From one of the largest public corruption cases in state history to a new airline entering the Hawaii market, these are the top five Hawaii news stories of 2019:
Kealoha corruption case carries over into 2020
TMT construction delayed by protesters
21 people perish in 3 aircraft crashes
Pali Highway closed for almost entire year
Southwest expands airline service into Hawaii market
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Greta Thunberg named Time Person of the Year
Greta Thunberg was named Time magazine's 2019 Person of the Year. She is youngest figure to receive the distinction in its 92-year history.
"She became the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet this year, coming from essentially nowhere to lead a worldwide movement," Time Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal said at the announcement on Wednesday. "She embodies youth activism."
The 16-year-old Swedish climate activist has become an iconic face in the fight to save the planet from climate change. Last year, she began spending her Fridays protesting by herself outside the Swedish parliament, and that effort grew to her leading a host of student-led climate strikes involving millions of people all around the world.
"She became the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet this year, coming from essentially nowhere to lead a worldwide movement," Time Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal said at the announcement on Wednesday. "She embodies youth activism."
The 16-year-old Swedish climate activist has become an iconic face in the fight to save the planet from climate change. Last year, she began spending her Fridays protesting by herself outside the Swedish parliament, and that effort grew to her leading a host of student-led climate strikes involving millions of people all around the world.
Monday, December 09, 2019
Medicare for all?
[12/9/19 Star-Advertiser]
Should U.S. adopt 'Medicare for All'?
Yes by Robert Weissman
By almost every relevant metric, we do the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries.
We are the only country to permit tens of millions to go uninsured, far more people in the United States report skipping care because of cost issues than other countries, our infant mortality rate is atrocious and our life expectancy trails other nations and is actually dropping.
There’s no excuse for any of this in such a rich nation. We can solve all of these problems — by expanding coverage, eliminating underinsurance and co-pays and improving health care and health outcomes — with “Medicare for All.”
Medicare for All would cover everyone, and end the outrage of a system that permits 27 million Americans to go uninsured.
No by Chris Talgo
For decades, the left has advocated for nationalizing the country's health-care system under a Medicare-for-all type of plan. Despite their rhetoric, however, this scheme would do much more harm than good.
M4A is completely unaffordable and would push the United States even further into the debt abyss. According to a study by the Mercatus Center, it "would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022-2031)." The United States is already more than $23 trillion in debt; adding an extra $30 trillion in federal spending over the next decade would cause economic Armageddon.
[12/9/19] Misinformation about Medicare for All
[10/16/19] Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at Tuesday night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag — a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.
The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.
In recent history, only during the height of World War II has the federal government tried to increase taxes, as a share of the economy, as fast as would be required to offset the cost of a single-payer plan, federal figures show. There are “no analogous peacetime tax increases,” says Leonard Burman, a public-administration professor at Syracuse University and a former top tax official in both the Bill Clinton administration and at the CBO. Raising that much more tax revenue “is plausible in the sense that it is theoretically possible,” Burman told me. “But the revolution that would come along with it would get in the way.”
At the debate, as throughout the campaign, Warren refused to provide any specifics about how she would fund a single-payer plan. Instead, whether questioned by moderators or challenged by other candidates, she recycled variants on the same talking points she has used in venues from campaign town halls to a recent appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Rather than explaining what revenue she would raise to fund the plan, Warren insisted that under single payer, middle-income families would save more money with the elimination of health-care premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, regardless of any taxes imposed. “Costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down,” she said at the debate.
That calculation itself is disputed. And it begs the question: Even if families would eventually save under a single-payer system, a President Warren would still need to identify a politically plausible funding plan to pass such a program through Congress. By all indications, that looms as an extremely daunting project.
[6/5/10] Bob Jones' choice as the best health care insurance system for America
[4/21/19] Hospitals would get less from Medicare for all
[4/11/19] Krugman on Medicare for All (and the Green New Deal)
[2/27/19] House Democrats introduce Medicare-for-all bill
[2/24/19] WASHINGTON — "Medicare-for-all" can mean different things to different people.
Should U.S. adopt 'Medicare for All'?
Yes by Robert Weissman
By almost every relevant metric, we do the worst or nearly the worst among all rich countries.
We are the only country to permit tens of millions to go uninsured, far more people in the United States report skipping care because of cost issues than other countries, our infant mortality rate is atrocious and our life expectancy trails other nations and is actually dropping.
There’s no excuse for any of this in such a rich nation. We can solve all of these problems — by expanding coverage, eliminating underinsurance and co-pays and improving health care and health outcomes — with “Medicare for All.”
Medicare for All would cover everyone, and end the outrage of a system that permits 27 million Americans to go uninsured.
No by Chris Talgo
For decades, the left has advocated for nationalizing the country's health-care system under a Medicare-for-all type of plan. Despite their rhetoric, however, this scheme would do much more harm than good.
M4A is completely unaffordable and would push the United States even further into the debt abyss. According to a study by the Mercatus Center, it "would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022-2031)." The United States is already more than $23 trillion in debt; adding an extra $30 trillion in federal spending over the next decade would cause economic Armageddon.
[12/9/19] Misinformation about Medicare for All
[10/16/19] Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at Tuesday night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag — a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.
The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.
In recent history, only during the height of World War II has the federal government tried to increase taxes, as a share of the economy, as fast as would be required to offset the cost of a single-payer plan, federal figures show. There are “no analogous peacetime tax increases,” says Leonard Burman, a public-administration professor at Syracuse University and a former top tax official in both the Bill Clinton administration and at the CBO. Raising that much more tax revenue “is plausible in the sense that it is theoretically possible,” Burman told me. “But the revolution that would come along with it would get in the way.”
At the debate, as throughout the campaign, Warren refused to provide any specifics about how she would fund a single-payer plan. Instead, whether questioned by moderators or challenged by other candidates, she recycled variants on the same talking points she has used in venues from campaign town halls to a recent appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Rather than explaining what revenue she would raise to fund the plan, Warren insisted that under single payer, middle-income families would save more money with the elimination of health-care premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, regardless of any taxes imposed. “Costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard-working middle-class families, costs will go down,” she said at the debate.
That calculation itself is disputed. And it begs the question: Even if families would eventually save under a single-payer system, a President Warren would still need to identify a politically plausible funding plan to pass such a program through Congress. By all indications, that looms as an extremely daunting project.
[6/5/10] Bob Jones' choice as the best health care insurance system for America
[4/21/19] Hospitals would get less from Medicare for all
[4/11/19] Krugman on Medicare for All (and the Green New Deal)
[2/27/19] House Democrats introduce Medicare-for-all bill
[2/24/19] WASHINGTON — "Medicare-for-all" can mean different things to different people.
For
some, it's a single government-run health insurance plan for the whole
country. To others, it's giving consumers a choice to buy into Medicare
or keep their private insurance.
But whatever the form, the proposals are built on the premise that health insurance should be a guaranteed right.
Sen.
Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent seeking the 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination, launched the debate over "Medicare-for-all."
Now, other Democratic presidential hopefuls are staking out their
positions on the concept, which President Donald Trump decries as
socialism.
But government-backed
insurance is already part of daily life, covering more than 130 million
Americans. A new report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services projects that federal, state and local governments will be
paying nearly half the nation's health care tab by 2027.
A primer on Medicare and Medicare-inspired plans that have become a central focus for Democrats:
TRADITIONAL MEDICARE
Enacted
more than 50 years ago to cover people age 65 and older, Medicare
remains the government's flagship health care program. About 60 million
are enrolled, including some 9 million disabled people.
Benefits
include coverage for hospitalization, doctors' services, prescription
drugs, tests and imaging, rehab, medical equipment, and hospice. But
Medicare does not cover long-term care, routine dental care, hearing
aids or eyeglasses.
Medicare has significant copayments, and many beneficiaries purchase supplemental private insurance to protect against costs.
With
baby boomers aging into Medicare, taxes are not enough to cover future
costs. In just seven years — 2026— it's projected that the program's
giant trust fund for inpatient care won't have enough to cover medical
bills due.
'MEDICARE-FOR-ALL'
Two
bills, one by Sanders and another from House Democrats, would set up a
government-run health insurance plan for the entire country. It's also
called "single-payer" because a federal agency would pay the bills. Or
just "M4A."
Government coverage would replace private health insurance, including employer-sponsored plans that insure about 160 million people. Benefits for seniors would be improved beyond what Medicare now offers, with coverage for dental, vision and hearing aids. The House bill includes a new long-term care program.
Patients
would not have to pay premiums or deductibles, and cost-sharing would be
eliminated or greatly reduced. But taxes would go up significantly.
Costs would be limited through government-set payment rates across the
health care system.
Neither proposal
has a cost analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, but several
independent studies have estimated that government spending on health
care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to
$35 trillion or more over a 10-year period.
Democratic
presidential hopefuls Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, and Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts are co-sponsors of the Sanders' plan. So is
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, who is considering a run.
Some co-sponsors also support less ambitious proposals to advance the goal of coverage for all.
MEDICARE BUY-IN
Several
Democratic lawmakers have unveiled plans that would let older adults
buy into Medicare. The idea would build on the Obama-era Affordable Care
Act because ACA subsidies would be available to help pay premiums for
those who qualify.
Sen. Sherrod
Brown, D-Ohio, who is weighing a presidential campaign, has proposed
giving people between the ages of 50 and 64 the option of buying into
Medicare. His "Medicare at 50" bill was co-authored by Sens. Debbie
Stabenow, D-Mich., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.
While
that's not "Medicare-for-all," it would provide a backstop for a
demographic group whose members can suddenly find themselves uninsured
due to layoffs, plant closings, or involuntary retirement.
Presidential
hopefuls Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, are co-sponsors. So is Merkley.
And the list includes Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who's running for the
Democratic nomination and is not a co-sponsor of the Sanders bill.
MEDICARE PUBLIC OPTION
Legislation
from Merkley would allow people of any age to buy into a new public
plan modeled on Medicare. Employers would have the option of offering it
to workers. Financial assistance with premiums would be available
through the Affordable Care Act.
The
"Choose Medicare" bill echoes an earlier "public option" proposal for
government-run insurance to compete with private coverage, which
Democrats ultimately backed away from during the Obama years after
strong industry opposition.
The plan
would also improve benefits under traditional Medicare, setting a limit
on seniors' cost-sharing. And it would authorize Medicare to negotiate
drug prices.
Sens. Booker, Gillibrand and Harris are co-sponsors.
MEDICAID BUY-IN
Some
Democrats are proposing legislation that would allow states to open
their Medicaid programs up to people willing to pay premiums.
Although
Medicaid started out as a federal-state collaboration to cover the
poor, it now insures about 75 million people, making it the largest and
most diverse government health program.
The Medicaid buy-in idea builds on the Obama-era expansion of that program to low-income adults, adopted by most states.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Turkey attacks Syria
[10/24/19] WASHINGTON — President Trump announced on Wednesday that Turkey had agreed to a permanent cease-fire in northeast Syria, claiming that the United States was bringing peace to the region after decades of failed efforts.
Pushing back against criticism that he upended American policy in the Middle East by enabling a Turkish offensive against Kurdish fighters that has empowered Russia and Iran, the president insisted that his approach had defused a historically dangerous situation even as he washed his hands of it.
“Turkey, Syria and all forms of the Kurds have been fighting for centuries,” Mr. Trump said from the Diplomatic Room at the White House. “We have done them a great service and we’ve done a great job for all of them. And now, we’re getting out.”
“Let someone else fight over this long bloodstained sand,” he added.
By all but ending America’s modest troop presence in northeast Syria, Mr. Trump effectively surrendered Washington’s influence in territory that three weeks ago was essentially a United States protectorate to Russia, Iran and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
With threats of economic sanctions and diplomatic demands, the Trump administration has scrambled to end the fighting between Turkish forces and Kurdish fighters that ensued, and that last week sent Vice President Mike Pence to Ankara to negotiate a pause in the fighting.
Crucial to the cease-fire was the agreement struck a day earlier between Turkey and Russia to jointly police a border zone in northern Syria and rid it of Kurdish fighters. But Mr. Trump claimed full credit.
[10/17/19] After an hours-long meeting, Vice President Mike Pence announced on Thursday afternoon that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire in northern Syria.
The vice president said Turkey would pause its invasion for 120 hours in order to allow Kurdish allies to withdraw from the safe zone of the border region. Pence said the leaders committed to defeating ISIS and renewed an agreement to "coordinate efforts on detention facilities and internally displaced persons in formerly ISIS-controlled areas."
The U.S. agreed not to put new sanctions in place and to end the current sanctions if the ceasefire holds.
[10/16/19] WASHINGTON >> Washing his hands of Syria, President Donald Trump declared today the U.S. has no stake in defending the Kurdish fighters who died by the thousands as America’s partners against IS extremists.
Hours later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats walked out of a meeting at the White House, accusing him of having a “meltdown,” calling her a “third-rate politician” and having no plan to deal with a potentially revived Islamic State group.
Condemnation of Trump’s stance on Turkey, Syria and the Kurds was quick and severe during the day, not only from Democrats but from Republicans who have been staunch supporters on virtually all issues.
The House, bitterly divided over the Trump impeachment inquiry, banded together for an overwhelming 354-60 denunciation of the U.S. troop withdrawal. Many lawmakers expressed worry that it may lead to revival of IS as well as Russian presence and influence in the area — in addition to the slaughter of many Kurds.
At the White House, Trump said the U.S. has no business in the region — and not to worry about the Kurdish fighters.
“They know how to fight,” he said. “And by the way, they’re no angels.”
[10/14/19] President Donald Trump on Monday said he would authorize sanctions against Turkish officials, stop negotiating with Turkey on a $100 billion trade deal, and boost tariffs on the country’s steel to 50 percent over Ankara’s incursion into northeast Syria.
Turkey launched the cross-border assault on Kurdish YPG militia on Wednesday after Trump withdrew some U.S. troops from the region, drawing sharp criticism from fellow Republicans who accused him abandoning allies who fought against Islamic State.
“I am fully prepared to swiftly destroy Turkey’s economy if Turkish leaders continue down this dangerous and destructive path,” Trump said.
[10/13/19] AKCAKALE, Turkey (AP) — Syria’s Kurds said Syrian government forces agreed Sunday to help them fend off Turkey’s invasion — a major shift in alliances that came after President Donald Trump ordered all U.S. troops withdrawn from the northern border area amid the rapidly deepening chaos.
The shift could lead to clashes between Turkey and Syria and raises the specter of a resurgent Islamic State group as the U.S. relinquishes any remaining influence in northern Syria to President Bashar Assad and his chief backer, Russia.
Adding to the turmoil Sunday, hundreds of Islamic State families and supporters escaped from a holding camp in Syria amid the fighting between Turkish forces and the Kurds.
The fast-deteriorating situation was set in motion last week, when Trump ordered U.S. troops in northern Syria to step aside, clearing the way for an attack by Turkey, which regards the Kurds as terrorists. Since 2014, the Kurds have fought alongside the U.S. in defeating the Islamic State in Syria, and Trump’s move was decried at home and abroad as a betrayal of an ally.
[10/9/19] AKCAKALE, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies attacked Kurdish militia in northeast Syria on Wednesday, pounding them with air strikes and artillery before launching a cross-border ground operation that could transform an eight-year-old war.
The assault began days after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled American troops out of the way, prompting denunciations from senior members of his own Republican Party who say he abandoned the Kurds, loyal allies of Washington.
The assault on the Kurds - for years Washington’s main allies on the ground in Syria - is potentially one of the biggest shifts in years in an eight-year war that has drawn in global and regional powers. The Kurds played a leading role in capturing territory from Islamic State, and now hold the largest swathe of Syria outside of Bashar al-Assad’s government’s hands.
Trump’s decision to pull forces out of the way was denounced by some Kurds as a “stab in the back”.
Trump called the Turkish assault a “bad idea” and said he did not endorse it. He expected Turkey to protect civilians and religious minorities and prevent a humanitarian crisis, he said.
But one of Trump’s closest allies, Senator Lindsey Graham, said failing to support the Kurds would be “the biggest mistake of his presidency”.
Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican hawk, said: “The U.S. is abandoning our ally the Kurds, who fought ISIS (Islamic State) on the ground and helped protect the U.S. homeland. This decision aids America’s adversaries, Russia, Iran, and Turkey, and paves the way for a resurgence of ISIS.”
Pushing back against criticism that he upended American policy in the Middle East by enabling a Turkish offensive against Kurdish fighters that has empowered Russia and Iran, the president insisted that his approach had defused a historically dangerous situation even as he washed his hands of it.
“Turkey, Syria and all forms of the Kurds have been fighting for centuries,” Mr. Trump said from the Diplomatic Room at the White House. “We have done them a great service and we’ve done a great job for all of them. And now, we’re getting out.”
“Let someone else fight over this long bloodstained sand,” he added.
By all but ending America’s modest troop presence in northeast Syria, Mr. Trump effectively surrendered Washington’s influence in territory that three weeks ago was essentially a United States protectorate to Russia, Iran and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
With threats of economic sanctions and diplomatic demands, the Trump administration has scrambled to end the fighting between Turkish forces and Kurdish fighters that ensued, and that last week sent Vice President Mike Pence to Ankara to negotiate a pause in the fighting.
Crucial to the cease-fire was the agreement struck a day earlier between Turkey and Russia to jointly police a border zone in northern Syria and rid it of Kurdish fighters. But Mr. Trump claimed full credit.
[10/17/19] After an hours-long meeting, Vice President Mike Pence announced on Thursday afternoon that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire in northern Syria.
The vice president said Turkey would pause its invasion for 120 hours in order to allow Kurdish allies to withdraw from the safe zone of the border region. Pence said the leaders committed to defeating ISIS and renewed an agreement to "coordinate efforts on detention facilities and internally displaced persons in formerly ISIS-controlled areas."
The U.S. agreed not to put new sanctions in place and to end the current sanctions if the ceasefire holds.
[10/16/19] WASHINGTON >> Washing his hands of Syria, President Donald Trump declared today the U.S. has no stake in defending the Kurdish fighters who died by the thousands as America’s partners against IS extremists.
Hours later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats walked out of a meeting at the White House, accusing him of having a “meltdown,” calling her a “third-rate politician” and having no plan to deal with a potentially revived Islamic State group.
Condemnation of Trump’s stance on Turkey, Syria and the Kurds was quick and severe during the day, not only from Democrats but from Republicans who have been staunch supporters on virtually all issues.
The House, bitterly divided over the Trump impeachment inquiry, banded together for an overwhelming 354-60 denunciation of the U.S. troop withdrawal. Many lawmakers expressed worry that it may lead to revival of IS as well as Russian presence and influence in the area — in addition to the slaughter of many Kurds.
At the White House, Trump said the U.S. has no business in the region — and not to worry about the Kurdish fighters.
“They know how to fight,” he said. “And by the way, they’re no angels.”
[10/14/19] President Donald Trump on Monday said he would authorize sanctions against Turkish officials, stop negotiating with Turkey on a $100 billion trade deal, and boost tariffs on the country’s steel to 50 percent over Ankara’s incursion into northeast Syria.
Turkey launched the cross-border assault on Kurdish YPG militia on Wednesday after Trump withdrew some U.S. troops from the region, drawing sharp criticism from fellow Republicans who accused him abandoning allies who fought against Islamic State.
“I am fully prepared to swiftly destroy Turkey’s economy if Turkish leaders continue down this dangerous and destructive path,” Trump said.
[10/13/19] AKCAKALE, Turkey (AP) — Syria’s Kurds said Syrian government forces agreed Sunday to help them fend off Turkey’s invasion — a major shift in alliances that came after President Donald Trump ordered all U.S. troops withdrawn from the northern border area amid the rapidly deepening chaos.
The shift could lead to clashes between Turkey and Syria and raises the specter of a resurgent Islamic State group as the U.S. relinquishes any remaining influence in northern Syria to President Bashar Assad and his chief backer, Russia.
Adding to the turmoil Sunday, hundreds of Islamic State families and supporters escaped from a holding camp in Syria amid the fighting between Turkish forces and the Kurds.
The fast-deteriorating situation was set in motion last week, when Trump ordered U.S. troops in northern Syria to step aside, clearing the way for an attack by Turkey, which regards the Kurds as terrorists. Since 2014, the Kurds have fought alongside the U.S. in defeating the Islamic State in Syria, and Trump’s move was decried at home and abroad as a betrayal of an ally.
[10/9/19] AKCAKALE, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies attacked Kurdish militia in northeast Syria on Wednesday, pounding them with air strikes and artillery before launching a cross-border ground operation that could transform an eight-year-old war.
The assault began days after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled American troops out of the way, prompting denunciations from senior members of his own Republican Party who say he abandoned the Kurds, loyal allies of Washington.
The assault on the Kurds - for years Washington’s main allies on the ground in Syria - is potentially one of the biggest shifts in years in an eight-year war that has drawn in global and regional powers. The Kurds played a leading role in capturing territory from Islamic State, and now hold the largest swathe of Syria outside of Bashar al-Assad’s government’s hands.
Trump’s decision to pull forces out of the way was denounced by some Kurds as a “stab in the back”.
Trump called the Turkish assault a “bad idea” and said he did not endorse it. He expected Turkey to protect civilians and religious minorities and prevent a humanitarian crisis, he said.
But one of Trump’s closest allies, Senator Lindsey Graham, said failing to support the Kurds would be “the biggest mistake of his presidency”.
Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican hawk, said: “The U.S. is abandoning our ally the Kurds, who fought ISIS (Islamic State) on the ground and helped protect the U.S. homeland. This decision aids America’s adversaries, Russia, Iran, and Turkey, and paves the way for a resurgence of ISIS.”
how's the economy?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The performance of the U.S. economy has been a solid clue to the outcome of past presidential elections.
The upcoming campaign may be different, according to results of a new “big data” survey of consumers showing that views about the economy have split along partisan lines, associated with whether an individual approves or disapproves of President Donald Trump, watches Fox News or MSNBC, or identifies as conservative or liberal.
The online poll, by data firm Morning Consult, asks the same five core questions as the University of Michigan’s well-known consumer sentiment survey, and for nearly two years has been collecting about 210,000 responses a month, compared to 500 or so each month for the Michigan survey.
It also includes questions about the respondents’ political leanings, and an initial set of results released Wednesday showed a stark division that may make it hard to interpret how the economy’s performance will play out in 2020 presidential voting.
American voters face the same set of economic facts, from low unemployment to the risks from a trade war, but the survey’s index of overall sentiment - at 108 just above the 100 line that separates positive from negative impressions of the economic outlook - masked the huge divide between those who approve of Trump, whose views measured a far rosier 136, and those who disapprove of the president, with a reading of 88.
The results, weighted by factors like age, race and sex, to be nationally representative, were similarly skewed based on media consumption. Viewers of conservative-leaning Fox News registered 139 for current sentiment about the economy; viewers of MSNBC, an outlet often critical of Trump, registered 89. Readers of the New York Times sat in the middle at 107, near those who get their news from Facebook (110) and Twitter (112).
The upcoming campaign may be different, according to results of a new “big data” survey of consumers showing that views about the economy have split along partisan lines, associated with whether an individual approves or disapproves of President Donald Trump, watches Fox News or MSNBC, or identifies as conservative or liberal.
The online poll, by data firm Morning Consult, asks the same five core questions as the University of Michigan’s well-known consumer sentiment survey, and for nearly two years has been collecting about 210,000 responses a month, compared to 500 or so each month for the Michigan survey.
It also includes questions about the respondents’ political leanings, and an initial set of results released Wednesday showed a stark division that may make it hard to interpret how the economy’s performance will play out in 2020 presidential voting.
American voters face the same set of economic facts, from low unemployment to the risks from a trade war, but the survey’s index of overall sentiment - at 108 just above the 100 line that separates positive from negative impressions of the economic outlook - masked the huge divide between those who approve of Trump, whose views measured a far rosier 136, and those who disapprove of the president, with a reading of 88.
The results, weighted by factors like age, race and sex, to be nationally representative, were similarly skewed based on media consumption. Viewers of conservative-leaning Fox News registered 139 for current sentiment about the economy; viewers of MSNBC, an outlet often critical of Trump, registered 89. Readers of the New York Times sat in the middle at 107, near those who get their news from Facebook (110) and Twitter (112).
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Trump's tax returns show inconsistencies
[10/16/19] Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”
Wednesday, October 09, 2019
President Elizabeth Warren: remaking capitalism
For the past generation, Democratic presidential candidates have mostly talked of redistributing the rewards of American capitalism while leaving its basic structure intact.
Elizabeth Warren promises to break that mold. The Massachusetts senator, who has moved to the front ranks of the field, talks of remaking capitalism from the ground up. As president, she would drastically cut back the size and influence of big business, push private companies from parts of the economy altogether, and shift power to government and to labor.
Businesses are meeting the rising prospect of a Warren presidency with a combination of concern, skepticism and, for a few, a sense of opportunity.
Companies are used to Democrats criticizing business, whether John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, for outsourcing jobs or President Obama, for causing the financial crisis. But no front-runner has issued so comprehensive an indictment as Ms. Warren, who has blamed business for, among other things stagnant wages, high student debt, global warming, gun violence, the prison population, high medical bills, and the shortage of affordable housing and child care.
And no front-runner has proposed such sweeping changes to how businesses operate. A President Warren would seek to regulate big tech companies as utilities, break up big banks and split them from securities dealers, ban fracking of oil and gas, phase out carbon emission from buildings, cars and power plants in eight to 15 years, require big companies to appoint worker representatives to at least 40% of board seats, ban private health insurance and, effectively, for-profit college, and negotiate down drug prices.
Her policies would directly affect companies with sales of nearly $5 trillion and stock-market value of more than $8 trillion, a third of the S&P 500 stock index. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations would rise sharply.
That, in turn, has led to nervousness among some executives. “She could create an environment where it is next to impossible to function” for health insurers, said Vicky Gregg, a former chief executive of BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee and now partner in a private-equity firm. “There’s no question that keeps you up at night if you’re a health-plan executive.”
Others, particularly in Silicon Valley, are enthusiastic supporters of Ms. Warren despite, or for some because of, her plans to break up big tech companies. Some economists predict her plans could boost growth and that business warnings about the harm of her policies should be taken with a grain of salt.
“Businesses have cried wolf far too many times for that to be taken at face value during a presidential campaign,” said Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who served under Mr. Obama.
When Ms. Warren first proposed companies should be responsible to all stakeholders, not just shareholders, some called it socialism, he noted. A year later, “the Business Roundtable announced something very much in the spirit of what Elizabeth Warren said.”
Some executives express the hope that her plans are so disruptive she would need to water them down significantly. A fracking ban “would decimate our industry,” said Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., one of the largest U.S. shale companies. “We understand candidates for the presidential nomination often run to the extremes during the campaign and moderate their positions once they are responsible for governing.”
Still, there is no sign of such moderation from Ms. Warren, and political analysts warn not to expect any: Presidential candidates of late, including Donald Trump, have governed much as they campaigned.
By arguing that the growth of corporate power over the last 35 years is at the root of many problems in the U.S., she would make the place of business in society a central theme of the election.
Ms. Warren, in laying out her case, has said she is “a capitalist to my bones,” whereas fellow candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist.”
“I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity,” Ms. Warren said on CNBC last year. “But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.”
Supporters say her proposals wouldn’t displace capitalism but align it with the what prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s and still does in many other Western countries.
Ms. Warren would impose a 2% to 3% tax on wealth above $50 million, repeal President Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, impose a new 7% tax on big company profits and a 14.8% tax on incomes above $250,000 to finance expanded Social Security benefits.
Many economists say high tax rates discourage investment and work, and thus slow economic growth. Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley who advised Ms. Warren on the wealth tax, said it depends on how the money is spent. “If it’s spent on child care, and that increases women’s labor force participation, then you get an increase in income for part of the population.” He noted the wealthy paid 91% rates on incomes and 77% on estates in the 1950s and 1960s and “there’s no evidence it killed innovation or growth.”
Mark Zandi, economist at Moody’s Analytics, wrote in a series of reports that the taxes required to pay for Ms. Warren’s proposals would damp investment and work by the wealthy, but that effect would also be more than offset by increased spending by lower-income people, such as child-care workers.
Supporters note almost every advanced capitalist economy has single-payer health care, and in Germany, big companies have worker representatives on their boards. “It has not killed German capitalism,” said Mr. Zucman. “They have some pretty strong corporations.”
If each Warren proposal has some precedent in U.S. or foreign experience, in its totality her program would be a sharp break with capitalism as American companies know it.
A senior executive at a Washington-based trade group who works closely with top CEOs said of the distinction often drawn between Ms. Warren’s capitalism and Mr. Sanders’ socialism: “I don’t know if business is buying that distinction. From a policy standpoint there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of difference.” (Mr. Sanders sought the nomination in 2016 but unlike Ms. Warren now, never led the Real Clear Politics polling average or online prediction markets.)
A common refrain among business is that Ms. Warren seems to thrive on attacking them, indeed considers it part of her brand. She retweets articles about their criticism with: “I approve this message.”
The rancor is most acute among financiers Ms. Warren regularly casts as villains, even after a decade of postcrisis reforms that have made banks safer, less profitable and their treatment of consumers more tightly regulated. She called her capital-gains-tax proposal, introduced this summer, the Stop Wall Street Looting Act. Some still stew over her blocking investment banker Antonio Weiss from a Treasury job under Mr. Obama in 2015, despite his Democratic credentials, because he worked on deals that moved some companies’ domiciles abroad.
Few, however, will say so publicly, fearful of the damage she can do to their companies and share prices. Two weeks ago, she knocked 3% off the shares of the two big bond-rating agencies by challenging the impartiality of their ratings in a letter to regulators. When the chief executive of UnitedHealth Group Inc., parent of the country’s largest health insurer, briefly addressed the impact of Medicare for All in an earnings call, it was blamed for driving down the entire sector’s share prices.
UnitedHealth says it “welcomes the renewed national discussion on how to achieve universal coverage.”
In July, Facebook Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, referring to Ms. Warren’s plan to break up Facebook, said in remarks to employees reported by The Verge, a technology-news site: “If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge,” adding that “at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”
Ms. Warren shot back on Twitter that Facebook has “a lot of power—and [faces] little competition or accountability.”
Last week, Mr. Zuckerberg held another employee Q&A, which was publicly livestreamed. Asked about Ms. Warren’s plans and how Facebook’s platform would remain unbiased toward her, he joked he would “try not to antagonize her further,” then added employees needed to be neutral and empathetic to a wide range of opinions. “The value that we care about is giving people a voice and allowing people to express themselves,” he said. “We obviously try not to be biased.”
The consensus among business leaders is that few of Ms. Warren’s big initiatives will be enacted, because she will tack toward the center if she secures the nomination or the White House, or because Congress and the courts won’t let her. An antitrust lawsuit against a big tech company would take a decade or longer and probably fail, Barclays analysts said in a July note.
Medicare for All “would destroy” private insurers, said Matthew Borsch, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets. But, he said, an executive of a major health insurer, in a recent private meeting, put the odds of such a plan passing at “10,000 to one.”
Many business leaders have no problem with Ms. Warren’s goals, but do with the speed and means by which she means to reach them. Minneapolis-based electric utility Xcel Energy, which serves eight states, in December pledged to slash its carbon emissions 80% by 2030 and 100% 2050. That’s not good enough for Ms. Warren, who has targeted 100% by 2035.
The problem, said CEO Ben Fowke, is that getting from 80% to 100% depends on as-yet-unproven advances in storage, carbon capture, and nuclear and hydrogen generation. Ms. Warren “would set up some unrealistic expectations.”
Automobile manufacturers are rolling out electric models, but none has yet found a way to make such a car affordable to mainstream consumers and profitable. “The current market is 1% electric vehicles. All of those, 100%, are sold at a loss. The industry isn’t here as a non-profit,” said one auto executive. The economics will improve, yet Ms. Warren’s plan to make all new cars emissions-free by 2030 “is, simply put, preposterous.”
The Trump administration is already mulling action on drug prices. Ms. Warren would go much further, letting Medicare negotiate prices with suppliers, permitting imports of cheaper foreign medicines and having the federal government manufacture scarce generics.
Ron Cohen, CEO of biotech drugmaker Acorda Therapeutics said there are legitimate concerns about drug costs and some price increases have been excessive. But her proposals won’t work, he said: Patients could lose access to vital drugs if Medicare and manufacturers can’t agree on a price, and it would be more efficient for the federal government to offer existing manufacturers incentives such as tax breaks to make scarce generics.
Ms. Warren’s sympathizers aren’t surprised by the blowback. They see big-company CEOs as preoccupied with their own welfare rather than that of the economy as a whole. Small banks, they argue, would benefit from breaking up big banks, and startup technology companies would benefit from breaking the grip of big tech companies on internet search, social media and e-commerce.
“Breaking up big tech is pro-growth and pro-innovation,” said Bharat Ramamurti, who heads Ms. Warren’s economic policy team. “In the 90s, Microsoft was threatening to corner the internet via Internet Explorer and Windows, and federal government antitrust action helped pave the way for companies like Google and Facebook to emerge in the first place. And now Google and Facebook dominate that space, and smaller tech companies are run out of business or snapped up—undermining innovation and dynamism.”
Some private analysts agree: “If Warren does break up the big tech giants, we will see more competitors and innovation,” said Jonathan Tepper, head of a financial markets advisory firm Variant Perception, who has been critical of the companies. “The telecoms and tech boom happened after AT&T no longer had a stranglehold on U.S. telecoms. Likewise, breaking IBM’s hold of hardware and software led to the software boom of the 1980s and 1990s.”
Ms. Warren does draw business support, in particular in Silicon Valley, because some agree with her plans for business, don’t think they’ll happen or simply consider the rest of her agenda more important. Venture capitalist and liberal donor Chris Sacca called her wealth tax “*extremely* and *radically*... reasonable” on Twitter.
In June, venture capitalist and former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya tweeted: “I don’t agree with many of her proposals but I donated to Elizabeth Warren because SHE IS THE ONLY MAJOR CANDIDATE WITH STUFF WRITTEN DOWN.” In an email, Mr. Palihapitiya predicted big tech wouldn’t ultimately be one of the issues Ms. Warren prioritizes.
In response to concerns that phasing out fossil fuels would kill jobs, Ms. Warren has said her green energy and climate adaptation plans will create millions of even better paying jobs.
Businesses have a history of adapting to, and ultimately profiting from, expanded government. Accountants vehemently opposed being regulated under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, then made a fortune advising companies on the law’s provisions, notes one former Democratic staffer who worked on the law.
Some health-insurance executives hope Ms. Warren’s push for Medicare for All will fall short and, to win over moderate legislators, she will instead expand coverage in a way that would bring them more customers—as Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act did.
And for many business leaders, Mr. Trump, given his attacks on free trade, immigration and companies that cross him, isn’t an overly appetizing alternative. Thus, uneasy as they at the prospect of a Warren presidency, few would act actively work to re-elect Mr. Trump, the Washington trade executive speculated.
Elizabeth Warren promises to break that mold. The Massachusetts senator, who has moved to the front ranks of the field, talks of remaking capitalism from the ground up. As president, she would drastically cut back the size and influence of big business, push private companies from parts of the economy altogether, and shift power to government and to labor.
Businesses are meeting the rising prospect of a Warren presidency with a combination of concern, skepticism and, for a few, a sense of opportunity.
Companies are used to Democrats criticizing business, whether John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, for outsourcing jobs or President Obama, for causing the financial crisis. But no front-runner has issued so comprehensive an indictment as Ms. Warren, who has blamed business for, among other things stagnant wages, high student debt, global warming, gun violence, the prison population, high medical bills, and the shortage of affordable housing and child care.
And no front-runner has proposed such sweeping changes to how businesses operate. A President Warren would seek to regulate big tech companies as utilities, break up big banks and split them from securities dealers, ban fracking of oil and gas, phase out carbon emission from buildings, cars and power plants in eight to 15 years, require big companies to appoint worker representatives to at least 40% of board seats, ban private health insurance and, effectively, for-profit college, and negotiate down drug prices.
Her policies would directly affect companies with sales of nearly $5 trillion and stock-market value of more than $8 trillion, a third of the S&P 500 stock index. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations would rise sharply.
That, in turn, has led to nervousness among some executives. “She could create an environment where it is next to impossible to function” for health insurers, said Vicky Gregg, a former chief executive of BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee and now partner in a private-equity firm. “There’s no question that keeps you up at night if you’re a health-plan executive.”
Others, particularly in Silicon Valley, are enthusiastic supporters of Ms. Warren despite, or for some because of, her plans to break up big tech companies. Some economists predict her plans could boost growth and that business warnings about the harm of her policies should be taken with a grain of salt.
“Businesses have cried wolf far too many times for that to be taken at face value during a presidential campaign,” said Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who served under Mr. Obama.
When Ms. Warren first proposed companies should be responsible to all stakeholders, not just shareholders, some called it socialism, he noted. A year later, “the Business Roundtable announced something very much in the spirit of what Elizabeth Warren said.”
Some executives express the hope that her plans are so disruptive she would need to water them down significantly. A fracking ban “would decimate our industry,” said Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., one of the largest U.S. shale companies. “We understand candidates for the presidential nomination often run to the extremes during the campaign and moderate their positions once they are responsible for governing.”
Still, there is no sign of such moderation from Ms. Warren, and political analysts warn not to expect any: Presidential candidates of late, including Donald Trump, have governed much as they campaigned.
By arguing that the growth of corporate power over the last 35 years is at the root of many problems in the U.S., she would make the place of business in society a central theme of the election.
Ms. Warren, in laying out her case, has said she is “a capitalist to my bones,” whereas fellow candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist.”
“I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity,” Ms. Warren said on CNBC last year. “But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.”
Supporters say her proposals wouldn’t displace capitalism but align it with the what prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s and still does in many other Western countries.
Ms. Warren would impose a 2% to 3% tax on wealth above $50 million, repeal President Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, impose a new 7% tax on big company profits and a 14.8% tax on incomes above $250,000 to finance expanded Social Security benefits.
Many economists say high tax rates discourage investment and work, and thus slow economic growth. Gabriel Zucman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley who advised Ms. Warren on the wealth tax, said it depends on how the money is spent. “If it’s spent on child care, and that increases women’s labor force participation, then you get an increase in income for part of the population.” He noted the wealthy paid 91% rates on incomes and 77% on estates in the 1950s and 1960s and “there’s no evidence it killed innovation or growth.”
Mark Zandi, economist at Moody’s Analytics, wrote in a series of reports that the taxes required to pay for Ms. Warren’s proposals would damp investment and work by the wealthy, but that effect would also be more than offset by increased spending by lower-income people, such as child-care workers.
Supporters note almost every advanced capitalist economy has single-payer health care, and in Germany, big companies have worker representatives on their boards. “It has not killed German capitalism,” said Mr. Zucman. “They have some pretty strong corporations.”
If each Warren proposal has some precedent in U.S. or foreign experience, in its totality her program would be a sharp break with capitalism as American companies know it.
A senior executive at a Washington-based trade group who works closely with top CEOs said of the distinction often drawn between Ms. Warren’s capitalism and Mr. Sanders’ socialism: “I don’t know if business is buying that distinction. From a policy standpoint there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of difference.” (Mr. Sanders sought the nomination in 2016 but unlike Ms. Warren now, never led the Real Clear Politics polling average or online prediction markets.)
A common refrain among business is that Ms. Warren seems to thrive on attacking them, indeed considers it part of her brand. She retweets articles about their criticism with: “I approve this message.”
The rancor is most acute among financiers Ms. Warren regularly casts as villains, even after a decade of postcrisis reforms that have made banks safer, less profitable and their treatment of consumers more tightly regulated. She called her capital-gains-tax proposal, introduced this summer, the Stop Wall Street Looting Act. Some still stew over her blocking investment banker Antonio Weiss from a Treasury job under Mr. Obama in 2015, despite his Democratic credentials, because he worked on deals that moved some companies’ domiciles abroad.
Few, however, will say so publicly, fearful of the damage she can do to their companies and share prices. Two weeks ago, she knocked 3% off the shares of the two big bond-rating agencies by challenging the impartiality of their ratings in a letter to regulators. When the chief executive of UnitedHealth Group Inc., parent of the country’s largest health insurer, briefly addressed the impact of Medicare for All in an earnings call, it was blamed for driving down the entire sector’s share prices.
UnitedHealth says it “welcomes the renewed national discussion on how to achieve universal coverage.”
In July, Facebook Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, referring to Ms. Warren’s plan to break up Facebook, said in remarks to employees reported by The Verge, a technology-news site: “If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge,” adding that “at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”
Ms. Warren shot back on Twitter that Facebook has “a lot of power—and [faces] little competition or accountability.”
Last week, Mr. Zuckerberg held another employee Q&A, which was publicly livestreamed. Asked about Ms. Warren’s plans and how Facebook’s platform would remain unbiased toward her, he joked he would “try not to antagonize her further,” then added employees needed to be neutral and empathetic to a wide range of opinions. “The value that we care about is giving people a voice and allowing people to express themselves,” he said. “We obviously try not to be biased.”
The consensus among business leaders is that few of Ms. Warren’s big initiatives will be enacted, because she will tack toward the center if she secures the nomination or the White House, or because Congress and the courts won’t let her. An antitrust lawsuit against a big tech company would take a decade or longer and probably fail, Barclays analysts said in a July note.
Medicare for All “would destroy” private insurers, said Matthew Borsch, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets. But, he said, an executive of a major health insurer, in a recent private meeting, put the odds of such a plan passing at “10,000 to one.”
Many business leaders have no problem with Ms. Warren’s goals, but do with the speed and means by which she means to reach them. Minneapolis-based electric utility Xcel Energy, which serves eight states, in December pledged to slash its carbon emissions 80% by 2030 and 100% 2050. That’s not good enough for Ms. Warren, who has targeted 100% by 2035.
The problem, said CEO Ben Fowke, is that getting from 80% to 100% depends on as-yet-unproven advances in storage, carbon capture, and nuclear and hydrogen generation. Ms. Warren “would set up some unrealistic expectations.”
Automobile manufacturers are rolling out electric models, but none has yet found a way to make such a car affordable to mainstream consumers and profitable. “The current market is 1% electric vehicles. All of those, 100%, are sold at a loss. The industry isn’t here as a non-profit,” said one auto executive. The economics will improve, yet Ms. Warren’s plan to make all new cars emissions-free by 2030 “is, simply put, preposterous.”
The Trump administration is already mulling action on drug prices. Ms. Warren would go much further, letting Medicare negotiate prices with suppliers, permitting imports of cheaper foreign medicines and having the federal government manufacture scarce generics.
Ron Cohen, CEO of biotech drugmaker Acorda Therapeutics said there are legitimate concerns about drug costs and some price increases have been excessive. But her proposals won’t work, he said: Patients could lose access to vital drugs if Medicare and manufacturers can’t agree on a price, and it would be more efficient for the federal government to offer existing manufacturers incentives such as tax breaks to make scarce generics.
Ms. Warren’s sympathizers aren’t surprised by the blowback. They see big-company CEOs as preoccupied with their own welfare rather than that of the economy as a whole. Small banks, they argue, would benefit from breaking up big banks, and startup technology companies would benefit from breaking the grip of big tech companies on internet search, social media and e-commerce.
“Breaking up big tech is pro-growth and pro-innovation,” said Bharat Ramamurti, who heads Ms. Warren’s economic policy team. “In the 90s, Microsoft was threatening to corner the internet via Internet Explorer and Windows, and federal government antitrust action helped pave the way for companies like Google and Facebook to emerge in the first place. And now Google and Facebook dominate that space, and smaller tech companies are run out of business or snapped up—undermining innovation and dynamism.”
Some private analysts agree: “If Warren does break up the big tech giants, we will see more competitors and innovation,” said Jonathan Tepper, head of a financial markets advisory firm Variant Perception, who has been critical of the companies. “The telecoms and tech boom happened after AT&T no longer had a stranglehold on U.S. telecoms. Likewise, breaking IBM’s hold of hardware and software led to the software boom of the 1980s and 1990s.”
Ms. Warren does draw business support, in particular in Silicon Valley, because some agree with her plans for business, don’t think they’ll happen or simply consider the rest of her agenda more important. Venture capitalist and liberal donor Chris Sacca called her wealth tax “*extremely* and *radically*... reasonable” on Twitter.
In June, venture capitalist and former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya tweeted: “I don’t agree with many of her proposals but I donated to Elizabeth Warren because SHE IS THE ONLY MAJOR CANDIDATE WITH STUFF WRITTEN DOWN.” In an email, Mr. Palihapitiya predicted big tech wouldn’t ultimately be one of the issues Ms. Warren prioritizes.
In response to concerns that phasing out fossil fuels would kill jobs, Ms. Warren has said her green energy and climate adaptation plans will create millions of even better paying jobs.
Businesses have a history of adapting to, and ultimately profiting from, expanded government. Accountants vehemently opposed being regulated under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, then made a fortune advising companies on the law’s provisions, notes one former Democratic staffer who worked on the law.
Some health-insurance executives hope Ms. Warren’s push for Medicare for All will fall short and, to win over moderate legislators, she will instead expand coverage in a way that would bring them more customers—as Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act did.
And for many business leaders, Mr. Trump, given his attacks on free trade, immigration and companies that cross him, isn’t an overly appetizing alternative. Thus, uneasy as they at the prospect of a Warren presidency, few would act actively work to re-elect Mr. Trump, the Washington trade executive speculated.
Tuesday, October 01, 2019
TMT protest
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Brett Kavanaugh
9/17/19 - Ben Shapiro's case for Kavanaugh
9/15/19 - The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, a new book by NYT reporters
10/18/18 - Jimmy Carter thought Kavanaugh was temperamentally unfit
10/10/18 - McConnell defends Murkowski against Trump
10/8/18 - Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh saying he was proven innocent
10/8/18 - Kavanaugh's lack of credibility
10/6/18 - Some celebrate confirmation by drinking beer
10/6/18 - Trump claims Soros paid for signs
10/6/18 - Kavanaugh narrowly confirmed to Supreme Court
10/5/18 - Kavanaugh acknowledges he might have been too emotional
10/4/18 - Thousands protest at courthouse
10/4/18 - Law professors urge Senate to reject Kavanaugh
10/3/18 - Did Blasey-Ford write the letter herself?
10/3/18 - Former boyfriend says Blasey-Ford coached friend on how to prepare for polygraph test
10/2/18 - Flake troubled by Kavanaugh's tone
10/2/18 - Timeline of allegations
10/2/18 - Benjamin Wittes reluctantly wouldn't vote for confirmation
10/1/18 - Witness said Kavanaugh threw ice
10/1/18 - Rachel Mitchell says Ford has a weak case
10/1/18 - Comey criticizes one week time limit
9/30/18 - Matt Damon plays Brett Kavanaugh
9/30/18 - Chad Ludington statement
9/30/18 - Senator Klobuchar stunned by how Kavanaugh acted
9/30/18 - Swetnick has a history of legal disputes
9/28/18 - The Deborah Ramirez emails
9/28/18 - Trump agrees to limited FBI investigation
9/28/18 - Jeff Flake calls for an additional one-week investigation
9/28/18 - New York Times fact checks Kavanaugh
9/27/18 - Christine Blasey Ford testimony
9/26/18 - Julie Swetnick is the third accuser
9/15/19 - The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, a new book by NYT reporters
10/18/18 - Jimmy Carter thought Kavanaugh was temperamentally unfit
10/10/18 - McConnell defends Murkowski against Trump
10/8/18 - Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh saying he was proven innocent
10/8/18 - Kavanaugh's lack of credibility
10/6/18 - Some celebrate confirmation by drinking beer
10/6/18 - Trump claims Soros paid for signs
10/6/18 - Kavanaugh narrowly confirmed to Supreme Court
10/5/18 - Kavanaugh acknowledges he might have been too emotional
10/4/18 - Thousands protest at courthouse
10/4/18 - Law professors urge Senate to reject Kavanaugh
10/3/18 - Did Blasey-Ford write the letter herself?
10/3/18 - Former boyfriend says Blasey-Ford coached friend on how to prepare for polygraph test
10/2/18 - Flake troubled by Kavanaugh's tone
10/2/18 - Timeline of allegations
10/2/18 - Benjamin Wittes reluctantly wouldn't vote for confirmation
10/1/18 - Witness said Kavanaugh threw ice
10/1/18 - Rachel Mitchell says Ford has a weak case
10/1/18 - Comey criticizes one week time limit
9/30/18 - Matt Damon plays Brett Kavanaugh
9/30/18 - Chad Ludington statement
9/30/18 - Senator Klobuchar stunned by how Kavanaugh acted
9/30/18 - Swetnick has a history of legal disputes
9/28/18 - The Deborah Ramirez emails
9/28/18 - Trump agrees to limited FBI investigation
9/28/18 - Jeff Flake calls for an additional one-week investigation
9/28/18 - New York Times fact checks Kavanaugh
9/27/18 - Christine Blasey Ford testimony
9/26/18 - Julie Swetnick is the third accuser
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Chris Cuomo thanks Hannity and Maddow
CNN’s Chris Cuomo singled out Fox News’ Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for praise as he thanked people for their support after video in which he confronted a man for calling him “Fredo” went viral.
“Alright, no secret how I spent one particular afternoon on vacation,” Cuomo said, addressing the incident on his return to hosting “Cuomo Prime Time” on Monday night.
“And there is nothing to add, except to say thank you,” he continued. “Thank you to all who reached out in person, who sent messages. I appreciate it. That includes Mr. Hannity and Ms. Maddow. They acted as colleagues, not competitors, and I won’t forget it.”
“In fact, I’m not going to forget and I will use all of the feedback because the key is for us all to be better, and that starts with me,” Cuomo added.
In the video, Cuomo lashed out at an unidentified man who’d called him “Fredo.” “Fredo is from ‘The Godfather,’ he was that weak brother, and they’re using it as an Italian aspersion,” said Cuomo, who is of Italian descent. He later likened the slur to being “the ’N-word’” for Italians.
Hannity (who Cuomo has repeatedly criticized) tweeted at the time that his rival cable news anchor has “zero to apologize for” and actually “deserves the apology” himself.
“I say good for [Chris Cuomo],” Hannity wrote. “He’s out with his 9-year-old daughter, and his wife, and this guy is being a jackass in front of his family.”
“Alright, no secret how I spent one particular afternoon on vacation,” Cuomo said, addressing the incident on his return to hosting “Cuomo Prime Time” on Monday night.
“And there is nothing to add, except to say thank you,” he continued. “Thank you to all who reached out in person, who sent messages. I appreciate it. That includes Mr. Hannity and Ms. Maddow. They acted as colleagues, not competitors, and I won’t forget it.”
“In fact, I’m not going to forget and I will use all of the feedback because the key is for us all to be better, and that starts with me,” Cuomo added.
In the video, Cuomo lashed out at an unidentified man who’d called him “Fredo.” “Fredo is from ‘The Godfather,’ he was that weak brother, and they’re using it as an Italian aspersion,” said Cuomo, who is of Italian descent. He later likened the slur to being “the ’N-word’” for Italians.
Hannity (who Cuomo has repeatedly criticized) tweeted at the time that his rival cable news anchor has “zero to apologize for” and actually “deserves the apology” himself.
“I say good for [Chris Cuomo],” Hannity wrote. “He’s out with his 9-year-old daughter, and his wife, and this guy is being a jackass in front of his family.”
Thursday, July 11, 2019
The Wall
[7/27/19] Supreme Court allows Trump to use Pentagon funds to build border wall
[7/13/19] Mike Pence visits border detention camps
[7/11/19] Veronica Escobar is the voice of passion and reason
[7/1/19] Honduran man dies in ICE custody
[7/1/19] Secret border patrol facebook group being investigated
[7/1/19] Politicians visit migrant detention camps
[6/28/19] Congress passes $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package after Pelosi capitulates
[6/25/19] Head of Customs and Border Protection is resigning
[6/25/19] Government moves most children out of Texas Border Patrol station
[6/7/19] Trump slashes aid to El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras
[6/7/19] Trump suspends tariffs after Mexico pledges to contain migration crossing the border
[6/5/19] Teacher fired for tweeting to president to remove the illegals from public school
[6/5/19] Republicans opposed to Trump's plans for tariffs on Mexico
[5/16/19] Trump proposes immigration overhaul to merit based system.
[4/4/19] The real border crisis [Jonah Goldberg]
[4/1/19] On the other hand, Beto O'Rourke.
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke declared that immigrants make the country safer as he staged rallies across Texas to formally kick off his 2020 White House bid, looking to shore up his deeply conservative home state and champion the U.S.-Mexico border at a time when President Donald Trump has threatened to shut it.
[2/18/19] 16 states suing Trump
[2/14/19] Trump declares national emergency to fund wall (among other things) / fact check
[2/14/19] Trump signs bipartisan bill to avert shutdown, vows to declare national emergency to build wall
[2/12/19] Coulter calls it the Yellow New Deal
[2/12/19] Trump and Beto in dueling rallies
[2/11/19] Lawmakers reach tentative agreement in hopes to avert another shutdown
[2/11/19] El Paso mayor disputes Trump
[2/6/19] Wall not a top priority with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
[2/6/19] New Mexico governor withdraws National Guard from southern border
[1/28/19] The case against a wall
[1/28/19] Hannity still supports Trump
[1/28/19] Trump criticizes John Roberts and Gillian Turner of Fox News / Julie Banderas stands by colleagues
[1/26/19] And here was Lindsey Graham's prediction
[1/25/19] Trump agrees to deal to temporarily end shutdown and open negotiations
[1/24/19] Senate rejects both Republican and Democrat plans to end government shutdown
[1/23/19] Pelosi won't allow Trump to give State of the Union address from the House floor until government re-opens
[1/22/19] Building the wall would backfire on Trump (commentart)
[1/20/19] Who should get the blame? [quora]
[1/19/19] Trump proposes DACA for Wall / Democrats reject it before it was proposed
[1/12/19] Canada wants more immigrants
[1/10/19] Democrats argument against the wall lacks evidence (writes Michael Barone)
[1/9/19] Trump doubles down in prime-time / after speech fact check
[1/8/19] Trump storms out of meeting with Democrats
[1/8/19] Fact-checking Trump, even before he speaks
[1/7/19] Trump claims past presidents supported the wall / past presidents claim they don't
[1/6/19] Sarah Sanders can't spin statistics past Chris Wallace
[1/6/19] The wall was originally a memory trick
[12/30/18] John Kelly says it's not a wall
[12/30/18] Trump blames Democrats for death of two children
[12/28/18] Trump called for President to be fired over shutdown
[12/27/18] An analysis of Trump's artistically designed steel slats
[12/27/18] Let's review
[12/24/18] What Reagan said about border security
[12/22/18] Partial government shutdown begins
[12/20/18] GoFundMe page to build wall raises $3.4 million in four days
[12/11/18] A look at the numbers
[7/13/19] Mike Pence visits border detention camps
[7/11/19] Veronica Escobar is the voice of passion and reason
[7/1/19] Honduran man dies in ICE custody
[7/1/19] Secret border patrol facebook group being investigated
[7/1/19] Politicians visit migrant detention camps
[6/28/19] Congress passes $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package after Pelosi capitulates
[6/25/19] Head of Customs and Border Protection is resigning
[6/25/19] Government moves most children out of Texas Border Patrol station
[6/7/19] Trump slashes aid to El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras
[6/7/19] Trump suspends tariffs after Mexico pledges to contain migration crossing the border
[6/5/19] Teacher fired for tweeting to president to remove the illegals from public school
[6/5/19] Republicans opposed to Trump's plans for tariffs on Mexico
[5/16/19] Trump proposes immigration overhaul to merit based system.
[4/4/19] The real border crisis [Jonah Goldberg]
[4/1/19] On the other hand, Beto O'Rourke.
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke declared that immigrants make the country safer as he staged rallies across Texas to formally kick off his 2020 White House bid, looking to shore up his deeply conservative home state and champion the U.S.-Mexico border at a time when President Donald Trump has threatened to shut it.
[2/18/19] 16 states suing Trump
[2/14/19] Trump declares national emergency to fund wall (among other things) / fact check
[2/14/19] Trump signs bipartisan bill to avert shutdown, vows to declare national emergency to build wall
[2/12/19] Coulter calls it the Yellow New Deal
[2/12/19] Trump and Beto in dueling rallies
[2/11/19] Lawmakers reach tentative agreement in hopes to avert another shutdown
[2/11/19] El Paso mayor disputes Trump
[2/6/19] Wall not a top priority with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
[2/6/19] New Mexico governor withdraws National Guard from southern border
[1/28/19] The case against a wall
[1/28/19] Hannity still supports Trump
[1/28/19] Trump criticizes John Roberts and Gillian Turner of Fox News / Julie Banderas stands by colleagues
[1/26/19] And here was Lindsey Graham's prediction
[1/25/19] Trump agrees to deal to temporarily end shutdown and open negotiations
[1/24/19] Senate rejects both Republican and Democrat plans to end government shutdown
[1/23/19] Pelosi won't allow Trump to give State of the Union address from the House floor until government re-opens
[1/22/19] Building the wall would backfire on Trump (commentart)
[1/20/19] Who should get the blame? [quora]
[1/19/19] Trump proposes DACA for Wall / Democrats reject it before it was proposed
[1/12/19] Canada wants more immigrants
[1/10/19] Democrats argument against the wall lacks evidence (writes Michael Barone)
[1/9/19] Trump doubles down in prime-time / after speech fact check
[1/8/19] Trump storms out of meeting with Democrats
[1/8/19] Fact-checking Trump, even before he speaks
[1/7/19] Trump claims past presidents supported the wall / past presidents claim they don't
[1/6/19] Sarah Sanders can't spin statistics past Chris Wallace
[1/6/19] The wall was originally a memory trick
[12/30/18] John Kelly says it's not a wall
[12/30/18] Trump blames Democrats for death of two children
[12/28/18] Trump called for President to be fired over shutdown
[12/27/18] An analysis of Trump's artistically designed steel slats
[12/27/18] Let's review
[12/24/18] What Reagan said about border security
[12/22/18] Partial government shutdown begins
[12/20/18] GoFundMe page to build wall raises $3.4 million in four days
[12/11/18] A look at the numbers
Sunday, July 07, 2019
Pelosi vs. AOC
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
has issued a surprisingly scathing attack on the gutsy crew of
progressive freshmen women in the House of Representatives, dismissing
them as a tiny squad who have a “public whatever,” but no backing in
Congress.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) shot back on Twitter later saying that the “public whatever” is public sentiment.” She added: “Wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”
Pelosi’s harsh comments followed a quote from a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez in a Washington Post op ed Friday that the “greatest threat to mankind is the cowardice of the Democratic Party.” The young squad of Pelosi critics also includes Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).
Pelosi attacked the women in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd published Saturday as she defended herself against criticism (including in the Huffpost story “What The Hell Is Nancy Pelosi Doing?”) that she’s caving into the Republicans.
She has come under particular attack for her push to pass the Senate Republican bill (instead of the House version) increasing border funds without humanitarian guarantees for detained immigrants, particularly children.
Pelosi insisted that the bill — which the squad of four voted against — was the strongest she could get.
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said, referring to the women. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
She blamed the shortcomings of the border bill on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whom she described as “authentically terrible.”
“With all due respect, the press likes to make a story that is more about Democrats divided than the fact that Mitch McConnell doesn’t care about the children,’’ she said.
“If the left doesn’t think I’m left enough, so be it,” Pelosi concluded defiantly. “As I say to these people, come to my basement. I have these signs about single-payer from 30 years ago. I understand what they’re saying. But we have a responsibility to get something done, which is different from advocacy. We have to have a solution, not just a Twitter fight.”
Check out Dowd’s full interview here.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) shot back on Twitter later saying that the “public whatever” is public sentiment.” She added: “Wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”
Pelosi’s harsh comments followed a quote from a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez in a Washington Post op ed Friday that the “greatest threat to mankind is the cowardice of the Democratic Party.” The young squad of Pelosi critics also includes Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).
Pelosi attacked the women in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd published Saturday as she defended herself against criticism (including in the Huffpost story “What The Hell Is Nancy Pelosi Doing?”) that she’s caving into the Republicans.
She has come under particular attack for her push to pass the Senate Republican bill (instead of the House version) increasing border funds without humanitarian guarantees for detained immigrants, particularly children.
Pelosi insisted that the bill — which the squad of four voted against — was the strongest she could get.
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said, referring to the women. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
She blamed the shortcomings of the border bill on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whom she described as “authentically terrible.”
“With all due respect, the press likes to make a story that is more about Democrats divided than the fact that Mitch McConnell doesn’t care about the children,’’ she said.
“If the left doesn’t think I’m left enough, so be it,” Pelosi concluded defiantly. “As I say to these people, come to my basement. I have these signs about single-payer from 30 years ago. I understand what they’re saying. But we have a responsibility to get something done, which is different from advocacy. We have to have a solution, not just a Twitter fight.”
Check out Dowd’s full interview here.
Saturday, July 06, 2019
Putin meets the Pope
ROME — Pope Francis is viewed by many European liberals as the greatest moral voice against the resurgence in populism and the demonization of migrants.
But
for many European nationalists, anti-migration politicians and
opponents of gay rights, the real spiritual strongman of their movement
is the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, their alternate pope.
So when Mr. Putin visited the Vatican on Thursday, it was more than a
mere meeting — their third — between the two men. Rather it was a
tête-à -tête between the standard bearers of competing views of
Christianity on the European continent as ideological polarization between nationalists and liberals cleaves the West.
The men exchanged gifts, and also what the Vatican later described as
‘‘cordial’’ conversation on “questions of relevance to the life of the
Catholic Church in Russia,” ecological issues, and the political
situation in Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela.
For Mr. Putin, the meeting was a way to burnish his reputation as a
global leader. For Francis, Mr. Putin’s cooperation is essential for the
protection of Christians in the Middle East, where Russia is active.
The pope is also pursuing unity, or at least better relations, with the
Russian Orthodox Church.
migrants face unthinkable choice
CAIRO — A boat carrying 86 migrants sank in the Mediterranean and left
only three survivors, authorities said Thursday, just days after an airstrike on a detention center near the Libyan capital killed dozens of others.
The twin tragedies illustrate the almost unthinkable choice facing those who have reached the North Africa coast while seeking a better life in Europe: Risk a hazardous sea voyage in a flimsy, rubber-sided boat, or face being crammed into a detention center, where some of the migrants say they have been forced to assemble weapons for someone else's war.
The United Nations and aid groups blame the deaths in part on the European Union's policy of partnering with militias in war-torn Libya to prevent migrants from trying to cross the sea. They say the policy leaves migrants at the mercy of brutal traffickers or confined in detention facilities near front lines, often without adequate food and water.
The twin tragedies illustrate the almost unthinkable choice facing those who have reached the North Africa coast while seeking a better life in Europe: Risk a hazardous sea voyage in a flimsy, rubber-sided boat, or face being crammed into a detention center, where some of the migrants say they have been forced to assemble weapons for someone else's war.
The United Nations and aid groups blame the deaths in part on the European Union's policy of partnering with militias in war-torn Libya to prevent migrants from trying to cross the sea. They say the policy leaves migrants at the mercy of brutal traffickers or confined in detention facilities near front lines, often without adequate food and water.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
legalizing marijuana
7/9/19 - Hawaii becomes the 26th state to decriminalize marijuana
6/25/19 - Illinois becomes the eleventh state to legalize marijuana for recreational use
6/25/19 - Illinois becomes the eleventh state to legalize marijuana for recreational use
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Saturday, June 01, 2019
New York Times asks reporter not to appear on Rachel Maddow show
Friday, May 31, 2019
Ted Cruz agrees with AOC
Freshman Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found an unlikely ally in Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday.
Ocasio-Cortez shared an analysis from Public Citizen on Twitter that found that close to 60% of former members of the last Congress have taken lobbying jobs or jobs that influence federal policy more broadly. Along with the study, she shared a message that “if you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around & leverage your service for a lobbyist check. I don’t think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you’ve served in Congress.”
At a bare minimum, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that there should be a longer wait period.
The law currently prohibits former Senators from taking lobbying positions for two years after leaving office, while the ban is only one year for former representatives. Despite this, the law is not often rigidly enforced and former members of Congress have exploited loopholes. More than a dozen former members of Congress have joined lobbying firms this year to date.
To the surprise of many, Cruz agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s concern, writing, “Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists.” While Cruz noted that the “swamp would hate it,” he said it could nevertheless serve as an opportunity for “bipartisan cooperation.”
Ocasio-Cortez quickly took Cruz up on the offer. Tweeting at him, she wrote, “if you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal.”
She stipulated that they need to agree on a bill that does not contain any “partisan snuck-in clauses” or “poison pills”—just a simple bill that would prohibit members of Congress from becoming paid lobbyists when they leave office. If he agreed to that, she wrote, she would co-lead the bill with him.
Cruz quickly replied: “you’re on.”
Twitter proceeded to serve as a sounding board for other members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors as well. Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz and Republican Rep. Chip Roy expressed a willingness to team up with Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez.
Ocasio-Cortez shared an analysis from Public Citizen on Twitter that found that close to 60% of former members of the last Congress have taken lobbying jobs or jobs that influence federal policy more broadly. Along with the study, she shared a message that “if you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around & leverage your service for a lobbyist check. I don’t think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you’ve served in Congress.”
At a bare minimum, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that there should be a longer wait period.
The law currently prohibits former Senators from taking lobbying positions for two years after leaving office, while the ban is only one year for former representatives. Despite this, the law is not often rigidly enforced and former members of Congress have exploited loopholes. More than a dozen former members of Congress have joined lobbying firms this year to date.
To the surprise of many, Cruz agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s concern, writing, “Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists.” While Cruz noted that the “swamp would hate it,” he said it could nevertheless serve as an opportunity for “bipartisan cooperation.”
Ocasio-Cortez quickly took Cruz up on the offer. Tweeting at him, she wrote, “if you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal.”
She stipulated that they need to agree on a bill that does not contain any “partisan snuck-in clauses” or “poison pills”—just a simple bill that would prohibit members of Congress from becoming paid lobbyists when they leave office. If he agreed to that, she wrote, she would co-lead the bill with him.
Cruz quickly replied: “you’re on.”
Twitter proceeded to serve as a sounding board for other members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors as well. Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz and Republican Rep. Chip Roy expressed a willingness to team up with Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Trish Regan vs. China
With tensions between China and the
United States running high, the fight between the two global powers has
shifted — at least for now — from dry back-room trade negotiations to a
buzzier, more high-profile arena: American prime-time television.
On
one side is Trish Regan, an American television host from the Fox
Business Network. On the other is Liu Xin, the Chinese host of an
English-language program on China Global Television Network, an
international arm of China’s propaganda machine.
After
days of sparring on Twitter, the hosts, whose two television networks
are most favored by their respective national leaders, will face off in a
live debate about trade and technology on Wednesday night in the United
States (Thursday morning in China).
The
debate is unlikely to be seen live by the public in China, where
international television channels are largely limited to five-star
hotels that cater to foreigners. Still, many Chinese are excited about
the showdown, with some academics mobilizing to support Ms. Liu by
offering her talking points via social media.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Thursday, May 09, 2019
Florida to allow more teachers to carry guns
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — More Florida teachers will be eligible to carry guns in the classroom under a bill Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Wednesday that immediately implements recommendations from a commission formed after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland.
DeSantis signed the bill in private and didn't issue a statement afterward. But he previously made it clear he supports the changes made to the law enacted after a rifle-toting former student walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 people in February 2018.
"We did a lot for public safety," DeSantis said immediately after the legislative session ended Saturday. "The Marjory Stoneman Douglas bill, people had disagreements on, but ultimately ... I think we're going to be safer."
The bill was one of the most contentious of the legislative session that ended Saturday. It expands the "guardian" program that allows school districts to approve school employees and teachers with a role outside the classroom, such as a coach, to carry guns. School districts have to approve and teachers have to volunteer. They then go through police-like training with a sheriff's office and undergo a psychiatric evaluation and a background check.
The new law expands the program to make all teachers eligible regardless of whether they have a non-classroom role.
Democrats spent hours arguing against the bill, saying it could lead to accidental shootings, or that a teacher could panic and fire during a confrontation with students. Republicans emphasized that the program is voluntary, and that law enforcement in some rural districts could be 15 minutes or more away from a school if a shooter attacks.
DeSantis signed the bill in private and didn't issue a statement afterward. But he previously made it clear he supports the changes made to the law enacted after a rifle-toting former student walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 people in February 2018.
"We did a lot for public safety," DeSantis said immediately after the legislative session ended Saturday. "The Marjory Stoneman Douglas bill, people had disagreements on, but ultimately ... I think we're going to be safer."
The bill was one of the most contentious of the legislative session that ended Saturday. It expands the "guardian" program that allows school districts to approve school employees and teachers with a role outside the classroom, such as a coach, to carry guns. School districts have to approve and teachers have to volunteer. They then go through police-like training with a sheriff's office and undergo a psychiatric evaluation and a background check.
The new law expands the program to make all teachers eligible regardless of whether they have a non-classroom role.
Democrats spent hours arguing against the bill, saying it could lead to accidental shootings, or that a teacher could panic and fire during a confrontation with students. Republicans emphasized that the program is voluntary, and that law enforcement in some rural districts could be 15 minutes or more away from a school if a shooter attacks.
Sunday, May 05, 2019
Medicare for America
On one side, there’s “Medicare for All,” which has come to mean the
Bernie Sanders position: replacing the entire existing U.S. health
insurance system with a Medicare-type program in which the government
pays most medical bills directly.
On the other side, there’s “Medicare for America,” originally a proposal from the Center for American Progress, now embodied in legislation. While none of the announced Democratic candidates has endorsed this proposal yet, it’s a good guess that most of them will come around to something similar.
The big difference from a Sanders-type plan is that people would be allowed to keep private coverage if they chose — but they or their employers would also have the option of buying into an enhanced version of Medicare, with substantial subsidies for lower- and middle-income families.
On the other side, there’s “Medicare for America,” originally a proposal from the Center for American Progress, now embodied in legislation. While none of the announced Democratic candidates has endorsed this proposal yet, it’s a good guess that most of them will come around to something similar.
The big difference from a Sanders-type plan is that people would be allowed to keep private coverage if they chose — but they or their employers would also have the option of buying into an enhanced version of Medicare, with substantial subsidies for lower- and middle-income families.
The most important thing you need to know about these rival plans is that both of them would do the job.
Many
people realize, I think, that we’re the only advanced country that
doesn’t guarantee essential health care to its legal residents. My guess
is that fewer realize that nations achieve that goal in a variety of
ways — and they all work.
Every two years the Commonwealth Fund provides an invaluable survey
of major nations’ health care systems. America always comes in last; in
the latest edition, the three leaders are Britain, Australia and the
Netherlands.
What’s remarkable about those top three is that they have radically
different systems. Britain has true socialized medicine — direct
government provision of health care. Australia has single-payer — it’s
basically Bernie down under. But the Dutch rely on private insurance companies
— heavily regulated, with lots of subsidies, but looking more like a
better-funded version of Obamacare than like Medicare for All. And the
Netherlands actually tops the Commonwealth Fund rankings.
So which system should Democrats advocate? The answer, I’d argue, is the
system we’re most likely actually to create — the one that will play
best in the general election, and is then most likely to pass Congress
if the Democrat wins.
--- Paul Krugman, 3/21/19
--- Paul Krugman, 3/21/19
who will lose insurance if ObamaCare is overturned?
The Affordable Care Act once again faces legal hurdles after
President Donald Trump and his administration supported a lawsuit
questioning the health-care law's constitutionality.
If the lawsuit succeeds and the courts decide to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, millions of Americans could lose their health care if a replacement plan is not established. Though Trump wanted to replace the law with a new Republican plan before the 2020 elections, the GOP refused to bring forward its own proposal until it wins a majority in the House of Representatives.
The Department of Justice on Wednesday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn Obamacare after a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional, citing the removal of a tax penalty levied against citizens without health insurance. The Trump administration reduced the tax penalty, called the individual mandate, to $0 in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Though Obamacare remains law while it awaits deliberation in the courts, about 25 million Americans may be left uninsured if the law is struck down in its entirety.
If the lawsuit succeeds and the courts decide to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, millions of Americans could lose their health care if a replacement plan is not established. Though Trump wanted to replace the law with a new Republican plan before the 2020 elections, the GOP refused to bring forward its own proposal until it wins a majority in the House of Representatives.
The Department of Justice on Wednesday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn Obamacare after a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional, citing the removal of a tax penalty levied against citizens without health insurance. The Trump administration reduced the tax penalty, called the individual mandate, to $0 in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Though Obamacare remains law while it awaits deliberation in the courts, about 25 million Americans may be left uninsured if the law is struck down in its entirety.
Wednesday, May 01, 2019
bulky-item pickup? call for appointment
Starting May 15 residents from Foster Village to Hawaii Kai —
including busy Waikiki — will have to go online to schedule appointments
for bulky-item pickup service.
The city Tuesday announced the debut of its curbside bulky-item collection pilot program.
To schedule appointments, single- and multi-family households within the Department of Environmental Services’ zones 1-8 may log on to opala.org. Pickup service begins June 3. Those unable to schedule online should call the department at 768-3200 between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Single-family homes may schedule up to five bulky items per appointment, while multi-unit residential buildings may schedule up to 20 bulky items per appointment, according to the city.
Associations of apartment owners, property managers or residential managers are required to consolidate bulky-item collection appointments for tenants and store items in onsite holding areas between appointments, according to the city.
Those unable to wait between appointments may drop off items at convenience centers listed at opala.org. A map illustrating the various pickup zones is also available on the website.
The city Tuesday announced the debut of its curbside bulky-item collection pilot program.
To schedule appointments, single- and multi-family households within the Department of Environmental Services’ zones 1-8 may log on to opala.org. Pickup service begins June 3. Those unable to schedule online should call the department at 768-3200 between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Single-family homes may schedule up to five bulky items per appointment, while multi-unit residential buildings may schedule up to 20 bulky items per appointment, according to the city.
Associations of apartment owners, property managers or residential managers are required to consolidate bulky-item collection appointments for tenants and store items in onsite holding areas between appointments, according to the city.
Those unable to wait between appointments may drop off items at convenience centers listed at opala.org. A map illustrating the various pickup zones is also available on the website.
OK, how about infrastructure?
WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional
leaders emerged from a meeting at the White House on Tuesday and
announced that President Trump had agreed to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure plan to upgrade the nation’s highways, railroads, bridges
and broadband.
Senator Chuck
Schumer, the minority leader, said that there had been “good will” in
the meeting and that it was “different than some of the other meetings
that we’ve had.” Standing alongside Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he said the
group planned to meet again in three weeks, when Mr. Trump was expected
to tell them how he planned to actually pay for the ambitious project.
Alabama approves abortion ban
Alabama's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a near-total abortion ban, a piece of legislation that the bill's sponsor called a "direct attack" on Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects a woman's right to an abortion. Politicians in the statehouse voted against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest.
After several hours of contentious debate Tuesday evening, Alabama politicians overwhelmingly passed House Bill 314, the "Human Life Protection Act," 74 to 3, pushing the bill forward to the state Senate. Of the state's 105 representatives, 28 refused to vote after Republicans blocked the rape and incest amendment.
If passed into law, the legislation would criminalize abortion, classifying it as a Class A felony in Alabama. That means that a doctor caught performing abortions in the state would face up to 99 years in prison under the proposed law.
"The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person," said Representative Terri Collins, the bill's sponsor, during the debate. "This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is."
Because federal law supersedes state law, Alabama would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution if lawmakers attempted to implement the legislation, noted several politicians. If passed, the legislation would likely join a host of other contested laws that anti-abortion activists hope will rise to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The proposed law flatly rejects the decision, saying that "judges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding."
After several hours of contentious debate Tuesday evening, Alabama politicians overwhelmingly passed House Bill 314, the "Human Life Protection Act," 74 to 3, pushing the bill forward to the state Senate. Of the state's 105 representatives, 28 refused to vote after Republicans blocked the rape and incest amendment.
If passed into law, the legislation would criminalize abortion, classifying it as a Class A felony in Alabama. That means that a doctor caught performing abortions in the state would face up to 99 years in prison under the proposed law.
"The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person," said Representative Terri Collins, the bill's sponsor, during the debate. "This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is."
Because federal law supersedes state law, Alabama would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution if lawmakers attempted to implement the legislation, noted several politicians. If passed, the legislation would likely join a host of other contested laws that anti-abortion activists hope will rise to the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The proposed law flatly rejects the decision, saying that "judges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding."
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Akahito abdicates
TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Emperor Akihito announced his abdication at a palace ceremony Tuesday in his final address, as the nation embraced the end of his reign with reminiscence and hope for a new era.
"Today, I am concluding my duties as the emperor," Akihito said as he stood in front of the throne, as other members of the royal family and top government officials watched.
"Since ascending the throne 30 years ago, I have performed my duties as the emperor with a deep sense of trust in and respect for the people, and I consider myself most fortunate to have been able to do so. I sincerely thank the people who accepted and supported me in my role as the symbol of the state," Akihito said in his last official duty as emperor.
As he walked out of the room following his speech and officials were taking away the imperial regalia in a box, Akihito turned around, paused and bowed to the audience.
His reign runs through midnight, when his son Crown Prince Naruhito, who observed Akihito's abdication ceremony, becomes the new emperor and his era begins.
"Today, I am concluding my duties as the emperor," Akihito said as he stood in front of the throne, as other members of the royal family and top government officials watched.
"Since ascending the throne 30 years ago, I have performed my duties as the emperor with a deep sense of trust in and respect for the people, and I consider myself most fortunate to have been able to do so. I sincerely thank the people who accepted and supported me in my role as the symbol of the state," Akihito said in his last official duty as emperor.
As he walked out of the room following his speech and officials were taking away the imperial regalia in a box, Akihito turned around, paused and bowed to the audience.
His reign runs through midnight, when his son Crown Prince Naruhito, who observed Akihito's abdication ceremony, becomes the new emperor and his era begins.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
mailing in the vote
Leading lawmakers have finally agreed on a plan to switch to
statewide mail-in balloting starting in the 2020 election, a shift that
is expected to save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars each
election cycle and possibly boost voter turnout slightly.
Assuming the House and Senate approve House Bill 1248 and Gov. David Ige signs the measure, Hawaii will join three other states that use mail-in balloting for all elections. Colorado, Washington and Oregon already have all-mail voting.
Assuming the House and Senate approve House Bill 1248 and Gov. David Ige signs the measure, Hawaii will join three other states that use mail-in balloting for all elections. Colorado, Washington and Oregon already have all-mail voting.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Universal Health Care for the United States?
[4/18/19] U.S. health care system is being destroyed by insurance and drug companies (letter to the editor)
***
PAEONIAN SPRINGS, Va. — Conservatives and progressives agree that everyone should be able to get health insurance and have access to quality health care. But the divide over how to accomplish that goal is wide and deep.
***
PAEONIAN SPRINGS, Va. — Conservatives and progressives agree that everyone should be able to get health insurance and have access to quality health care. But the divide over how to accomplish that goal is wide and deep.
Progressives
believe the government should make decisions about allocation of the
resources in our health sector while conservatives believe these
decisions should be controlled by individuals and families.
The
sales pitch for Medicare for all is appealing — universal coverage,
free access to doctors and hospitals, and no insurance premiums,
copayments or deductibles.
But
then come the tradeoffs: Washington bureaucrats would decide what
services are covered and how much doctors and hospitals would be paid.
Everyone
would be required to give up the coverage they have now — including 173
million American who get health insurance at work — and taxes would be
much higher to finance $32 trillion in added government spending over
the next decade. For comparison, federal revenues last year totaled $3.4
trillion.
“If you
look at polling data, it’s great until you tell them taxes would double
and they’d have to give up their employer coverage,” Sen. Bill Cassidy,
R-La. noted recently.
***
In Canada, everyone in the country is guaranteed access to health care by the government.
The
same is true for France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and
every other country that we think of as comparable in terms of levels of
wealth, democracy and economic development.
In spite of providing universal care, these countries also all spend much less on health care than the United States.
In
Canada, per person spending is 60 percent what it is in the United
States. In Germany spending per person is 56 percent and in the United
Kingdom just 42 percent of what we spend.
And
these countries all have comparable outcomes. People in other wealthy
countries not only have longer life expectancies and lower
infant-mortality rates, they also have comparable outcomes when looking
at more narrow health issues, like treatment for cancer or heart
disease.
The basic story is
that we spend roughly twice as much per person as people in other
wealthy countries and we have pretty much nothing to show for it in
terms of better health.
This is the context in which critics of Medicare for all are telling us it is not possible.
If
the argument is that it won’t be easy, the critics have a point. The
reason we spend twice as much for our health care is that big actors in
the industry get twice as much money here.
Drug
companies get away with charging us twice as much for drugs as they do
in other wealthy countries. The same is true for medical equipment
companies who charge far more for kidney dialysis machines and MRIs than
in France and Germany.
And our doctors and dentists get paid twice as much, on average, as their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
In addition, we spend more than $250 billion a year paying insurance companies to administer our chaotic system.
Doctors’
offices, hospitals and other providers spend tens of billions more on
administrative personnel who have to deal with the paperwork and issues
that are caused by having a range of insurers, each with their own
payment rules and practices.
These interest groups will use all of their political power to protect the income they get under the current system.
These interest groups will use all of their political power to protect the income they get under the current system.
The
pharmaceutical industry will fight measures to rein in their profits in
the same way the tobacco industry fought public health advocates who
sought to curb smoking.
The same is true for the medical equipment industry.
And doctors and dentists will fight like crazy to preserve a pay structure that puts most of them in the top 1 percent of wage earners.
This will also be true of insurers faced with a more efficient system that will put most of them out of business.
While a well-designed pathway can get us to Medicare for all, even we can’t do it all at once.
For
beginners, we can look to lower the age of Medicare eligibility from
the current 65 to 60 or even 55 in an initial round. We can also allow
people of all ages to have the option to buy into a public Medicare-type
system.
We can also look to start getting our costs down. This means lowering drug prices, both by negotiating in the same way as other countries, and directly funding research so that newly developed drugs can be sold as cheap generics.
We should do the same with medical
equipment. And we can subject our doctors and dentists to the same sort
of foreign and domestic competition that workers in other professions
face.
These steps can get us on
a path to Medicare for all, on which we will quickly be extending
coverage to millions of people, while substantially reducing the cost of
care for everyone.
Monday, March 18, 2019
health care in Cuba
All of this despite Cuba spending just $813 per person annually on health care compared with America’s $9,403.
In Cuba, health care is protected under the constitution as a fundamental human right. As a poor country, Cuba can’t afford to equivocate and waste money upholding that. This pressure seems to have created efficiency. Instead of pouring money into advanced medical technology, the system is forced to keep people healthy.
It’s largely done, as the BBC has reported, through an innovative approach to primary care. Family doctors work in clinics and care for everyone in the surrounding neighborhood. At least once a year, the doctor knocks on your front door (or elsewhere, if you prefer) for a check-up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)