Cheapening ‘genocide', strip the NEA of its charter and other commentary
'There is a glaring dissonance to the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza,' contends The New York Times' Bret Stephens. 'Why isn't the death count higher?' After all, 'it's not that Israel lacks the capacity to have meted vastly greater destruction.' The answer: 'Of course' Israel is 'manifestly not committing genocide,' and the deaths in Gaza are just a side effect of war. 'What is unusual,' though, 'is the cynical and criminal way Hamas has chosen to wage war': embedding itself in civilian areas and hoarding food aid. 'The war in Gaza should be brought to an end in a way that ensures it is never repeated. To call it a genocide does nothing to advance that aim, except to dilute the meaning of a word we cannot afford to cheapen.'
Education beat: Strip the NEA of Its Charter
The National Education Association is facing a move 'to revoke [its] national charter,' enthuse Daniel Buck & Anna Low at National Review. Though federal charters are 'largely symbolic,' they're not 'powerless.' Charter holders have a 'special national distinction' that helps them raise money. But today's NEA is 'a lobbying and funding juggernaut with almost 3 million members,' and though ostensibly an educational organization, 'its real purpose is political.' Over 97% of the 'millions' it spends on lobbying and donations goes to Democrats, and its 'calls to action' are always for liberal causes. If Congress chooses not to revoke the charter, it could still at least 'place limitations on the NEA's lobbying and political activity.'
Foreign desk: Ukrainian Unity Is Unbreakable
'Russia wants to break the Ukrainian will as it seeks to dismantle Ukrainian identity,' thunders The Wall Street Journal's Jillian Kay Melchior, noting Vladimir Putin's relentless 'missile and drone attacks on the Ukrainian capital and other cities.' Yet instead of the attacks breaking their will, many 'enraged' civilians 'donate to support the military,' and 'the raids could boost voluntary enlistment.' Bottom line: Ukrainians are 'becoming more united.' There's little doubt that, 'Putin wants to erode the American and European will to arm Ukraine' by 'promoting the myth that Russian momentum is unstoppable and Russian victory is inevitable.' Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak admits, 'We're not winning right now' — but he also adds: 'Moscow isn't winning either.'
Advertisement
From the right: Dem Hypocrisy on ICE Agents' Masks
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her fellow Democrats are hypocrites for saying ICE agents 'spread fear in immigrant communities,' thunders the Washington Examiner. That's because Dems like them are the ones who 'amplify hoaxes and demonize law enforcement officers' — by saying that 'masked men in unmarked cars' are 'kidnapping people.' ICE agents who wear masks have genuine security concerns. Considering that 'activists in Portland have been posting ICE agents' addresses in officers' neighborhoods,' officers' 'desire for anonymity' is 'understandable.' If Bass is so concerned about calming people's nerves, she 'could start by not spreading illegal immigrant hoaxes.' Her labeling of federal law-enforcement officers as 'outrageous and un-American' puts them 'in danger and makes donning a mask a necessary precaution to protect their families.'
Libertarian: Bleak Path to Fixing Social Security
'With neither Democrats nor Republicans appearing willing to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age, the only way to make Social Security solvent is to increase revenue,' reports Reason's Jack Nicastro. 'While this can be done, it will come at the great financial detriment of young people entering the work force.' Calculations show that 'to eliminate Social Security's projected $25 trillion deficit over the next 75 years while maintaining planned benefits,' payroll taxes would need to be increased from 12.4% percent to 16.05%. Other options would be 'lifting the income ceiling on the payroll tax and borrowing to cover deficits.' The latter could 'precipitate a systemic debt crisis in the U.S.' and 'massive inflation . . . resulting in another situation in which working-age people are forced to subsidize the retirements of the elderly.'
— 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
Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gov. Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.
Memo to Springfield: Chicago is broke. Gov. JB Pritzker has a bill on his desk that would sweeten pension benefits for Chicago's police and firefighters hired in 2011 or later, to the tune of $60 million more out of the city budget in 2027 alone and more than $11 billion over the next three decades, according to the city's own projections. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers at the end of the spring session, allowing for next to no debate and, astoundingly, was supported by every Chicago House member and senator. At the time of the bill's passage, we wrote that the entire Chicago delegation had effectively had voted to increase property taxes on their constituents. Property taxes, of course, are the main means municipalities have of financing their pension obligations to their workers. Interestingly, the governor acknowledged the conundrum last week. Asked about the bill, he said, 'One thing to consider, of course, is the finances of the city of Chicago. How will they pay for it?' The other important consideration, he said, was ensuring Chicago's first responders are 'well taken care of.' We're glad to see Pritzker explicitly state why he's mulling whether to veto despite the strange prospect of rejecting legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. By asking rhetorically if Chicago can 'pay for it,' the governor has answered his own question. Of course Chicago can't pay for it. The police and fire pension funds have a mere 25% of the assets needed to meet their current and future obligations as it stands. Since we wrote about this measure in June, the city has estimated what it would do for its woefully underfunded first-responder funds. That percentage would drop to an almost unfathomably low 18%. To those who say it's nonsensical to veto a bill with such overwhelming support, remember that GOP lawmakers mainly went along because of the Chicago delegation's unanimous backing and the fact that only Chicagoans' taxes would be affected. All the Chicago Democrats who voted yes could justify reversing their positions by saying (truthfully) they didn't have the city's projections on just how much these changes would cost taxpayers. Chicago taxpayers already are chewing their nails wondering how the city will plug a 2026 budget deficit exceeding $1 billion. The following year looks even worse. Pritzker already tossed an $80 million hot potato in Chicago's lap with his 2023 initiative to phase out the state's 1% tax on groceries, the proceeds of which had been distributed to municipalities. More than 200 municipalities have approved their own 1% grocery taxes, as the state allows them to do. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants the City Council to do the same for Chicago, which must happen by a state-set deadline of Oct. 1. There are no guarantees, given Johnson's fraught relationship with the council and Chicagoan's understandable resistance to tax hikes of any sort, that aldermen will do as he wishes. Meanwhile, this pension time bomb would cost the city nearly as much as repeal of the grocery tax and in the future will cost far more. Speaking of the mayor, while he has spoken tepidly against this bill, he ought to be forcefully urging Pritzker to veto it and Chicago lawmakers to vote to sustain that veto, despite their earlier support of the measure. The city essentially has been missing in action on this issue, and Johnson apparently is struggling to balance his political brand as an ardent union backer with his duty to Chicago taxpayers. This is no time for such timidity. At this stage, it's worth laying out the origins of this bill. In 2010, in a bid to reform Illinois' public-sector pensions, the state created a second tier of beneficiaries hired in 2011 and thereafter — so-called Tier 2 workers — whose retirement payouts were to be substantially less than the overly generous benefits of existing employees and retirees that had gotten Illinois so deeply in pension debt. Six years ago, Pritzker signed into law sweetened pension benefits for Tier 2 cops and firefighters in Illinois outside of Chicago as part of a consolidation of downstate police and fire pension funds. Ever since, Chicago police and fire unions have argued their Tier 2 workers ought to get the same treatment. In addition, proponents cite concerns that the benefits for Tier 2 workers don't rise to the level of Social Security benefits, which would violate federal law. This page has been consistent on the issue of Tier 2 pension benefits and Social Security. State policymakers should do no more than ensure they are compliant with the law and rebuff union efforts to use the Social Security argument in effect to do away with Tier 2 and pension reform altogether. As much as we appreciate and rely on Chicago's first responders, everyone who went to work for the Police or Fire departments after 2010 knew — or should have known — what their retirement benefits were. In a perfect world, their pensions would be equivalent to those earned by their counterparts outside the city. We don't live in that world. Far from it. Mayor Johnson, you should advocate for your city's beleaguered taxpayers and call on Gov. Pritzker and Chicago's Springfield delegation to do the right thing. And, Governor, adding to Chicago's fiscal crisis hurts the whole state. Whether the mayor asks or not, veto the bill.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats seek to leverage Trump's low approval ratings
Democrats must center their political arguments around rising costs since President Trump took office so their struggling party can capitalize on his dismal polling numbers, political strategists tell The Hill. Relatable messaging on affordability is how Democrats can criticize Trump effectively and show voters that they represent the interests of working-class Americans, many of whom supported the president during the 2024 presidential election. They must shift from the usual broad-stroke statements that have previously fallen flat with voters. Instead, the message should be tailored to the price of specific items — like beef or timber — that have spiked during the early months of the Trump administration. 'Talk about the price of beef,' said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who doesn't support Trump, adding that the approach mirrors a strategy the president took during the campaign last year to defeat then-Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Just like Donald Trump talked about eggs, it's more than talking about the economy. It's making it relatable, and nothing is more relatable than hamburgers and a barbecue.' As fall inches closer, Democrats need to telegraph that message in town halls, in interviews and on social media to reach mass audiences in purple and even red districts, strategists say. 'Every minute of every day should be spent talking about rising costs,' said one Democratic strategist who has been in conversations where affordability has been the central topic of how Democrats find their way out of the wilderness. 'Every second that's not spent on talking about affordability, we're losing the argument.' Democrats say they are trying to seize upon the opportunity now, when Republicans are divided on the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, which has dominated the headlines this month, putting Trump and Republican lawmakers on defense. But some strategists are weary of how much Democrats need to emphasize messaging, even with 2026 midterms on the horizon. 'Messaging is not necessarily the determining factor in midterm elections ever by the party out of power,' seasoned Democratic strategist Garry South said. 'It is a referendum on the party in power.' Trump has stumbled on issues including tariffs and immigration, weakening his position from when he entered office more than six months ago. This week, a Silver Bulletin poll conducted by pollster Nate Silver showed that Trump's approval ratings steadily decreased from 52 percent to 44 percent during his first four months in office. And in recent months, the same poll revealed that Trump's approval ratings have hovered in the mid-40s, some of their lowest levels across his two terms. In the past two weeks, separate CNN-SSRS polling and Quinnipiac University polling have shown Trump's approval ratings as low as 42 percent and 40 percent, respectively. In recent days, some Republican lawmakers have sought to cocoon themselves until the Epstein storm passes, further inviting Democrats to fill the void. '[Republicans] are scared of their voters. They're scared of the president,' Democratic strategist Basil Smikle said. 'Go in areas where Republicans won't go, in areas where Republicans are. But countermessage. You may not win every day, but you may get a few voters to pay attention.' 'There are a lot of independents that are souring on the president and on the administration, and I think that's where there's opportunity,' Smikle added, referring to voters who can move the needle for Democrats in future election cycles. 'There are not going to be many Republicans that Democrats are going to get, so this is really about independents.' Even in the first six months of the Trump presidency, Republicans have given Democrats a gift in terms of strategy and messaging, Democratic operatives say. And while Democrats had traditionally gone after Trump himself in recent cycles, operatives say they should take aim at the Republican Party as a whole. 'They should talk about how Republicans are focused on protecting the president while the dangers of the big ugly bill are looming,' Smikle said. 'That, I think, is probably the most salient message here, that some of the most wealthy and powerful in this country are not just hoarding the money, they are also protecting themselves' with tax cuts in the 'big, beautiful bill.' Smikle added that Democrats need to follow that up with alternatives to Republican policies. '[Democrats] have got to offer something in return. They've got to give voters an opportunity to vote for something as opposed to just against something.' Other strategists say that right now, the best thing Democrats can do is not interfere and let Trump continue driving his approval ratings into the ground. 'Based on the Napoleonic principle that one should never interfere with an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself, I'm not sure there's a lot Democrats proactively need to do,' South said. He added that midterms have historically been 'throw-the-bums out' elections that reflect exclusively the party in power. 'Republicans have that trifecta, the White House, the Senate, the House, and they're going to pay a price for it in 2026 no matter what Democrats do.'
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
How California draws congressional districts, and why it might change in a proxy war with Trump
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications. There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous 'Ribbon of Shame,' a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021. President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts' that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews. Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans 'play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,' Newsom said of the nation's history. 'We are not going to allow that to happen.' Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year. The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians. These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies. Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. 'I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box,' said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. 'That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally.' She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. 'I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule,' Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. 'He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved,' said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes 'this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters.' Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade. 'It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state,' the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. 'As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.' If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options: Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August. Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
