thebipartisanpress-blog

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

An Open Letter to Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Dear Senator Warren,  If the Texas Democratic primary were held today, you would have my vote.  I have watched with interest and growing admiration as you’ve worked your tail off on the campaign trail, talking to people, sharing your story, outlining your plans and showing the American people exactly what kind of detail should be communicated about what a candidate for the highest office in the land intends to do with the power we entrust them with. I cannot recall being more impressed with a political candidate. Your candidacy gives me, and many like me, hope that the next eight years might be entrusted into hands competent to guide this country through the challenges of the next decade.  For the first time, when you took the debate stage Tuesday as the front runner, I saw you struggle to communicate a point related to your ideas. I'm speaking of course, about what has become the standard attack on your Medicare for all plan.  The question is how you mean to deliver Medicare for all without raising taxes on the middle class. The reason it’s being asked is so that your opponents can point to your refusal to say whether taxes will have to be raised on the middle class and then call your answer evasive. In all honesty, even those of us with ears can understand why some people think it sounds evasive.  We do, however, hear what it is you’re trying to say, and I empathize with you since the full answer doesn’t fit neatly into a debate stage soundbite. They know that, of course, it’s the reason they’re attacking that point.  To many, it sounds like an attempt to avoid revealing a hard truth. I come at this from a different perspective, and I’d like to share that perspective with you. I come at this from the perspective of a man who was firmly opposed to single-payer health care, but one who changed his own mind by doing the math.  When I hear you saying “I have made clear what my principles are here, and that is costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down,” I hear exactly what the math told me. The problem you run into is that you’ve done the math as well, and in order to do Medicare for all and keep it deficit-neutral, the money is going to have to come from somewhere. Although you intend to get Medicare for all done without burdening the middle class and low-income Americans with more taxes, who knows how the negotiations will play out when you start working on it in 2021?  What would happen if you committed today that it would be done with no tax increase on the middle class, since that is your intention, and at the finish line, the only way to get it finally done was to add $10 per month to the Medicare deduction in everyone’s paycheck? We know exactly what would happen. The Republicans would start howling about “You get to keep your doctor!” So let’s look a little more deeply at the story told by your response to these repeated questions. As one of the foremost experts in the United States on consumer bankruptcy, you know medical expenses are far and away the most common cause of consumer bankruptcy in this country. You know that the average American spent $10,345 on health care in 2016 and it’s only gone up since then. None of your Democratic opponents in this race disagree that something has to be done to ease that burden on the American people, especially those living under last year’s $61,372 median income line, as health care expenditures eat through more than 17% of their total income. But! We are told, The United States can’t afford to pay for health care for all her citizens. The deficit would skyrocket! We would go broke in 10 years! Trillions of dollars! In one of the debates earlier this year, I even heard a Democratic candidate respond to the point that Canada is perfectly able to do it with something to the effect of “But they only have about 30 million to care for while we have hundreds of millions!” Yeah. No kidding. So do the math.  Let’s start with basic math. What would it take to mirror what Canada is doing? Canada spends about $242 billion per year on their universal health care system. That money ensures that all 36 million Canadian citizens are covered by health care. This means that the system costs Canada $6,604 per citizen per year. How much does Canada spend on health care? | CIHI So what would a similar system cost us? First, since those figures came directly from the Canadian Government, we have to look at the exchange rate and see what that is in US Dollars. Right now, the exchange rate is .76, so that works out to $5,025 in US dollars.

There are currently 328.5 million US citizens, multiply that out and you arrive at the number. $1.65 trillion per year. Yes. See? I’m not pulling punches here. No one is asking for “free stuff” here, just a realistic examination of the costs. 

There it is. That number they keep trying and trying to terrify us with. It sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? $1.65 T, trillion dollars. Boy, do they love to make it even scarier by naming the 10-year cost, not so subtly forgetting to make it clear that $17 trillion is what it would cost over 10 years, not per year. And of course implying that it’s $1.65 trillion more than we’re already spending, which of course it isn’t. And that last is the thing. How much more would it cost us to provide Medicare for all than it would to do what we already do? We’re already spending: $672 billion on Medicare $565 billion on Medicaid and $79 billion of the VA’s Budget is for Veteran’s Medical Care. All three of these programs would be rolled into the new system which covers everyone. SO. The first $1.3 trillion is already covered. That leaves a little less than $351 billion It’s clear that your intent is to show the large multinational corporations that since they no longer have to cover the portions of employee premiums many of them do, it makes sense to chip in a bit more to the pot to help get this done. And by raising taxes on big businesses and the wealthiest Americans, that extra could be covered without any extra burden on the middle class.  But what if, imagine there was no other way to do it but to add a bit to everyone’s Medicare tax? How much would it take to generate? Another easy question to answer. There are right now about 142 million taxpayers in the US. If for some reason people don’t trust that you will find other sources of revenue to make up the difference and want to know how much would be needed, they can do the math as I did. 

Now. What would most people rather do? Pay an average of $10,345 per year, or have an average of $95 per paycheck withdrawn saving them an average of $7,875 per year, putting $656 per month back into their pockets, while understanding that is the most that would possibly be needed to keep the entire thing deficit-neutral, even if you, Senator Warren, can't find at least some of that money elsewhere? How would you like that in a nice debate stage nugget?  “You know, it is my intention to advocate to get Medicare for all done without raising taxes on the middle class. But as you can see from all the plans I’ve laid out, I’m realistic about things, first of all, that the President of the United States is not a dictator. So if, while I’m fighting to get every American covered by this single-payer plan without raising taxes, the only way we can get it through Congress is to ask the average middle-class taxpayer to contribute, you can be absolutely sure that I will not sign that bill if that tax increase does not represent a significant reduction in that average American citizen’s health care costs!” There’s my two cents, take ‘em or leave em. Once you get it done, come out to the Dallas area, and I’ll use some of my $656 to buy you a Michelob Ultra. You'll forgive me if I choose a beer with a bit more bite. Sincerely, Chris O’Leary Richardson, Tx. 3rd Texas Congressional District Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved. Agree or disagree with something in this article? Share it in the comment section and see what others think. Read the full article

#Warren

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

Andrew Yang is Different From the Other Democratic Candidates

If you've been following the 2020 Democratic candidates, you've probably heard of Andrew Yang. An entrepreneur with no previous government experience, Yang has made a big splash with his three main policies: The Freedom Dividend(also known as universal basic income), Medicare for All, and Human-Centered Capitalism. As it stands, Yang is currently sixth in the latest public polls, garnering 3% of national supporters. He's also been in the spotlight of several major controversies, with many also claiming his lack of government experience will ultimately drag him down. But, see, that's where Andrew Yang stands out. As one of the few candidates with no prior public positions, Andrew Yang is true to himself, not to what will make him look good in the media, or increase his polls. Whether that's doing a live Q&A on Quora, breaking down over gun control, Yang isn't afraid to express how he feels publicly, but also logically. In an era where misinformation and lies are constantly at war with facts, someone who is authentic and genuine publicly is practically unheard of. A POTUS should be a leader and role-model that we look up to. Not someone who spends his time on Twitter calling other people "short" or "Pocahontas." A leader is someone who can bring people together towards a cause. But part of that is also someone who is true to himself and rational. As Naresh Vissa, Founder & CEO of Krish Media & Marketing, puts it, "Andrew Yang is not a part of the Democratic political establishment. He is not beholden to any one group or special interest. He is the only Democratic candidate who has actually accomplished noteworthy feats personally. He is logical and speaks with facts - not blind statements or emotions. He is too intelligent and rational for mainstream federal politics." "Even though I lean right, I support nearly all of Andrew Yang's policies, including his libertarian-themed Freedom Dividend. I also support his stance on single-payer health insurance. He has many other random policies on his website and books that I agree with. Most of his policies are common sense and fact-based." Larry Cohen, from Andrew Yang SuperPAC Humanity Forward, adds to this, "Andrew Yang resonates with me because he doesn't sound like a politician. He stands out as a candidate because he speaks honestly about what he sees as our country's challenges, and offers the kind of bold necessary policies to address them. Finally, I deeply respect the values he's fighting for: believing in abundance instead of scarcity, putting people first in our society, and finding and respecting the humanity in all of us." "He's bringing together a wide political coalition, from both sides of the aisle. He's got former Trump supporters, Bernie and Warren supporters, and also many who haven't voted before or who have been disengaged from politics. His message is about moving forward as a country. He understands and speaks to the real challenges our country faces and is fighting for the bold policies and changes we need. " Andrew Yang isn't like Joe Biden, who adopts policies from his ex-running mate Obama in order to gain supporters. Each one of his policies has been thought about and is something Yang truly believes is helpful and logical. For example, Kristine Thorndyke from TestPrepNerds mentions how, "Andrew Yang specifically mentions the idea of 'inertia' in our politics and government, which means that we just continue policies and practices “just because.” He questions policies in the government such as why Supreme Court justices are elected for life and brings forth ideas as to why and how these common practices can be changed to benefit society." He doesn't specifically attempt to cater towards an audience either. While his ideologies generally align with the Democratic Party, he's usually bipartisan and doesn't create policies just to appeal to Democrats. Quite simply put, Yang is authentic. I'm sure you could argue that with some of the other candidates. Elizabeth Warren can be authentic when she's pushing out her policies. Bernie is authentic when he's talking about universal healthcare. But can you say either of them have the rationality and open-mindedness of Yang? In an interview with NBC, Warren called the Trump administration the most corrupt administration of her lifetime. During the debate, Warren also pushed for Trump's impeachment, saying, "This is about Donald Trump, but, understand, it’s about the next president and the next president and the next president and the future of this country. The impeachment must go forward." Yang also supported the impeachment inquiry. However, Time writes, "Yang was the first candidate to connect the topic of impeachment to broader issues." He supported "a new vision" and said that "The fact is, Donald Trump, when we're talking about him, we are losing." Yang’s willingness to take a step forward and speak out is something that has become rare. Honestly, I'm not a big supporter of his policies, but if he's elected, I have no doubt that some of the integrity of our government will be restored. His lack of experience may ultimately drag him down, but his rationality and authenticity will propel him a ten-fold. Read the flip side: Andrew Yang's UBI Could be Illegal Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved. Agree or disagree with something in this article? Share it in the comment section and see what others think. Read the full article

#Yanggang

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

Andrew Yang’s UBI Could Be Illegal

Andrew Yang went from being ignored by major media sites to one of the most talked-about presidential candidates running in 2020. An entrepreneur concerned about the "4th industrial revolution" (read: machines taking over our jobs), Yang built his campaign around his Freedom Dividend (Universal Basic Income) that gives everyone over 18 $1000 a month. Purportedly, the $1000 a month would, "provide money to cover the basics for Americans while enabling us to look for a better job, start our own business, go back to school, take care of our loved ones or work towards our next opportunity." Funded by a value-added tax, the money would work towards helping people sustain themselves while they pursue other things that they want in life. The fundamental idea of universal basic income may or may not be the right idea, but more importantly, UBI could be unconstitutional. The tenth amendment of the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the tenth amendment, any power not granted to the three branches of the government and not prohibited to the States are up to the States to implement. In other words, Congress can't make laws regarding things it wasn't specifically designated to govern. Congress's powers are granted under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Specifically, Congress may, "...lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," among many other things. In order for Yang to implement his Freedom Dividend, he would have to get Congressional approval. However, under the tenth amendment, Congress doesn't have the power to impose taxes to fund the Freedom Dividend, nor does it have the ability to distribute it. On its face, it seems like Section 8 is granting Congress the power to use tax money and distribute the Freedom Dividend ("general Welfare of the United States"). However, Paul Engel from The Constitution Study writes, "There are three nouns used in the Constitution to designate the possessor of powers and over whom they can and cannot be applied: the United States, the States, and the People.  The term 'United States' refers to the union of states and its government.  The term 'States' or 'Several States' refers to the states either individually or collectively.  And 'The People' refers to individuals." In this case, the general welfare clause refers to the "United States." If Congress were to enact a UBI bill, it would be for the welfare of "the People" not "the United States" since universal basic income benefits individual people, not the United States collectively. While the Constitution is written very broadly and open for lots of interpretations, Paul also offers the reasoning behind why "general welfare of the United States" doesn't apply in this case: "...the United States of America is the name given to the union of states.  (Think of a corporation created by stockholders.). Today we tend to think of states as a subdivision of the federal government, but it is, in fact, the other way around.  The United States is a creation of the states to which they have delegated some of their powers.  In this context, the states have delegated to Congress the power to collect taxes for a limited number of things, common defense and general welfare of the union itself.  As James Madison put it, that is a general power.  The rest of Article I, Section 8 are the specific powers that make up the common defense and general welfare for the union.  So things like Foreign commerce, coining money, creating federal courts, establishing post roads, raising armies, etc. are the things Congress can collect taxes for since they are for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  They are not for the welfare of the states themselves or for the people of those states. " "If the General Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to do anything they could somehow identify as in the general welfare of the people or the states of the United States, then the vast majority of the Constitution, along with the idea of a limited federal government, would be effectively void.  Why create a list of powers if they are already included in the term “for the General Welfare”?  This is confirmed by James Madison in Federalist Papers #41: "It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. — Federalist Papers #41 If giving out UBI isn’t an enumerated power given to Congress under the Constitution, then by the 10th amendment, Congress giving out UBI is unconstitutional and thereby illegal. After all, the United States was founded on the belief of a limited federal government, hence why any power not delegated in the Constitution is reserved for the States unless specifically prohibited, in which case the People hold them. Indeed, even though UBI could be illegal, it wouldn't be the first. Article I, Section 8 has been one of the most hotly debated parts of the Constitution, and possibly even largely ignored. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both agreed that the general welfare clause referred to the power enumerated to Congress later on in the Constitution (to pay debts, to provide defense, etc), while Alexander Hamilton advocated for a much broader view, expressing that the clause granted Congress the power to spend, as long as it was for the general welfare of the federal government. Supreme Court Justice Story sided with the Hamiltonian view in United States V. Butler, writing that Section 8 granted Congress to spend as long as it was for the general welfare of the federal government. Regardless though, UBI would qualify as the general welfare of "the People" not the federal government. Of course, by those terms, most of the federal welfare programs are illegal too, but that's for another day. Read the flip side: Andrew Yang is Different From the Other Democratic Candidates Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved. Agree or disagree with something in this article? Share it in the comment section and see what others think. Read the full article

#ubi #universalincome

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

October Democratic Presidential Debate in Review

Good News: I get a day off work  while all of our high schoolers take the PSAT and can provide you with your Spark Notes updates of how the Democrats are doing. Bad news: There’s yet again too many candidates on the Democratic debate stage, with more yet to come. The moderators were our best yet in terms of persistently calling out question dodging, but with 12 candidates, even prominent figures at times faded into obscurity. While watching the debate, I’d hear, say, Bernie, speak and think “Oh, I forgot he was even here tonight! Where’s he been?” Is it too much to ask for a higher bar to entry? The debate environment was spicier this time, with Elizabeth Warren in the hot seat as candidates sought to eliminate her growing lead over Joe Biden and the others in the polls. Here are my continuing thoughts on each of the candidates latest debate performances, again ranked from best to worst for your convenience. 1) Pete Buttigieg This debate provided a perfect environment for Pete Buttigieg to shine. He isn’t a frontrunner, and the questions tonight didn’t highlight any of his weaknesses. This allowed him to emphasize his unique plans and criticizing other candidates, while insulating him from being attacked himself. Buttigieg this debate was the moderate who said whether to a sideshow like Beto or a top candidate like Elizabeth Warren, “how is this plan actually going to work?” and watched as they squirmed their way through. Now, normally I don’t like candidates who are all critique and no plan, but Pete Buttigieg managed to avoid that pitfall as well. He was critical of other candidates without being obnoxious or personal. He did propose some unique plans of his own, such as his 15-justice Supreme Court plan, and took a strong stand on foreign policy. He also took the ‘is this economically feasible” mantle from Biden by claiming it as a young person’s priority to see some change at least. Nothing but positive words for Pete Buttigieg. 2) Andrew Yang Well, I think I’m about to eat my hat. I never thought I’d say this, but I’ll give credit where credit is due: Andrew Yang had a great debate. Do I think he’s a serious candidate now? Well, no, but I can understand how it is that Andrew Yang in particular has stuck around in the race where all the other minor candidates and even a major candidate like Kirsten Gillibrand have dropped out. Andrew Yang only mentioned universal basic income (UBI) once tonight, and that was only when directly asked. This debate for him was about being forward thinking, and advancing a fundamentally different perspective than the other candidates. When other candidates want a wealth tax, Yang suggests a value-added tax (VAT). While other candidates debate about Facebook, Yang brings up screen time and its role on mental health. It’s like one of Andrew Yang’s advisors pulled him aside and was like “Hey Andy, people really like your ideas, but they think you can’t shut up about UBI. Can you give them the non-UBI Yang?” Andrew Yang took that advice, and it worked. While he’s still far from being close to any sort of top poller, I think  he’ll stick around, and we may see him in a non-presidential political role sometime soon. 3) Cory Booker While I’m not sure exactly how to typecast Cory Booker as a candidate, he pleasantly surprised me this time. Of course, we got “I live in an impoverished neighborhood,” but in this debate Booker also stood up for other groups, such as the poor and women, a group he’s not even a representative for. Booker’s early willingness to discuss abortion both as a women’s rights issue and a poverty issue revealed a candidate with a fundamental civility and an ability to transcend identity politics. His comments against simply sniping at frontrunners served him well in a debate where Harris and Warren got into a legitimate argument about something as inconsequential as banning Trump from Twitter. I’m not sure why I would vote Booker over my favorite frontrunner du jour, but he put his crazier ideas on hold this time and allowed people to think of him as a mix of moderate and progressive. I won’t forget my past low scores of Booker (or of Andrew Yang) but in fairness ot both of them, they had good performances.  4) Amy Klobuchar Amy Klobuchar is not pleased. We know because she fell back on the meanest of midwestern insults, “Your idea is not the only right one,” and the well known “I’m SOAR-y.” Jokes aside, Amy Klobuchar is kind of the less popular, less progressive version of Pete Buttigieg, but also a person willing to step into a frontrunner role should Biden falter. Klobuchar realized she had a chance because of the Hunter Biden scandal, and so this debate she refused to apologize for her moderate views. The problem, though, is that so many times, Klobuchar would make a strong point and then immediately pivot in an obvious way, losing good ideas and failing to make the impression she could. The worst example was when she was asked about abortion, and was the first candidate to mention codifying Roe v. Wade. She was the first one on the stage to suggest that, and I was impressed….until she messed it up. Rather than emphasize that, she rushed on to criticize Trump, letting other candidates get credit for an idea she suggested first. I like Klobuchar, and I could honestly see myself voting for her, but she has no chance unless Biden falls, and if she wants to stay in, she needs to watch those flubs. 5) Elizabeth Warren I’ll say it straight up: This was not a good debate for Elizabeth Warren. Warren is an impressive debater, and she managed to convert a center-lefter like me for a while with her inspiring language and perpetual preparedness. This debate, she lost a lot of that luster. Instead of the perfectly composed Warren we’ve come to know and love, we got a Warren who dodged a question about raising taxes over and over again. One dodge might have been fine, but when moderators pressed, Warren wouldn’t commit to a straight answer. This was made worse by Sanders’ frank admission that taxes will go up in his plan. For me, Warren’s whole appeal was her record and her experience. To see her waffle this way was painful. Warren still had her good moments--calling big businesses the umpire as well as the team really resonated--but she took a hit this time. She’s still at Number 5 because outside of healthcare, she did fine, but I don’t have the sort of glowing praise of a Warren debate performance that has become usual in these recaps.  6) Bernie Sanders It’s always so hard for me to review Bernie Sanders. I don’t like his style or some of his views, but I still want to avoid bias seeping into my analysis. To me, Sanders was just average this time, a solid Number 6.  There’s nothing new with Sanders, and his debate performances don’t inspire new voters to his side. Do I like that he was honest where Elizabeth Warren was evasive? Sure. Did he convince any voters at all who didn’t want a political revolution that we should have one? Not really. If Bernie’s going to win this cycle, it won’t be by his debating skills. It is a good thing he wasn’t on medical marijuana at the debate though (if there was ever going to be a debate inside joke, there it is).  7) Julian Castro I’m not really sure why Julian Castro is running for president. To be honest, I forgot he was even in the debate for most of the run time, and I was taking notes in order to write this article. Warren wants to tackle political corruption, Klobuchar and Buttigieg want to incrementally push liberal policy, Yang wants to bring us into the future, and Castro wants… what?  There’s nothing bad to say about Castro mainly because there’s nothing at all to be said about Castro. I will give him credit where credit is due for being the only candidate to completely destroy the mandatory buyback argument (Mandatory gun buyback means door to door collecting, leaving the door wide open for racist and/or aggressive cops to abuse citizens), and I appreciate his efforts to bring up police brutality in a debate where it was ignored. That’s really all I can say this time, though. Castro was useful in this debate, because someone had to explain how mandatory buybacks would work. He wasn’t really useful for much else.  8) Joe Biden This debate should have been in the bag for Joe Biden. I mean, Trump clearly thought he was the best candidate enough that broke the law in order to get political dirt on the guy,. Biden could have played that to his advantage. Instead, he bungled his greatest advantage. When asked about the contradiction between his son’s position in Ukraine and his supposedly neutral vice presidency, he refused to admit any sort of fault. Instead of admitting his son may have acted with poor judgment (as Hunter Biden admitted) but that Trump’s fault dwarfed any action his son could have taken by orders of magnitude, Biden pretty much refused to talk about the scandal at all. This scandal could have cast him as the best candidate to beat Donald Trump. It makes zero sense why he would clam up on it. Worse, Biden continued to make his signature verbal flubs in a debate where his age and health were under intense scrutiny. Sorry, Joe, saying “We’re able to end Roe vs….oops, not that, I mean protect Roe” is not a good look.  Let’s all take a small break here, before we get to the four worst candidates of the night. These candidates displayed far too many Trump-like similarities to be overlooked, so here we go…. 9) Kamala Harris Like Castro, I had such high hopes for Kamala Harris, and she squandered them. The last few debates, I criticized her for sniping at other candidates while refusing to respond to her own hypocrisy, and thus appearing petty. This debate, the issue she chose to go after Elizabeth Warren on was, weirdly, Trump’s Twitter account. Not to say this is a stupid issue, but, it’s a pretty dumb issue to pick a fight on. I legitimately don’t think a single voter changed their minds about voting for Kamala Harris because she took a strong, principled stand on banning Donald Trump from Twitter. Worse, she repeated her tactic of making strong use of executive orders. This, combined with her support for a mandatory gun buyback achieved through executive order is incredibly Trump-like in the sense that it erodes democratic norms and freedoms in a dangerous way. Using executive power to circumvent Congress, go into people’s houses, and take away their property opens the door for completely unchecked executive power. We are a nation where the president cannot make laws, and certainly should not plan on unilateral lawmaking without Congress. Harris’s willingness to prioritize her priorities over the public and to snipe personally at other candidates recalls Trump in a very unappealing way.  10) Tom Steyer Steyer somehow met the threshold for this debate and I’m really not sure how considering how low-profile he’s been in past debates and polls. Well, he’s here now, I guess. He’s not my favorite candidate for one big reason thus far. Tom Steyer loves to talk about how the government has failed, and that’s not what Democrats do. Describing the government as a failed experiment is a Republican talking point, and a pretty standard one at that. If the government has failed, how can one put in new programs or initiatives? Steyer is new on the scene, and I can’t see him getting support when his dominant message is one that basically endorses gutting the government.  11) Tulsi Gabbard While we’re on the subject of Republicans in Democrats’ clothing, let’s talk about Tulsi Gabbard. This debate really separated Tulsi from standard Democratic thought, and not in a flattering light. Donald Trump just abandoned the Kurds by supporting Turkey in Syria over Kurdish allies. All the candidates acknowledged this horrible decision, but only Gabbard argued that the United States should abandon the region altogether. Her Trump-style isolationism was thoroughly attacked by Buttigieg, himself a veteran, who reminded Gabbard that she was in effect encouraging ISIS. Unfortunately, foreign policy was not the only area where Gabbard presented herself as a conservative Democrat without the “get it done” appeal of someone like Klobuchar. On abortion, where every other candidate had fresh ideas and was infuriated at the conservative attacks on Roe v. Wade, Gabbard was much more restrained. Her attitude towards abortion seemed to be less focused on preserving the right and more focused on regulating it further, as evidenced by her proposal of banning third trimester abortions and keeping abortions “safe, legal, and rare.” Tulsi Gabbard’s debate last night identified her as far more socially conservative than I think is acceptable this election cycle, and in the current debate environment, it really stood out. 12) Beto O’Rourke Last but not least is Beto O’Rourke. Last debate, Beto branded himself as “the gun control guy.” I was excited to see him this time outline his policies for gun control and delve deeply into how he would reduce gun violence. Suffice it to say, we did not get that. When asked how mandatory buybacks would work in practice, Beto explained that people would turn in their AR-15s and AK-47s simply because “they follow the law.” Even when pressed that he had no idea who had the guns and no way to collect them other than door to door, Beto simply relied on good faith as a way to enforce a deeply unpopular policy. This sort of inability to discuss political logistics on what has become Beto’s signature policy was astoundingly bad debating, and I wasn’t the only one to see it. Immediately after Beto refused to discuss the logistics of the buyback, Pete Buttigieg criticized Beto for making empty promises. Beto’s response? Using emotional appeals about weapons of war in order to justify a policy he has no clue how to implement. Beto O’Rourke’s handling of his signature issue is a bit of a litmus test for the candidate himself: he’s all promises and emotional appeals with zero concrete policy. That’s why he’s on the bottom of this list.  We’ll see how the candidates fare  (and who’s still even on the stage) at the next debate in November! Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved. Agree or disagree with something in this article? Share it in the comment section and see what others think. Read the full article

#Democraticpresidentialdebate #ElizabethWarren #Ohio #PeteButtigieg

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

With Shep Smith Gone, Now The Inmates Will Run the Asylum

After 23 years, Shepard Smith anchored his last newscast and announced his sudden departure from Fox News, effective Friday. With him goes, really, the last claim that Fox News could honestly make to being "fair and balanced." While everyone else at the network seems more or less happy to toe the conservative line, Smith has been willing to be a more independent voice. Not only has Smith proven willing to challenge Donald Trump's huge propensity for dishonesty--he called some of Trump's responses at an early press conference "absolutely crazy--and, egad!, had the temerity to defend rival CNN when Trump attacked it as "fake news." “CNN’s reporting was not fake news,” Smith said at the time. “Its journalists follow the same standards to which other news organizations, including Fox News, adhere.” Moreover, at a time when Trump was falsely telling the nation that the Mueller Report completely exonerated him, Smith encouraged viewers to read the entire report for themselves. And now, with no real explanation, Smith is gone. One cannot but think network executives will slide one more Tucker Carlson clone into Shepard's old time slot, and the pretense of being Fox "News" will finally have come to a final, screeching end. Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved. Agree or disagree with something in this article? Share it in the comment section and see what others think. Read the full article

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

Why I Switched From Bernie to Yang

This isn't a switch I made lightly. I've been a strong Bernie supporter since 2016 and have been rooting for him until now, in 2019.

I supported Bernie Sanders for a myriad of reasons. The first and foremost being his support of Medicare for All. It is has been my personal belief that everyone deserves access to healthcare no matter what. This is a sort of personal issue for me because I have family members who have put off getting the care they need because they were worried about costs up until the last minute which unfortunately led to their demise.

But I didn't just support Bernie for his avid support of Medicare for All but also his consistency. It is rare nowadays to see politicians who have remained consistent during their careers. So seeing someone with a consistent message was enlightening.

He was also one of the first people to start turning down PAC money. As someone who one day hopes to run for office, I always worried about where I would get the money to be able to do so. People always say you have to be rich or suck up to the rich. But Bernie came along and showed that you can win without the support of the rich and start empowering people through a grassroots movement.

Yang has always been on my list of the top candidates who I supported to win the nomination, the first of those formerly being Bernie.

Yang also supports a lot of things that Bernie Sanders such as Medicare for All and getting money out of politics. But Yang's flagship proposal is called the Freedom Dividend. Essentially it's getting every American over the age of 18 $1,000 a month.

When I look at this I see a lot of problems that this addresses. It gets rid of financial insecurity, allows Americans more economic freedom, and helps address the fact that we're automating a lot of jobs.

In my opinion, it's better than Bernie's or Warren's plan to just guarantee every American a job.

He's also a candidate with more than 100 proposals. As someone who has been an advocate for reforming our education system, I took a look at his website and saw that he had a plan for that. A lot of the candidates running just say "forgive all student debt," and "make college free," and that's it. But Yang is not the candidate who just throwing money at the issues without addressing more of the root causes.

He has a comprehensive education plan that will empower more young adults, during their school time, with skills they need so that they can pursue more than just a college degree. As this has been something I have been advocating for, I'm glad someone actually has the plan to bring this into fruition.

Some of the points in his Education proposal were: Promote Vocational Education, Increase Teacher Salaries, Expand Selective Schools, and my favorite: Life-Skills Education in all high schools.

Then he has this policy called "Human-Centered Capitalism." I'm sure I won't do it justice by summarizing it here, so I would advise you to check it out here for yourself: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/human-capitalism/

I could go on and on about why I support each and every one of his proposals but then we could be here for a while. When I look at Yang, I see someone who is not only addressing the problem we're facing today but problems we will be facing in the future.

And there is a sentiment among Yang supporters that I agree with. Bernie was the guy we needed in 2016, but Yang is the guy of the future.

Originally Published: https://www.thebipartisanpress.com/opinion/why-i-switched-from-bernie-to-yang/

#politics #andrew yang #yang2020 #yanggang #bernie #2020

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

[thebipartisanpress-blog]

We Should Be Thanking Trump for Declaring a National Emergency

We Should Be Thanking Trump for Declaring a #National #Emergency

Trump wants his wall. He has shown through the record-breaking government shutdown that he isn’t going to take anything less than a wall.

Democrats have shown that they aren’t going to accept anything that will allow Trump to build his wall. Even the bill signed by Trump for future funding only provided ~1.4 billion for a border barrier. The new funding bill also placed restrictions on what…

View On WordPress

#national emergency #Wall