{"id":12646,"date":"2014-04-29T01:16:23","date_gmt":"2014-04-29T08:16:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=12646"},"modified":"2014-04-29T01:16:23","modified_gmt":"2014-04-29T08:16:23","slug":"open-thread4292014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2014\/04\/29\/open-thread4292014\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Thread–4\/29\/2014"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m writing for tomorrow.  What\u2019s unusual is that tomorrow is almost here.  Today was a rough one.  Because I had a two hour wait for the lift bus to pick me up, I spent over an hour of it in the dollar store next door.  Between too much time in my feet and the thoroughly uncomfortable chairs at the medical imaging place, I was hurting big time by the time I got home.  All I could do was crawl into bed.  So I\u2019m rushing now to finish this on time, and it is tomorrow\u2019s only article.  Day 8.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jig Zone Puzzle<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s took me 3:03 (average 4:15).  To do it, click here<\/a>.  How did you do?<\/font><\/p>\n

Short Takes<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

From NY Times<\/a>: <\/font>It is, in a way, too bad that Cliven Bundy<\/a> \u2014 the rancher who became a right-wing hero after refusing to pay fees for grazing his animals on federal land, and bringing in armed men to support his defiance \u2014 has turned out to be a crude racist. Why? Because his ranting has given conservatives an easy out, a way to dissociate themselves from his actions without facing up to the terrible wrong turn their movement has taken.<\/p>\n

For at the heart of the standoff was a perversion of the concept of freedom, which for too much of the right has come to mean the freedom of the wealthy to do whatever they want, without regard to the consequences for others.<\/p>\n

Start with the narrow issue of land use. For historical reasons, the federal government owns a lot of land in the West; some of that land is open to ranching, mining and so on. Like any landowner, the Bureau of Land Management charges fees for the use of its property. The only difference from private ownership is that by all accounts the <\/strong>government charges too little<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 that is, it doesn\u2019t collect as much money as it could, and in many cases doesn\u2019t even charge enough to cover the costs that these private activities impose. In effect, the government is using its ownership of land to subsidize ranchers and mining companies at taxpayers\u2019 expense.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that some of the people profiting from implicit taxpayer subsidies manage, all the same, to convince themselves and others that they are rugged individualists. But they\u2019re actually welfare queens of the purple sage. [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n

Paul Krugman did it again.  We the people should get paid a fair price for the use of our land. We should end the subsidies to these millionaires Krugman calls "High Plains Moochers".<\/font><\/p>\n

From TPM<\/a>: <\/font>Win or lose \u2014 and they’ll probably lose \u2014 Democrats hope this week’s Senate showdown over raising the federal minimum wage reaps them benefits in November’s congressional elections.<\/p>\n

Whether they’ll get an Election Day payoff is uncertain.<\/p>\n

In a Senate vote expected Wednesday, Republicans seem likely to block the Democratic measure, which would gradually raise today’s $7.25 hourly minimum, reaching $10.10 as soon as 2016. Even if the bill, one of President Barack Obama’s top priorities, somehow survives in the Senate, it stands little chance of even getting a vote in the GOP-run House.<\/p>\n

Who would the proposal most directly affect? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women and young people make up disproportionate portions of the 3.3 million people who earned $7.25 or less last year. Both groups traditionally skew Democratic, and the party would love to drive them to the polls in November as it battles to retain Senate control.<\/p>\n

I fully expect the Republicans to give us another issue, along with the ACA, both of which can be used to hammer them.<\/font><\/p>\n

From Think Progress<\/a>: <\/font>Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told George Stephanopoulos Sunday that she left the Republican Party in the mid-90s because it was tilting the playing field in favor of Wall Street.<\/p>\n

Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC\u2019s The Week, noted something in her background that \u201cmight surprise\u201d her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996. Warren said she left the party after that because she felt it was siding more and more with Wall Street<\/p>\n