Democrats' road not taken, Columbia's ‘academic freedom' hypocrites and other commentary
'Democrats currently are at a fork in the road to their political future and how that future turns out depends on which path they choose,' muses The Liberal Patriot's Ruy Teixeira.
They can take either 'the party of restoration' path or the less traveled 'party of change' one.
Polling shows 'voters want change — big change'; the 'party's brand is in wretched shape and views of Democratic governance are negative.'
Advertisement
Dems 'will have to work really hard to convince voters, especially working-class voters, that they embody change.'
Democrats 'don't realize that they are at a fork in the road,' yet if they keep on the nothing-but-anti-Trump path it 'will make them the party of restoration in a change era — and ensure that the political breakthrough they are seeking will continue to elude them.'
Campus watch: Columbia's 'Academic Freedom' Hypocrites
Critics of President Trump's 'enforcement of civil-rights laws' at universities gripe that a crackdown on pro-Hamas protesters will destroy academic freedom, notes Commentary's Seth Mandel.
Advertisement
Yet it's the 'anti-Zionists' who've been 'erasing academic freedom,' and punishing them 'will help restore it.'
The 'tentifada mobs' made that point clearly 'when they stormed Butler Library and forced nearly a thousand students to stop studying' for finals.
Even groups that usually defend the goons said protesters went too far.
Yet if academic-freedom groups had led the fight 'to restore the academic freedom of the Jewish students under siege' from 'campus Hamasniks,' then perhaps now 'they wouldn't be fighting to restore hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to Harvard and Columbia and the rest.'
Advertisement
From the left: How US Higher-Ed Turned Useless
As professors gripe about the 'climate of fear' stemming from Gov. Ron DeSantis' and President Trump's DEI crackdowns, Racket News' Matt Taibbi observes it's just 'the latest in a long chain of official actions and reactions, during which American higher education became increasingly a) expensive and b) useless.'
Remember: Obama-era 'federal pressures' on campus sexual-harassment led to a 2022 poll showing that 'huge pluralities of Americans held their tongues for fear of 'retaliation and harsh criticism.''
DeSantis' anti-DEI rules 'go too far,' trading 'one brand of groupthink for another': Yes, 'universities have become madhouses and ignorance-factories whose purpose is not to teach but produce sinecures for ed-sector dingbats,' but 'I don't want federal thought police of any stripe sitting atop them.'
From the right: Bernie's Private-Jet Hypocrisy
Advertisement
Sen. Bernie Sanders won ridicule with news 'that he spent $221,723 in campaign money on private jets for his 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour,' scoffs the Washington Examiner's Byron York.
Bernie's excuse? 'You run a campaign and you do three or four or five rallies in a week . . . That's the only way you can get around.'
Yet, notes York, 'Sanders has long had a taste for private jets'; indeed, his 'requests for private jets were so frequent that they at first irritated and then angered Clinton staffers' during the 2016 campaign.
Bernie's 'message is basically that billionaires are destroying American democracy,' but he has something in common with them: They also 'defend their use of private planes by saying they are just so busy' they can't fly commercial like the little people.
Law prof: Partisan Persecution of Lawyers Isn't New
'I opposed the executive orders of President Trump targeting law firms,' writes Jonathan Turley at The Hill, but 'many of those objecting today to the targeting of Democratic firms and lawyers were the very same people who targeted conservative lawyers for years.'
Indeed, 'I personally know lawyers who were told to drop Republican cases or else find new employment — including partners who had to leave their longstanding firms.'
Many 'deans and law professors protesting Trump's orders' had 'previously purged their schools of Republicans and conservatives.'
Advertisement
At least 'there could be a modicum of recognition of the years of systematically purging conservative lawyers and law professors by some of these very critics.'
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Senate and the Supreme Court
The Senate narrowly passed Republicans' sprawling bill to slash taxes and social safety net programs. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote, after three Republican senators — Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and Rand Paul — voted no. The bill extends roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term and increases funding for border security and the military. It cuts about $1.1 trillion from health care programs, mainly Medicaid, which experts estimate will cause nearly 12 million Americans to lose coverage. The bill, which could affect millions of Americans, is a major political gamble, Carl Hulse writes. The House must now decide whether to pass the Senate's version of the bill or try to reconcile it with its own. Any delays could mean that Congress misses the July 4 deadline that Trump set. The Morning's readers were interested in the bill yesterday (it was our most-clicked link). Here's more from Times reporters who were in the Capitol: In all, senators voted 49 times during a 27-hour marathon session. They wore fluffy blankets and pullover sweatshirts inside the chilly chamber. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, cast a deciding vote for the bill after winning carveouts for her state. 'Do I like this bill? No,' she told NBC News afterward. 'But I tried to take care of Alaska's interests.' Trump and Elon Musk returned to jousting on social media about the legislation. The bill's policies could inflict major financial pain on poor Americans. Republicans have insisted that the policy package will help seniors and the middle class. Here's a fact check. Covering the court The end of June is some combination of Christmas and Tax Day for Adam Liptak, who has covered the Supreme Court for The Times since 2008. That's when the justices release a dizzying array of rulings: This term's major cases, some of which were decided earlier in the year, touched on guns, porn, police tactics, religion, citizenship, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, vapes and TikTok. How the Supreme Court voted in the last two terms Last term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 This term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 Last term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 This term 5-4 6-3 7-2 8-1 9-0 Note: Chart shows nine-person decisions that were orally argued and signed. Sources: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; Michael J. Nelson, Penn State from the Supreme Court Database By The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
35 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Tax Bill Faces GOP Resistance Ahead of House Vote
President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax bill is meeting resistance in the House as Republican lawmakers threaten to defy Trump and sink his domestic agenda. Tyler Kendall reports on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump keeps saying the GOP mega bill will eliminate taxes on Social Security. It does not
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans' mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits. It does not. At best, Donald Trump's 'no tax on Social Security' claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law. Here's a look at Trump's recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do. What Trump has said Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that's what the bill would do. Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures" that the bill includes 'no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.' A temporary tax deduction But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security. And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won't be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don't pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold. The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000. The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple. If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029. The deductions phase out as income increases. White House touts impact Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that '88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," going on to say that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction 'is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.' Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,' Watson said. Economic effect The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits 'would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054" and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032. Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
