TIME White House

See How Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter Became Presidential Contenders

Watch an exclusive clip from the next episode of CNN's 'The Seventies'

By the summer of 1976, the pool of potential presidential candidates had winnowed to three: incumbent Gerald Ford, his Republican challenger Ronald Reagan and the Democrat Jimmy Carter. It was a situation tailor-made for the post-Watergate world, as shown in this exclusive clip from the upcoming episode of CNN’s The Seventies, which airs on Thursdays at 9:00 pm. Here’s how TIME handicapped the field at the time:

Now the choice is down to three—and they are among the most unusual politicians in the nation’s history. The next President of the U.S. will be either Jimmy Carter, the one-term Georgia Governor who has had the most spectacular political rise since Wendell Willkie in 1940; or Ronald Reagan, the two-term California Governor who staged the most successful challenge against an incumbent since Theodore Roosevelt took on William Howard Taft in 1912; or Gerald Ford, the longtime Michigan Congressman whom fate, Watergate and the 25th Amendment propelled into the Oval Office. Their status as survivors tells much about the changing state of the nation, the political parties and the voters’ mood.

Read the June 21, 1976, issue of TIME, here in the TIME Vault: Our Next President (Pick One)

TIME 2016 Election

Rival Republican Blasts Donald Trump as a ‘Wrecking Ball’

Lindsey Graham calls Donald Trump a "demagogue"

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday denounced fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump as “a wrecking ball for the future of the Republican Party.”

“I think he’s created a defining moment for all candidates,” Graham, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said of Trump’s incendiary comments about Mexican immigrants. Graham, widely seen as a long-shot for the GOP nomination despite his experience in the Senate as a leading foreign policy voice, called Trump a “demagogue.”

“I think he’s uninformed,” Graham said. “I think he’s a wrecking ball for the future of the Republican Party in the Hispanic community, and I think we need to push back.”

Trump’s comments during his presidential campaign announcement speech that Mexican immigrants are “rapists” has led to a chorus of criticism from Hispanic leaders and from many business partners who have cut ties with the real estate mogul in recent weeks. He has stood by his remarks, and on Saturday he said he spoke for a new “silent majority” of Americans.


TIME politics

What It Means When Marriage Is a Contract

Gay Marriage Religious Liberty
Jacquelyn Martin — AP A man holds a U.S. and a rainbow flag outside the Supreme Court in Washington after the court legalized gay marriage nationwide.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision on same-sex marriage has put the issue of love and contracts front and center

Amidst jubilation from some, consternation from others, and against the backdrop of over 26 million rainbow profile pictures on Facebook, the impact of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges granting same-sex couples rights to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment continues to unfold. Perhaps the most-quoted passage from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the majority has been its final paragraph, which concludes: “Their [the petitioners’] hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

If you have studied the history of marriage, however, it’s likely the first sentence of Kennedy’s last paragraph that stands out to you. “In forming a marital union,” he writes, “two people become something greater than once they were.” This formulation of matrimony, while it confirms our contemporary understanding of romantic love, doesn’t reflect the institution’s decidedly complex and unromantic historical legacy, something Martha Ertman, Carole & Hanan Sibel Research Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, reckons with in Love’s Promises: How Formal and Informal Contracts Shape All Kinds of Families. Her book blends a memoir of her own experiences building a family by contract with her analysis of family law and contracts that underpin adoption, cohabitation, the use reproductive technology, and—most of all—marriage.

These “deep structural transformations” of marriage—as Ertman describes them—“recognize or reflect the fact that it changes over time.” In Love’s Promises, she illustrates the contrast between marriage past and present by comparing the experiences of first ladies Martha Washington and Michelle Obama to show how much the institution has evolved. Far from making “two people something greater than they once were,” for example, 19th-century marriage followed the common-law rule of coverture, which collapsed two people into one person: the husband. Under coverture, a wife was legally invisible after her marriage, in large measure because she could no longer enter into contracts. Not to mention the “breach of promise to marry” suits brought in response to broken engagements; they so clogged the 19th– and early 20th-century legal system that courts were obliged to rule that engagements were not legally binding contracts in order to get relief.

These detrimental but undeniable historical connections between marriage and contracts are a far cry from today’s world, where many people seek to deny any relevance between the two at all. The resistance to making contracts a part of family life—parenthood, cohabitation, and marriage—mystifies Ertman, who views contracts not as cold or calculating but as deeply expressive and potentially beneficial ways of affirming choices and validating contributions within any close relationship. In Love’s Promises, she argues that the law should recognize both the formal relationships codified by contract and those—like less conventional forms of parenthood and cohabitation—tailored informally by what she calls “deals”—arrangements about the more personal back-and-forth about who does what that define each relationship on its own terms.

“Maybe it’s because I teach contracts,” Ertman told Breadwinning and Caregiving Program Director Liza Mundy at a recent event at New America, but “it’s odd in my mind that you share a share a bathroom, you share a bed, and yet you can’t talk about who’s on the lease? There’s something really odd about closing your eyes, crossing your fingers, and hoping it’s all going to be all right.”

“Without contracts, I wouldn’t have a job, but I also wouldn’t have a family,” Ertman—who came out as gay in the 1980s—explained. A co-parenting agreement and some reproductive technology helped her create a family with her son and his father, a close gay male friend. A marriage contract and an amended parenting agreement expanded Ertman’s family to include her wife. At each step along the way, Ertman recalled, “we talked about what we thought and expected and wanted to give and get from this arrangement…I think that’s part of why it’s going well.”

Our collective discomfort with talking in detail about the give-and-take of a relationship and our hesitation to put our expectations in writing can lead to a number of legal complications. Among the most damaging is the unwillingness on the part of individuals and the courts to clarify the stakes of what Ertman calls pair-bond exchanges—in which one member of the relationship does a bigger share of the caregiving in exchange for greater financial support from the other member of the relationship. “I think when we mask the value of homemaking labor that does bad social things,” Ertman cautioned, “because it takes power away from people who are already disempowered.”

Citing stories described in her book, Ertman argued that courts are wrong to treat the caregiving work done for their partners by women and men (everything from childcare to eldercare) as a gift of love; she says it injures us as a culture to assume that “because it’s impossible to put a precise figure on it, we’re going to assume that all that work was basically worth nothing.” Sun Bonds, former wife of Barry Bonds, received no portion of his earnings in their divorce although he presumably benefited from her homemaking labor while they were married. Ertman also brought up the case of Harold, a Florida resident who nursed his partner Loretta on her deathbed with cancer, but because they’d done “everything but the vows,” her family took their joint property after her death. Harold sued, but was not compensated for either the time or his own money (including an inheritance) that he sacrificed for Loretta’s health. Ertman’s question is: do we really want to live in a society that says Harold’s caregiving role has no value?

“My hope in writing Love’s Promises is to make an argument for moral neutrality” around marriage, Ertman told Mundy and the audience. “Instead of coming from nature or God,” she emphasized, “I would say that families and love come in different packages.” Though still processing her reactions to the ruling as both a lesbian and a law professor, Ertman sees the Obergefell decision as to some degree making her book’s goal a reality: “to recognize that marriage is a human institution; it doesn’t come in one shape that fits everybody.”

She marvels at the reactionary language used by the dissenting justices and the ramifications of their worldview on other aspects of gender equality. “If marriage is about one man, one woman, then someone has to be the man, the woman,” she says, dismissing the idea that creating a legal imprimatur for traditional gender roles should—or even could—force adherence to a “one-size-fits-all” approach to family. She worries too that the consequences of Obergefell could be to replace one moral absolute—that homosexuality is unnatural and gays do not deserve constitutional protections—with another—“equally morally charged”—imperative of marriage as an absolute social good, to the exclusion of other kinds of relationships. She does, however, see potential for aging single Baby Boomers to keep institutions like civil unions and domestic partnerships vital as they look to build long-term companionship with fewer entanglements for their adult children.

Her evaluation of the post-Obergefell legal landscape is that it could spark what legal scholar Derrick Bell called “interest convergence” between gays and other groups and create models for future progress for “rights and duties about parenthood” that could include “efforts to recognize more than two parents.” In the arc of history from the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick (which upheld the rights of states to make laws criminalizing homosexual encounters) to Obergefell, we can see the law as Ertman does: as a vehicle of expression for who we are and want to be as a society. Ertman sees this arc as evidence of what 19th-century (coverture-era) British jurist and legal historian Sir Henry Maine theorized as law and society’s move “from status to contract”—toward a modern world in which individuals are free to make contracts and form associations according to their own choices.

Jane Greenway Carr is an ACLS Public Fellow and Contributing Editor at New America. She holds a PhD from NYU and is the editor of The Brooklyn Quarterly. Follow her on Twitter @janegreenway.

This piece was originally published in New America’s digital magazine, The Weekly Wonk. Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox each Thursday here, and follow @New America on Twitter.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Culture

What Happened to America’s Other Illegal Immigrants

Zocalo Public Square is a not-for-profit Ideas Exchange that blends live events and humanities journalism.

Chinese immigrants could see a newfound status in America complicated by China's rise

Once singled out for exclusion by law from the U.S., Chinese immigrants now make up the largest single group of arrivals a year into this country. The Census Bureau says China replaced Mexico as the top country of origin for immigrants to the U.S. in 2013.

Given the history, this growth—and the fact that Chinese immigrants are considered part of the Asian-American “model minority”—seems improbable. But the story of Chinese immigration, past and present reminds how fickle our attitudes about immigrants can prove.

Although many of today’s Chinese immigrants are students and investors, earlier Chinese immigrants were considered the lowest of the low-skilled. Chinese sailors were among the crew on a ship that arrived in Baltimore in 1784. Chinese immigrants were living in New York City in the 1830s. And Chinese were among the thousands of gold seekers who rushed into California during the Gold Rush in the mid-19th century. By 1870, there were 64,000 Chinese in the United States, most of them in California, and almost all of them from the Pearl River Delta outside Guangzhou in southern China.

These Chinese immigrants faced a tremendous hostility, despite amounting to only a small fraction of the total foreign-born population in the United States in the late 19th century. They were charged with taking away jobs, corrupting white women, and threatening American civilization. In 1882, the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese laborers, prohibited all Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and allowed only select classes of Chinese to apply for admission.

While the act was in effect—from 1882 to 1943—Chinese immigrants became America’s first “illegal” immigrants. Chinese immigration drastically dropped, though it never totally stopped. Many of those who came resorted to false papers (like my own grandfather). Those who arrived in San Francisco faced harsh interrogations, humiliating medical examinations, and long detentions in the unsanitary barracks on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay.

In the past 50 years, Chinese immigration has undergone a dramatic transformation. The 1965 immigration Act ended national origins quotas favoring immigration from Europe over other parts of the world; it also established preferences for professional and skilled workers. At the same time, China’s subsequent economic modernization and global outlook revived and diversified the flow of immigration from China.

In 1960, there were just under 100,000 Chinese-born immigrants in the United States. In 2010, the Census reported over 3.3 million adult Chinese-Americans. As of that year, Chinese Americans had higher median annual personal earnings than the general U.S. population.

While Chinese immigrants may not be scrutinized in the same way that undocumented low-skilled Mexican immigrants are, it would be wrong to assume that America has fully embraced Chinese and other Asian immigrants. Some Americans resent having to go to a doctor who has a foreign accent, for example, or having their kids compete with talented foreign-born (and second generation Asian-American) students for college admissions or jobs.

There could be even more resentment if China’s national wealth and strength becomes more pronounced, and more explicitly opposed to American interests. This country has often treated immigrants unfairly based on the actions of their countries of origin. In 1999, Chinese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee was unfairly accused of spying for the People’s Republic of China. Could there be more episodes like this in the near future?

As Chinese immigrants have gone from being the most excluded immigrants to the most numerous, we should recognize what has changed and what has not. Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans are growing in number. They are often held up as America’s “good” immigrants. But they and other Asian-Americans remain vulnerable to anxieties, economic shifts and political struggles. How far have Chinese Americans really risen? And during a time of increasing xenophobia and concern about a newly powerful China worldwide, how easily might they fall?

Erika Lee is a historian and writer and director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota. Her most recent book, The Making of Asian America: A History will be published in September. She wrote this for What It Means to Be American a national conversation hosted by the Smithsonian and Zocalo Public Square.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Culture

What California Needs Is a Museum of the Great Recession

Getty Images

Zocalo Public Square is a not-for-profit Ideas Exchange that blends live events and humanities journalism.

The state invented this worldwide downturn, so why not memorialize it?

Californians have short memories. So short that our politicians, from Gov. Brown on down, can’t stop reminding us that only just a few years ago, we were in a recession and a budget crisis. So now—even with low unemployment, rising housing prices, and a budget surplus—they say they must keep funding for many important programs at recession-era levels.

Let’s say, “Bah, humbug!” to the Sacramento Scrooges. There are more productive ways than austerity to make sure we don’t forget the economic lessons of the recent past. For starters, why not create a museum to help us remember?

California would be the ideal location for a Museum of the Great Recession.

After all, we Californians practically invented the global economic meltdown between 2007 and 2009, and the tough recovery that followed. Our middle class, in its aspirational desperation to buy houses and keep up an unaffordable standard of living, led the way into ever growing consumer debt. And California-based Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender, led the way in making bad subprime loans that were turned into risky securities.

For all this, we Californians paid a huge price, one that a museum could remind us of: double-digit unemployment, housing market bust, record state budget shortfalls, municipal bankruptcies, the layoffs of thousands of teachers and other public servants, and downturns in nearly every major state industry.

During this recession, middle-class Californians became a minority of the population. And California became, according to global media, a failed state responsible for economic malaise from Spain to Shanghai.

Bottom line: This was our Great Recession, and we shouldn’t let anyone—particularly those vultures on Wall Street—open their own museum first.

Here’s a plan to make it a reality. The museum director should be former California state treasurer Phil Angelides, who led the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that investigated the causes of the recession. The commission’s report should provide the content of the museum’s permanent exhibits, with California showbiz making things more relatable.

For example, to illustrate the Federal Reserve’s failures in financial regulation, Disney could produce audio-animatronic versions of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and New-York-Fed-chief-turned-Treasury-Secretary Tim Geithner to take visitors’ questions—just like the Abraham Lincoln robot at Disneyland. Gamers could create immersive, room-sized infographics to explain the shadow banking system, credit default swaps, and that whole business with Fannie and Freddie.

The museum wouldn’t neglect the aftermath of the crisis. Visitors could don headphones and listen to real audio recordings of homebuyers who were victims of myriad mortgage mistakes battling unsuccessfully to get problems fixed. (Some of those calls were recorded and preserved for litigation). Museum visitors would compete with former professional robo-signers of foreclosure affidavits to see who could review and sign more mortgage documents (without reading anything, of course) in less than a minute.

The Museum of Jurassic Technology in Culver City could curate a room devoted to Tea Party economic fantasies, credit rating agency reports, and other phony theories from the crisis. One museum room would be decorated as a child’s bedroom—but occupied by a 20-something, with job application cover letters littering the floor.

A gallery of Recession-Related Extinctions could include exhibits on affordable higher education and California Republicans who had to risk their careers by voting for the state budget under the two-thirds vote requirement, which was eliminated with the 2010 elections. Now, the Democrats can pass a budget with a simple majority. But before 2010, a few Republicans had to vote for budgets and put their careers at risk. One such Republican legislator, Anthony Adams, is now a public defender in Mendocino County.

There’s another reason to put the Museum of the Great Recession in California. Our state offers so many possible locations. The museum’s supporters could buy a government building in bankrupt Stockton or San Bernardino to give those cities some much-needed cash. Or it could try to take over any number of malls abandoned during the recession.

My own preferred location would be the former Countrywide headquarters in Calabasas, just off the 101 at the western edge of the San Fernando Valley. The building has the size to be a museum, with 700 parking stalls and 230,000 square feet.

Signs on the fence say it’s available for sale or lease. At a price of $150 per square foot, the state could buy it for $35 million—not much in a state budget of more than $100 billion.

But I suspect this museum could pay for itself. The current rage for financial education would make the Museum of the Great Recession a natural for field trips. Californians have long supported institutions built on economic crisis. After all, arguably our most powerful think tank, on Stanford’s campus, is named for its founder, President Herbert Hoover, who later ushered in the Great Depression.

Joe Mathews is California and innovation editor for Zócalo Public Square, for which he writes the Connecting California column. He wrote this for Thinking L.A., a partnership of UCLA and Zócalo Public Square.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME politics

T. Boone Pickens: Natural Gas Is the Key To Winning the War on Terror

T. Boone Pickens, founder and chief executive officer of BP Capital LLC, sits for a photograph following a Bloomberg Television interview in Washington, D.C. on April 3, 2013.
Bloomberg via Getty Images T. Boone Pickens, founder and chief executive officer of BP Capital LLC, sits for a photograph following a Bloomberg Television interview in Washington, D.C. on April 3, 2013.

T. Boone Pickens is the chairman of BP Capital.

On the seventh anniversary of the Pickens Plan, it's time to stop buying oil from the Middle East

Just as gasoline prices are falling and consumers think we’ve begun to chip away at our OPEC oil dependence problem, a threat is emerging from ISIS, and what could easily be referred to as an Organized Petroleum Exporting Caliphate.

The OPEC oil issue has consumed me. Seven years ago, I committed myself to a broad public campaign to highlight the dangers of America’s then-escalating dependence on OPEC oil imports. I have invested more than $100 million in an effort to impact public policy energy issues and secure an energy plan for America. I’m also the founder and CEO of BP Capital, an energy-focused hedge fund that trades in natural gas and crude oil futures as well as energy equities, and a large shareholder of Clean Energy Fuels, a leading supplier of natural gas as a transportation fuel.

Seven years ago, OPEC oil imports was the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, and a critical threat to America’s national and economic security. When the vast oil and gas reserves that had been locked within the massive shale deposits under North America became economically viable, many people thought “Whew. Problem solved.”

Not so. Not only is Saudi Arabia still playing geopolitics with world oil prices to protect its market share, but ISIS is now funding a considerable amount of its activities — perhaps as much as $3 million per day — by illegally selling oil captured in Iraq and Syria on the world markets.

Not too long ago, there were serious questions about whether the purchase of oil by America (and other nations) was funding the expansion of one of the greatest terror threats of this generation. Once oil from ISIS gets loaded onto a tanker, it looks the same as oil from Kuwait or Abu Dhabi. We’re buying a lot of it, so we are effectively paying for both sides of the war against ISIS.

Al-Qaeda is also trying to get itself back onto the top of the terror list by urging its followers to disrupt oil shipments at “choke points” like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Gibraltar.

This presents a moral dilemma for Americans, who face a growing awareness that continued purchase of Middle East oil invariably threatens our national security.

It doesn’t have to be this way. My father once told me, “Son, a fool with a plan can beat a genius with no plan.” Right now, we’re a nation adrift without an energy plan. Americans deserve one, and I’m every bit as committed to campaigning for one today as I was seven years ago.

Oil from the Middle East is no longer just an economic issue. It has become a national security issue. As long as we keep buying oil from the Middle East, our enemies can continue to fund terrorism.

How do we fix it? Start at the point we’ve been talking about since the Pickens Plan was developed in 2008: transportation. Transportation accounts for more than two-thirds of all the oil we use, both as gasoline for cars and light trucks, and diesel for heavy-duty vehicles.

More than ever, we need to move our heavy-duty trucks from diesel to natural gas. Thanks to private-sector leadership, a national fueling network to support natural gas trucks on America’s interstate highways has developed, but we need more government and private-sector leadership to expand this effort. That will introduce the first real competition into our fuel supply. It will improve our balance of trade, it will improve our environment, and it will remove the last marked card from OPEC’s poker hand over our national security.

It’s not as easy with cars and light trucks, but remember what I’ve said all along: I’m for anything American. If we can expand the market for affordable battery-powered cars, I think we should do that.

Because of the tremendous advances in recovery techniques, we have vast crude oil and natural gas reserves yet to develop and produce. It’s a perfect time to decouple our energy-focused military presence in the Middle East. For too long we have spent the lives and limbs of thousands of young men and women fighting in the Middle East, and we still bear most of the cost of protecting the about 17 million barrels that flow through the Strait of Hormuz every day even though only about 10% of that oil comes to us. The price tag? About $5 trillion since 2003. Imagine if that were added into the price of gasoline at the pump.

While we turn our back on OPEC, let’s renew a focus at home and pursue a North American Energy Alliance with our oil rich neighbors to the north and south, Canada and Mexico.

We need national leadership, and every candidate for federal office — from Congress to the U.S. Senate and certainly for the presidency — should be prepared to offer a clear, complete, and workable national energy plan. This has to be a key element of the 2016 election cycle. Americans can ill afford being lulled into a false sense of energy security because of temporarily cheaper gasoline prices at the pump.

As I’ve said since the beginning: Natural gas is cheaper, it’s cleaner, and it’s ours. Let’s make it a key part of our energy future, and a key weapon in the war on terror.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME politics

Bobby Jindal: Sanders and Clinton Would Both Turn Us Into Greece

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announces his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential nomination during a rally a he Pontchartrain Center in Kenner, Louisiana on June 24, 2015.
Sean Gardner—Getty Images Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announces his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential nomination during a rally a he Pontchartrain Center in Kenner, Louisiana on June 24, 2015.

Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana.

You can't make it impossible for business to thrive and expect the economy to grow

Greece created democracy, and now the Greeks are showing us how to kill it.

It’s simple math to understand what is happening in Greece right now. When Greece joined the euro, it benefited from the financial support of its more fiscally responsible neighbors in the euro zone. Rather than taking the opportunity to enact the structural reforms that could have increased growth — reforms that it still has not undertaken — Greece instead went on a spending spree funded by other people’s money.

Greece has been cooking the books with complicated financial instruments for years. But the problems don’t stop there. Greece’s Rubik’s Cube tax code and rampant corruption make tax evasion widespread. Golden parachute public pensions that allow public sector workers to retire as early as 45 drain dollars out of the government coffers while incentivizing a still healthy and work-age workforce to live on the public dime. It’s hard to have sufficient tax paying workers when about 75% of Greek public-sector employees retire by the age 61.

After taking office in January, the Alexis Tsipras administration reversed promised privatization of state-owned assets like the Port of Piraeus. In 2011, the IMF predicted Greece could bring in 50 billion euros ($56 billion) from the sale of state assets, not to mention the savings from moving those employees off the public wage and benefit system. To date, it has raised about 3 billion euros.

Business has no interest in creating jobs when crushed by government regulation. Tspiras promised to raise the minimum wage, despite the economy spiraling out of control. It’s not surprising the March unemployment rate stood at 25.6%.

This is the European nightmare. The way of Greece is where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will take us. It’s simple math: You can’t spend more than you take in. You can’t make it impossible for business to thrive and expect the economy to grow. No wonder the U.S. has had a disappointing about 2% “recovery” growth. That’s not an accident—it’s the result of failed policies.

Clinton and Sanders are math deniers, like most of the Democrats in D.C. They want to grow the government economy instead of the real American economy. Rather than pursuing tax reform to improve growth or entitlement changes to reduce future expenditures, Clinton and Sanders are focused on spending trillions on Obamacare, giving free college to everyone, and raising the federal minimum wage.

This was all on plain view in New Hampshire this past weekend, where Clinton spent the weekend promoting a third term of President Barack Obama’s failed policies. The irony is that her dishonesty and lack of transparency is a windfall for Sanders.

Sanders is rising in the polls. Why? Because he’s honest. He freely admits that he believes in socialism, and Democrats are flocking to the only honest candidate running on their side. Sanders should write Clinton a thank you note.

Sanders may be saying what Clinton will not say, but the reality is they’re both socialists. And if you want a peek into our future with Clinton or Sanders, then look at what’s happening in Greece today. Sanders proudly said on Sunday that he wants to raise taxes.

Sanders and Clinton seem to believe prosperity lies in the hands of government. We know it lies in the hands of our people.

We have to stop pretending. Greece pretended that debt didn’t matter for years. It pretended it could spend money it didn’t have. It pretended that there was some mythical pot of money in Athens that didn’t exist. It pretended that 1+1 didn’t equal 2.

The politicians in Puerto Rico are no different. They are demanding that we change U.S. laws so that they can file for bankruptcy. They are even threatening to sway the presidential election in order to force candidates to agree with them. These are the same politicians that led the country to bankruptcy. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here — they are asking the U.S. taxpayers to pay for a bailout. That’s where this leads, and we should be honest about it. I oppose this.

Unfortunately, we better admit that our politicians in Washington are taking us down the exact same road that Puerto Rico is on, and that Greece has gone down. The federal minimum wage has strangled economic growth in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican government tried to throw money at the problem with incentive programs to lure business — but that just cost money and didn’t fix the structural problem, so the economy continued to stall.

I know because in Louisiana we reversed decades of outmigration, and we created more than 90,000 jobs by reducing regulations and cutting taxes. Louisiana’s economy boomed. We can do the same for America’s economy. If you want more borrowing and spending, then vote for the Democrats. We know where that leads — Greece and Puerto Rico have shown us how quickly irresponsible spending can kill a democracy.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME South Carolina

South Carolina Senate Approves Removal of Confederate Flag

The bill now moves to the House with a less certain future

(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — The South Carolina Senate has given final approval to a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the Capitol.

The 36-3 vote Tuesday now sends the bill to the House, where it faces a less certain future. Republicans met behind closed doors Monday and struggled to reach a consensus on what to do next.

The Senate bill would remove the Confederate flag flying in front of the Statehouse and the flagpole as soon as the governor signs it.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley urged lawmakers to remove the flag after the killing of nine black people in a historic African-American church in Charleston last month by a gunman police say was motivated by racial hatred.

The suspect was photographed several times with the Confederate flag.


TIME ebola

WHO Politics Interfered With Ebola Response, Panel Says

The World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters building in Geneva, Switzerland on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 .
Raphael Satter — AP The World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters building in Geneva, Switzerland on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 .

Office politics were largely responsible for the WHO's slow Ebola outbreak response, a panel says

An advisory panel selected to assess the response of the World Health Organization (WHO) to the Ebola outbreak blamed the agency’s politics and rigid culture for the poor response to the epidemic. The outbreak has infected more than 27,500 people and killed more than 11,200 in West Africa.

In a report published Tuesday, the panel blamed the organization as a whole for being late in activating emergency procedures, despite early warnings from other groups like Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières. The panel concluded that the agency made noise about the outbreak with little action and poor preparation: “Although WHO drew attention to the ‘unprecedented outbreak’ at a press conference in April 2014, this was not followed by international mobilization and a consistent communication strategy,” the authors write.

The panel argues that the culture at the WHO greatly prohibited action, writing:

“WHO does not have a culture of rapid decision-making and tends to adopt a reactive, rather than a proactive, approach to emergencies. In the early stages of the Ebola crisis, messages were sent by experienced staff at headquarters and the Regional Office for Africa, including after deployments in the field, about the seriousness of the crisis. Either these did not reach senior leaders or senior leaders did not recognize their significance. WHO does not have an organizational culture that supports open and critical dialogue between senior leaders and staff or that permits risk-taking or critical approaches to decision-making. There seems to have been a hope that the crisis could be managed by good diplomacy rather than by scaling up emergency action.”

The panel says that a number of factors were responsible for the delay in declaring the outbreak a pubic health emergency of international concern, including a late understanding of the gravity of the situation, denial among country authorities, culture problems within the WHO and a failure of the international community as a whole to take notice.

The report suggests instituting a variety of reforms and priorities, including focusing on fast-tracking vaccines and drugs and calling upon WHO member states and partners to immediately contribute $100 million in voluntary contributions for an emergency fund.

Response to the report has been mixed. As the Associated Press reports, some members of the public health community involved were disappointed that individuals were not called out by name and that the agency was already focusing on lessons learned, when the outbreak is still ongoing.

TIME White House

How President Obama Decided to Sing ‘Amazing Grace’

"I knew I was going to sing. I was just trying to figure out which key to sing it"

When President Obama first broached the topic of singing “Amazing Grace” as the finale to his eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney he’d already had his mind pretty much made up: He was going to do it.

“When I get to the second part of referring to ‘Amazing Grace,’ I think I might sing,” he told his wife, First Lady Michelle Obama, adviser Valerie Jarrett, and two others before the funeral for the South Carolina state senator and pastor murdered along with eight others at a Charleston church last month.

Their responses were not encouraging. Jarrett’s answer was a non-committal “Hmm,” while Mrs. Obama was straightforward: “Why on earth would that fit in?”

Jarrett, recalling the moment at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week, said she and the First Lady ultimately “encouraged him to do whatever the spirit moved him to do.”

Read the entire story at the New York Times

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com