andym
andym's JournalThe big "Mo" in primaries has been the story in the primaries for years (right or wrongly)
That's why it was so predictable that Mayor Pete and Bernie emerged after Iowa, why Biden lost steam nationally (not as badly as Dean did in 2004, thankfully for Joe, who I think is a great candidate), why Bernie emerged as the front runner after NH, and why Bernie is going to be on a roll after Nevada (given the results we ware seeing), and why the second place finisher will call themselves the comeback "kid"-- probably Biden, and may get some serious boost.
"Mo"= momentum
President and VP acting as effective Co-Presidents?
In 1980, Ronald Reagan considered former President Ford as a potential effective co-President-- at one point the GOP convention entertained the idea of a VP who would be more like a President (Reagan/Ford).
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25085/reagan-and-ford-considered-co-presidency-1980
[I edited this post correcting the history]
The idea originally comes from the corporate world. For example, https://www.fastcompany.com/3068272/are-co-ceos-a-great-ideaA-or-a-total-disaster
If the Democratic convention does not have a first ballot nominee this year, should the possibility of having the Democratic nominee and VP act as co-Presidents if elected to win the election and placate various wings/party interests? Of course such a scenario would have to be carefully planned as to which duties belonged to whom, and one person would still technically be the President.
Understand that technically one person would be President and the other the Vice-President, it would just be that the Vice-Presdient's role would be expanded and the President's role decreased by mutual agreement. At any time the actual President could end such a deal technically.
What's been missing as a focus of the Democratic platform for years is catalyzing financial success
by directing providing more opportunities through the market system itself. How? By creating new programs (grants/loans/education) at the Small Business Administration directed to allowing everyday middle and working class citizens to become entrepreneurs for example (even as a sideline). Making this a major focus would be both traditional and progressive.
That said the availability of free/affordable college, or night school or trade school is consistent with this goal--and that does get some focus these days from at least Sanders and Warren.
The availability of really affordable healthcare is also important for upward mobility. How can one take risks needed to create small businesses for example, if one's family lacks needed healthcare? The ACA is only a beginning here--the good news is that most of our candidates support expanding government's role--which is smart, as Elizabeth Warren emphasizes many aspects of our economy work best with a market approach, others like health care would work better with a socialized approach.
Vote to censure?
After impeachment fails to remove Trump (or maybe before), should Senator Schumer request a vote to censure Trump for inappropriate behavior,which Senator Alexander acknowledged tonight. Would it garner a majority? That would take his "exoneration" away.
Not certain that the Senate will remove Trump-- even now
Look at these ridiculous headlines on CNN:
"GOP senator: "I don't necessarily agree" with Trump's actions"
Good that he doesn't "agree" with bribery.
"These GOP senators say they haven't watched the hearing"
McSally
Cotton
Alexander
etc.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-20-19/h_a60fc68a18c9988ee46317efb5c2bf5d
Conryn's full quote:
“I don’t necessarily agree with it. But you can disagree with the action and ... believe (that) this is not a reason to tear the country in two a year before the election.”
Disgusting.
Fortunately Trump is definitely getting impeached by the House with full justification.
With Detailed Pay-For Plan, Warren Touts Medicare for All as 'Bigger Than the Biggest Tax Cut' in US
"If you're not in the top 1%, Wall Street, or a big corporation — congratulations, you don't pay a penny more and you're fully covered."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/01/detailed-pay-plan-warren-touts-medicare-all-bigger-biggest-tax-cut-us-history#
Joe Queally
It won't be a burden. It will be a relief. And for the large majority of those living in the United States—a huge tax break.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a 'Paying for Medicare for All' proposal on Friday morning, laying out her detailed approach to financing a federal health care plan that would provide comprehensive coverage to all Americans by demanding the top 1% and corporations take the brunt of the costs while promising "not one penny" more in taxes for working-class and middle-class families.
"No middle class tax increases," Warren said of her plan in a detailed blog post as she vowed to put "$11 trillion in household expenses back in the pockets" of U.S. families. That figure, she said, is "substantially larger than the largest tax cut" in the nation's history......
"There's a reason the American people support [Medicare for All]. It's because when it comes to the cost of health care, we are in the middle of a full-blown crisis."
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren
------------------
This is how MFA becomes a winning issue-- greater cost savings than the biggest tax in history. Lets hope all the candidates jump on the bandwagon.
Adam Schiff: It will be said of House Republicans....
It will be said of House Republicans,
When they found they lacked the courage to confront the most dangerous and unethical president in American history,
They consoled themselves by attacking those who did.
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1186417580652814337
It's possible to avoid 3 trillion/year "taxes" for M4A
I'm surprised that it's been talked about so little. I suspect Elizabeth Warren will propose something like this.
Right now a plurality (49%) of the private health insurance premiums are paid by employers to private (group) plans. Having employers pay will mean they get a big new tax, but individuals won't.
It would be quite possible to shift their obligation to a M4A program.
It is the co-pays that are the question.
Personal insurance is only a small percentage of the total market. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are already government run.
The numbers from the Kaiser Foundation:
49% employer covered (group)
7% non-group (eg Obamacare)
21% Medicaid
14% Medicare
1% Other public (like VA)
9% uninsured
So the key is covering the uninsured and the non-group individuals==~16% which will be much less than the 3 trillion/year bill.
This will be similar to the contribution employers make to social security for each employee.
Does Trump's transcript/memo basically demonstrate a direct violation of federal law?
5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself...
In the Ukraine memo/transcript first Trump asks for some (personal) favors, Trump then says “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great...”
Seems to be a clear violation of the law. No quid pro quo required.
Impeachment is a formality
Trump already confessed to the crime on the memo/transcript of the call with the Ukrainian prime minister that he released-- his impeachment is a formality. Asking a foreign leader for a private favor to "get" a political opponent. Trump had no business asking, he's not the AG investigating crimes, and in a foreign country (there is no possible national interest here)-- so he is clearly guilty, and presumably that's why Nancy Pelosi proceeded with the inquiry.
Using the office of the President for private purposes is a high crime clearly understood by the founders of the nation.
But did he violate any actual law? Yes indeed:
LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Title 5. Administrative Personnel Chapter XVI. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Subchapter B. GOVERNMENT ETHICS Part 2635. STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH Subpart G. Misuse of Position Section 2635.702. Use of public office for private gain.
(a)Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 26, 2003, 10:31 PMNumber of posts: 5,443
