Our resident constitutional expert Bruce Fein joins to make the case for impeaching the Supreme Court AND the President, and what we—as citizens—can do to make it happen.
China is not 'forcing' Uyghurs to make solar panels. That is complete nonsense based on Right-Wing initiated propaganda. While Uyghurs are discriminated against by the majority Han Chinese population, claims of Chinese mass incarceration and enslavement of Uyghurs are simply false, made up by right wing religious conservatives working in tandem with US National Security State manipulators. (See link below.) Wallach needs to stop making assumptions based on US State Department propaganda and do actual homework on the situation in China. Start here:
US State Department accusation of China Uyghur ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue Adrian Zenz
Ok. Sounds accurate. Good solution. Now, what would be your analysis of the failure of the Democrats to stop the Genocide of the Palestinians and to accept such high levels of obvious corruption? This is a serious question.
Alright, Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. If Trump is impeached, you both are aware of the presidential line of succession in the United States. The Vice President, JD Vance, is first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Do you think these two are less dangerous than Trump? They both identify as Christian Nationalists.
3 Threats Christian Nationalism Poses to the United States
If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.
You may have missed Mr. Fein addressing this in the interview: "Well, why is that any improvement? Well, the improvement is because it comes on the heel of a precedent. I can guarantee you, J.D. Vance, that we know how he lusts for power. You know, two years before he became a nice presidential running mate with Trump, he called Trump Adolf Hitler.
So he doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake. And because the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well.
So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the articles I shared in my previous comment.
Yes, it might be true that JD Vance “doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake.” But, “the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well. So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
What? First of all, Trump is just a pawn. He’s not one of the crafters of Project 2025, some of whom are members of Congress. Do you think removing Trump will have a “deterrent effect” on JD Vance? No, it won’t. If Trump is removed, it won’t just be for cognitive impairment. It will be because he is losing his MAGA base due to the Epstein files.
I said at the end of my previous comment that: “If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.” JD Vance is going to continue to “do what Mr. Trump’s going to do,” and that’s because he and the crafters of Project 2025 want to transform America into a Christofascist theocratic government.
Christofascism: The Dangerous Convergence of Faith and Authoritarianism:
Exploring the Fusion of Religious Fundamentalism and Fascist Ideology in Modern Governance and Its Threat to Democratic Values
This has been decades in the making. They told us about their plans in "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," also known as Project 2025.
Here’s a quote from the article: JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
“JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists hoped for in a vice presidential candidate. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a major architect of Project 2025, seems to be thrilled with Vance’s elevation. Roberts said that people at his organization were “privately rooting” for Trump to choose Vance as his running mate. They, along with every other Christian nationalist outfit throughout the country, got their wish — they have another pawn with public relations skills through which they can advance their vision of a Christian nation.”
Trump would not be impeached for "cognitive impairment" but for committing multiple offenses against the Const. and the Rule of Law - Vance could be impeached for the same reasons ...
First, I would urge people to believe it's vastly preferable to have Mr. Trump removed by the Will of the People. The "forces" behind impeachment that could remove Trump could just as easily remove Vance.
Second, I would strongly urge people to consider that only four seats in the People's House mark the difference in power. 219 of those seats are held by Representatives completely unfaithful to their oaths of office. This can only be tolerated in a society accepting of lawlessness and dishonor.
Ralph, all, it is totally unacceptable that you continue to allow Bruce Fein to spout complete nonsense. Worse still, you eat up that nonsense yourselves like candy based on egregious confirmation bias in yourselves. Example: The claim that Trump's Supreme Court somehow struck down Birth Right Citizenship is complete buIIshit.
The Supreme Court struck down universal immediate precedent from regional courts over the question of Birth Right Citizenship (a perfectly legal and constitutional decision) and while doing so even hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional. The Court striking down of regional decisions setting immediate precedent for all jurisdictions in the country is 100% legal and constitutional.
Bruce Fein is simply making up hyperbolic bogeyman fairy stories and falsely implying Presidential and Court vulnerability to impeachment which doesn't exist in reality. These fairytales are driven by such obviously false wishful thinking, and are so patently clownish, that they undermine our ability to hold Trump and the Court accountable when they really *do* act badly and unconstitutionally, which has indeed happened a lot (most prominently in the arming and funding of Israel).
It is your way-over-the-top accusations against Bruce Fein that put you in a very bad place. Fein is correct when he asserts the duty / obligation of the president to take "great care" that the laws passed by Congress are "faithfully executed." Trump asserted that Article Two gives him the powers to do whatever he wants.
"The Court has operated a 'shadow docket' picking cases on request from Trump where he is seeking to violate (invalidate) the decisions of lower courts." And you attack Mr. Fein over this?
Ralph Nader Radio Hour: Mr. Fein is a guest I look forward to. I appreciate his documenting of the impeachable offences committed by Trump. America needs MORE like Mr. Fein.
I didn't make 'accusations' toward Bruce Fein, I showed how what he is saying is false. What I am attacking Fein over is his mixing of over-the-top horseshit and exaggerations with *some* facts to paint an inaccurate picture of what Trump is doing, exaggerating its danger and illegality, and then using that manufactured fairystory to put forward the false premises that:
1) Trump is somehow an unprecedented totalitarian threat to a 'democracy' which the US never had in the first place and which was turned into a fascist oligarchy by Reagan and Clinton *decades* ago (and Trump is merely a more out there clown showman of the reality we have already lived under for 30 years)
2) Trump is seeking to be in office 'for life' when in reality he is going to be in office for only three more years and then leaving and everyone who has a basic IQ of 75 knows this is what is going to happen
3) ridiculously exaggerate the possibility that Trump and Supreme Court members can be readily impeached when that is not *remotely* going to happen
Presidents and the Supreme Court have been carrying out impeachable acts since the *founding* of the US centuries ago and the idea that the powers that be are somehow going to go after Trump or the Court is flat out laughable. They are doing exactly what the oligarchs who run this country *want* them to do.
I’m trying to leave this alone, but I can’t. These comments are probably not the best place to argue the point but a few of the things you said, overcome my caution.
I’m not your adversary. Why do you insult me with your comments that what I say is “f’ing naive hollier than thou preaching” and the product of an“ivory tower” law school education? Doesn’t that simply prove my point that ad hominem attacks destroy civil discourse?
You tell me you know so much about winning over minds in the political arena. I respond that as a trial lawyer, winning over minds or losing them is also what I’ve been doing for half a century and I find civility beats name calling. If you disagree, just explain why without name calling.
I’m not saying that calling a spade a spade or making personal attacks is always inappropriate. Most of the time it is. The one exception is when you know by clear and convincing evidence that the person or organization you are attacking is acting selfishly and in bad faith and knows it and when the audience knows it too. I think what motivates many decisions of both political parties and some of its so-called leaders fall into this category. What they’ve done to our country is worthy of our contempt.
Otherwise, don’t you think we should give people who disagree with us a presumption of good faith? I mean you don’t know everything and I sure don’t. Maybe we’re wrong and they’re right, but we’ll never know if we resort to name-calling and insults.
Other than this, we probably have a lot of things in common.
Dude, you came straight out of the gate at the beginning of this with an incredibly entitled arrogant attitude that it was somehow your place to tell me how to behave. Get the f'ck over yourself. And again, the contention that being a trial lawyer makes you an expert outside that realm really highlights well just how naively arrogant and entitled you and your all too typical Academy-splaining are. And, I'm not interested in winning your heart and mind, I was talking to Nader and Fein, not you. I couldn't care less about alienating you and your smug finger wagging nonsense.
I give up. I guess I really am your adversary (I hesitate to think about how you treat your friends, if you have any). I don’t have the time nor energy for this. Sayonara.
Erik, I never called you an 'enemy'. I simply called you out for engaging in entitled and uninformed fingerwagging (based on your training in academia teaching you arrogant hierarchical thinking) on how another person should behave in their criticism of the Nader Radio Hour.
Somebody needs to look up the term passive-aggressive and then go take a look in a mirror.. I see you are one of those who invariably feels he has to get in the last word as a parting shot. Got it. Fire away..
Not that anyone asked, but I "kind of" agree with Erik Brooks on this one. As I've said in a related comment, the Court is going to be conservative and narrow in its rulings about subjects that could lead to a Constitutional crisis-- and I believe rightfully so. The final story has not yet been written and will depend on future events.
I say "I kind of agree" with Eric because I disagree with his ad hominem attacks on Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. I think their lifetime service to our society means they are entitled to a high presumption of good faith. You and I can disagree with them about the decisions of our Supreme Court without attacks on their motivations, which, I for one, believe are made in good faith. By definition, no civil discussion or resolution of our important national issues is possible if we immediately resort to name calling.
With respect Erik, I've been a full time grassroots organizer since 1985 when I trained with Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). I was trained for over a decade via Ralph Nader's methods, and common sense, and I helped the PIRGs and other organizations over the last 40 years to win scores of campaigns. So when Ralph goes off the rails and starts making foolish choices and statements, there are few people on this Earth more entitled than myself to criticize him. And calling Bruce Fein a grifter is not 'ad hominem' it is a statement of what I assess to be a fact.
I’m not against criticism, Eric, but there’s a right way to do it without excessive insult and polarizing things. I suggest just saying , “I can’t agree with Mr. Nader and this is why …..”
I compliment you on your background. Substacker Don Harris and I have pipedreams about getting corporations out of the election process. See, our posts this podcast. Would appreciate your input if you have the time and inclination.
Thankfully, you don't get to decide the 'right way' to criticize something that is wrong. Another lesson that my 40 years as an activist have taught me, is that those who are polite, lose. When someone or something is wrong, you need to get up in their face and challenge them *aggressively* so they are *uncomfortable* and have to make a choice to change or continue to feel uncomfortable. The film "An Unreasonable Man" *about* Ralph, is based on this very premise!
The reason that the environmental and social justice movements have been failing since the Clinton administration has been the foolish liberal deference to being polite and 'peaceful'. When liberals made the dismal and stupid mistake of sticking with and building polite relationships with the Democrats, that is when the movement was killed.
Polite and peaceful doesn't win campaigns. Harsh talk, confrontation, direct action, boycotts and demands win campaigns. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X were right. Stonewall was a riot or a reason. Standing Rock got results.
The world is on the verge of total ecological and civilizational collapse and we need to get angry about it, or we will get dead. That includes getting angry with leaders who are taking us dangerously off track.
I'm being confrontational with Ralph because he is wrong and he needs to told so without sugar coating. He's also wrong in his continued mantra that we need to keep pressuring Congress the way we used to back in the day, when that strategy simply does not work any more.
On your podcast. Give me the link.And I'll check it out.
Eric. The way you tell someone they are wrong is confronting them with credible evidence. I’ve got a little experience too. I’ve been a trial lawyer since well before you were a political organizer. The cross examinations I have lost are when I confront people angrily rather than confronting them with facts and reason. The jury throws me out of court. The judge gets mad at me.
Also, when I’m smart enough to cross examine with the facts and the evidence in a calm and reasonable manner, my client wins. What do you know?
Universal jury instructions follow this mode, informing the jury that they should make a calm, rational decision based upon the evidence and the law. They’re admonished not to make emotional opinions. They’re reminded of their biases.
I guess we’ll have to differ about this. Like you, I don’t agree with everything Ralph says, but I presume he’s acting in good faith always.
I can’t remember anything about a podcast in my last comment as I dictate this. I am impressed by your background and I’m not put off by your aggressiveness. I just don’t think the latter is the best way. So I hope you’ll keep in touch and follow Don Harris and I as we argue about getting corporations out of politics and try to figure out a way that tiny little citizens or citizen groups might make a difference.
Erik, give me a f'ing break. And please lose your f'ing naive holier-than-thou preaching to others about how they should 'behave'.
My comments were directly to two public figures, not to a jury and judge in a formal court proceeding. You seem to be strangely unaware that these are two completely different forums for debate requiring radically different rhetorical and dialectical approaches.
Your Ivory Tower, Pavlov law school training and practice has nothing to do with holding public figures accountable. I've got decades of experience in confronting public figures. What gets results with them is exactly that *confrontation* not a polite chat over tea. I've also stated and cited facts. Did you miss that part while drifting through your intoxicating rarefied air of moral superiority?
Furthermore, I did not in any way question Ralph's integrity and good intentions. It is only Fein who I consider to be a purposeful bad actor. Ralph is someone who I deeply respect, but who is just not thinking straight and I'm seeking to wake him up by calling him out about it.
"...hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional."
Hinted at - but did not rule on it, preferring instead to gut the power of lower District courts to put nationwide stays on a denial of citizen ship that clearly affects the whole country while it wends its way through a process of appeals until it finally gets to the SC - when, on the next "docket", in '26? The idea that specific "class action suits" are needed (in each District?) when clearly the "class" affected is every kid born in the US to a "non-citizen" parent, is rather ludicrous - and begs the question, why did they make such a ruling when they could have decided the question there and then ....
They are caught in a bit of a dilemma - to rule that "the plain language", of which the Conserv. Majority is so fond, makes it clear that all kids born in this country are, ipso facto, citizens, would be to cross Trump - which would really piss him off. And then he would have a choice, to back down, appear "weak", and open himself to his already pissed off MAGA base, or to "defy" the SC - adding another clear basis for impeachment - the SC has "rescued" him once again, and, once again, at our expense.
How far will he go, and how far will the SC let him go, in terms of mangling the Constitution, and how many people will suffer in the process .... In the absence of impeachment we have another 3 1/2 years to find out - will there be anything left worth saving ...
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Birth Right Citizenship because as the court correctly pointed out, the question before them was the extrapolation of a regional court case into a nationwide injunction. The Court said that such extrapolation is not Constitutional (arguably true) and then literally outlined for the petitioners how they could pursue their cases on Birthright Citizenship more effectively in the future.
And your contention about class action lawsuits is incorrect. There can, and may well be, a national class action on this Birthright Citizenship question. It is patently obvious that Trump's action to undermine Birthright Citizenship is blatantly unconstitutional, there is no way that Trump would win such a case, and the Court all but admitted this in its ruling.
And the reasoning behind the issuance of the injunction in the first place? That Trump's declaration - that children born here of non-citizens were not citizens was un-constitutuional - that even you admit is true - and that there is no way Trump could win. So why was it necessary for the Court to essentially create or dictate a way for plaintiffs to pursue their case "more effectively" ...
It wasn't, and i think you know that - the SC was unnecessarily kicking the can down the road - creating a lot of fear and confusion for a lot of people - cui bono - certainly not the Const.
You need to learn a lot more about how courts work, especially the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court takes up a case it very strictly limits itself to making decisions only about the merits and parameters of the case before them, and they DO NOT stray beyond those parameters. This means that the Supreme Court COULD NOT RULE on the constitutionality of Trump's action because that IS NOT what was before the Court, The Court was very strictly limited to ruling only on whether or not the injunction should apply nationally to all jurisdictions in the US. Therefore the Court told the petitioners, that 1) they could only rule on the injunction and that it was not a national precedent, and 2) that if the petitioners wanted a nationally applicable ruling they had to pursue it in a different way. (A type of advice the Court often gives in its judgements.)
Bruce Fein knows all of this perfectly well, which is what makes it so galling that he is quite clearly purposely misleading you and others, likely in a shameless grift to make money for himself by becoming a go-to media commentator who can be counted on to stir up hyperbolic hysteria on Trump, and thereby give media outlets higher ratings.
What they "ruled on" was that a District Ct could not issue a national injunction on this issue,- so tell me, is this the first time that a District Ct has made a ruling that was a "national injunction" , and if not, why hasn't the SC nixed this idea before - and wasn't this DC injunction simply to stay Trump's declaration on birthright citizenship pending further decisions up the chain of Appeal in order to prevent real immanent harm to individuals - and is this decision re the inability of a District Ct to impose national injunctions to be applied to all future District Ct cases ....
I think you know as well as i that the SC can rule, or avoid ruling, on whatever aspect of a case it wants to - and will find ways to justify that decision ....
That this is Trump's Court was made quite clear when the Ct decided that a Pres could not be criminally prosecuted for actions undertaken as part of his "official duties" of office - which apparently he is able to define himself ... So the SC is the last word on saying "what the law is" and the Pres is the last word on saying "what his official duties are"
Sorry, Eric, I'll take Fein's interpretation and analysis over yours any day
The ruling has broader implications than that. What the Court ruled is that District court injunctions cannot be applied nationally unless such a national application is necessary to make whole the actual plaintiffs in the case. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have a very long history of ruling that suits are only valid if the outcome directly personally impacts the plaintiff(s) (this is known as the requirement of 'Standing') and that rulings must only apply as needed to resolve the grievance of the plaintiff(s). You and I might disagree with this approach, but it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
What the Court did has precedent, and its previous allowance of national application of injunctions has always been when there is a clear need for the national application to make the plaintiffs whole (for example in immigration cases). You can look up this history, I encourage you to do so.
And no, your contention that the Supreme Court just does whatever the hell it wants is not backed by the facts. Even when the Court clearly makes egregiously out there and purely political bad rulings, it invariably has to twist the text of those rulings into a very convoluted pretzel to do so (for example in Bush v Gore 2000).
But that is not what happened in this case. In the Birthright Citizenship case the Court made a perfectly reasonable ruling that is not convoluted at all, and makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a judicially conservative approach to law.
And it's a good precedent. Imagine if a district court ruled that all abortion was illegal for all people in the United States around the case of just one plaintiff father in Paducah, Kentucky against a single abortion clinic.
Do you want the Supreme Court to have the power to uphold the national application of a district court decision like that?
Hell no.
Bruce Fein is a deeply experienced attorney on Constitutional and Federal law, and he KNOWS all of this.
And that means he is purposely lying to you and everyone else who listens to his sky-is-falling buIIshit that is going to sell a lot of books and sell out a lot of paid speaking venues for him.
Rump being the Corporate Socialist that he is for the top 2%, loves tariffs for one simple reason, they replace income taxation with consumer taxation as a federal funding source. The bottom 98% comprise 98% of the purchases of foreign products and the top 2% pay less taxes. It's how it was before the Income Tax Act and The Gilded Age magnates loved tariffs.
When Bruce Fein was asked what can people do about "it" he said the usual stuff about contacting your representatives and demanding action to protect the constitution regardless of being Republican or Democrat which would force the politicans to choose between Trump and their own political future.
Then he hit the nail on the head when he said that people should make it clear that if the representatives do not meet the demand we will not vote for them in 2026.
That is the key to how citizens hold the politicians accountable.
The big money interests hold the politicians accountable by financing (or not financing) the politicians campaigns.
So the question is, Ralph, why can't we use the same principle that Bruce Fein suggests we use to force the politicians to choose between Trump and their own political future by demanding that politicians do not take big money to finance their campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 by saying we will not vote for them if they take big money forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or being a small donor candidate?
Just 10% of the 150 million voters investing 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates in 2026 would total 1.5 billion dollars and could be just the tip of the iceberg.
Voting for big money Democrats or Republicans in 2026 if they treat the symptom of Trump with impeachment will do nothing to change the dynamics of our political process being controlled by the big money interests that led to Trump.
Let's instead treat the cause in 2026 by demanding that politicians run small donor campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes putting Ralph's previous statement that politicians want our votes more than big money to a test.
Don, I’ve come around to your point of view that people have to pledge to vote against anyone taking corporate money. It would take concerted grassroots efforts in virtually every state, however.
My idea would be to circulate a petition to as many voters in the state as possible whereby voters would pledge not to vote for any candidates who take corporate money either directly or indirectly through PACs. The petitions would then be sent to the candidates and their parties for responses and publicized in the newspapers and elsewhere in the hope of getting more voters on board. In my state of Montana, at least, 10 to 20,000 votes will swing just about any election-state or federal. So you don’t need many pledges from voters to make it work.
In addition, Montana actually has a statute prohibiting candidates for elected offices from taking corporate money, but it is recognized only in the breach. I’ve pointed this out to other Montana citizens and lawyers, advocating for the above described petition.
Thus far, my idea has received less than a lukewarm response. Just about everyone agrees something needs to be done, but it is almost as if people want to wring their hands about it rather than actually do something.
I don’t understand that psychology, but that’s what it seems like.
I’m gonna give it a try anyhow when we get closer to the midterms. Montana has a small population, as you know, and something like this can be made to go viral, but it takes a little guts and a lot of work.
(Essentially, I think Mr. Mamdani has proven you have a chance to get elected by swearing off big donors and Pacs. I would think this should encourage candidates to do the same and provides support for grassroots efforts. ).
Send me a letter on my substack page if you want to chat. Same goes to anyone else who agrees with Mr. Harris‘s proposal and has a little Don Quixote in them.
The problem with petitions is there is no continuation. This is why I set up a website (www.onedemand.org) that will continue the effort as it took decades to get to where we are and it will take more than one election cycle to change it.
Maybe you could consider setting up a One Demand Montana. If successful it could inspire participation in other states in future elections.
Just saying corporate money or PACs leaves too much wiggle room for candidates.
A 2800 dollar total contribution by an individual still dwarfs a contribution by a small donor (less than 200 dollars total ). As I pointed out candidates can raise enough with only contributions from small donors.
The declaration on the website also includes what citizens can do when there are no small donor candidates on their primary or general election ballots- they cast a write in vote to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections.
If your 10-20 thousand Montana voters cast these write in votes and it had an effect on the 2026 election it could increase the participation in future elections and might get some news coverage.
It would also help if Ralph would start the non-profit media conglomerate I have suggested that would be funded by selling shares for 100 dollars each with no one person owning more than ten shares and can only be sold for 100 dollars as the purpose of owning the shares is for ordinary citizens to control the media conglomerate and not to make money on the value of the shares. This would create media that would actually report on these kind of efforts that the corporate controlled media ignores and or marginalizes.
Thanks Don. Thanks for the ideas. My methods are from an analog age and need updating.
Hope we can keep in touch and collaborate.
I tried to google your website, but no hit. I don’t know if that’s at my end or yours, but if its at yours, it needs fixing. I’ll keep trying all I get for one demand is a software company going by that name.
Erik here. If you get this message, please acknowledge. I don’t know how to communicate on substack other than comments.
I think your website is a great idea. I’m anxious to review it so let me know when it’s back on the air. I have several ideas. I’d like to review with you on how to gain notoriety and get more voter supporters through a website in conjunction with other methods.
If you’re interested in a telephone conversation or Zoom meeting, let me know and we’ll figure out how to set it up.
There is a way to have a private chat on substack. A commenter once set that up but it did not prove productive in that instance. Maybe Steve or someone can remind me how that is done and when the website is up again we can talk on the phone.
Gaining notoriety and supporters is a tougher nut to crack. I have spent years following Ralph's advice on that with little success.
I wrote and submitted hundreds of articles,contacted all forms of media, politicians, activists and journalists and got few responses and the responses I did get mostly ignored the issues or provided the usual dodges.
Unless we are exchanging personal info like a phone number talking in the comments can possibly help as more people can hear about the ideas by reading these comments.
As Ralph has said it starts with one person and than a second person and grows from there. Maybe if a few more people reading these comments chime in we can get Ralph to join a discussion of this strategy to get big money out of politics.
Despite Ralph's advice not bearing fruit (even much on Ralph since 2015) I see no other option than to continue to follow Ralph's advice to keep asking until you get an answer.
I agree, but It doesn't help much, i don't think ,for some pols to swear off big $$$ unless they all do - and at this point, considering that it has been 15 years since the CU decision which Congress is using as an excuse for not enacting campaign finance reform ("sorry, the SC says we can't") it seems to me that holding their feet to the fire on this issue would consist of refusing to vote for any who do not support a Const Amend that would allow them to do so, and then, of course, doing it - one that says Corps are not People and Money is not Speech - and there is, and has been, such an Amendment presented in the House - this year HJR 54, that does just that ... no companion in the Sen. I know of ...
So maybe we could at least tell our Congresscritters we will not vote for any who don't sign on to and VOTE FOR it - that is pretty good litmus test, it seems to me ...
As I point out in my reply to Erik this will not happen in one election cycle.
The way to get them all starts with citizens making the demand and enforcing the demand with votes in 2026, getting more citizens and some candidates to participate in 2028 and reaching a point in 2030 or 2032 when there are enough citizens participating (40 percent or so) that a candidate cannot get elected if they take big money.
This would be much faster than the decades it will take to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified and implemented.
And unless we first replace the big money candidates with small donor candidates the big money candidates will not pass any reform or amendments as the problem with big money legislators is that they only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests that have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.
I also oppose any amendment that says money is not speech.
There is no specific right in the Constitution to make political contributions. If money is not speech then I no longer have the right to make political contributions.
Amendments should provide rights not take them away.
It's true - it takes a while to pass an Amendment - all the more reason to continue to push ... IMO it's a good thing women pressed for the 19th Amendment, though some may disagree .. all this Amendment does is enable Congress to put limits on campaign finance, not forbid your ability to engage in it, any more then putting speed limits on highways takes away your right to drive on them - why don't you read it.
And in any case, this is not a substitute for your idea but a companion to it
Also, when you ask them to take a pledge not to take big money - what is the definition of "big money" - the devil is always in the details ...
I have read many CU amendments. That is why I oppose them.
While the amendments do not specifically forbid my ability to make political contributions they all say money is not speech. Money being speech makes political contributions a right. Without money being speech there is no constitutionally guaranteed right.
Under these amendments Congress could pass legislation that campaigns could only accept contributions with no maximum amount from no more than 10,000 people. This would put small donor campaigns at an extreme disadvantage. (Small donor is typically defined as no more than 200 dollars total contributions to a campaign.)
These amendments are just a dodge so that politicians and citizens do not have to do anything now about big money corrupting our political process.
The amendments will not passed for decades while the politicians continue to take big money.
The big money politicians will never pass the amendment because the big money interests do not want them to. The only way to pass the amendment is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.
The problem has to be solved before amendments and/or legislation to solve the problem can be passed and at that point the amendment and/or legislation will not be needed.
"Money being speech makes political contributions a right. Without money being speech there is no constitutionally guaranteed right."
Which is why Big $$$ loves CU - equating $$$ with speech is what got us into this mess in the first place - if our only protection is the "promises" candidates make not to spend more than a certain amt. good luck with that, not to mention how much can be spent on their behalf, which is the elephant in the room ..
Limiting the amount of money allowed to be spent on an election is not tantamount to denying the right to spend any at all ....
There are a lot of things we are allowed to do, even while putting restrictions on them, that are not spelled out in the Const. - and putting no limit on money in elections is like putting no speed limits on highways - a dangerous thing to do .... I would not like to have to rely on nothing more than a driver's "promise" not to go faster than xmph
Some money may be necessary in an election, but a whole lot is a pollutant - and just as with any other pollutant, we should be able to regulate it ....
I don't see why we cannot pursue both our proposals at the same time - i see no objection to yours, but your objection to mine seems to me rather counterproductive, if the idea is to get money out of politics ...
We can work together on my proposal as we agree on that but all we can do together on the CU amendment is discuss it while agreeing to disagree.
Big money was already a problem before CU.
As your proposal that will take decades will not happen until my proposal has solved the problem in a few election cycles what seems counterproductive to me is to spend time, money and effort on something that will not be needed once my proposal has been effective and is unlikely to be effective and likely to be dangerous if it were somehow passed without my proposal being effective.
Don, I think you might be incorrect on this. The "right to associate," is considered part of the the free speech Amendment 1 to our Constitution. The right includes coming together to advocate collectively for political interests. This is why efforts to end CU include statements that "money is not speech." They are designed to say big money interests cannot freely associate to sway elections. My authority is the Supreme Court cases interpreting Article 1 and almost 50 years as a lawyer studying and researching those cases.
At any rate, our coming together collectively as free sentient human beings and citizens to vote against any and all candidates who will win through donations of the oligarchy--both corporations and their owners-- does not require the thought that "money is not speech."
Changing the constitution is designed to change the rulings made under the previous constitution.
As we can achieve our goal without changing the constitution why would we risk changing the constitution when we can achieve our goal without the changes?
I agree. Eventually, however, and if we citizens are successful, we may have to cross this issue, but no big deal re this project. See my comments with Eric Brooks. He has a great background.I asked him if he might help.
I happened to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove last night, with Peter Sellars and others, and the comparison of Strangelove and Musk is close, remarkably close. His uncontroled Nazi salute especially and the AI Grok tantrum into fascism. Interesting, no?
To keep things brief, I am flummoxed as to why the raising of revenue is even being discussed in reference to tariffs. Not only was it discussed in the segment with Lori Wallach, but it led off the segment. The US federal government is a currency-issuing entity. Tax/tariff receipts are not of relevance in any direct sense, certainly not in the context implied in the discussed here.
I tend to agree - I do wish Ralph and crew would discuss MMT with someone like Stephanie Kelton -
The issue, it seems to me is not how much we need, because we can print that - but on what it should be spent ... Perhaps it is still considered too "revolutionary" to suggest that taxes/tariffs aren't needed for raising "revenue" but for redistribution to even out the incredible and growing inequality in this country, which, in the end may well be the source of our undoing ...
Thanks for replying. I wrote back but I think it got lost in cyberspace somewhere.
I asked if my basic understanding about MMT was correct. It was: You can print money so long as that money goes to goods and services that benefit society. If you print money and spend it on the military and corporate welfare, then you’re gonna get inflation. Also, if you print money, but the economy does not react correspondingly, the way you get rid of the excess money is to raise taxes. Otherwise, you get inflation.
So right now our government is only doing the printing money part right. Everything else it does wrong. It isn’t spending that money on goods and services to benefit its citizens and at the same time, its not raising taxes to control inflation. Instead it is reducing taxes and causing inflation. The Fed is left trying to control the situation through higher interest rates.
I would add to and also nuance what Klassik wrote in reply.
What the MMT school points out is that if a government's sovereign currency spending into the economy creates local (rather than global or Wall Street) economic activity which fills actual needs such as hiring people to; build bridges, provide services to the elderly, open public pharmacies in each neighborhood that charge cost for medications, etc, then that spending creates a multiplier effect that is anti-inflationary. Lower to middle class workers hired, and lower to middle class consumers who are given discounts (or even direct cash support as through Social Security, Food Stamps, or Medicare) tend to spend the money they gain right away back into the local economy on goods and services.
This in turn puts *more* people to work, who then *also* spend their money into the economy, and so on, in multiple cycles of amplification. This is anti inflationary in part because all of those workers pay taxes.
But when sovereign currency is instead printed to give to banks (Obama style) such funds nearly all get turned into debt to fund speculation on Wall Street, commodities, and real estate (especially housing). Those *sectors* then experience inflation because they are under-taxed and bloated with too much cash. This is why the stock market never stops going up, and is also why the center of crippling inflation in the US is in *housing* due to bank-debt-funded real estate speculators bidding up the on-paper value of housing and mortgage debt.
So spending into the local real economy to meet real needs does not tend to drive inflation, and spending into banks who then lend to speculators does raise inflation.
While the core MMT theory is merely just an explanation of the monetary system and the theory itself does not offer policy suggestions (aside from the benefits of full employment), you do bring up a couple of interesting and valid points about policy suggestions informed from MMT.
For one, the ‘founding 3’ MMTers all speak about the allocation of labor in the US especially since the beginning of the 1980s when the finance sector grew significantly and there was a large growth of the speculative market. Speculation is not ‘productive’ and even Warren Mosler, the most capitalistic of the founding 3 theorists, frequently discusses the importance of moving labor out of the non-productive, inflationary FIRE sectors (finance, insurance, real estate) and into productive sectors, such as areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, education, and even legitimate private sector interests which expand technology and lower costs. Expanding the productive sectors and shrinking the non-productive sectors would be an important part of maintaining affordability.
Related to that is that one central point to MMT is the importance of fiscal policy rather than monetary policy (interest rates) in combating inflation. Regulation to prevent monopolies/duopolies, housing regulation to ensure housing is for people to live in rather than as an investment vehicle, and so forth are all vital to fighting inflation.
To me the most incisive MMT advocate is Michael Hudson. I'm an anti-capitalist and I can see the dethroning of the US dollar on its way pretty imminently, so to me MMT has limited value. But in our current time, with the US dollar and capitalism running the show. MMT is crucial insight, especially for people in the US.
It is worth noting that MMT is not just applicable to the US. It is a common misconception that MMT only applies to the US due to the US dollar being the reserve currency, but this is not a correct assumption. MMT applies to other currency issuing countries such as the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and so forth. In many ways, Japan is the greatest example of the advantages of a near 0% interest rate policy and a high debt-to-GDP ratio.
China will likely pass the US as the largest economy at some point, but that does not mean the US dollar will lose reserve currency status as the US passed the UK as the largest economy ~50 years before the US became the reserve currency and the change in reserve currencies may never have happened if it wasn't for the world wars. Anyway, even if the US dollar somehow isn't the reserve currency, that does not mean MMT in inapplicable to the US just as MMT applies to Japan and company.
While *technically* you are correct, the world economy is so totally dominated by US dollar hegemony that 1) there is no guarantee that other sovereign nations can effectively implement MMT (when the IMF and other international loan sharking operations are seeking to trap them in debt and resource/labor extraction) and 2) the US is also heavily dependent on massive, bogus, private debt leveraged on top of US sovereign debt such that if the US Dollar were ever replaced as the global reserve currency by a global algorithmic trading mechanism and/or an international gold backed currency, the US would be hard pressed to avoid an economic meltdown.
I’ll work a bit backwards with the questions. Hopefully it makes more sense this way.
“Also, if you print money, but the economy does not react correspondingly, the way you get rid of the excess money is to raise taxes. Otherwise, you get inflation. “
Yes, taxation is an anti-inflationary measure. In fact, if you read about the fiat currencies used by the colonies in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, you’ll see that the colonies which successfully levied taxes were more successful in using fiat currencies than those with poor taxation policies.
“I asked if my basic understanding about MMT was correct. It was: You can print money so long as that money goes to goods and services that benefit society. If you print money and spend it on the military and corporate welfare, then you’re gonna get inflation.”
I wouldn’t say that this is an accurate description of MMT. Spending could be for the military and corporate welfare and it could potentially not be inflationary. In fact, this pretty much describes the current economy, and at least prior to the Covid era, it was not inflationary at all as inflation was right at the Fed’s 2% target (and there is nothing necessarily wrong with a 2% target).
Where military, corporate welfare, or any kind of appropriation might become inflationary is when you run into resource constraints. For example, the Covid stimulus checks, at least the final round, were issued at a time when there were clear productive capacity issues due to Covid restricting manufacturing and also logistics problems at the time. While the overall impact of the stimulus checks on inflation were fairly minor according to research, it did contribute to the inflationary landscape.
Spending appropriations on socially positive things such as healthcare and education help fight inflation in the sense that they increase the country’s productive capacity. A healthy society is a more productive one. A more educated nation is a more productive one. I also advocate for full employment policies via a job guarantee program which acts as a labor buffer stock which helps fight inflation.
This is a very basic explanation, but hopefully it helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. Again, I certainly recommend Stephanie Kelton’s Deficit Myth book, which was a top selling book when it came out. She’s working on a second book which I believe will be about inflation.
I think I have politely disagreed with both of you about MMT in the past. I understand your arguments, but I believe MMT is best a theory. Even more liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institute are dubious about it. I've tried to understand it as a person of at least modest intelligence, but confess it leaves me confused.
In the meantime, I believe prudence dictates the common sense notion that when you print money without correspondingly increasing worthwhile goods and services, you risk a lot of inflation and loss of confidence in the dollar, which could have real and potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. So I think Ms. Wallach's discussion about tariffs and the deficit are relevant and important.
Tariffs and MMT aren't related - the first is part of a strategy to boost domestic manufacturing - See Hamilton's Report on Manyfactures - 1791
The second debunks the idea of the need for a "national debt" for a sovereign country that prints its own currency - and can control the amount in circulation
Btw - as a follow up to our other conversation that you pulled the plug on I offer
No use arguing about MMT. Maybe you are right, but I'm not convinced.
Thanks for your ongoing comments re: Don Harris and trying to find a remedy to corporate influence over our election and government. I think the head of that snake has to be cut off before we can accomplish anything good for we citizens.
PS: I read the main parts of the amicus brief you sent, but I don't remember and cannot locate the comments I made about the universal injunction case. In general, it appears to be a tough issue and I have not done the research. For what they are worth, here are a few of my thoughts.
On the one hand, we need a method for quickly stopping the government from committing nationwide damage. On the other hand, I'm not fond of giving a single district judge at the bottom of the judicial totem pole the power to decide when it is necessary. What happens if that single judge denies the injunction? Would that mean other courts in other parts of the country would be prohibited from granting one under similar circumstances?
I assume SCOTUS has the power to make a nationwide injunction ruling and certainly can expedite a ruling when necessary. See, Gore v. Bush (Not that I agree with the substantive decision).
"Even more liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institute are dubious about it."
Of course Brookings is dubious about it, they are a liberal think tank. Liberal meaning free market and so of course they are going to push for social austerity which promotes the private sector over the public sector in a mixed economy.
"I've tried to understand it as a person of at least modest intelligence, but confess it leaves me confused. "
I admit that macroeconomics is a difficult subject for many simply because we're never taught to think about macroeconomics. Give it some time, however, and I think you'll find that the concepts are not very difficult to understand. You'll have plenty of 'a-ha' moments if you engage with macroeconomics enough and are patient enough to understand things. There are many great starting points. Here in the US at least, Stephanie Kelton's 'Deficit Myth' book is a good starting point. From there, I'd read Warren Mosler, Randy Wray, and Bill Mitchell.
"In the meantime, I believe prudence dictates the common sense notion that when you print money without correspondingly increasing worthwhile goods and services, you risk a lot of inflation and loss of confidence in the dollar, which could have real and potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. "
There is nothing 'common sense' about a currency-issuing entity such as the US government acting as if it is a currency-using entity like a state or local government. In fact, that is a pretty inane position given that the US government is already acting as if deficits don't really matter and has done so for a very long time. The only problem is that the expansionary budget is primarily benefiting corporate causes rather than the people.
The answer to this problem isn't to go into austerity. That only makes matters worse, not better. The solution is to use an informed knowledge of macroeconomics to understand how to close the wealth gap, how to provide quality healthcare to all, how to improve infrastructure for all, and so forth.
Inflation is not simply caused by the creation of money. Inflation comes, in part, from how money is spent. This is fundamental to understand. The constraints on spending are real resource constraints: labor, materials, and so forth. For example, if government engaged in a very aggressive infrastructure program which utilizes a significant amount of construction labor, then of course prices for construction will rise as you run into a labor constraint.
With this in mind, spending should be targeted towards improving the availability of relevant resources. For example, a healthier population is a more productive population.
It is helpful in understanding MMT to read David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years. Graeber lays out in that excellent book the basics of how sovereign money/debt creation and allocation precedes taxation and that taxation is in part a method of maintaining social control and participation in the ruling government's economy and of securing military power.
This is tangential to MMT but once one incorporates the realization of these basics, MMT makes more visceral sense.
You can read a free version of Debt: The First 5000 Years at
I think it would be embarrassing to serve on the trump supreme court these days. Just think you put on that robe and walk out and sit down behind that historic desk and realize your leader will be calling soon to give you your instructions for the day. Even your friendly Washington lobbiest and once law school pals are not giving you advice or phone calls on subjects that need immediate attention regarding projects they are working on.
It's a lonely business being a supreme court justice these days,,, even if your goal is to help the down trodden, black, white, Hispanic, Latino, and perhaps a few immigrants or Jews that have been or are all about to be tossed on to the wood pile of injustice
In the old days you could find one of those fresh young smart, phi bata kapa Ive Leaguers just out of law school as clerks to tackle and handle various projects. But the smart ones know they don't want their futures to be compromised by a judgeship that caved into the wims of a moronic dictator. Or do they?
Will the dooly selected and elected members of our supreme court of the United States of America get their act together?
History will tell us soon who among them looked into the mirror and saw the laws of truth and justice. And I hope that will make all difference.
Analysts who spoke to ABC News credited the tariffs for delivering higher-than-expected tax revenue and helping to elicit some commitments from companies bent on investing in new production in the U.S. Is ABC News afraid of President Trump or do they mean it. I don't know.
It's a great idea that would never happen until everyone who profits from their being there is gone. I'm sure that won't be in my lifetime. Possibly it would in theirs??
Trump , his administration and the Supreme Court all need to be impeached !! They are all acting unconstitutional!! They are traitors
China is not 'forcing' Uyghurs to make solar panels. That is complete nonsense based on Right-Wing initiated propaganda. While Uyghurs are discriminated against by the majority Han Chinese population, claims of Chinese mass incarceration and enslavement of Uyghurs are simply false, made up by right wing religious conservatives working in tandem with US National Security State manipulators. (See link below.) Wallach needs to stop making assumptions based on US State Department propaganda and do actual homework on the situation in China. Start here:
US State Department accusation of China Uyghur ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue Adrian Zenz
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/
Ok. Sounds accurate. Good solution. Now, what would be your analysis of the failure of the Democrats to stop the Genocide of the Palestinians and to accept such high levels of obvious corruption? This is a serious question.
Alright, Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. If Trump is impeached, you both are aware of the presidential line of succession in the United States. The Vice President, JD Vance, is first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Do you think these two are less dangerous than Trump? They both identify as Christian Nationalists.
3 Threats Christian Nationalism Poses to the United States
https://time.com/6214724/christian-nationalism-threats-united-states/
Vice President JD Vance
JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
https://ffrfaction.org/jd-vance-is-exactly-what-christian-nationalists-want/
The significance of Vance’s appearance at event hosted by far-right Christian nationalist
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-significance-of-vances-appearance-at-event-hosted-by-far-right-christian-nationalist
To Understand JD Vance, You Need to Meet the “TheoBros”:
These extremely online young Christian men want to end the 19th Amendment, restore public flogging, and make America white again.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/theobros-jd-vance-christian-nationalism/
Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson
Inside Mike Johnson’s Ties to a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/10/mike-johnson-rewrite-constitution-00126157
Speaker Mike Johnson calls separation of church and state ‘a misnomer’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/15/mike-johnson-separation-church-state-misnomer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Christian Nationalism of Speaker Mike Johnson
https://time.com/6329207/speaker-mike-johnson-christian-nationalism/
If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.
You may have missed Mr. Fein addressing this in the interview: "Well, why is that any improvement? Well, the improvement is because it comes on the heel of a precedent. I can guarantee you, J.D. Vance, that we know how he lusts for power. You know, two years before he became a nice presidential running mate with Trump, he called Trump Adolf Hitler.
So he doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake. And because the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well.
So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the articles I shared in my previous comment.
Yes, it might be true that JD Vance “doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake.” But, “the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well. So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
What? First of all, Trump is just a pawn. He’s not one of the crafters of Project 2025, some of whom are members of Congress. Do you think removing Trump will have a “deterrent effect” on JD Vance? No, it won’t. If Trump is removed, it won’t just be for cognitive impairment. It will be because he is losing his MAGA base due to the Epstein files.
I said at the end of my previous comment that: “If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.” JD Vance is going to continue to “do what Mr. Trump’s going to do,” and that’s because he and the crafters of Project 2025 want to transform America into a Christofascist theocratic government.
Christofascism: The Dangerous Convergence of Faith and Authoritarianism:
Exploring the Fusion of Religious Fundamentalism and Fascist Ideology in Modern Governance and Its Threat to Democratic Values
https://information-warfare.com/christofascism-the-dangerous-convergence-of-faith-and-authoritarianism-2343d1915bd3
The Rise of Dark Enlightenment: How JD Vance, Curtis Yarvin, and Peter Thiel Are Reshaping Politics
https://information-warfare.com/the-rise-of-dark-enlightenment-aa03ee8f4c2d
This has been decades in the making. They told us about their plans in "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," also known as Project 2025.
Here’s a quote from the article: JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
“JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists hoped for in a vice presidential candidate. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a major architect of Project 2025, seems to be thrilled with Vance’s elevation. Roberts said that people at his organization were “privately rooting” for Trump to choose Vance as his running mate. They, along with every other Christian nationalist outfit throughout the country, got their wish — they have another pawn with public relations skills through which they can advance their vision of a Christian nation.”
https://ffrfaction.org/jd-vance-is-exactly-what-christian-nationalists-want/
Trump would not be impeached for "cognitive impairment" but for committing multiple offenses against the Const. and the Rule of Law - Vance could be impeached for the same reasons ...
First, I would urge people to believe it's vastly preferable to have Mr. Trump removed by the Will of the People. The "forces" behind impeachment that could remove Trump could just as easily remove Vance.
Second, I would strongly urge people to consider that only four seats in the People's House mark the difference in power. 219 of those seats are held by Representatives completely unfaithful to their oaths of office. This can only be tolerated in a society accepting of lawlessness and dishonor.
Ralph, all, it is totally unacceptable that you continue to allow Bruce Fein to spout complete nonsense. Worse still, you eat up that nonsense yourselves like candy based on egregious confirmation bias in yourselves. Example: The claim that Trump's Supreme Court somehow struck down Birth Right Citizenship is complete buIIshit.
The Supreme Court struck down universal immediate precedent from regional courts over the question of Birth Right Citizenship (a perfectly legal and constitutional decision) and while doing so even hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional. The Court striking down of regional decisions setting immediate precedent for all jurisdictions in the country is 100% legal and constitutional.
Bruce Fein is simply making up hyperbolic bogeyman fairy stories and falsely implying Presidential and Court vulnerability to impeachment which doesn't exist in reality. These fairytales are driven by such obviously false wishful thinking, and are so patently clownish, that they undermine our ability to hold Trump and the Court accountable when they really *do* act badly and unconstitutionally, which has indeed happened a lot (most prominently in the arming and funding of Israel).
It is your way-over-the-top accusations against Bruce Fein that put you in a very bad place. Fein is correct when he asserts the duty / obligation of the president to take "great care" that the laws passed by Congress are "faithfully executed." Trump asserted that Article Two gives him the powers to do whatever he wants.
"The Court has operated a 'shadow docket' picking cases on request from Trump where he is seeking to violate (invalidate) the decisions of lower courts." And you attack Mr. Fein over this?
Ralph Nader Radio Hour: Mr. Fein is a guest I look forward to. I appreciate his documenting of the impeachable offences committed by Trump. America needs MORE like Mr. Fein.
I didn't make 'accusations' toward Bruce Fein, I showed how what he is saying is false. What I am attacking Fein over is his mixing of over-the-top horseshit and exaggerations with *some* facts to paint an inaccurate picture of what Trump is doing, exaggerating its danger and illegality, and then using that manufactured fairystory to put forward the false premises that:
1) Trump is somehow an unprecedented totalitarian threat to a 'democracy' which the US never had in the first place and which was turned into a fascist oligarchy by Reagan and Clinton *decades* ago (and Trump is merely a more out there clown showman of the reality we have already lived under for 30 years)
2) Trump is seeking to be in office 'for life' when in reality he is going to be in office for only three more years and then leaving and everyone who has a basic IQ of 75 knows this is what is going to happen
3) ridiculously exaggerate the possibility that Trump and Supreme Court members can be readily impeached when that is not *remotely* going to happen
Presidents and the Supreme Court have been carrying out impeachable acts since the *founding* of the US centuries ago and the idea that the powers that be are somehow going to go after Trump or the Court is flat out laughable. They are doing exactly what the oligarchs who run this country *want* them to do.
Spot on !
I’m trying to leave this alone, but I can’t. These comments are probably not the best place to argue the point but a few of the things you said, overcome my caution.
I’m not your adversary. Why do you insult me with your comments that what I say is “f’ing naive hollier than thou preaching” and the product of an“ivory tower” law school education? Doesn’t that simply prove my point that ad hominem attacks destroy civil discourse?
You tell me you know so much about winning over minds in the political arena. I respond that as a trial lawyer, winning over minds or losing them is also what I’ve been doing for half a century and I find civility beats name calling. If you disagree, just explain why without name calling.
I’m not saying that calling a spade a spade or making personal attacks is always inappropriate. Most of the time it is. The one exception is when you know by clear and convincing evidence that the person or organization you are attacking is acting selfishly and in bad faith and knows it and when the audience knows it too. I think what motivates many decisions of both political parties and some of its so-called leaders fall into this category. What they’ve done to our country is worthy of our contempt.
Otherwise, don’t you think we should give people who disagree with us a presumption of good faith? I mean you don’t know everything and I sure don’t. Maybe we’re wrong and they’re right, but we’ll never know if we resort to name-calling and insults.
Other than this, we probably have a lot of things in common.
Erik
Dude, you came straight out of the gate at the beginning of this with an incredibly entitled arrogant attitude that it was somehow your place to tell me how to behave. Get the f'ck over yourself. And again, the contention that being a trial lawyer makes you an expert outside that realm really highlights well just how naively arrogant and entitled you and your all too typical Academy-splaining are. And, I'm not interested in winning your heart and mind, I was talking to Nader and Fein, not you. I couldn't care less about alienating you and your smug finger wagging nonsense.
Eric,
I give up. I guess I really am your adversary (I hesitate to think about how you treat your friends, if you have any). I don’t have the time nor energy for this. Sayonara.
Erik, I never called you an 'enemy'. I simply called you out for engaging in entitled and uninformed fingerwagging (based on your training in academia teaching you arrogant hierarchical thinking) on how another person should behave in their criticism of the Nader Radio Hour.
I thought I said good bye. You win. No further comment necessary.
Somebody needs to look up the term passive-aggressive and then go take a look in a mirror.. I see you are one of those who invariably feels he has to get in the last word as a parting shot. Got it. Fire away..
Not that anyone asked, but I "kind of" agree with Erik Brooks on this one. As I've said in a related comment, the Court is going to be conservative and narrow in its rulings about subjects that could lead to a Constitutional crisis-- and I believe rightfully so. The final story has not yet been written and will depend on future events.
I say "I kind of agree" with Eric because I disagree with his ad hominem attacks on Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. I think their lifetime service to our society means they are entitled to a high presumption of good faith. You and I can disagree with them about the decisions of our Supreme Court without attacks on their motivations, which, I for one, believe are made in good faith. By definition, no civil discussion or resolution of our important national issues is possible if we immediately resort to name calling.
Sorry for the lecture.
Erik
With respect Erik, I've been a full time grassroots organizer since 1985 when I trained with Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). I was trained for over a decade via Ralph Nader's methods, and common sense, and I helped the PIRGs and other organizations over the last 40 years to win scores of campaigns. So when Ralph goes off the rails and starts making foolish choices and statements, there are few people on this Earth more entitled than myself to criticize him. And calling Bruce Fein a grifter is not 'ad hominem' it is a statement of what I assess to be a fact.
I’m not against criticism, Eric, but there’s a right way to do it without excessive insult and polarizing things. I suggest just saying , “I can’t agree with Mr. Nader and this is why …..”
I compliment you on your background. Substacker Don Harris and I have pipedreams about getting corporations out of the election process. See, our posts this podcast. Would appreciate your input if you have the time and inclination.
Erik with a k.
Thankfully, you don't get to decide the 'right way' to criticize something that is wrong. Another lesson that my 40 years as an activist have taught me, is that those who are polite, lose. When someone or something is wrong, you need to get up in their face and challenge them *aggressively* so they are *uncomfortable* and have to make a choice to change or continue to feel uncomfortable. The film "An Unreasonable Man" *about* Ralph, is based on this very premise!
The reason that the environmental and social justice movements have been failing since the Clinton administration has been the foolish liberal deference to being polite and 'peaceful'. When liberals made the dismal and stupid mistake of sticking with and building polite relationships with the Democrats, that is when the movement was killed.
Polite and peaceful doesn't win campaigns. Harsh talk, confrontation, direct action, boycotts and demands win campaigns. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X were right. Stonewall was a riot or a reason. Standing Rock got results.
The world is on the verge of total ecological and civilizational collapse and we need to get angry about it, or we will get dead. That includes getting angry with leaders who are taking us dangerously off track.
I'm being confrontational with Ralph because he is wrong and he needs to told so without sugar coating. He's also wrong in his continued mantra that we need to keep pressuring Congress the way we used to back in the day, when that strategy simply does not work any more.
On your podcast. Give me the link.And I'll check it out.
Eric. The way you tell someone they are wrong is confronting them with credible evidence. I’ve got a little experience too. I’ve been a trial lawyer since well before you were a political organizer. The cross examinations I have lost are when I confront people angrily rather than confronting them with facts and reason. The jury throws me out of court. The judge gets mad at me.
Also, when I’m smart enough to cross examine with the facts and the evidence in a calm and reasonable manner, my client wins. What do you know?
Universal jury instructions follow this mode, informing the jury that they should make a calm, rational decision based upon the evidence and the law. They’re admonished not to make emotional opinions. They’re reminded of their biases.
I guess we’ll have to differ about this. Like you, I don’t agree with everything Ralph says, but I presume he’s acting in good faith always.
I can’t remember anything about a podcast in my last comment as I dictate this. I am impressed by your background and I’m not put off by your aggressiveness. I just don’t think the latter is the best way. So I hope you’ll keep in touch and follow Don Harris and I as we argue about getting corporations out of politics and try to figure out a way that tiny little citizens or citizen groups might make a difference.
Thanks for the conversation.
Erik
Erik, give me a f'ing break. And please lose your f'ing naive holier-than-thou preaching to others about how they should 'behave'.
My comments were directly to two public figures, not to a jury and judge in a formal court proceeding. You seem to be strangely unaware that these are two completely different forums for debate requiring radically different rhetorical and dialectical approaches.
Your Ivory Tower, Pavlov law school training and practice has nothing to do with holding public figures accountable. I've got decades of experience in confronting public figures. What gets results with them is exactly that *confrontation* not a polite chat over tea. I've also stated and cited facts. Did you miss that part while drifting through your intoxicating rarefied air of moral superiority?
Furthermore, I did not in any way question Ralph's integrity and good intentions. It is only Fein who I consider to be a purposeful bad actor. Ralph is someone who I deeply respect, but who is just not thinking straight and I'm seeking to wake him up by calling him out about it.
"...hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional."
Hinted at - but did not rule on it, preferring instead to gut the power of lower District courts to put nationwide stays on a denial of citizen ship that clearly affects the whole country while it wends its way through a process of appeals until it finally gets to the SC - when, on the next "docket", in '26? The idea that specific "class action suits" are needed (in each District?) when clearly the "class" affected is every kid born in the US to a "non-citizen" parent, is rather ludicrous - and begs the question, why did they make such a ruling when they could have decided the question there and then ....
They are caught in a bit of a dilemma - to rule that "the plain language", of which the Conserv. Majority is so fond, makes it clear that all kids born in this country are, ipso facto, citizens, would be to cross Trump - which would really piss him off. And then he would have a choice, to back down, appear "weak", and open himself to his already pissed off MAGA base, or to "defy" the SC - adding another clear basis for impeachment - the SC has "rescued" him once again, and, once again, at our expense.
How far will he go, and how far will the SC let him go, in terms of mangling the Constitution, and how many people will suffer in the process .... In the absence of impeachment we have another 3 1/2 years to find out - will there be anything left worth saving ...
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Birth Right Citizenship because as the court correctly pointed out, the question before them was the extrapolation of a regional court case into a nationwide injunction. The Court said that such extrapolation is not Constitutional (arguably true) and then literally outlined for the petitioners how they could pursue their cases on Birthright Citizenship more effectively in the future.
And your contention about class action lawsuits is incorrect. There can, and may well be, a national class action on this Birthright Citizenship question. It is patently obvious that Trump's action to undermine Birthright Citizenship is blatantly unconstitutional, there is no way that Trump would win such a case, and the Court all but admitted this in its ruling.
And the reasoning behind the issuance of the injunction in the first place? That Trump's declaration - that children born here of non-citizens were not citizens was un-constitutuional - that even you admit is true - and that there is no way Trump could win. So why was it necessary for the Court to essentially create or dictate a way for plaintiffs to pursue their case "more effectively" ...
It wasn't, and i think you know that - the SC was unnecessarily kicking the can down the road - creating a lot of fear and confusion for a lot of people - cui bono - certainly not the Const.
This is Trump's Court, not ours ...
You need to learn a lot more about how courts work, especially the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court takes up a case it very strictly limits itself to making decisions only about the merits and parameters of the case before them, and they DO NOT stray beyond those parameters. This means that the Supreme Court COULD NOT RULE on the constitutionality of Trump's action because that IS NOT what was before the Court, The Court was very strictly limited to ruling only on whether or not the injunction should apply nationally to all jurisdictions in the US. Therefore the Court told the petitioners, that 1) they could only rule on the injunction and that it was not a national precedent, and 2) that if the petitioners wanted a nationally applicable ruling they had to pursue it in a different way. (A type of advice the Court often gives in its judgements.)
Bruce Fein knows all of this perfectly well, which is what makes it so galling that he is quite clearly purposely misleading you and others, likely in a shameless grift to make money for himself by becoming a go-to media commentator who can be counted on to stir up hyperbolic hysteria on Trump, and thereby give media outlets higher ratings.
What they "ruled on" was that a District Ct could not issue a national injunction on this issue,- so tell me, is this the first time that a District Ct has made a ruling that was a "national injunction" , and if not, why hasn't the SC nixed this idea before - and wasn't this DC injunction simply to stay Trump's declaration on birthright citizenship pending further decisions up the chain of Appeal in order to prevent real immanent harm to individuals - and is this decision re the inability of a District Ct to impose national injunctions to be applied to all future District Ct cases ....
I think you know as well as i that the SC can rule, or avoid ruling, on whatever aspect of a case it wants to - and will find ways to justify that decision ....
That this is Trump's Court was made quite clear when the Ct decided that a Pres could not be criminally prosecuted for actions undertaken as part of his "official duties" of office - which apparently he is able to define himself ... So the SC is the last word on saying "what the law is" and the Pres is the last word on saying "what his official duties are"
Sorry, Eric, I'll take Fein's interpretation and analysis over yours any day
The ruling has broader implications than that. What the Court ruled is that District court injunctions cannot be applied nationally unless such a national application is necessary to make whole the actual plaintiffs in the case. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have a very long history of ruling that suits are only valid if the outcome directly personally impacts the plaintiff(s) (this is known as the requirement of 'Standing') and that rulings must only apply as needed to resolve the grievance of the plaintiff(s). You and I might disagree with this approach, but it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
What the Court did has precedent, and its previous allowance of national application of injunctions has always been when there is a clear need for the national application to make the plaintiffs whole (for example in immigration cases). You can look up this history, I encourage you to do so.
And no, your contention that the Supreme Court just does whatever the hell it wants is not backed by the facts. Even when the Court clearly makes egregiously out there and purely political bad rulings, it invariably has to twist the text of those rulings into a very convoluted pretzel to do so (for example in Bush v Gore 2000).
But that is not what happened in this case. In the Birthright Citizenship case the Court made a perfectly reasonable ruling that is not convoluted at all, and makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a judicially conservative approach to law.
And it's a good precedent. Imagine if a district court ruled that all abortion was illegal for all people in the United States around the case of just one plaintiff father in Paducah, Kentucky against a single abortion clinic.
Do you want the Supreme Court to have the power to uphold the national application of a district court decision like that?
Hell no.
Bruce Fein is a deeply experienced attorney on Constitutional and Federal law, and he KNOWS all of this.
And that means he is purposely lying to you and everyone else who listens to his sky-is-falling buIIshit that is going to sell a lot of books and sell out a lot of paid speaking venues for him.
Bruce Fein is a grifting opportunist.
Interesting thank you
Hannah, we missed you!! So glad to have your wit and wisdom back on the show! And thanks to the lads for holdin' it down while you were way :)
Rump being the Corporate Socialist that he is for the top 2%, loves tariffs for one simple reason, they replace income taxation with consumer taxation as a federal funding source. The bottom 98% comprise 98% of the purchases of foreign products and the top 2% pay less taxes. It's how it was before the Income Tax Act and The Gilded Age magnates loved tariffs.
Good show!
When Bruce Fein was asked what can people do about "it" he said the usual stuff about contacting your representatives and demanding action to protect the constitution regardless of being Republican or Democrat which would force the politicans to choose between Trump and their own political future.
Then he hit the nail on the head when he said that people should make it clear that if the representatives do not meet the demand we will not vote for them in 2026.
That is the key to how citizens hold the politicians accountable.
The big money interests hold the politicians accountable by financing (or not financing) the politicians campaigns.
So the question is, Ralph, why can't we use the same principle that Bruce Fein suggests we use to force the politicians to choose between Trump and their own political future by demanding that politicians do not take big money to finance their campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 by saying we will not vote for them if they take big money forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or being a small donor candidate?
Just 10% of the 150 million voters investing 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates in 2026 would total 1.5 billion dollars and could be just the tip of the iceberg.
Voting for big money Democrats or Republicans in 2026 if they treat the symptom of Trump with impeachment will do nothing to change the dynamics of our political process being controlled by the big money interests that led to Trump.
Let's instead treat the cause in 2026 by demanding that politicians run small donor campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes putting Ralph's previous statement that politicians want our votes more than big money to a test.
Bruce Fein showed himself during Reaganomics.
Keep him away.
Don, I’ve come around to your point of view that people have to pledge to vote against anyone taking corporate money. It would take concerted grassroots efforts in virtually every state, however.
My idea would be to circulate a petition to as many voters in the state as possible whereby voters would pledge not to vote for any candidates who take corporate money either directly or indirectly through PACs. The petitions would then be sent to the candidates and their parties for responses and publicized in the newspapers and elsewhere in the hope of getting more voters on board. In my state of Montana, at least, 10 to 20,000 votes will swing just about any election-state or federal. So you don’t need many pledges from voters to make it work.
In addition, Montana actually has a statute prohibiting candidates for elected offices from taking corporate money, but it is recognized only in the breach. I’ve pointed this out to other Montana citizens and lawyers, advocating for the above described petition.
Thus far, my idea has received less than a lukewarm response. Just about everyone agrees something needs to be done, but it is almost as if people want to wring their hands about it rather than actually do something.
I don’t understand that psychology, but that’s what it seems like.
I’m gonna give it a try anyhow when we get closer to the midterms. Montana has a small population, as you know, and something like this can be made to go viral, but it takes a little guts and a lot of work.
(Essentially, I think Mr. Mamdani has proven you have a chance to get elected by swearing off big donors and Pacs. I would think this should encourage candidates to do the same and provides support for grassroots efforts. ).
Send me a letter on my substack page if you want to chat. Same goes to anyone else who agrees with Mr. Harris‘s proposal and has a little Don Quixote in them.
Erik Thueson
The problem with petitions is there is no continuation. This is why I set up a website (www.onedemand.org) that will continue the effort as it took decades to get to where we are and it will take more than one election cycle to change it.
Maybe you could consider setting up a One Demand Montana. If successful it could inspire participation in other states in future elections.
Just saying corporate money or PACs leaves too much wiggle room for candidates.
A 2800 dollar total contribution by an individual still dwarfs a contribution by a small donor (less than 200 dollars total ). As I pointed out candidates can raise enough with only contributions from small donors.
The declaration on the website also includes what citizens can do when there are no small donor candidates on their primary or general election ballots- they cast a write in vote to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections.
If your 10-20 thousand Montana voters cast these write in votes and it had an effect on the 2026 election it could increase the participation in future elections and might get some news coverage.
It would also help if Ralph would start the non-profit media conglomerate I have suggested that would be funded by selling shares for 100 dollars each with no one person owning more than ten shares and can only be sold for 100 dollars as the purpose of owning the shares is for ordinary citizens to control the media conglomerate and not to make money on the value of the shares. This would create media that would actually report on these kind of efforts that the corporate controlled media ignores and or marginalizes.
Thanks Don. Thanks for the ideas. My methods are from an analog age and need updating.
Hope we can keep in touch and collaborate.
I tried to google your website, but no hit. I don’t know if that’s at my end or yours, but if its at yours, it needs fixing. I’ll keep trying all I get for one demand is a software company going by that name.
Erik
I will look into the website. It hasn't been updated for a while because no one seems to pay attention.
Don,
Erik here. If you get this message, please acknowledge. I don’t know how to communicate on substack other than comments.
I think your website is a great idea. I’m anxious to review it so let me know when it’s back on the air. I have several ideas. I’d like to review with you on how to gain notoriety and get more voter supporters through a website in conjunction with other methods.
If you’re interested in a telephone conversation or Zoom meeting, let me know and we’ll figure out how to set it up.
There is a way to have a private chat on substack. A commenter once set that up but it did not prove productive in that instance. Maybe Steve or someone can remind me how that is done and when the website is up again we can talk on the phone.
Gaining notoriety and supporters is a tougher nut to crack. I have spent years following Ralph's advice on that with little success.
I wrote and submitted hundreds of articles,contacted all forms of media, politicians, activists and journalists and got few responses and the responses I did get mostly ignored the issues or provided the usual dodges.
Unless we are exchanging personal info like a phone number talking in the comments can possibly help as more people can hear about the ideas by reading these comments.
As Ralph has said it starts with one person and than a second person and grows from there. Maybe if a few more people reading these comments chime in we can get Ralph to join a discussion of this strategy to get big money out of politics.
Despite Ralph's advice not bearing fruit (even much on Ralph since 2015) I see no other option than to continue to follow Ralph's advice to keep asking until you get an answer.
I agree, but It doesn't help much, i don't think ,for some pols to swear off big $$$ unless they all do - and at this point, considering that it has been 15 years since the CU decision which Congress is using as an excuse for not enacting campaign finance reform ("sorry, the SC says we can't") it seems to me that holding their feet to the fire on this issue would consist of refusing to vote for any who do not support a Const Amend that would allow them to do so, and then, of course, doing it - one that says Corps are not People and Money is not Speech - and there is, and has been, such an Amendment presented in the House - this year HJR 54, that does just that ... no companion in the Sen. I know of ...
So maybe we could at least tell our Congresscritters we will not vote for any who don't sign on to and VOTE FOR it - that is pretty good litmus test, it seems to me ...
As I point out in my reply to Erik this will not happen in one election cycle.
The way to get them all starts with citizens making the demand and enforcing the demand with votes in 2026, getting more citizens and some candidates to participate in 2028 and reaching a point in 2030 or 2032 when there are enough citizens participating (40 percent or so) that a candidate cannot get elected if they take big money.
This would be much faster than the decades it will take to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified and implemented.
And unless we first replace the big money candidates with small donor candidates the big money candidates will not pass any reform or amendments as the problem with big money legislators is that they only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests that have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.
I also oppose any amendment that says money is not speech.
There is no specific right in the Constitution to make political contributions. If money is not speech then I no longer have the right to make political contributions.
Amendments should provide rights not take them away.
It's true - it takes a while to pass an Amendment - all the more reason to continue to push ... IMO it's a good thing women pressed for the 19th Amendment, though some may disagree .. all this Amendment does is enable Congress to put limits on campaign finance, not forbid your ability to engage in it, any more then putting speed limits on highways takes away your right to drive on them - why don't you read it.
And in any case, this is not a substitute for your idea but a companion to it
Also, when you ask them to take a pledge not to take big money - what is the definition of "big money" - the devil is always in the details ...
I have read many CU amendments. That is why I oppose them.
While the amendments do not specifically forbid my ability to make political contributions they all say money is not speech. Money being speech makes political contributions a right. Without money being speech there is no constitutionally guaranteed right.
Under these amendments Congress could pass legislation that campaigns could only accept contributions with no maximum amount from no more than 10,000 people. This would put small donor campaigns at an extreme disadvantage. (Small donor is typically defined as no more than 200 dollars total contributions to a campaign.)
These amendments are just a dodge so that politicians and citizens do not have to do anything now about big money corrupting our political process.
The amendments will not passed for decades while the politicians continue to take big money.
The big money politicians will never pass the amendment because the big money interests do not want them to. The only way to pass the amendment is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.
The problem has to be solved before amendments and/or legislation to solve the problem can be passed and at that point the amendment and/or legislation will not be needed.
"Money being speech makes political contributions a right. Without money being speech there is no constitutionally guaranteed right."
Which is why Big $$$ loves CU - equating $$$ with speech is what got us into this mess in the first place - if our only protection is the "promises" candidates make not to spend more than a certain amt. good luck with that, not to mention how much can be spent on their behalf, which is the elephant in the room ..
Limiting the amount of money allowed to be spent on an election is not tantamount to denying the right to spend any at all ....
There are a lot of things we are allowed to do, even while putting restrictions on them, that are not spelled out in the Const. - and putting no limit on money in elections is like putting no speed limits on highways - a dangerous thing to do .... I would not like to have to rely on nothing more than a driver's "promise" not to go faster than xmph
Some money may be necessary in an election, but a whole lot is a pollutant - and just as with any other pollutant, we should be able to regulate it ....
I don't see why we cannot pursue both our proposals at the same time - i see no objection to yours, but your objection to mine seems to me rather counterproductive, if the idea is to get money out of politics ...
We can work together on my proposal as we agree on that but all we can do together on the CU amendment is discuss it while agreeing to disagree.
Big money was already a problem before CU.
As your proposal that will take decades will not happen until my proposal has solved the problem in a few election cycles what seems counterproductive to me is to spend time, money and effort on something that will not be needed once my proposal has been effective and is unlikely to be effective and likely to be dangerous if it were somehow passed without my proposal being effective.
Don, I think you might be incorrect on this. The "right to associate," is considered part of the the free speech Amendment 1 to our Constitution. The right includes coming together to advocate collectively for political interests. This is why efforts to end CU include statements that "money is not speech." They are designed to say big money interests cannot freely associate to sway elections. My authority is the Supreme Court cases interpreting Article 1 and almost 50 years as a lawyer studying and researching those cases.
At any rate, our coming together collectively as free sentient human beings and citizens to vote against any and all candidates who will win through donations of the oligarchy--both corporations and their owners-- does not require the thought that "money is not speech."
Changing the constitution is designed to change the rulings made under the previous constitution.
As we can achieve our goal without changing the constitution why would we risk changing the constitution when we can achieve our goal without the changes?
I agree. Eventually, however, and if we citizens are successful, we may have to cross this issue, but no big deal re this project. See my comments with Eric Brooks. He has a great background.I asked him if he might help.
I happened to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove last night, with Peter Sellars and others, and the comparison of Strangelove and Musk is close, remarkably close. His uncontroled Nazi salute especially and the AI Grok tantrum into fascism. Interesting, no?
To keep things brief, I am flummoxed as to why the raising of revenue is even being discussed in reference to tariffs. Not only was it discussed in the segment with Lori Wallach, but it led off the segment. The US federal government is a currency-issuing entity. Tax/tariff receipts are not of relevance in any direct sense, certainly not in the context implied in the discussed here.
I tend to agree - I do wish Ralph and crew would discuss MMT with someone like Stephanie Kelton -
The issue, it seems to me is not how much we need, because we can print that - but on what it should be spent ... Perhaps it is still considered too "revolutionary" to suggest that taxes/tariffs aren't needed for raising "revenue" but for redistribution to even out the incredible and growing inequality in this country, which, in the end may well be the source of our undoing ...
Klassik,
Thanks for replying. I wrote back but I think it got lost in cyberspace somewhere.
I asked if my basic understanding about MMT was correct. It was: You can print money so long as that money goes to goods and services that benefit society. If you print money and spend it on the military and corporate welfare, then you’re gonna get inflation. Also, if you print money, but the economy does not react correspondingly, the way you get rid of the excess money is to raise taxes. Otherwise, you get inflation.
So right now our government is only doing the printing money part right. Everything else it does wrong. It isn’t spending that money on goods and services to benefit its citizens and at the same time, its not raising taxes to control inflation. Instead it is reducing taxes and causing inflation. The Fed is left trying to control the situation through higher interest rates.
How far off am I?
I would add to and also nuance what Klassik wrote in reply.
What the MMT school points out is that if a government's sovereign currency spending into the economy creates local (rather than global or Wall Street) economic activity which fills actual needs such as hiring people to; build bridges, provide services to the elderly, open public pharmacies in each neighborhood that charge cost for medications, etc, then that spending creates a multiplier effect that is anti-inflationary. Lower to middle class workers hired, and lower to middle class consumers who are given discounts (or even direct cash support as through Social Security, Food Stamps, or Medicare) tend to spend the money they gain right away back into the local economy on goods and services.
This in turn puts *more* people to work, who then *also* spend their money into the economy, and so on, in multiple cycles of amplification. This is anti inflationary in part because all of those workers pay taxes.
But when sovereign currency is instead printed to give to banks (Obama style) such funds nearly all get turned into debt to fund speculation on Wall Street, commodities, and real estate (especially housing). Those *sectors* then experience inflation because they are under-taxed and bloated with too much cash. This is why the stock market never stops going up, and is also why the center of crippling inflation in the US is in *housing* due to bank-debt-funded real estate speculators bidding up the on-paper value of housing and mortgage debt.
So spending into the local real economy to meet real needs does not tend to drive inflation, and spending into banks who then lend to speculators does raise inflation.
Eric,
While the core MMT theory is merely just an explanation of the monetary system and the theory itself does not offer policy suggestions (aside from the benefits of full employment), you do bring up a couple of interesting and valid points about policy suggestions informed from MMT.
For one, the ‘founding 3’ MMTers all speak about the allocation of labor in the US especially since the beginning of the 1980s when the finance sector grew significantly and there was a large growth of the speculative market. Speculation is not ‘productive’ and even Warren Mosler, the most capitalistic of the founding 3 theorists, frequently discusses the importance of moving labor out of the non-productive, inflationary FIRE sectors (finance, insurance, real estate) and into productive sectors, such as areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, education, and even legitimate private sector interests which expand technology and lower costs. Expanding the productive sectors and shrinking the non-productive sectors would be an important part of maintaining affordability.
Related to that is that one central point to MMT is the importance of fiscal policy rather than monetary policy (interest rates) in combating inflation. Regulation to prevent monopolies/duopolies, housing regulation to ensure housing is for people to live in rather than as an investment vehicle, and so forth are all vital to fighting inflation.
To me the most incisive MMT advocate is Michael Hudson. I'm an anti-capitalist and I can see the dethroning of the US dollar on its way pretty imminently, so to me MMT has limited value. But in our current time, with the US dollar and capitalism running the show. MMT is crucial insight, especially for people in the US.
It is worth noting that MMT is not just applicable to the US. It is a common misconception that MMT only applies to the US due to the US dollar being the reserve currency, but this is not a correct assumption. MMT applies to other currency issuing countries such as the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and so forth. In many ways, Japan is the greatest example of the advantages of a near 0% interest rate policy and a high debt-to-GDP ratio.
China will likely pass the US as the largest economy at some point, but that does not mean the US dollar will lose reserve currency status as the US passed the UK as the largest economy ~50 years before the US became the reserve currency and the change in reserve currencies may never have happened if it wasn't for the world wars. Anyway, even if the US dollar somehow isn't the reserve currency, that does not mean MMT in inapplicable to the US just as MMT applies to Japan and company.
While *technically* you are correct, the world economy is so totally dominated by US dollar hegemony that 1) there is no guarantee that other sovereign nations can effectively implement MMT (when the IMF and other international loan sharking operations are seeking to trap them in debt and resource/labor extraction) and 2) the US is also heavily dependent on massive, bogus, private debt leveraged on top of US sovereign debt such that if the US Dollar were ever replaced as the global reserve currency by a global algorithmic trading mechanism and/or an international gold backed currency, the US would be hard pressed to avoid an economic meltdown.
Erik,
I’ll work a bit backwards with the questions. Hopefully it makes more sense this way.
“Also, if you print money, but the economy does not react correspondingly, the way you get rid of the excess money is to raise taxes. Otherwise, you get inflation. “
Yes, taxation is an anti-inflationary measure. In fact, if you read about the fiat currencies used by the colonies in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, you’ll see that the colonies which successfully levied taxes were more successful in using fiat currencies than those with poor taxation policies.
“I asked if my basic understanding about MMT was correct. It was: You can print money so long as that money goes to goods and services that benefit society. If you print money and spend it on the military and corporate welfare, then you’re gonna get inflation.”
I wouldn’t say that this is an accurate description of MMT. Spending could be for the military and corporate welfare and it could potentially not be inflationary. In fact, this pretty much describes the current economy, and at least prior to the Covid era, it was not inflationary at all as inflation was right at the Fed’s 2% target (and there is nothing necessarily wrong with a 2% target).
Where military, corporate welfare, or any kind of appropriation might become inflationary is when you run into resource constraints. For example, the Covid stimulus checks, at least the final round, were issued at a time when there were clear productive capacity issues due to Covid restricting manufacturing and also logistics problems at the time. While the overall impact of the stimulus checks on inflation were fairly minor according to research, it did contribute to the inflationary landscape.
Spending appropriations on socially positive things such as healthcare and education help fight inflation in the sense that they increase the country’s productive capacity. A healthy society is a more productive one. A more educated nation is a more productive one. I also advocate for full employment policies via a job guarantee program which acts as a labor buffer stock which helps fight inflation.
This is a very basic explanation, but hopefully it helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. Again, I certainly recommend Stephanie Kelton’s Deficit Myth book, which was a top selling book when it came out. She’s working on a second book which I believe will be about inflation.
I think I have politely disagreed with both of you about MMT in the past. I understand your arguments, but I believe MMT is best a theory. Even more liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institute are dubious about it. I've tried to understand it as a person of at least modest intelligence, but confess it leaves me confused.
In the meantime, I believe prudence dictates the common sense notion that when you print money without correspondingly increasing worthwhile goods and services, you risk a lot of inflation and loss of confidence in the dollar, which could have real and potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. So I think Ms. Wallach's discussion about tariffs and the deficit are relevant and important.
Erik
Tariffs and MMT aren't related - the first is part of a strategy to boost domestic manufacturing - See Hamilton's Report on Manyfactures - 1791
The second debunks the idea of the need for a "national debt" for a sovereign country that prints its own currency - and can control the amount in circulation
Btw - as a follow up to our other conversation that you pulled the plug on I offer
https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Trump-v-Casa-CC-Amicus-Brief-4-29-25.pdf
thanks for responding SH,
No use arguing about MMT. Maybe you are right, but I'm not convinced.
Thanks for your ongoing comments re: Don Harris and trying to find a remedy to corporate influence over our election and government. I think the head of that snake has to be cut off before we can accomplish anything good for we citizens.
Erik
PS: I read the main parts of the amicus brief you sent, but I don't remember and cannot locate the comments I made about the universal injunction case. In general, it appears to be a tough issue and I have not done the research. For what they are worth, here are a few of my thoughts.
On the one hand, we need a method for quickly stopping the government from committing nationwide damage. On the other hand, I'm not fond of giving a single district judge at the bottom of the judicial totem pole the power to decide when it is necessary. What happens if that single judge denies the injunction? Would that mean other courts in other parts of the country would be prohibited from granting one under similar circumstances?
I assume SCOTUS has the power to make a nationwide injunction ruling and certainly can expedite a ruling when necessary. See, Gore v. Bush (Not that I agree with the substantive decision).
"Even more liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institute are dubious about it."
Of course Brookings is dubious about it, they are a liberal think tank. Liberal meaning free market and so of course they are going to push for social austerity which promotes the private sector over the public sector in a mixed economy.
"I've tried to understand it as a person of at least modest intelligence, but confess it leaves me confused. "
I admit that macroeconomics is a difficult subject for many simply because we're never taught to think about macroeconomics. Give it some time, however, and I think you'll find that the concepts are not very difficult to understand. You'll have plenty of 'a-ha' moments if you engage with macroeconomics enough and are patient enough to understand things. There are many great starting points. Here in the US at least, Stephanie Kelton's 'Deficit Myth' book is a good starting point. From there, I'd read Warren Mosler, Randy Wray, and Bill Mitchell.
"In the meantime, I believe prudence dictates the common sense notion that when you print money without correspondingly increasing worthwhile goods and services, you risk a lot of inflation and loss of confidence in the dollar, which could have real and potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. "
There is nothing 'common sense' about a currency-issuing entity such as the US government acting as if it is a currency-using entity like a state or local government. In fact, that is a pretty inane position given that the US government is already acting as if deficits don't really matter and has done so for a very long time. The only problem is that the expansionary budget is primarily benefiting corporate causes rather than the people.
The answer to this problem isn't to go into austerity. That only makes matters worse, not better. The solution is to use an informed knowledge of macroeconomics to understand how to close the wealth gap, how to provide quality healthcare to all, how to improve infrastructure for all, and so forth.
Inflation is not simply caused by the creation of money. Inflation comes, in part, from how money is spent. This is fundamental to understand. The constraints on spending are real resource constraints: labor, materials, and so forth. For example, if government engaged in a very aggressive infrastructure program which utilizes a significant amount of construction labor, then of course prices for construction will rise as you run into a labor constraint.
With this in mind, spending should be targeted towards improving the availability of relevant resources. For example, a healthier population is a more productive population.
Dear Klassik,
For now, I’ll wrap this up by saying, I’m still trying to understand MMT and appreciate your help.
It is helpful in understanding MMT to read David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years. Graeber lays out in that excellent book the basics of how sovereign money/debt creation and allocation precedes taxation and that taxation is in part a method of maintaining social control and participation in the ruling government's economy and of securing military power.
This is tangential to MMT but once one incorporates the realization of these basics, MMT makes more visceral sense.
You can read a free version of Debt: The First 5000 Years at
https://archive.org/details/DebtTheFirst5000Years
I think it would be embarrassing to serve on the trump supreme court these days. Just think you put on that robe and walk out and sit down behind that historic desk and realize your leader will be calling soon to give you your instructions for the day. Even your friendly Washington lobbiest and once law school pals are not giving you advice or phone calls on subjects that need immediate attention regarding projects they are working on.
It's a lonely business being a supreme court justice these days,,, even if your goal is to help the down trodden, black, white, Hispanic, Latino, and perhaps a few immigrants or Jews that have been or are all about to be tossed on to the wood pile of injustice
In the old days you could find one of those fresh young smart, phi bata kapa Ive Leaguers just out of law school as clerks to tackle and handle various projects. But the smart ones know they don't want their futures to be compromised by a judgeship that caved into the wims of a moronic dictator. Or do they?
Will the dooly selected and elected members of our supreme court of the United States of America get their act together?
History will tell us soon who among them looked into the mirror and saw the laws of truth and justice. And I hope that will make all difference.
Good luck America have a great day my friends.
Li I o Li Li Mo o o
Analysts who spoke to ABC News credited the tariffs for delivering higher-than-expected tax revenue and helping to elicit some commitments from companies bent on investing in new production in the U.S. Is ABC News afraid of President Trump or do they mean it. I don't know.
It's a great idea that would never happen until everyone who profits from their being there is gone. I'm sure that won't be in my lifetime. Possibly it would in theirs??
Love the info, the advice, the strategies. This is my morning listening,