A system of elected judges simply cannot work. Elected judges become additional legislatures. Want to get rid of punitive damages against corporations? Bankroll a candidate who supports corporate interests. Can't get the legislature to pass a gay-marriage bill? Bankroll 3-5 gay-marriage supporters and stack the state supreme court. Judicial elections are cheaper anyway, so you save money by focusing on elected judges instead of elected representatives.

"An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East." So reported Michael Slackman in yesterday's New York Times. When was the last time any party we backed won anything in the Middle East?

The banking lobby still holds enough sway inside the Beltway to torpedo sensible consumer protection rules, even after releasing a flood of predatory mortgages that kicked off the current economic crisis. On issues ranging from payday loans to subprime mortgages, the banking industry continues to successfully defend itself against new regulations that would protect the consumer.

In a 5-4 decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., the Supreme Court today ruled that elected judges should not participate in cases involving large campaign contributions lest they create the appearance of bias and undermine the opposing litigant's right to Due Process. Justice Kennedy, who evidently got up on the better side of the bed the morning that the case was argued, wrote the majority opinion, but what interests me more is the dissenting opinion of our Chief Justice, which begins on page 25 of the linked document, because it so wonderfully exemplifies the smarmy disingenuity of his political philosophy.

There is a mammoth scam afoot: It's called credit reporting and it can devastate your economic well-being, particularly if you have the double misfortune of dealing with corporate medicine. While Americans can now access that semi-holy document, the credit report, it is only available for free once a year from one of the three credit reporting agencies. However, as I recently discovered, annual access to this consumer dossier determining a borrower's economic fate is really just extortion foreplay for the various credit "protection" products credit reporting agencies offer.

I don't know why, it was as if the humiliation the frustration suddenly overwhelmed my ability to remain unemotional or even get angry at a call center employee. I started crying. I said I had no work. I said that I had huge medical and dental bills. Then, the young man on the other end of the line, a half a world away, quietly said, "I am so sorry. I will pray for you. I will pray that you find work." I was stunned, too stunned to speak for a moment.

Focusing solely on health care insurance and the overall national spending on health care will not get us the reform we need. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a piece by Michael Porter, Ph.D., arguing that true reform requires not just universal coverage, but "restructuring the care delivery system." While the author is, within his own framework, still making a cost argument, he points us toward not just his stated need for a "value-based system," but also toward a "values-based system" rooted in our common human dignity and human right to the highest attainable standard of health.

Representative George Miller is waging a lonely war against powerful enemies. He's trying to reform the 401(k) system, a system that most on Wall Street don't want reformed. The key to Miller's plan is to force 401(k) providers to disclose their fees in plain English. If you don't think this is important, consider that those fees can eat up 75% of your potential retirement savings.

The question most frequently asked by progressive activists at last week's America's Future Now conference was this: We hear Obama and congressional Democrats talking about a public health insurance option, but why aren't they talking about a single-payer system like H.R. 676 sponsored by Rep. John Conyers? Why is single-payer "off the table"?

The Republican message guru Arthur Finkelstein built a successful career on one simple idea. If his candidate was trailing in the polls, he would call the opponent a liberal. His formula had two main advantages: simplicity and portability: FILL IN YOUR OPPONENT'S NAME HERE is too liberal for FILL IN YOUR STATE HERE. With this advice, he helped Republicans win many elections, because the liberal label meant favoring big government and higher taxes, being soft on crime, and social permissiveness. Today you see these ads far less often. Even though the opinion polls have consistently shown almost no increase in the number of Americans who describe themselves as politically "liberal," I believe there is solid evidence that the liberal bashing has lost its punch because over the last two decades.

Read Older Articles