Archive

November 13th, 2015

Republicans slam Wall Street but won't regulate it

    It came through loud and clear in Tuesday's presidential debate: Republicans don't like Wall Street. They don't like its behavior before the 2008 financial meltdown. They don't like the bailouts that followed. And they don't like the financial power the biggest banks still wield.

    Here's the snag: Their contempt for Wall Street is exceeded only by their contempt for regulating Wall Street. That means, with one notable exception, they offer no realistic solutions to the problems they identify, especially the risks of too-big-to- fail institutions. In some cases, the solutions they offer would reverse five years of progress toward the very thing they claim to want, a sturdier financial system.

    The reasons lie in ideology and practical politics. On the ideological side, Republicans are opposed to big government and skeptical of regulation. That makes them hostile to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which gave federal agencies more authority to monitor risk within financial companies and reduce the likelihood of future bailouts by, for example, requiring banks to borrow less and hold more equity capital.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Must Boomers Take the Rap?

    In the course of human events, many things need fixing. One of them is the cost of Medicare, climbing rapidly as baby boomers enroll in large numbers.

    We can argue over how to contain this major federal expense, and we should. But assigning blame for the problem on anyone born between 1946 and 1964 seems an absurd way to go about it.

    Foes of Medicare and Social Security have long tried to corral resentment against baby boomers to weaken public support for these programs. Some supporters on the left do likewise in an effort to move more resources toward programs serving the young and the poor.

    Boomer-bashing may be entertaining, but it's not smart analysis. It's become the fashion nevertheless.

    Boomers should "repent," Washington Post writer Jim Tankersley declares with no hint of humor.

    He charges, "Boomers soaked up a lot of economic opportunity without bothering to preserve much for the generations to come."

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Microsoft's creative solution to data privacy

    Not long ago, Microsoft was widely seen as the archetypal evil corporate empire: A brutish monopoly, bereft of new ideas and embodying all that went wrong with first-generation tech titans. Under Chief Executive Satya Nadella, however, its creativity has been revived and its contribution to Europe's fight against U.S. Internet surveillance is evidence of that.

    Last month, the European Court of Justice ruled that the U.S. could no longer be viewed as a "safe harbor" for European Internet users' data because it made the data available to its intelligence services. The ruling was rooted in National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden's revelations of a program called Prism, which enabled the agency to peruse the private messages and other data sent by the customers of top U.S. Internet firms. According to Snowden's documents, Microsoft was the first to sign up for Prism, preceding the likes of Apple, Google and Facebook.

    Now, Microsoft is the first to offer a solution to the problem U.S. companies face in Europe. And it's a good solution.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

High-fives in Hillary-Land

    OK, this joke's gone on long enough. As of November 11, Donald Trump had either led or tied for first place in Republican 2016 polls for 114 days. But his performance in this week's debate proved what a disaster a Trump presidency would prove for the Republican Party -- and for the Republic.

    Trump only has one issue: his relentless, racist attack on illegal immigrants. He began by calling them "rapists" in his June 16 campaign kick-off, while promising to build a "great wall" along the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it. He's now expanded his broadside to include rounding up all 11 million people estimated to be in the United States illegally and deporting them south of the border: a pledge he lustily repeated in the Fox Business Channel debate.

    "We either have a country or we don't have a country," Trump bellowed. If we are really a nation of laws, he argued, "We have no choice" but to "send people out" who came to the U.S. illegally. All 11 million of them. In one fell swoop. On "Morning Joe" the next morning, Trump said he'd do so by mobilizing a massive "deportation force."

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Fight their own wars? Gulf states are above it

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter thinks America's Arab allies have their heads in the clouds. He makes a good point: The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are going to have to get grounded if they hope to effectively counter Iran, Islamic State and other threats in the region.

    "If you look at where the Iranians are able to wield influence, they are in the game, on the ground," Carter told the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. "There is a sense that some of the Gulf states are up there at 30,000 feet." 

    Carter continued: "The reason they lack influence, and feel they lack influence in circumstances like Iraq and Syria, with [Islamic State], is that they have weighted having high-end air- force fighter jets and so forth over the hard business of training and disciplining ground forces and special-operations forces."

    The numbers bear out Carter's case. Defense spending among the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council has risen by 71 percent since 2010, and overwhelmingly this spending has gone into building state-of-the-art air forces.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Donald Trump's reprehensible deportation plan

    Donald Trump's immigration policy is morally reprehensible, legally indefensible and un-American. Yet the flagging front-runner continues to flog President Eisenhower's atrociously named "Operation Wetback" as a model for how he would go about deporting the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

    "Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower - good president, great president, people liked him. I like Ike, right? The expression. I like Ike. - moved a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again, beyond the border, they came back. Didn't like it. Moved them way south, they never came back. Dwight Eisenhower. You don't get nicer, you don't get friendlier. They moved a million and a half people out. We have no choice. We have no choice."

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Ben Carson's remarkable gibberish on Syria and Iraq

    Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate was marked by a rather scattered conversation on foreign policy. The highlight of the discussion, in WorldViews' reckoning, was the response Ben Carson offered when asked by Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo about the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

    This was Bartiromo's question: "Dr. Carson, you were against putting troops on the ground in Iraq and against a large military force in Afghanistan. Do you support the president's decision to now put 50 special-ops forces in Syria and leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan?"

    And here, according to The Washington Post's annotated transcript of the debate, is Carson's reply. WorldView's notes are numbered.

    "Well, putting the special-ops people in there is better than not having them there(1), because they - that's why they're called special ops - they're actually able to guide some of the other things that we're doing there.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Wow, More Terrifying Than Trump

    Perhaps you didn’t watch the Republican presidential debate this week. That in no way excuses you from having an opinion about it. It’s the last one until December, and all you’ll have to work with if you want political conversation at Thanksgiving dinner.

    Except, perhaps, Donald Trump’s proposal that we boycott Starbucks for changing its holiday coffee cup design. He also promised a crowd recently that when he is president “we’re all going to be saying ‘merry Christmas’ again.” Even if you never said it before? Hard to tell.

    But about the debate. Jeb Bush sent out a mass email before the event began, asking all his “friends” to send him a dollar so he’d “know you’re at home cheering me on.” Doesn’t that sound a little pathetic?

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Who Can Follow This Climate Leader?

    Remember that scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy hits a fork in the Yellow Brick Road? As she stands there stumped, a friendly character who will accompany her to the Emerald Palace pipes up.

    “Pardon me, that way is a very nice way,” the Scarecrow advises as he points in one direction. “It’s pleasant down that way too,” he adds, now pointing in the other. Then the Scarecrow crosses his straw-stuffed arms and unhelpfully declares, “Of course people do go both ways.”

    President Barack Obama’s climate leadership is as hard to follow as the Scarecrow’s directions.

    After seven years of waffling, Obama finally rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. If completed, this conduit would have moved more than 800,000 barrels a day of filthy oil mined from the Canadian tar sands through Nebraska and five other states to refineries along the Gulf Coast.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Will This Lord of the Manor Get Locked Up?

    Don Blankenship had it all.

    The West Virginia coal baron had personal wealth, absolute control over his workers, and unmatched political power that extended through every branch of state government — and deep into the back rooms of Washington policymakers. In the house of Big Coal, Master Blankenship lorded over the manor.

    But soon, he could be moving into an even bigger house — as in “the big house.”

    The former Massey Energy CEO is presently on trial for intentionally neglecting mine safety laws, conspiring to cover up the violations, and effectively causing an explosion of methane and coal dust that killed 29 miners in Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine in 2010. It was the worst mine disaster in modern American history.

    In a rare turn of events for the corporate world, the boss himself has now been brought before a jury of common West Virginians to answer criminal charges that could put him in prison for 31 years.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!