent in Albuquerque

Maybe the talking heads on TV would draw the line at some mild version of fascism, but would the American people do the same? Here, I must hesitate. The easy yes of yesteryear has given way to awful doubt.
Trump could win. He could become President, commander in chief, ruler of the Justice Department and head of the IRS. In other words, the American people could elect someone who has not the slightest appreciation for the Constitution or American tradition. When Trump insisted that he could compel a military officer to obey an illegal order, I heard the echo of jackboots on cobblestone.
It does no good to argue that Trump is just doing a shtick and means little of what he says . His supporters do not see him that way. They take him at his word.
I’d like to think that Americans really are exceptional, that we have an exceptional faith in democracy and the rule of law. I now have some doubt. I always knew who Trump was. It’s the American people who have come as a surprise.
Trump details amounts of donations given to veterans groups
cohenr@washpost.com

on 2016

Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct With Women

By MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY

• Interviews with dozens of women who encountered Donald J. Trump revealed unsettling conduct over decades.
• They offer a complex and at times contradictory portrait of a man who both nurtured women’s careers and mocked their physical appearance.

Monday, May 9

The man who wanted us to be uncomfortable On a rainy Friday morning in the city he called home for many years, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan was celebrated more than mourned at a funeral mass in Manhattan. by MARK CHIUSANO

The funeral for Father Daniel Berrigan, the Jesuit poet and peace activist, was held at the Church of St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan last week, where he was praised as a hero, a holy man, even a saint, by speakers and mourners. Berrigan was the rogue priest who, along with his brother Philip, became a symbol of the anti-Vietnam War and Catholic peace movement. He later protested nuclear weapons, the Iraq War and the detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay. He spent years in federal prison for his actions, which included damaging nuclear warheads and lighting draft cards on fire with homemade napalm. He clashed with the church — and there was a certain irony in this radical peace activist, who was a member of the militant Jesuit order, being eulogized in a Jesuit church that also plays host to military regimental ceremonies. But such are the contradictions inherent in eulogizing an activist, controversial in life but praised after his or her work is done. Making of an activist Pete Swanson said he had been Berrigan’s student years ago. As a newly ordained priest teaching at Brooklyn Preparatory School during the 1950s, Berrigan was “electric even then,” Swanson, 77, says. “He had an aura about him. He was on a different plane.” But the teacher and pupil soon moved in different directions. Berrigan left the school and moved on to activist work. Swanson ended up getting drafted in 1960, mistakenly, he says. He has been afflicted with Retinitis pigmentosa since birth, he says, a degenerative disorder of the eyes that eventually results in severe vision impairment. But the doctor refused to grant a medical deferment. Even in basic training, he says he was night-blind. “Father Berrigan was against the war, I got caught up in it by mistake,” Swanson says. While Berrigan was dodging the FBI and protesting, Swanson says he had friends “getting blown up” in Vietnam. Asking questions that are easy to ignore Swanson’s feelings are conflicted, even paradoxical. Nuclear disarmament is very important to him, he says. But it was activists like Berrigan who pushed disarmament to a political reality. “In hindsight, Berrigan did what he had to do.” Swanson’s reaction to Berrigan is indicative of the way activists are treated in their own time. Some of Berrigan’s tactics might still be controversial, but his vision seems less so today. In a note to the Xavier community after Berrigan's death, Xavier's high school president Jack Raslowsky wrote of what some have said is the strength of a Jesuit education: being made to feel "uncomfortable." "Dan Berrigan was uncomfortable, and he made others uncomfortable. He was a consistent, prophetic witness for peace and often asked questions that were easier for most to ignore." Will we feel the same about those who continue Berrigan's legacy in 50 years? The climate change partisans who chain themselves to each other in oil company lobbies. The Occupiers at Zuccotti Park (who Berrigan visited, in fact, at the end of his life). The Black Lives Matter protesters who were once joined by throngs of supporters, but now often continue their protests and actions alone. Berrigan’s legacy urges us to minister to the helpless and downtrodden, to those in the jails, the war zones, the sick, the homeless, the poor. And to minister to everyone else by pushing relentlessly for a better world. If anything, Berrigan would likely suggest that we do not protest enough — that insufficient questions are raised about drones and endless states of low-level, far-away warfare. The questions might annoy, or disrupt, but someday we’ll say they were good.

Daniel J. Berrigan, pacifist priest who led antiwar protests, dies at 94

The Washington Post

Colman McCarthy 14 hrs ago

• 
• 
• 

1/3 SLIDES © Anthony Camerano/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Rev. Daniel J. Berrigan in 1966.

The Rev. Daniel J. Berrigan, a writer, teacher and longtime opponent of U.S. military involvement abroad, whose repeated acts of civil disobedience put him at odds with his government and the Roman Catholic Church but made him a major figure among advocates for peace and social justice, died April 30 at a Jesuit residence at Fordham University in the Bronx, N.Y. He was 94.
The cause was a cardiovascular ailment, said the Rev. James Yannarell, a priest affiliated wtih the Fordham Jesuit community.
In May 1968, Father Berrigan, along with his brother and fellow priest Philip Berrigan and seven other pacifists, entered a Selective Service office in Catonsville, Md.
They gathered hundreds of draft files, lugged them outside and, with a recipe of kerosene and soap chips taken from a Green Berets handbook, burned them to ashes. The Catonsville Nine, as they became known, were arrested and in a five-day trial in October 1968 were found guilty of destruction of government property.
Father Berrigan wrote a play about the event, “The Trial of the Catonsville Nine.”
“Our apologies, good friends,” he wrote, “for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front of the charnel house. We could not, so help us God, do otherwise.”
The judge sentenced Father Berrigan, then 47, to three years in federal prison. Philip Berrigan, who had been charged in earlier nonviolent protests, received six years.
In 1970, after the appeals ran out, Father Berrigan refused orders to report to federal prison in Danbury, Conn. He went underground, on the lam from safe house to safe house, and spent four months dodging an FBI manhunt. After many false leads, he was finally caught on Block Island off the coast of Rhode Island. Days before he was captured, he spoke at a church in Germantown, Pa., saying, “We have chosen to be branded peace criminals by war criminals.”
Father Berrigan was a willing recidivist who was first arrested in 1967. His rap sheet would eventually be filled with arrests and convictions from protests at weapons laboratories and at the Pentagon.
Daniel Joseph Berrigan was born May 9, 1921, in Virginia, Minn., the fifth of six sons of a pro-union father and a mother who opened her home to the poor.
In 1939, Daniel Berrigan entered the former St. Andrew-on-the-Hudson Jesuit novitiate near Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
During his years of theological training, he wrote poetry and taught at Catholic high schools, preparing for a career of teaching or pastoring. He was ordained in 1952.
In the mid-1950s, he taught at Brooklyn Preparatory High School in New York. From 1957 to 1962, he taught theology at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y.
Over the decades, Father Berrigan’s forays into the academy also included stints at Cornell University, the University of Detroit, Loyola University New Orleans, DePaul University and the University of California at Berkeley. During the Vietnam War years and after, he believed that universities had become tools of the government, military and corporate giants.
With no conventional ministry, Father Berrigan operated for more than 40 years out of a small commune known as the West Side Jesuit Community on West 98th Street in Manhattan. He aligned himself with Dorothy Day and the pacifist Catholic Worker movement and formed a friendship with Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk who was also moving away from conventional priestly piety by condemning U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
In 1968, Father Berrgain traveled with Howard Zinn, the liberal political activist and historian, to North Vietnam in a successful effort to bring back three captured U.S. pilots. Father Berrigan was affiliated with several Catholic antiwar groups and later ministered to AIDS patients.
In 1980, he and his brother Philip were instrumental in forming the Plowshares Movement, a loose coalition of pacifists who were often arrested for acts of civil disobedience at military bases and other sites. Among those jailed was actor Martin Sheen, who once said, “Mother Teresa drove me back to Catholicism, but Daniel Berrigan keeps me there.”
In 1965, Cardinal Francis Spellman, a supporter of the Vietnam War, told Father Berrigan’s Jesuit superiors to get the agitator out of New York City. He was sent to South America, but seeing the conditions in the slums of Peru and made him more militant, not less. He believed the Catholic Church too often sided with the rich, and he criticized U.S. foreign policy supporting the sale of weapons to rightist military regimes.
Father Berrigan took aim at his fellow Jesuits when he wrote his “Ten Commandments for the Long Haul” (1981).
“The Jesuits are masters of invention,” he wrote in his provocative manifesto. “They come out of the culture, they know how to take its pulse, try its winds and trim their sails. Nothing extravagant, nothing ahead of its time, nothing too fast. Consensus! Consensus!”
Father Berrigan wrote more than 40 books, including a 1987 autobiography, “To Dwell in Peace.” His brother Philip died in 2002. Survivors include a sister.
In a 2008 interview in the Nation magazine, Father Berrigan echoed a line of Mother Teresa’s that spiritual people should be more concerned about being faithful than being successful.
“The good is to be done because it is good, not because it goes somewhere,” he said. I believe if it is done in that spirit it will go somewhere, but I don’t know where. . . . I have never been seriously interested in the outcome. I was interested in trying to do it humanely and carefully and nonviolently and let it go.”
Colman McCarthy is a former Washington Post columnist.
Read more Washington Post obituaries

What You Should Know: Everyone Does It, de Blasio is Not the Only One

What You Should Know
By Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz
32nd Senatorial District
  

You should know that the Mayor of the City of New York is under fire and he is facing 5 different investigations.  It is important for you to know that I never supported Mayor de Blasio when he was a Mayoral Candidate, and instead. I supported Eric Salgado and Bill Thompson. For the record, I don’t like Bill de Blasio’s policies, we have nothing in common, and I have not met with him nor spoken with him in person since he was elected Mayor. But as I see him being subject to what looks like selective prosecution, I must speak out.
It is important for you to know that Risa S. Sugarman, who was appointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo to serve as the Chief Enforcement Officer for the Board of Elections, sent a report to the Manhattan District Attorney regarding Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “willful and flagrant” campaign law violations.
Ms. Sugarman’s report prompted a criminal investigation into Mayor de Blasio’s fund-raising.
According to Ms. Sugarman’s report, Mayor Bill de Blasio and his team raised money to send to certain County Committees in 2014 to help Democrats running for the State Senate. In a response to Ms. Sugarman’s report, a criminal investigation against Mayor de Blasio is underway.
You should also know that City and State’s Winners and Losers column for the week ending 4/29/2016 included NY Times columnist Jim Dwyer in the Winners’ column for successfully “putting pressure on state Board of Elections Chief Enforcement Officer Risa Sugarman to explain her selective investigation process.
This hat-tip tip Jim Dwyer includes his April 28, 2016 column “Faulting de Blasio for Walking a Beaten Path in Elections.”
Mr. Dwyer wrote: “In 2008, when Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor, he gave $1.2 million to the tiny Independence Party, which used the money to help the campaigns of two Republican senators in Queens, Frank Padavan and Serphin R. Maltese … Mr. Bloomberg also gave $500,000 to the Republicans’ Senate campaign committee, which supported Mr. Padavan and Mr. Maltese in their races.”
As you can see, Mayor de Blasio’s actions are not the first time a Mayor has used his political power and resources to influence New York State Senate races. This is routinely done by Democrats and Republicans alike, and we all know it.
I have to ask myself, how is it that Mayor de Blasio is being investigated and has received subpoenas from the Manatten District Attorney and the US Attorney General, and how is it that he is being lambasted on the front pages and editorial columns of New York’s daily newspapers, when the things he did are no different that what Michael Bloomberg did when he was New York City’s Mayor?
Why was there no outcry for investigations and allegations made when Michael Bloomberg also violated New York’s Campaign Finance laws by donating large amounts of money to the Republican and Independent Parties in order to hold sway over certain State Senate elections?
If everyone does it, how come only Mayor Bill de Blasio is being held accountable?
I am Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and this is what you should know.

Fidel Castro. (photo: Roberto Chile)

The Spirit of the Left

By Fidel Castro, teleSUR

23 April 16

 

The leader of the Cuban Revolution gave a rare public speech during the closure of the seventh Congress of the Communist Party.

t constitutes a superhuman effort to lead any people in times of crisis. Without them, the changes would be impossible. In a meeting such as this, which brings together more than a thousand representatives chosen by the revolutionary people themselves, who delegated their authority to them, for all it represents the greatest honor they have received in their lives, to which is added the privilege of being a revolutionary which is the product of our own conscious.

Why did I become a socialist, or more plainly, why did I become a communist? That word that expresses the most distorted and maligned concept in history by those who have the privilege of exploiting the poor, dispossessed ever since they were deprived of all the material wealth that work, talent and human energy provide. Since when does man live in this dilemma, throughout time without limit. I know you do not need this explanation but perhaps some listeners do.

I speak simply so it is better understood that I am not ignorant, extremist, or blind, nor did I acquire my ideology of my own accord studying economics.

I did not have a tutor when I was a law and political sciences student, subjects in which they have a great influence. Of course then I was around 20 years old and was fond of sports and mountain climbing. Without a tutor to help me in the study of Marxism-Leninism; I was no more than a theorist and, of course, had total confidence in the Soviet Union. Lenin's work violated after 70 years of Revolution. What a history lesson! It can be affirmed that it should not take another 70 years before another event like the Russian Revolution occurs, in order that humanity have another example of a magnificent social revolution that marked a huge step in the struggle against colonialism and its inseparable companion, imperialism.

Perhaps, however, the greatest danger hanging over the earth today derives from the destructive power of modern weaponry which could undermine the peace of the planet and make human life on earth’s surface impossible.

The species would disappear like the dinosaurs disappeared, perhaps there will be time for new forms of intelligent life or maybe the sun’s heat will grow until it melts all the planets of the solar system and its satellites, as a large number of scientists recognize. If the theories of several of them are true, which we laypeople are not unaware of, the practical man must learn more and adapt to reality. If the species survives a much longer space of time the future generations will know much more than we do, but first they will have to solve a huge problem. How to feed the billions of human beings whose realities are inevitably at odds with the limited drinking water and natural resources they need?

Some or perhaps many of you are wondering where are the politics in this speech. Believe me I am sad to say it, but the politics are here in these moderate words. If only numerous human beings would concern ourselves with these realities and not continue as in the times of Adam and Eve eating forbidden apples. Who will feed the thirsty people of Africa with no technology at their disposal, no rain, no dams, no more underground reservoirs than those covered by sands? We will see what the governments, which almost all signed the climate commitments, say.

We must constantly hammer away at these issues and I do not want to elaborate beyond the essentials.

I shall soon turn 90, such an idea would never have occurred to me and it was never the result of an effort, it was sheer chance. I will soon be like everyone else. We all reach our turn, but the ideas of the Cuban communists will remain as proof that on this planet, working with fervor and dignity, can produce the material and cultural wealth that humans need, and we must fight relentlessly to obtain these. To our brothers in Latin America and the world we must convey that the Cuban people will overcome.

This may be one of the last times that I speak in this room. I voted for all the candidates submitted for election by Congress and I appreciate the invitation and the honor of listening to me. I congratulate you all, and firstly, compañero Raul Castro for his magnificent effort.

We will set forth on the march forward and we will perfect what we should perfect, with the utmost loyalty and united force, just as Marti, Maceo and Gomez, in an unstoppable march.

 

Trump Reassures Supporters That He Still Opposes Women Who Were Born Women

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

24 April 16

 
fter rattling many of his supporters by expressing tolerance toward transgender people, the Republican front-runner Donald J. Trump clarified on Friday that he still opposes women who were born women.

“The media has, per usual, tried to blow my words out of proportion,” Trump said on the Fox News Channel. “Just because I happen to think transgender people deserve our understanding in no way means that I feel that way about women who were born women.”

Trump said that any attempt to twist his words to apply to “women in general” was deeply offensive to him. “I have made my views about women very clear and to suggest that I have somehow changed those views is really, really hurtful,” he said.

Across the nation, Trump supporters who had been alarmed that the candidate had seemingly strayed into something resembling empathy were greatly relieved by his clarification.

“When you start being respectful to one group it can kind of be a slippery slope,” Trump supporter Harland Dorrinson said. “I’m just glad he cleared it up, is all.”

 

Hillary Clinton Reminds Voters Puerto Ricans are US Citizens

Hillary Clinton Position on helping Puerto Rico on financial crisis

Toward A New Paradigm: Growth, Equality, Accountability, Morality

“The Big Idea” Seminar

New York, NY

February 23, 2016

by Daniel Rose


When educated rich people who used to vote Republican now increasingly lean toward Democrats and older working class whites who were staunch Democrats now cheer Donald Trump, when traditional American optimism has given way to fear for the future and 49% of the public say “America’s best days are behind us,” social scientists are hard-pressed to understand the spirit of the times.  What is worse, they fail to understand either the causes or remedies of the problems that face us.

            American airports, bridges and highways, once a source of national pride, are now a cause of embarrassment.  American primary and secondary education, once the world’s best, now rate poorly.  America’s health care expenditures, the world’s highest per capita, show unimpressive results.  The deforming role that gerrymandering and unlimited campaign contributions play in political life is clear.  Unfunded pension liabilities of U.S. states exceed $3 trillion and estimates of unfunded federal liabilities on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid go as high as $100 trillion.  Foreign economies like China and India, once patronized, are now regarded with apprehension.  Viewing the world morosely, the American public has lost confidence in its political leaders and trust in our ‘establishment.’

            To what extent are public anger and feelings of betrayal justified?  The record is mixed.  America has recovered from the Great Recession of 2008-2009 better than all other advanced economies and its growth rate, a feeble 2%, is higher.  Its unemployment rate (below 5%) is low and its violent crime rates are declining.

            On the other hand, median wages stagnate even as incomes at the top soar.  Blue collar workers feel displaced by globalization and no longer feel catered to by politicians.  Millennials face rising college debt and diminishing employment opportunities.  White Christians, now a minority, feel they have ‘lost their country.’  Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been inconclusive.  Fear of terrorism has grown and America is no longer the sole superpower it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

            The traditional view Americans had of themselves — cheerful, optimistic, hardworking, ambitious and family- minded in a society that essentially worked well and would be even better for their children — no longer applies.

            Fearful, threatened societies often turn to demagogues as saviors — Mussolini made the trains run on time, Huey Long proclaimed ‘every man a king!’  But such times can also produce a Lincoln or an FDR, who strengthen institutions and rally the public around shared goals for the common good.  They can create a ‘new normal’ that works, one that draws on our own experience and on the lessons to be learned from the experience of other nations.  (For example, the criminal justice system of every other advanced nation focuses on crime prevention and the rehabilitation of malefactors.  Only the U.S. focuses on imprisonment and punishment, with off-the-scale mass incarceration and horrendous recidivism rates.)

            Our ‘new normal’— barring unforeseen factors — can be what we make it.  Pessimists predict continuing stagnation; others (I am among them) believe future American economic growth, greater social equality, greater operational efficiency, restored confidence in our institutions and revived public morality can be ours, if we make a national commitment to achieve them.   Not big government nor small government but smart government and fair government is what the public demands.

A prime requisite will be an end to the paralyzing political polarization that has made Congressional governance ineffective and has accounted for our disappointing economic performance.  ‘Dysfunctional’ is the term commonly applied to Congress today, where efforts to build consensus around shared national goals seem futile.  Any compromise is considered a betrayal of fundamental principles, and extremists believe it better to shut down government rather than permit objectionable legislation to pass.  Opposing parties don’t meet together or eat together and do not work together on common goals.  Two separate visions, two separate agendas are prevalent, with vitriolic attack and counter-attack and zero effort at national problem solving.

It was not that way in the past and need not be that way in the future.

Our first President had liberal Thomas Jefferson whispering in his left ear and conservative Alexander Hamilton whispering in his right ear as they worked together to create our nation. In 1981, Republican President Ronald Reagan and a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Economic Recovery Act, which dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 50%; they later worked together to reduce the top rate to 28%.  More recently, President George H.W. Bush negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and his successor, President Clinton, was determined to see it through.  In a famous Rose Garden event, Presidents Carter, Bush and Clinton stood shoulder to shoulder, calling for — and achieving — NAFTA’s passage.

The governance we had in the past we can have again.  To achieve it, we must revitalize what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called The Vital Center, consisting of ‘Citizens’ rather than ‘Taxpayers;’ and we should pledge to vote against the election of any Senator endorsed by extremists of either the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street.  Joint problem-solving, not short-term political advantage, must be the aim of elected political figures. 

The new paradigm we need will reflect the achievable goals of continuing economic growth, increasing economic and social equality, personal accountability of individuals responsible for ‘making things work,’ renewed confidence in our institutions and a renewed spirit of public morality. With fresh ‘outside the box’ thinking, our new paradigm could be:

           

A)          Increased Economic Growth Through Productivity

A society cannot indefinitely spend what it does not produce; and productivity — the output each worker generates — is a crucial factor in growth.  Without increases in efficiency and productivity, workers can’t get paid more and the economy cannot expand. 

Increased investment — of human capital, industrial capital, financial capital and social capital — must be focused on increased productivity, with national investment in education and training heading the list.  By 2020, it is estimated, 65% of U.S. jobs will require post-secondary education, and we must be ready.

Economic growth, with the benefits more equally shared than at present, must be a major and continuing public goal.

B)                                         Increasing Equality

Economic and social disparities will exist as long as incentives and rewards are necessary to galvanize human activity.  A public sense of a fair relationship between rewards and merit (or luck or contribution to the common good) is necessary for social harmony.  The current economic imbalance between the 1% at the top and the 99% of the rest is not sustainable. Universal opinion demands that it must be re-cast.  We can grow and we can distribute increasing benefits more fairly, and the public must feel reassured that the system is not rigged against them.  As the common law phrase has it, “Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.”

Thoughtful re-examination of our tax laws, elimination of obvious loopholes (such as the widely deplored ‘carried interest’ exemptions) and consideration of new sources of revenue are widely demanded.

                        A modest Value Added Tax (V.A.T.) on consumption, in addition to a graduated income tax, is widely applied in every other advanced economy.  It is less easily evaded than other forms of taxation, and with exemptions or ‘ceilings’ for the poor on food, clothing, housing and healthcare, it is fairer.  If the proceeds from a national V.A.T. were strictly dedicated to a fund for an infrastructure bank, scientific research and advanced academic training, the benefits to society would be profound. 

Social equality is a more complex problem.  We seek a society with level playing fields in which everyone has a fair chance to achieve his or her potential.  Equality of result is impossible but equality of opportunity — primarily through education — is a realistic goal, as demonstrated today by the educational record of the Scandinavian countries.

Education is a sensitive subject, but some unpopular comments are necessary:

i)          Because American public schools are financed by local property taxes, the poorer districts that need better services do not receive them, while richer neighborhoods receive services they could afford to pay for privately.  Someone, somehow, should move to have quality public schooling paid for by state taxation rather than through the local property tax. 

Some states, like California, have made progress along these lines, but states must be ready, able and willing to spend more on education.

ii)         ‘Dumbing down’ the national educational enterprise — with lower standards, fewer Advanced Placement courses, denigration of objective student evaluation — is not the way to help disadvantaged students.  Aiding them effectively to meet the higher standards is.  Inculcating high aspirations early in life and providing the tools for their achievement should be our goal for all children.

iii)        The trade union movement has historically been a plus in American life in negotiating better pay, benefits and working conditions for its members.  It has been a minus in insisting on indefensibly low professional entry standards and impossibly high barriers for removing incompetent practitioners. For both school teachers and police, higher entry standards would increase the respect in which the union members are held (which is important to them) and would also encourage the public to approve higher pay and benefits, which good teachers deserve.  More reasonable and efficient means of eliminating the dysfunctional few (say, the worst 3%) would be a win-win game for society, as the relatively few ‘bad eggs’ have undermined public confidence in the rest. (One percent of all doctors account for 30% of all malpractice suits, and they should be disqualified as well.)

iv)        Transparency, full disclosure and common sense must prevail in dealing with education questions.  That 25% of total U.S. K-12 expenditures go for ‘special education’ for the handicapped and less than 1% for programs for gifted children demonstrates the impact of ‘special interest’ influences.  An aware, informed public might wish for a different balance. 

Finland, which boasts the world’s best performing students, also has the world’s most highly qualified and respected and most highly paid teachers, and this is not a coincidence.  Finland’s public high school teachers come from the top 10% of the national academic pool.  New York City public school teachers come from the lowest quartile of our least demanding public colleges and receive lifetime tenure two or three years after starting.  It is difficult to remove the worst, and New York’s academic results reflect it.

v)         Retraining older or displaced workers for the five million unfilled U.S. jobs must become a higher American priority.  The U.S. spends 0.1% of GDP on job retraining, apprenticeships and job search assistance, while Germany spends 0.8% of GDP and Denmark 2.3% of GDP on them.

            Improved employment prospects for older workers would have a dramatic impact on American morale.  The rising rates of depression, poor health and suicide among older workers would be reduced by the opportunity for meaningful, satisfying work and the self-respect that comes from being self-supporting.

vi)        Changing college athletics competition from inter-collegiate to intramural would dramatically improve American higher education.

No athletic scholarships to distort the college admissions process, no expensive football stadiums and huge athletic budgets to deform college economics, and less wasted time for students would provide important benefits with no loss!

vii)       The case for free quality education for the poor is a strong one, and the public must be reminded that ‘education does not cost, it pays!’

Post World War II studies of the G.I. Bill are perfect examples.  In cases of identical twins, one of whom was a G.I. Bill college graduate and the other of whom was not, the graduate’s lifetime earnings and lifetime income tax payments were greater.  The differential in tax receipts was the government’s excellent return on its tuition investment.  Only the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the Purchase of Alaska (1867) were better federal investments.

viii)        For-profit college ‘drop-out mills’ that saddle unsophisticated students with strangling debt and worthless credentials should be severely regulated (and receive no government aid) and for-profit prisons (which bribe legislators to impose severe mandatory minimum prison sentences and anti-parole practices) should be made illegal.

ix)        Prudent ‘entitlement’ reform — reflecting wisdom, justice and thoughtful examination of who should get what and when — is long overdue.  Positive incentives and negative incentives reflecting fairness and commonsense in adjudicating between competing demands — all deserve careful consideration by panels and commissions of informed private citizens selected from our “best and brightest,” who bring to their deliberations knowledge, character and a long term perspective.

x)         The increase in U.S. heroin deaths (up 300% in the last decade) can be fought by addressing the “supply” (through police and government) or the “demand” (through community social pressure).  Police efforts have failed; now the community must become involved.

            “New users of drugs are stupid; they are killing themselves.  Drug addicts are sick; they must be helped medically.  Drug sellers are evil; they are destroying our community and they must be disgraced, humiliated, ostracized.”  These are messages that should be conveyed by teachers, ministers, journalists, public officials and emphatically by parents.  Narcotics are a curse and must be recognized as such; those who profit from them must be seen as public enemies.

                      C)  Accountability vs. Regulations Gone Wild

               

                  At a time when America’s physical infrastructure (graded D+ by the 
 American Society of Civil Engineers) is a national disgrace, when borrowing interest rates are at a historic low and our economy desperately needs jobs, our government cannot mount a major infrastructure development program.  The reason?  Paralysis by red tape has become the most serious ailment in America. 

                       

                    The average length of environmental reviews for highway projects is over eight years, according to the Regional Plan Association; and the review of the NY/NJ Goethals Bridge improvements has now taken over ten years. 

                      For reasons of national security and economic stimulus, we clearly need a new national electric grid, but there is no current plan under consideration.  Why?  New transmission lines would go through forests and across deserts and somebody is sure to object.

                        Today in America, anyone can say “no” — halt, delay, re-study.  No one can say “yes” and “I will take responsibility for a reasonable outcome.”  Other advanced nations are guided by principles enforced by commonsense.  In the U.S. ‘rule of law’ has become perverted to a regulation-bound mindset resulting in paralysis.

                        In his important book “The Rule of Nobody,” Philip Howard describes how American nursing homes and childcare facilities are strangled by regulations, whereas in Australia and in Germany agreed upon principles are interpreted by commonsense and implemented by individuals accepting responsibility for desired results.  Police in Scotland — unarmed — achieve better results through commonsense application of general principles than do American police following detailed regulations.

Two final thoughts merit serious consideration:  first, the application of ‘sunset provisions’ on all important government regulations; and secondly, the greater use of independent, impartial civilian commissions, such as those used to determine the closings of military bases.

Automatic expiration of major government regulations after 15 or 20 years and their full re-consideration before re-institution would dramatically modernize government operations, as would the appropriate use of independent civilian commissions to replace now-prevalent political log-rolling.  The increase in public confidence in government would be palpable.

C)                                   Time For A Moral Re-Awakening

                        As of February, 2016, 81% of respondents tell pollsters they believe the U.S. government is corrupt.  61% believe most Congressmen will sell their votes for cash or campaign contributions.  The New York City Council just voted itself a 32% salary increase “to remove temptations to corruption” (that’s what they said!)  and the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan has publicly called the state government in Albany ‘a cauldron of corruption’!  The United States ranks below every major European country on the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International.  After the economic explosion of 2008, many financial institutions were fined heavily for fraud, but no one has gone to jail, and the fines are widely seen as ‘the cost of doing business.’

            An aroused public should demand a renewed sense of probity from individuals in all areas of public life, with shame, ostracism and prison for those betraying the public trust and admiration and respect for those performing “above and beyond the call of duty.”  Public officials convicted of major fraud should be dealt with as social pariahs, not merely as individuals who ‘made a bad bet.’

            America has had Great Awakenings in the past and we are ready for another.  This one must emphasize not theology but morality, not life in the next world but life in this one, not the role of the individual but a sense of community and public spirit.  Its theme can be, “Yes, I am my brother’s keeper!”

                                                \Conclusion

The strengths of American society are real, but so are its weaknesses; both can be addressed frankly and imaginatively.  We must re-think our values and our goals, re-consider the standards by which we judge ourselves and our fellows and act accordingly.  Financial corruption and spiritual corruption are cancers destroying us, but they can be overcome by an outraged public.

America’s ‘fall from grace’ has been traumatic for many, resulting in the standard reactions of denial, anger, bargaining and depression.  Acceptance, the final stage, can prove constructive if we demand it. 

Paul Valery noted that “the future is not what it used to be.”  If we apply wisdom, energy and determination, it can be better.

                       

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that his office’s case against Trump has nothing to do with the billionaire’s presidential run.

Susan Watts/New York Daily News

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that his office’s case against Trump has nothing to do with the billionaire’s presidential run.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Sunday rejected suggestions that his office’s case against presidential candidate Donald Trump’s defunct “Trump University” was at all political.
“This is a straightforward fraud case. We never had any idea in 2013 the guy was going to run for president,” Schneiderman said on John Catsimatidis’ “Cats Roundtable” program on AM 970. “This is not a political case. This just a case where a lot of New Yorkers were ripped off.”
“There were thousands of folks who thought they were going to learn from real estate experts who were handpicked by Trump and that they would learn his personal secrets,” Schneiderman said. “Thousands of people (who) paid as much as $35,000 to $45,000.”
Schneiderman’s office filed suit against the now shuttered school in August 2013 after getting almost 70 complaints from students who said they were deceived into paying thousands of dollars for investment advising services they never received after getting lured in for “free” seminars.
TRUMP BRAND IS IN TROUBLE, MARKETING EXPERT SAYS

A flyer advertising “Trump University.”

But after years of stalled litigation, a state appeals court last month gave a green light to the civil fraud claim against the GOP front-runner and his former education business.
In a unanimous ruling, a four-judge panel of the state Appellate Division said the state attorney general’s office was “authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud.”
Schneiderman had charged Trump University, which operated between 2004 and 2010, was a scam that ripped off its students. Through “their deceptive and unlawful practices, (Trump and the school) intentionally misled over 5,000 individuals nationwide, including over 600 New Yorkers, into paying as much as $35,000 each to participate in live seminars and mentorship programs with the promise of learning Donald Trump’s real estate investing techniques,” the AG’s office said.
Lawyers for Trump and his now-defunct school had contended that the suit should be tossed, pointing to a statute of limitations they say expired.

Related Stories

Donald Trump names students from anti-Trump University ads

Trump University flaws admitted in recent depositions

The best zingers from Romney’s scathing anti-Trump speech

AGs demand Senate consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee

Luis-Manuel Miranda: In the room where it happens

Having trouble reading this email? Click here to view it online.

Friday, March 18

In the room where it happens Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of "Hamilton," spent this week making headlines in Washington. But he's not new to politics. by MARK CHIUSANO

NOW ARRIVING It was a particularly political week for Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator and star of the blockbuster musical "Hamilton." Miranda was in Washington to perform at the White House. While in town, he met with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, later tweeting that Lew said "you're going to be very happy" with the new $10 bill. That tweet brought a surge of attention to the proposed redesigned currency, which treasury hopes can include a woman's portrait for the first time without angering Hamilton supporters. He also lent his support to a bill providing bankruptcy protection to debt-strapped Puerto Rico, standing alongside members of Congress and another political force: his father. Meet me inside Luis A. Miranda, Jr. isn't just a supporting character in an epic toast from his son's wedding. He is a longtime powerbroker in New York. A founder of the political consultancy MirRam Group, the elder Miranda has been on all sides of the political ecosystem: An adviser to Mayor Ed Koch; an early contributor to the campaigns of Sen. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Fernando Ferrer; and a founder of the Hispanic Federation, an advocacy and social services group. Luis Miranda says he can't remember a time when he wasn't involved in politics, dating to his time in Puerto Rico. And in Puerto Rico, all politics is tinged by an ultimate, portentous decision, says Miranda. You're casting a vote on Puerto Rico's future: Independence, commonwealth, or statehood. In America, that's a Civil War- or American Revolution-era choice, which his son captures so well in "Hamilton." Miranda says that upon arriving in America it took him a while to find his place in the Democrat-Republican divide. Since then, he's been engaged in "politics with a big P" —mostly electoral campaigns. Angelo Falcón, founder of the National Institute for Latino Policy and another mainstay of the NYC political scene, says he's been "busting his chops" for years and has had disagreements with Miranda's political choices, but says he respects Miranda's establishing a "real powerhouse" political consultancy in MirRam group. Falcón remembers the father-son team when Lin-Manuel was a kid, and he appreciates that now, the Hamilton creator remains engaged in political issues. "What's happening in Puerto Rico is a humanitarian crisis," says Falcón — an issue that goes "beyond politics" and necessitates involvement from the wider community, particularly artists. "Sometimes we don't see our artists speaking out as much as they should." History has its eyes on you Lin-Manuel is an exception to that unfortunate rule. He has been steeped in local politics from an early age — he wrote the music for political jingles for some of his father's campaign work, including Ferrer and Eliot Spitzer. He was adept at ensuring that the "intended audience was identified in the music," says his father — a light salsa touch, for example. Today he "reads like a madman" and "can talk to you about what happened in the debate last night." Though he's inevitably performing during the debates, he devours coverage. But politics was never what he wanted to do. "My son has never been a very political person" — as in big p Politics, says Miranda. Lin-Manuel has become comfortable advancing political causes important to him, his father says, noting artists like Marc Anthony or those who boycotted the Oscars who have done the same. The elder Miranda makes a distinction between his and Lin-Manuel's advocacy in the morning and the afternoon on the D.C. trip. Tuesday started by addressing media and supporters, already receptive to their cause. Later, they met quietly in Senate offices where they weren't always preaching to the choir. In a meeting with amateur violinist Sen. Orrin Hatch, they discussed music before moving on to Puerto Rico, Lin-Manuel adding his "perspective from a personal view," his father says. The younger Miranda is learning how to use his celebrity to advance selective causes: "He's not going to be in the room negotiating," his father says. Instead he's figuring out what he can "realistically do to move the conversation." In other words, learning to have an impact whether or not he's in the room where it happens.