I’ve been listening to @annielowrey think (and rage) about this topic for years, and I’m so glad to see this article come out.
Once you start looking for time taxes, you see them everywhere, and they are a profound failure of both governance and justice. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
And don't think this is just a problem of Republican governance. Democrats have created more than their fair share of time taxes, and that has, in turn, undermined both their goals and the public's relationship to government.
Every campaign cycle we are suffused in plans to cut income and corporate taxes. I want to see plans to cut time taxes.
Universalizing benefits can help a lot here. Federalizing Medicaid, if done right, would slash lots of time taxes. But there's a lot you can do administratively, and in states, too. Even if you don't have the votes to fully remake programs, you can improve the ones we have.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The danger here is the recall could win. Not because recalling Newsom is popular. 57% oppose it. But those who favor it are paying much more attention.
We could end up with Gov. Caitlyn Jenner because most Californians ignore this as a distraction. ppic.org/blog/voter-ent…
This speaks to a larger problem in CA governance: A host of ideas meant to give the people more control over the government that have, over time, decayed into avenues organized interests use to get their way.
It is hard to view your own country objectively. There is too much cant and myth, too many stories and rituals.
So over the past week, I’ve been asking foreign scholars of democracy how the fights over the American political system look to them. nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opi…
Senator Sinema's op-ed defending the filibuster is frustrating, but I want to take one argument from it seriously, because it's shared by many of her colleagues: The idea that ending the filibuster will mean ricochet legislating. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
I know people of good-faith believe this argument, and it's a reason they don't want to get rid of the filibuster.
BUT:
1. It's not true, mostly.
2. In the limited cases it is true, it's healthy.
I'm not going to try to condense this to tweet length. But I've reported and written a lot on this, and here's the counterargument:
And on the way program design can connect people to politics, and make them feel empowered, or alienate them from politics by constantly humiliating them:
So I sat down with this guy last week to talk about winning over skeptical voters, the things he didn't say when he was president, the mistakes in the ACA and the stimulus, aliens, what humans will be judged for in 100 years, and more.
Here’s Obama on the central paradox of his presidency:
He accomplishes this remarkable act of persuasion, but it opens the door to the Tea Party, to Sarah Palin, to Donald Trump — and so he leaves behind a politics that often seems post-persuasion, more hostile to pluralism:
One lesson some on the left have taken from the aftermath of Obama’s presidency is you can’t tiptoe around America’s worst impulses. You need a politics of confrontation, not of uncomfortable coalitions.
Violent crime is spiking. Homicides in cities were up by 25-40 percent in 2020, the largest single-year increase since 1960. And 2021 isn’t looking any better.
This is a crisis on its own terms. But it’s also a crisis for the broader liberal project in two downstream ways.
First, violent crimes supercharges inequality. Families who can flee, do. Business close or never open. Banks won’t make loans. Property values plummet. Children are traumatized, with lifelong impacts on stress and cognition.
Second, fear of violence undermines liberal politics. Just look at America post-9/11. Or after the crime surges of the 70s and 80s and 90s — strongmen politicians win, punitive responses like mass incarceration and warrior policing rise, social trust collapses.